Page 2 of 4

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:33 pm
by SaintPowelly
Define "playing", meaningless friendlies perhaps. 2 WC games, consisted of :

5 x Liverpool
1 x Man City
1 x Chelsea
2 x Man United
2 x Everton

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:36 pm
by sussexpob
Alviro Patterson wrote:Increasing the talent pool means a greater chance of finding a top class natural left sided midfielder, a right back better than Glen Johnson, some goalkeepers to seriously challenge Joe Hart and strikers who know where the back of the net is.


Increasing the talent pool? England has the most professional leagues in the world, players who arent getting into premiership teams are still playing competitive football at other levels.....

Are you really trying to argue that lost academy players playing in League One are going to be internationals if they are played in the Premier League by Chelsea at an early age, but the same player cant excel in League One or the Championship? The truth is, players either are good enough to cut it, or they arent. These players just arent cutting it.

Re: FIFA World Cup

PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:16 pm
by sussexpob
Alviro Patterson wrote: With Premier League revenues at £3 Billion as of last season, just earmarking 5% of that for youth development in the Football League and professional Conference Clubs will make a huge difference (£1.562 Million per club, which is probably the average annual salary of one mid-table Premier League side) Obviously award the money through meeting criteria rather than hand the money straight out. In turn clubs who prioritise their youth team get rewarded, the English league pyramid becomes stronger and in 8 years England will win the World Cup in Qatar as aimed for by *modded* van Dyke.


I dont think you actually understand how the football system works, do you? What you are essentially saying, in other terms, is that McDonalds should be forced to donate money to Little Chef in order to promote English cuisine. Why would they, why should they be forced to, and what is the benefit for them?

The Premier League make their own money, and distribute that cash to the stakeholders who make it. The FA look after the interest of the national team, and the football league administer their own competitions.... why should the Premier League make the cash and give it away to promote an interest that has the potential to downgrade their product?

Football clubs are businesses, they shouldnt be forced to compromise their profitability and competitiveness for an external interest.

How do you also "reward" teams who produce talent? Surely the reward is already there when a lower club sells a player? Everton made 30million from Rooney, Everton in turn bought Stones from a lower team recently for a few million. Are the rewards for producing an England capped player going to be more than this? Are you proposing the FA, who make 250million a year, could pay that much for each cap?

What about Lallana, do Bournemouth get the money? To the Saints? If Tom Ince becomes an England cap, to Cardiff? Do Blackpool? Do the team he eventually signs for? No one can equate a value for this service thats fair, or who gets it.

Re: FIFA World Cup

PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 11:43 pm
by sussexpob
SaintPowelly wrote:Improving grass roots will change sod all, look at players like Luke Shaw, he looks a cert to move to Man United, where he will be in and out of the side and his career will stall.

Jack Rodwell and Adam Johnson are the most recent examples of talented players who have wasted their talents by moving to a "big" club

The divide betwen the top 4/5 sides and the rest is what kills English football.


Jack Rodwell, Adam Johnson and also Scott Sinclair where signings that Man City made to make sure they could meet the squad quota for English trained youngsters, a quota that just like those provisions suggested, had no provable basis to improve anything, and just like all the other ill conceived suggestions, actually ended up with players being wasted and leaving clubs they could have got time at.

Re: FIFA World Cup

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:11 pm
by st_brendy
sussexpob wrote:
SaintPowelly wrote:Improving grass roots will change sod all, look at players like Luke Shaw, he looks a cert to move to Man United, where he will be in and out of the side and his career will stall.

Jack Rodwell and Adam Johnson are the most recent examples of talented players who have wasted their talents by moving to a "big" club

The divide betwen the top 4/5 sides and the rest is what kills English football.


Jack Rodwell, Adam Johnson and also Scott Sinclair where signings that Man City made to make sure they could meet the squad quota for English trained youngsters, a quota that just like those provisions suggested, had no provable basis to improve anything, and just like all the other ill conceived suggestions, actually ended up with players being wasted and leaving clubs they could have got time at.


I was, and still am, supportive of a quote system. But it's just this current one is simply too small - it's little more then a gimmick - and as you say, for the bigger clubs it just leads to players being wasted.

25 man squad - plus unlimited U21 players - is already far too big. No-one NEEDS a squad that big. Christ, even with our U21 players (the ones in and around the 1st team), we still don't get to 25 players. So of course the likes of City were always going to be able to waste a few places on the likes of Rodwell and Sinclair.

Either the quota needs to be increased form eight, or (my preference) squad sizes need to be reduced from 25.

