I think the idea doesn't work either. The whole idea is to give young developing players a chance to play competitively at the highest possible level. For me, having a B league doesn't do that. The highest possible level is playing in the PL or the next highest level possible. The loan system accomodates that. Besides, like others on here, I think it devalues those clubs in the lower leagues. They have their pride too, and League Two is a proper professional one. Not something to blood apprentices. If regular competitive matches are required then lets have the football combination back. Otherwise the loan system and careful player management along the lines that Saints do, is the answer for me. By the way, good to see you've properly got the hang of linking now, Fran. Told you it would make forum involvement more fun.
I don't like this concept. Why not just up the loan quotas for lower league teams? From my years of football manager I'm sure you could only loan 4 or 5 players in the league. Why not make it that CH, L1 and L2 teams can loan up to 5 u21 players and 3 over 21s or something of this kind. It doesn't devalue the lower leagues and on the plus side youngsters are getting more games.
I'm generally against the loan system (with the exception of loaning out a select few of your own local talent), so I'm certainly against this. I'm not against youth teams, and I'm not against reserve teams. But I don't like clubs stockpiling players, and I don't like clubs purchasing players for the future. By not having this, you get a wider distribution of talented players throughout the English game, hopefully improving the standard of clubs and hence leagues as the benefits filter down. And then if those top clubs do want those players in the future, then buy them for their market value when you do actually want to use them - again resulting in benefits flowing down, by way of a distribution of cash (ie the transfer fee). (Basically, I don't like Chelsea )
Clubs should have a maximum number they can sign. Once this number is reached and clubs have injuries and suspensions, younger players start to get a chance at other clubs too.
Surprised at the number of people against the idea. I really can't think of any negative side to B teams if they are used the same way as in Spain.
I would welcome the opportunity to see some of our other players in a competitive environment, it is always difficult to recognise them unless you can get to see them in the flesh. How many people actually saw Veggard Forren score a goal at St. Marys! I did.
I haven't read many people against B teams, more against a league of them that involves promotions, etc.
How can they create a competitive environment without relegation and promotion? Surely they come hand in hand? I could go into loads of detail about this issue as I have been converted into thinking that if we want a more competitive international team, more English players in the top flight and the best chance of any youth player reaching their potential the best solution is to implement B teams in the league structure. FWIW I couldn't care less about the national team and am not bothered if only 1% of the Premiership's players are English, but if the aim of the FA is to achieve the targets I previously mentioned, then B teams are the way forward.
If the B team league includes relegation and promotion it will happen. None of the lower teams can match the B teams of the big teams in the league. This will lead to more b teams being in higher leagues, causing the smaller poor clubs to go bankrupt.
What do you mean "can't match the B teams of the big teams"? The sole purpose of B teams is to develop young players for the A team, they aren't going to go out and buy a load of players specifically for the B team to rocket them up the divisions. I'm not saying you go "oh Man City have a B team now, lets put them in the Championship at the expense of xxx" and then there isa knock on effect down the leagues. They would start where AFC Wimbledon started, or FC United and have to work their way up like any other team.
Look at Chelsea's B team and then get back to me. They will still end getting promoted in the end which will make a smaller less well off team get relegated. These small teams depend big time on the money they get from the leagues. If say it ended up the Conference full of B teams, that would mean 20+ teams relegated. Half of them teams will go bankrupt because of this.
They don't have a B team. If we take Spains model, only a certain amount of players over 21 allowed in the squad, no player who has been in a match day squad with the A team can play for the B team again that season then I don't think many teams B teams will reach the heights people always think they will when this debate comes up.
They will still cause other teams to suffer, so it's a no for me. Even if only 5 teams get as high as Div1 that is 5 proper teams relegated.
An easy fix to stockpiling (that I've just thought of) is having fixed quotas, then make loan players count towards your quota, and all players with contracts have to count in your squad, no leaving people out. So if you want to send five players to Vitesse that's fine, but you've only got 20 left to use. Squad list full but want to sign more? Sell some. Talent can't be hoarded any more, gets spread out to other clubs, keeps prices of non-top talent down. There will have to be some way of managing transition from academy to first team, but it can't be that hard. Let's say, players with your academy from age 16 don't count until they've made a first team appearance. Something like that. Seems to make sense to me, someone tell me some good reasons why it wouldn't work.
Les Reed had some very strong words to say about the idea of a B league in his speech at the Awards evening...basically thought it was a stupid idea. As he said, our young players won't learn anything from playing at League 2 level and below.
