Gemmel Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 Apologies if already posted- i did look but can't see it anywhere. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/articles/article.php?page_id=10975 If this is passed, I guess it would hold us in good stead for the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 I wonder if many clubs would fail that test at the minute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 I wonder if many clubs would fail that test at the minute? Not in the lower leagues, wouldn't think so anyway. You'd have to look at clubs like Watford and Charlton but I really don't see 4 from 16 changing much at this time. It would need to go to at least 8 or 9 from 16 to make a difference in the CCC and below.I could see it affecting some Premiership clubs at 5 or 6 out of 16 but I think it's just a paliative measure to keep FIFA happy because they want 6+5, nothing to do with in the 16, they want it in the starting line up.at 4 from 16 you can still field a whole team you dug up just the week before in some African village or other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chap in the Chapel Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 How exactly do we 'benefit' or earn a 'reward' from this? We are basically playing young home-grown players anyway, regardless of whether this proposed ruling is accepted or not, and the article doesn't say what tangible rewards the club could or would get. In short, this is apparently saying, 'Saints are already doing something that other clubs may be compelled to do in the future and there is no actual benefit other than feeling virtuous.' In fact, this proposal could restrict managers from picking the teams they actually want to pick as they have to include home-grown players. Perceived merit could no longer be the criteria for selection! Or have I missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 How exactly do we 'benefit' or earn a 'reward' from this? We are basically playing young home-grown players anyway, regardless of whether this proposed ruling is accepted or not, and the article doesn't say what tangible rewards the club could or would get. In short, this is apparently saying, 'Saints are already doing something that other clubs may be compelled to do in the future and there is no actual benefit other than feeling virtuous.' In fact, this proposal could restrict managers from picking the teams they actually want to pick as they have to include home-grown players. Perceived merit could no longer be the criteria for selection! Or have I missed something? No you are right there is no real advantage to us I would have thought but other squads would have to have lots of home grown players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Mullet Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 Surely a disadvantage to us as other teams will be even more inclined to poach our youngsters to fill their quotas. Unless of course I'm misreading it and the requirement is for the quota to come from each club's own accademy/youth set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 (edited) Surely a disadvantage to us as other teams will be even more inclined to poach our youngsters to fill their quotas. Unless of course I'm misreading it and the requirement is for the quota to come from each club's own accademy/youth set up. It depends what "domestically" means really. The only way I could see it would advantage anyone at the present time is that domestically means 'in the same club' It could also mean in the same league I suppose, meaning not from the Premiership. Very confusing,where's our semantics expert from yesterday? Edited 26 November, 2008 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 (edited) It depends what "domestically" means really. Just means they have to have been playing in this country for at least three years before their 21st birthday. So the young players Arsenal, Liverpool etc sign from abroad when they are 16 would be ok. What they would have to stop doing though, is sending them to a feeder club in Belgium etc for a few years to develop. If you take our 16 from last night: Kelvin Davis - Qualifies Chris Perry - Qualifies Lloyd James - Isn't 21 yet so not sure how that works. I assume he'd qualify. Jack Cork - Not 21 yet Matthew Paterson - Not 21 yet Rudi Skacel - Doesn't qualify Morgan Schneiderlin - Doesn't qualify Adam Lallana - Not 21 yet Andrew Surman - Qualifies Bradley Wright-Phillips - Qualifies Jordan Robertson - Not 21 yet David McGoldrick - Will be 21 on Saturday, would qualify Alex Pearce - Not 21 yet Tommy Forecast - Just turned 21, should qualify but according to Soccerbase hasn't been a pro for 3 years yet Paul Wotton - Qualifies Romain Gasmi - Doesn't qualify Matthew Paterson - Not 21 yet So interestingly, if you apply the letter of the law, only 5 of our squad from last night would qualify. I'm sure they will have something in place for under 21's. Of those 5, only Surman came through