As for your points about the lower leagues, I'm with you. For me, when it comes to the England team, if there's an issue at club level it is between the very top PL clubs and the other PL clubs. It is certainly not between the PL clubs and, say, L2 clubs.

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 1:34 pm
by SaintPowelly
Peter Taylor was on Sky the other day, saying how poor some of the players attitudes are about playing for the U21s after already making their debuts.

He didn't mention any names, but that probably needs looking at.

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 4:59 pm
by sussexpob
SaintPowelly wrote:Peter Taylor was on Sky the other day, saying how poor some of the players attitudes are about playing for the U21s after already making their debuts.

He didn't mention any names, but that probably needs looking at.


I would think the thing that really needs looking at is why the fa entrusted the job to such a craps manager.

Hard to think why a capped international would nt take the Stevenage town coach serious ly.... Someone who was sacked after a tiny amount if time in the prem.

If we took it seriously, a good manager would earn respect.....craps people dont

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:05 pm
by st_brendy
sussexpob wrote:
SaintPowelly wrote:Peter Taylor was on Sky the other day, saying how poor some of the players attitudes are about playing for the U21s after already making their debuts.

He didn't mention any names, but that probably needs looking at.


I would think the thing that really needs looking at is why the fa entrusted the job to such a craps manager.

Hard to think why a capped international would nt take the Stevenage town coach serious ly.... Someone who was sacked after a tiny amount if time in the prem.

If we took it seriously, a good manager would earn respect.....craps people dont


Tbf to the FA, Southgate at the moment is probably one of the best they could have got. Manager of the England U21 team is really not a job that is going to attract a manager with any sort of CV worth talking about.

I don't even think the likes of Steve Bruce and Big Sam would be attracted by that job (even if they were unemployed).

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 9:58 pm
by braveneutral
I suppose my two cents on the whole England situation (which perhaps this thread reflects more than mere quotas).

It doesn't all make sense and comes across as rambling a but I think it sort of tells a story.

The top English league is driven by brand building. Chelsea, United, City, Arsenal, 'Pool are five of the biggest brands out there. They are known the world over and in turn drive revenue into the hands of English football.

These teams buy players, often at extortionate rates and are unable to focusing on their own academy systems as much as they used to. These systems also now include players who are not eligible for England. They buy talent because they need to keep the brand alive and in the focus of those spending money on football. It is a self-perpetuating cycle. They do not have the time to develop world class youngsters as they need them to be world class the second that they pull on the jersey.

Our league is strong, probably the strongest (from a competitive and level point of view). Thus, along with the brands brings tv money into the game. This money hikes up transfer fees and wages and England becomes an attractive place to ply your trade. Our top 6 or 8 clubs with the exception of Arsenal are not selling clubs. They buy and don't expect to make transfer profits on a player. English youth is expensive due to the dearth of talent and they can't a top level proven foreign talent in general for the price of an average unproven English youngster. As they need the performance in the here and now this is what they opt for.

Let us look at some good performers thus far in this World Cup - Holland and Belgium. Their leagues are not the strongest, indeed wasn't the last Dutch Champs League semi-finalist PSV before Park Ji Sung joined United? However they arguably have two of the strongest teams in Europe. They sell their players, often to England, Spain, Germany, Italy etc. they know that their youths will have a short formative career in their country of origin before moving abroad and they focus on academies to build a next generation at any given moment. Perhaps the best British example of this in recent years is Southampton. In these countries it is the norm. Even Germany sells players albeit with a dominant two or three sides in their country doing the buying but they produce talent through an effective academy system.

I guess English football needs to decide on what is most important, the national team or the PL. These brands will only go so far in accommodating the national side. I imagine if the quotas were brought out of line they would sue in European Court in the grounds that it ruins competition. There will be a time when the question will be asked - us or them and English football probably needs to make that decision before the clubs get to be in the position of complete strength.

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:04 pm
by sussexpob
st_brendy wrote:
sussexpob wrote:
SaintPowelly wrote:Peter Taylor was on Sky the other day, saying how poor some of the players attitudes are about playing for the U21s after already making their debuts.

He didn't mention any names, but that probably needs looking at.


I would think the thing that really needs looking at is why the fa entrusted the job to such a craps manager.

Hard to think why a capped international would nt take the Stevenage town coach serious ly.... Someone who was sacked after a tiny amount if time in the prem.

If we took it seriously, a good manager would earn respect.....craps people dont


Tbf to the FA, Southgate at the moment is probably one of the best they could have got. Manager of the England U21 team is really not a job that is going to attract a manager with any sort of CV worth talking about.

I don't even think the likes of Steve Bruce and Big Sam would be attracted by that job (even if they were unemployed).


