|
Post by Eaststandboy on May 6, 2014 17:30:29 GMT
What happens if, for example, a big team say Portsmouth get relegated to 3 but Portsmouth B get up to L1 or Championship. are they going to swap names? Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards Yes. Or, more likely, "Portsmouth" would be whichever was higher all the time. 2 spots in the league for the same club - protects your investment, starves rivals.... So last game of the season. Portsmouth have nothing to play for. But Portsmouth B need a point to stay up. Your telling me Portsmouth would relegate their B team? Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on May 6, 2014 18:42:29 GMT
Apparently both teams wouldn't be allowed to be in the same division. So they never could play each other, in the league at least. If Hull B were in the championship, and Hull got relegated then Hull B would have to drop down to L1. But what if Hull B were in the Championship playoffs. They'd have to be allowed to play in them in case they got promoted to the Prem and replaced the parent team. But if they didn't win the playoffs they would then have to be relegated into L1. The whole thing is daft. The stupid concoction of someone who doesn't really understand football - and he's the chairman of the FA. God help us all!
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on May 6, 2014 19:57:23 GMT
I quite like the fact that the FA has chosen to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the Football League by dreaming up a proposal guaranteed to kill everything that makes the League what it is stone dead. It rather sums up the FA as an organisation doesn't it.
Whichever way you look at B teams, some or all of the pyramid is going to suffer. Placing restrictions on promotion/relegation etc only means that some will suffer more than others. Given that there have been suggestions that Football League clubs are already too numerous, I wonder which one of the FA brains trust has had the sense to ask Greg why it is such a good idea to take an already supposedly overpopulated league and stick another 20 teams in it?
Regionalisation is another moronic idea which never seems to go away. They've tried that with the JPT and its done diddly-squat for that competition so why would it do anything for the league?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 22:18:14 GMT
It's brilliant that they're doing this under the pretext of helping the England team. Because obviously Oxford and Cambridge and Halifax have ruined England's prospects far more than Chelsea, Man City and the rest of the Premiership, so the solution MUST be found in the lower leagues.
This will probably never come to light. If it does, then I imagine my interest in watching football would just about disappear.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on May 6, 2014 22:23:03 GMT
Its down to F**king greed again
|
|
|
Post by slick2484 on May 6, 2014 22:44:14 GMT
I would like to see a cap on how many players a club can have signed on. You can only name a 25 man squad so why have so many players. Think of the money they would save. These premier league clubs have players that will never get anywhere near the first team, the players probably earn more than league 2 players , so why would they want to come to league 2? They get pampered without ever having the pressure of playing league football. Teams like chelsea loaning out nearly 20 players in a season is a complete joke. The players that the clubs could not sign, would filter down the leagues, and would hopefully make the players more hungry. This FA idea would only benefit premier league teams!
|
|
|
Post by slick2484 on May 6, 2014 23:06:45 GMT
Just looked on the chelsea website to see how big their squad is. First team 25 players Out on loan 28 players U21/ development 16 players 69 players ?? That does not include a academy squad.
|
|
|
Post by Junior on May 7, 2014 10:13:35 GMT
I wonder how many of the winning youth cup team will break through Chelsea's ranks.. My guess is 0
|
|
|
Post by scotters on May 7, 2014 11:28:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lodeyellow on May 7, 2014 13:52:15 GMT
It's brilliant that they're doing this under the pretext of helping the England team. Because obviously Oxford and Cambridge and Halifax have ruined England's prospects far more than Chelsea, Man City and the rest of the Premiership, so the solution MUST be found in the lower leagues. This will probably never come to light. If it does, then I imagine my interest in watching football would just about disappear. Mine, too. But the people who run the game most probably don't care too much about what we think. It's disappointing that the chairman of the Football League hasn't immediately criticised the proposals. But, as he's a member of Greg Dyke's commission, that's probably too much to expect. The FA have done their best to kill off the FA Cup over recent seasons, and it looks as if they're trying to do the same with the lower leagues.
|
|
|
Post by Junior on May 7, 2014 14:36:19 GMT
The U21s in England already have a very competitive league and cup. Mostly it is consisted of u18 players as chelsea show.
