http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35586425 Very interesting article that, granted, focuses on the opinions of Mick McCarthy of all people, but well worth the read nonetheless. I'd be interested to hear what players like Kane think about the methodology of the loan system and how it helped/hindered their development. I actually found myself nodding in agreement with most of the article. The proposed changes to the system will make it infinitely harder for smaller, cash-strapped clubs to patch up or even improve their squads via the emergency loan system. Moreover, to my mind it doesn't really solve the broader issue of the loan system, namely the ease of its abuse at the hands of megalomaniacs such as Chelsea and City farming out dozens of youngsters to clubs all over the world, thus maintaining what is essentially a parallel 'squad' comprised entirely of 'potentials'. If I was in charge of FIFA, I would: 1) Dissolve Arsenal and convert the Emirates into an ice skating rink. 2) Force all Chelsea players to wear boots with the studs fixed to the inside of the sole. 3) Impose a penal system whereby a referee or assistant that makes a glaringly bad decision will be compelled to officiate their next match stark raving nude. 4) Set a maximum cap on the number of players any club can send out or take in on loan. Given that Chelsea have around 25 players out on loan, I'd say no more than 10-12 is more than fair. 5) Set a minimum time frame to a loan of at least half a season (window to window). The end of the article is 100% correct - all that a young player really needs is stability. It concerns me that Spurs are sending out players for a month at a time with increasing frequency. All that really says to a player is 'your parents don't want you because you're not quite goo enough; and your adopted parents don't really want you either because they aren't sure if you're good enough.
You shouldn't be allowed to loan players to teams in the same league. Sure they can't play against you, but as they play against everyone except you, they are kind of playing for you. There's nothing to stop a cash rich team filling several other teams with their players, which would benefit themselves quite a lot. Sure it hasn't happened this season with Chelski (five loan players in the PL?) but I would suggest that this is the exception.
As I have said before I still prefer the old Football Combination system. Clubs had a second team which played in leagues in the same way as the first teams. Players moved freely between the two (in the club) useful for both young players breaking through and seniors coming back from injury. It meant our upcoming players had the chance to play in club colours with some of the stars of the club, cementing the 'system' and enabling embedding of the 'Spurs Way'. We could also have an under 18 team without the need for the under 21's. Stockpiling of players would be more difficult hopefully stopping the waste of talents that has taken place particularly at Chelsea & City. More games for fans to see with lower prices for the 'Combination' games and just maybe more chance for local players to get a look in with all the expensive imports. Spurs have a decent record of using local talent, hence our representation in the England squad, but many PL clubs hardly have an English player on their first 11, it's no wonder the national team is so lack lustre.
Spurs do well from the loan system, without abusing it. If anything, you can argue that clubs like Swindon have done well from the links to Spurs as far as personnel goes.
When I was young only British players were allowed to play in the league. Since there are only about 60m people in the UK compared to more like 3b in the world the standard of the league has gone up enormously now we have access to all of them. So its hardly surprising that the number of English players has gone down. I also think that the 7 on the bench makes an enormous difference especially since injuries seem much more frequent. If three players are injured and 18 are on duty in the first team then only players 21 to 31 in the squad could play in the Football Combination. The standard would be a lot lower compared to the first team than it used to be so it would be of limited usefulness.
You must be extremely old then as the first foreign player to play in the league actually played for Spurs in 1908. So as always Spurs are first to break new ground. Max Seeburg from Germany played for Tottenham in 1908/09. Your argument PS is based on a false premise I'm afraid.
I don't know if PS is referring to the rule where teams were limited to a certain number of non-English players. You could only have three on the pitch at any time or something. The EU essentially banned it in something like '94 or '95, IIRC.
So if Britain leaves the EU, does that mean the Premier League will bring back the three foreigners rule? ...and with that one sentence, that guarantees all Chelsea fans will vote to stay in the EU.