It was a comment specifically about Peter Taylor.... he did hardly anything of note higher up the spectrum, and was a washed out name..... how can we criticise players who are young, probably come from respected clubs and managers, and are then being thrown to some prat who cant even manage a tiny provincial state side?

Do you think a manager like Taylor deserved their respect? Fully capped players shouldnt be playing in U21 games, its a waste of time.

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:21 pm
by sussexpob
Let us look at some good performers thus far in this World Cup - Holland and Belgium. Their leagues are not the strongest, indeed wasn't the last Dutch Champs League semi-finalist PSV before Park Ji Sung joined United? However they arguably have two of the strongest teams in Europe. They sell their players, often to England, Spain, Germany, Italy etc. they know that their youths will have a short formative career in their country of origin before moving abroad and they focus on academies to build a next generation at any given moment. Perhaps the best British example of this in recent years is Southampton. In these countries it is the norm. Even Germany sells players albeit with a dominant two or three sides in their country doing the buying but they produce talent through an effective academy system.


Holland's youth system has been lauded as the best system in the world in the history of football, in fact people have copied that academy system in the modern game. How have they done in World Cup's since their 1970's golden years?

Didnt qualify for a world cup in the 1980's....... Only qualified for the 1990 Second round based on drawing alot as third placed team, after drawing with Ireland and Egypt. In 1994 they qualified from the group on goal difference and got blasted out by Brazil. In 1998 their golden generation, one of the pre-tournament favourites, flattered to decieve. In 2002 they didnt qualify. In 2006 they were knocked out in the 2nd round....Doesnt seem like their system has produced much. Their 2010 team were disgusting, and fouled teams to death all tournament. Last week they were lucky to beat Australia, and Van Persie should have been sent off, then won them the game.....

Belgium havent qualified for 12 years, and have never gone past the second round more than once, in 1986, in their history..... not really a bench mark

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:15 pm
by Alviro Patterson
sussexpob wrote:
Alviro Patterson wrote:Increasing the talent pool means a greater chance of finding a top class natural left sided midfielder, a right back better than Glen Johnson, some goalkeepers to seriously challenge Joe Hart and strikers who know where the back of the net is.


Increasing the talent pool? England has the most professional leagues in the world, players who arent getting into premiership teams are still playing competitive football at other levels.....


and still 5 out of 6 youth team players disappear from the game by 19 years old, whilst the free agents list just keeps on growing.

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:33 pm
by braveneutral
sussexpob wrote:
Let us look at some good performers thus far in this World Cup - Holland and Belgium. Their leagues are not the strongest, indeed wasn't the last Dutch Champs League semi-finalist PSV before Park Ji Sung joined United? However they arguably have two of the strongest teams in Europe. They sell their players, often to England, Spain, Germany, Italy etc. they know that their youths will have a short formative career in their country of origin before moving abroad and they focus on academies to build a next generation at any given moment. Perhaps the best British example of this in recent years is Southampton. In these countries it is the norm. Even Germany sells players albeit with a dominant two or three sides in their country doing the buying but they produce talent through an effective academy system.


Holland's youth system has been lauded as the best system in the world in the history of football, in fact people have copied that academy system in the modern game. How have they done in World Cup's since their 1970's golden years?

Didnt qualify for a world cup in the 1980's....... Only qualified for the 1990 Second round based on drawing alot as third placed team, after drawing with Ireland and Egypt. In 1994 they qualified from the group on goal difference and got blasted out by Brazil. In 1998 their golden generation, one of the pre-tournament favourites, flattered to decieve. In 2002 they didnt qualify. In 2006 they were knocked out in the 2nd round....Doesnt seem like their system has produced much. Their 2010 team were disgusting, and fouled teams to death all tournament. Last week they were lucky to beat Australia, and Van Persie should have been sent off, then won them the game.....

Belgium havent qualified for 12 years, and have never gone past the second round more than once, in 1986, in their history..... not really a bench mark

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:43 pm
by sussexpob
So you base the whole structure of English football on copying a team that near lost to Australia this week, and one that laboured to wins against Algeria and Russia?

The masterplan should be based on two international games? Both teams could be out this time next week, so do we then revert to copying another team in the Quarter Finals?

Re: A quota for English players?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:47 pm
by braveneutral
sussexpob wrote:So you base the whole structure of English football on copying a team that near lost to Australia this week, and one that laboured to wins against Algeria and Russia?

The masterplan should be based on two international games? Both teams could be out this time next week, so do we then revert to copying another team in the Quarter Finals?

Who has said anything about copying? I just pointed out my belief that you can't have it all and sacrifices need to be made from one side or another. Spain is obviously a completely different story seeing as it was pretty much Barca mark 2.