The majority of next Gen players are always on loan through the lower leagues and Europe. Even Man Utd have in the pays had a hook up with Royal Antwerp in Belgium.
|
|
|
Post by mooro on May 7, 2014 18:03:43 GMT
I quite like the fact that the FA has chosen to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the Football League by dreaming up a proposal guaranteed to kill everything that makes the League what it is stone dead. It rather sums up the FA as an organisation doesn't it. Whichever way you look at B teams, some or all of the pyramid is going to suffer. Placing restrictions on promotion/relegation etc only means that some will suffer more than others. Given that there have been suggestions that Football League clubs are already too numerous, I wonder which one of the FA brains trust has had the sense to ask Greg why it is such a good idea to take an already supposedly overpopulated league and stick another 20 teams in it? Regionalisation is another moronic idea which never seems to go away. They've tried that with the JPT and its done diddly-squat for that competition so why would it do anything for the league? I think there is a place for regionalisation in football. Obviously it already exists further down the pyramid, but I (and looking at non league forums, many others) think that there would certainly be a case for raising the level at which it kicks in. Part of that case is to better regulate how the pyramid looks further down, perhaps cutting out at least one level, and removing an inherent skew towards the south east of the country (which is the reason why City are in Conference North). There is an ongoing argument about where it is most appropriate, whether a fourth 'Midland' league should join the Northern, Southern and Isthmian below the Conference north/south, or whether it should come in higher up - many argue that the Conference north/south tier was in itself unnecessary and that the two-way split should have replaced the conference rather than slot in below. Some even argue that merging L2 and the Conference and then splitting them N/S would be the best place to start. The arguments revolve around travel costs, gate income (and to an extent ground grading), but there is a general agreement that outgoings rise quicker than income as you rise up the ladder and that fewer steps should balance that out. I actually agree that merging and splitting L2 & the conference would be a good idea (not least because currently L2 is North biased and Conf south, so we'd have the easier half) in terms of perhaps revitalising the lower leagues. i) By having two leagues feeding into it, the profile of L1 might get a boost in terms of prestige, ii) it would remove the bottleneck between L2 & the conference, when in fact the two are not too far apart in terms of standard, iii) it would have 'some' impact on the finances due to reduced travel (tho this in itself may not be massive). Saying that, the downsides are the risk of both being perceived as becoming non-league & a downturn in sponsorship/prize income, so I can see that the L2 turkeys will not be voting for Christmas any time soon. However, while my preferences are largely by-the-by, there is still a valid case to continue to discuss where regionalisation should begin in the pyramid and that it may possibly arrive at Level 4 or 5 in pyramid at some stage. More to the point, however, is that NONE of the discussion amongst those that may be affected has, does or will ever, include the idea of a whole bunch of new teams being parachuted in to make it happen! I'm not one for calling for people to resign, however were I currently involved in Brentford in any way, I would be seriously considering whether Mr Dyke should be removed from whatever positions he may still hold there....
|
|
|
Post by oxymoron on May 7, 2014 19:52:40 GMT
Some interesting points on here, but the whole thing just underlines the fact that the formation of the Premier League has been one of the worst things to happen to English football and it continues its ravenous foray into the last vestiges of what football really ever was.
The PL was formed out of the greed of men like David Dein & Martin Edwards – the Edwards family already having a history of shady deals in both the acquisition of Manchester United and it’s running under their tenure; Martin Edwards should be forever damned for his statement that “the smaller clubs are bleeding the game dry and should be put to sleep” - it was the first sign of things to come.
Anyway, ‘twas the men behind Arsenal, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United &Tottenham, the so called “Big 5” of the time, who were encouraged by the then managing director of London weekend Television to pursue this course, ultimately he was gazzumped by Rupert Murdoch and we got pay per view on Sky. Oh the LWT man’s name – Greg Dyke.
The Premier League clubs broke from the rest of football on the premise that they wanted to improve the England team, but that was a falsehood and with the continued signing of overseas players and a shift toward off-shore, financially motivated club owners, there is very little desire or interest (or evidence for that matter) of any PL club helping the national game. This will not change while football is a regarded as a business that makes money; it would need to revert to being a sport with a national framework with England at the pinnacle, supporting and being supported at all stages, down to the clubs at the grass roots.
If I had my way, I’d limit the number of players any club could have on it’s books to, say, twenty, maybe twenty five senior pro’s with a similar number of under 23’s, and around the same in the under 18’s under 14’s etc. This would achieve two goals – one, it would stop the clubs with the cash just signing talent that they don’t actually need which would mean that there was a surplus of “better” players who would naturally redistribute amongst the clubs. Many PL bench warmers would find themselves in the Championship and that would cause some of their players to fall into L1 and ultimately, current L1 players would grace L2 – so goal two, standards are raised across the board.
I’d also stop the loaning of players out, unless it was to a club in a higher tier. It’s fair enough that a club like Oxford could loan a player in from, say, the Conference South to see if he could make the step up and similarly, one of our players could go up the pyramid to test his talent before a transfer fee was paid. Clubs taking loans from the PL not only perpetuates the “sign everyone” mentality of the rich, but the club receiving the loan players gains an advantage over those in the division that do not have the contacts and the introduction of a loan player invariably means that the development of your own talent stalls. Limiting the squad numbers would effectively curtail the loan market in any case.
Clubs currently have to name a squad of players for the league and that should be extended such that they name a squad for each cup competition they enter. Obviously we would have to name the same players in all squads, but those that don’t take the cups seriously until the semi-finals hove into view would at least have to play the majority of the players that got them there, rather than just pitching out the star names for the big game.