our academy. Edited 26 November, 2008 by Scummer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 Just means they have to have been playing in this country for at least three years before their 21st birthday. So the young players Arsenal, Liverpool etc sign from abroad when they are 16 would be ok. What they would have to stop doing though, is sending them to a feeder club in Belgium etc for a few years to develop. If you take our 16 from last night: Kelvin Davis - Qualifies Chris Perry - Qualifies Lloyd James - Isn't 21 yet so not sure how that works. I assume he'd qualify. Jack Cork - Not 21 yet Matthew Paterson - Not 21 yet Rudi Skacel - Doesn't qualify Morgan Schneiderlin - Doesn't qualify Adam Lallana - Not 21 yet Andrew Surman - Qualifies Bradley Wright-Phillips - Qualifies Jordan Robertson - Not 21 yet David McGoldrick - Will be 21 on Saturday, would qualify Alex Pearce - Not 21 yet Tommy Forecast - Just turned 21, should qualify but according to Soccerbase hasn't been a pro for 3 years yet Paul Wotton - Qualifies Romain Gasmi - Doesn't qualify Matthew Paterson - Not 21 yet I'm not sure that that is exactly what it means, if so it makes no sense, everybody has 4 out of 16 or can easily find them so it's a piece of string question; As long as they've been domestically registered (whatever that really means for 3 years alrerady it doesn't matter whether they're 21 or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 4 out of 16 isn't much but you need to start somewhere. It's certainly a step in the right direction for English football. Hopefully with in five years it's 8 of 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 Ieverybody has 4 out of 16 or can easily find them. I think that's the point. They've chosen an easy number to start with, which they will increase over time. I'd start with 6 or 7 personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 It is pure waffle. This proposal would still leave a situation where a team could have 11 foreign players on the field. 4 out of a matchday squad of 16 is a total joke if you really want to change anything. Mawhinney is having to fudge the issue to get it passed, by setting the limit as low as this there are not many clubs who would object. And Lowe's preposterous (sp?) idea that we will benefit is just more evidence that the man is a total fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 4 out of 16 is a lot better than 0 from 16. I think it's a positive move. Should benefit clubs and the national side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 Surely a disadvantage to us as other teams will be even more inclined to poach our youngsters to fill their quotas. Unless of course I'm misreading it and the requirement is for the quota to come from each club's own accademy/youth set up. Exactly, they changed the Euro rules so all the prem clubs are just now stealing 13-15 year olds from lower leagues so they count as a home grown player. As always, the smaller teams get screwed and lose their players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 It's 3 years under 21 at the club in question, only the academy players would qualify. Last night, Surman, Lallana, James, Paterson, McGoldrick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvictaSaint Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 I had to chuckle at the way the OS article includes Kenwynne Jones as a 'product' of the Academy. I didn't know we had a T&T branch which also charges its own club £250,000 to sign players.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 4 out of 16 isn't much but you need to start somewhere. It's certainly a step in the right direction for English football. Hopefully with in five years it's 8 of 16. Rugby League has had a similar system working for several years, only they have got 3 criteria. Home-trained (i.e. academy players), UK trained (players either born or learned their trade in the UK and qualify for the home countries) and overseas (quota) players. Over the next 5 years they are phasing in more home-trained players and less quota players, which seems like a good idea if we want England to develop more quality players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 26 November, 2008 Share Posted 26 November, 2008 4 out of 16 is a lot better than 0 from 16. I think it's a positive move. Should benefit clubs and the national side. How? Are there any teams in the Football League that would not meet these criteria now and with ease? If it was applied to the Premier League that would be different, but its only the CCC, League 1 and League 2. Would not surprise me to find the number of subs extended to 7 as well, in line with the Premier League and SPL, and still only require 4 home grown players. If Mawhinney really wanted to benefit Clubs and the national team, then he would have insisted on 4 home grown players on the pitch, or 7 or 8 in the matchdy squad. Total fudge, total waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now