It's probably because I'm a child of the PL era, but I personally couldn't give a toss how few British players play in the PL. Football is first and foremost a cog in the entertainment industry. And inasmuch as I couldn't give a toss about the nationalities of a film's cast as long as the film is good, nor the nationalities of a band as long as the music is decent, I couldn't care less about the football as long as the end result is good, entertaining and gripping competition - and I think very, very few would argue that the PL has become less of the above due to the influx of 'foreigners'. If anything, its entertainment value and ability to surprise have increased exponentially, hence the exponential increase in TV deals - media moguls know entertainment and know what will attract the punters, and the PL is that formula. I've never fully understood the at times frenzied panic that 'there aren't enough English players in the top flight'. I guess it boils down to: how much do we care about the national side and international tournaments? Again, probably due to the fact that since Euro 96 (the first tournament I fully remember), England have been a tepidly disappointing embarrassment, once again - I couldn't give a toss about the national side either. There's certainly no logic economically behind enforcing the integration of more nationals at club level. If anything, since the introduction of the HG quota, very few sides have actually improved (Spurs being the exception that proves the rule thanks to the fact that we already had a top notch training ground and academy in the pipeline years before the quotas were legislated). I would say that although the overall entertainment value of the PL has increased as HG quota + TV money + FFP combine to level the playing field, the overall quality of the teams therein has probably decreased alarmingly. You need look no further than our woeful annual showing in the EL and CL for confirmation of this. The fact that Italy are inches away from overtaking our coefficient despite being financial tadpoles compared to our leviathan says it all really.
I didn't quote the rule exactly but non-UK born players had to be resident in the country for two years before playing between 1931 and 1978 which essentially meant that there were none or at least only those who came to the country when young. http://www.sportingintelligence.com...otball-a-potted-history-of-foreigners-080201/ 1978 The European Community in Brussels decides on 23 February that football associations cannot deny access to players on the basis of their nationality. At its summer AGM, the Football League lifts its 47-year effective ban on foreigners. A “new wave” of imports, including Ossie Ardiles, Ricky Villa, Ivan Golac and Kazimierz Deyna, starts to arrive.
If I remember correctly Spurs were the first club to take advantage by signing Ossie & Ricky. We were all fascinated watching two foreigners playing with our regulars. What good acquisitions they turned out to be!
Well done CK for getting me to think about the whole subject in a different way. What you say makes good sense in terms of entertainment and world understanding. Football is of course a global game and the top sides are now supported throughout the world so it's entirely logical that they comprise of people from all over the world. The other side of the coin is producing local players because we can. For the good of football (world wide) we need to use our expertise and facilities to produce local players from those around us. But as someone who has been around for a long time it was natural to think along the lines that had existed for most of that time so well done CK for placing the argument firmly in the modern world, I'll go away and think again.
I think that our current team cohesion is helped by the presence of a number of local lads. Bringing in talented players from wherever they may be found is often worthwhile, but they need to bring something special to the table. The Premier League benefits from having exceptional players in it. I don't think that the standard is improved by some of the disturbingly average ones, though. It's often hard to tell how successful the move is going to be. Some of the better signings from abroad have been utterly uninspiring at the time.
Nothing wrong with the top class foreign players playing here. The best players in Spain are Argentinian, Portuguese, Brazilian, Uruguayan,even Welsh! The best striker in Germany is Polish. Look at Pogba in Italy. The Spanish, German, and Italian national teams aren't half bad. The difference is that (to my perception) we import a disproportionate number of average foreign players too. The likes of Aguero, Silva, Toby & Verts, Mahrez - top players who absolutely benefit the league - they'd benefit any competition they graced. Its the imports in the tier below who IMO far outnumber their English counterparts, who are clogging the league and in my opinion preventing English players getting opportunities when perhaps they should. Who knows how many Dele Alli's, Jamie Vardy's, Harry Kane's, there are out there. I agree with PNP - nothing wrong with the top talent playing here whether its English or foreign. It only benefits the league and the local players who play with and against them every week. What is depressing is clubs looking to import average stopgap players from foreign leagues instead of developing their own talent or looking down the leagues. I'd need to crunch the numbers properly (or get someone to do it for me!) to look at squad compositions of PL teams, and number those foreigners who you'd consider 'average', but I'm fairly sure I'm not to far from the mark in my assumption. Whether this is because of the English price premium we see sometimes, or other factors, its hard to say.
Really, really good point that I hadn't thought about to such a level of analysis. I guess you can apply this theory to the lessons we learned transitioning out of the Bale money piss-up. This is one aspect of Spurs' recruitment strategy that has improved beyond recognition in recent years. Looking at those £4-10m range of players (the ones who tend to be 'average'), we've progressed from the pointless/inexplicable imports such as Cheery Cheese, Fazio, Capoue. Stambouli, Dempsey etc. to either promoting heart-on-the-sleeve academy/youth team products such as Mason, Carroll, Rose, Bentaleb etc. or investing such money exceptionally wisely, such as Alli, Dier, Wimmer etc.
