Rage Online Blog

Homegrown's alright with me, homegrown is the way it should be

So sang Neil Young, the former Manchester City midfielder. What the old hippy almost certainly had in mind was reflected in new Premier League legislation that is being introduced for this season, according to an article in today's Guardian. Basically, clubs playing in the country's leading money-making competition, are now compelled to include eight homegrown players in their first-team squads, which now must contain a maximum of 25 players. Homegrown players are defined as those who have spent three years or more training at a club in England or Wales before the end of the season in which they turn 21.

There is, inevitably, a lot of debate about the effects that this new rule is going to have, both on the Premier League teams and on the England national team, which this legislation is intended to help. Some, such as Fulham's Academy Director Huw Jennings, claim that reducing the size of squads will help these young English players to develop and come through the ranks, with clubs denied the opportunity to bring in cheap foreign imports to fill any gaps. Others, including Spurs boss Arry Redknapp, aren't convinced, reckoning that if English players are good enough they'll emerge anyway and that this means that the quality of squads is being compromised by having to include a number of sub-standard players, some of whom might just sit on their laurels (a fancy word for arse) once they've made the squad.

However, the question that is on everybody's mind is 'what does Rage Online think?' Well, one concern we have is the knock-on effect that this legislation will have on clubs below Premiership level. If, for example, Oxford produce some decent young players through their youth system, will they be snaffled up by clubs higher up the Pyramid in order for them to fulfill their quota, rather than getting the opportunity to develop their football education by playing first-team competitive football at a lower level?

In addition, we can't help but feel that this new rule is a sticking plaster being used to cover a gaping wound. The problem with England's poor performance on the international stage isn't really to do with the influx of foreign players into the Premier League. The problem is that the foreign players are being introduced because the up and coming English players just aren't good enough, generally, to enable them to perform at the highest levels, either for club or country. What really needs to happen is a change on emphasis in the coaching of kids from under-9s upwards for there to be less of an emphasis on fitness and athleticism and more on technique and skill. Go to any boys' league game anywhere in the country and when a defender has the ball at his feet the coaches (and the parents and the other kids) are yelling 'Get rid' and 'kick it out'. In the same scenario in the Netherlands, for example, a young defender who hoofs the ball into touch is likely to get substituted, as they are encouraged to play neat, short passes to their teammates to get them out of trouble. Just one example, but it's indicative of the difference in coaching style between this country and the continent, and in our opinion is the reason why England, from being world leaders in the first half of the last Century, is now lagging behind many European and Latin American (and possibly Asian and African) nations in their footballing aptitude.

Labels: England, Neil Young, Premier League, youth

UEFA have released details of how they intend to introduce restrictions on “foreign” players in European competition. Rather than set a limit on the number of “foreign” players (which would be illegal for EU nationals employed by EU clubs), they envisage a scheme whereby the clubs’ “A”-squad of 25 which are registered for UEFA competitions will have two places reserved for players who have come through the clubs own academy, and two places for those who have come through the youth schemes of clubs in the same national association. This is set to come into force for the 2006/07 season and the quota in each category will increase by one over the next two seasons, so that by 2008/09 each 25-man squad will have at least 4 club produced players and 4 home nation produced players.

Arsenal vice-chairman, David Dein, has revealed that the Premier League have unanimously opposed the proposals and hinted that legal action may be taken to prevent UEFA introducing such a rule, on the grounds that it is a restraint of trade for the players. He also added that few Premier League squads would currently meet the UEFA proposals. Without the time to peruse all 20 squads in details, I do wonder about the veracity of this claim. No doubt it is true for the “Big 5” (whichever clubs they are this week), but I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of Premier League clubs are unable to produce 2 players from their own academy who are good enough to break into a squad of 25

Labels: Premier League, UEFA

Extraordinary, astonishing, unbelievable! Today's Observer carries a story that has surely been released early, actually intended for April 1st.

It appears that those wonderful philanthropists at the FA and the Premier League, those knights in shining armour, those benevolent benefactors of the modern game, have purely out of the goodness of their hearts selflessly offered a total of £15 million to shore up the ailing Football League clubs, with those poor souls in the First Division getting a whopping 70% of it. Of course these grants and loans are offered with no strings attached and no likelihood of any favours accruing (such as a possible reduction in the number of relegation places from the Premiership, for example).

Or maybe I'm being too harsh?

Labels: FA, philanthropy, Premier League

Gordon Taylor, of the PFA, is suggesting that the Nationwide league "sells" one of its promotion places to the Premiership for £100 million, according to this report from the BBC. It's surprising that he stops there and hasn't suggested selling all three promotion places, thus saving the Premiership the hassle of having to worry about being too competitive, or of losing its consistently average members like Westam. Presumably that idea's being saved up for when Wolves go up, so in practice it will be on the back-burner for perpetuity.

Labels: Football League, Gordon Taylor, Money, PFA, Premier League

There's a curious article in today's Observer where David Moffett, chief executive of Sport England argues a reasonably compelling case for scrapping promotion and relegation. The kneejerk reaction is that this is a load of bollox, and so it is, but Moffett's arguments are certainly worthy of consideration. The problem really is that the level playing field scenario that Moffett claims would ensue is, to say the least, unlikely, even if these ideas were enacted at the start of the Premiership (which is what many Premiership chairmen were arguing in favour of at the outset). Even then there would have to be serious reform of the distribution of TV and sponsorship money if Moffett's suggestions are to have any chance of succeeding.

Labels: Premier League, Sport England

Greed begets greed. Some Premiership clubs are threatening to boycott this season's FA Cup according to this report from the BBC, claiming that they want a share of the FA's income generated by the competition. Although all clubs that are members of the Football Association are obliged to enter the competition, some Premiership clubs may possibly field sides that are so weakened they may as well not bother (although they would doubtless take their share of the gate money). Of course these are the same clubs that removed the away teams' share of the gate money which has been a major cause of the gap between rich and poor clubs increasing, and now they want yet more money. They won't rest until they have all the income the game generates, by which time there won't be a game.

Labels: FA, Money, Premier League

Astonishingly it appears that the chairmen of the Premiership clubs have demonstrated some good sense for once in their lives (albeit probably for the wrong motives) in dismissing Sven Goran Eriksson's call (backed by the FA) for a mid-winter break. Whilst we don't normally have much interest in how the Premiership conducts itself, you can be certain that if they had voted in favour of a break in December and January then the Nationwide clubs would shortly have followed suit. Presumably (although it's not explicitly stated) their reason for opposing the break is that it would mean an inevitable reduction in revenue, both through the turnstiles (as it would mean more midweek games either earlier or later in the season, and they rarely attract crowds as large as Saturday games) and from TV (why would Sky pay for a two month gameless period?) whereas Rage Online's opposition is based on the principle that football is a winter sport and a spot of bad weather shouldn't allow those with ulterior motives the opportunity to impose their will on over 100 years of tradition. According to this report in the Guardian the Premiership chairmen also dismissed notions of player fatigue, claiming that large squads mean that most players have enough breaks - more common sense from those most notorious for lacking it?

Labels: Premier League, Winter break