Anyone got Greg Dyke’s phone number – I’ve tried faxing my ideas through but don’t seem to get any replies…
|
|
|
Post by Kerry Yellow on May 8, 2014 13:14:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eaststandboy on May 8, 2014 13:14:30 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27327502 - I worry for our Football League if this happens. Premier League B teams will be just as good, if not better than Championshp teams. So if your stuck under this league then kiss goodbye to going any further. Until they all congregate in The Championship. If you are playing most Prem League youth players in B teams. There is no scope to loan them out to lower league clubs?
|
|
|
Post by Junior on May 8, 2014 13:31:03 GMT
He didn't mention fans of lower leagues clone once. Do we not matter? It's all premier league and England.
|
|
|
Post by concretebob on May 8, 2014 13:38:20 GMT
A worrying plan and as a fan of a lower league club I feel rather pushed to the margins here. I seriously hope for the integrity of football this plan does not go ahead.
|
|
|
Post by sihath on May 8, 2014 13:46:00 GMT
He didn't mention fans of lower leagues clone once. Do we not matter? It's all premier league and England. Spot on Junior. We don't matter. How are people like you and Baldy going to cope. Oxford United/Man Utd/Man Utd B/Man Utd Youth. It's going to get very confusing
|
|
|
Post by Eaststandboy on May 8, 2014 13:49:45 GMT
Peterborough chairman Darragh MacAnthony:
"My thoughts on this B team scenario - It's all about ME, ME & ME from the FA/Prem & to hell with the rest of you. Can't be allowed to happen! "In this instance, it's finally time for the 72 Football League chairmen and most importantly our chairman Greg Clarke to be strong to ensure this doesn't happen. "I'd wager next thing to happen is threat over next solidarity negotiation unless we all agree to this. Sounds familiar indeed."
|
|
|
Post by sarge on May 8, 2014 14:51:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Eaststandboy on May 8, 2014 14:55:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sarge on May 8, 2014 15:01:41 GMT
Edited with one that does now
|
|
|
Post by didcotox on May 8, 2014 16:14:32 GMT
In theory I think I'm in favour of changes. We certainly need to change things if England are going to keep up with Europe. Perhaps the simple answer though is for Premiership clubs to stop spending so much on foreign players then the youngsters would actually play.
|
|
|
Post by Eaststandboy on May 8, 2014 16:23:59 GMT
In theory I think I'm in favour of changes. We certainly need to change things if England are going to keep up with Europe. Perhaps the simple answer though is for Premiership clubs to stop spending so much on foreign players then the youngsters would actually play. I think every football fan agrees that something needs to change. But not what they are proposing. Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by nige01ox on May 8, 2014 16:31:17 GMT
It wouldn't benefit championship, league 1, league 2 or non-league, and most likely would just lead to the big clubs filling their B teams with foreign imports so wouldn't benefit the national team either. Even where it is in place, it doesn't really work www.wsc.co.uk/the-archive/923-Europe/598-the-killer-bsEdit: didn't actually read through the thread so didn't know link had already been posted!
|
|
|
Post by Eaststandboy on May 8, 2014 18:21:27 GMT
How many fans do they expect B teams to have at home and away games too?!
Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by pooshooter on May 8, 2014 18:24:04 GMT
How many fans do they expect B teams to have at home and away games too?! Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards It will ultimately lead to a prem league with only about ten clubs, A&B teams and then what?
|
|
|
Post by Eaststandboy on May 8, 2014 18:26:07 GMT
How many fans do they expect B teams to have at home and away games too?! Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards It will ultimately lead to a prem league with only about ten clubs, A&B teams and then what? Clubs going up to a league full of B teams will suffer from low away followings. Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on May 8, 2014 19:01:02 GMT
Didn't Greg Dyke screw up the BBC a well in his time there.
|
|
|
Post by telforddave on May 8, 2014 19:45:38 GMT
I've been reading through the FA report and from what I can see there is no strong challenge to the Bosman Ruling. Currently Premier League teams can't name more than 17 non Home Grown players, how about reducing that to no more than 10 or 5 non Home Grown players? Granted that means there will be more young foreign players signed up early and sitting in the premier league academies for the required 3 years to qualify them as Home Grown but surely that could be an option? Obviously, Sky and the Premier League clubs would agree. Also I can't see why a B Team you'll be able to limit to 20 of the 25 man squad being Home Grown qualified but not a Premier League team? www.thefa.com/~/media/files/pdf/england/the-fa-chairmans-england-commission-report.ashxIn 2010-11, the Premier League followed suit when it introduced a rule that clubs could not name more than 17 non Home Grown players aged over 21 in any squad of 25. In this, as in the Football League, ‘Home Grown’ means Association trained – there is no requirement for any of those players to have been developed within their club. This less restrictive ruling is therefore easier to comply with than the UEFA stipulation.
|
|