City approach FA about B team

[taconinja]

we're not taking a hit though, the current system is producing some very promising talent across Premier League clubs, and none of them had to play in the 5th/4th/3rd tier in a B team to make the progression, they earnt through impressing either at FL clubs or in their own setups in training and the reserves leagues.

It's all about coaching.

If we're participating in a competition just to give other clubs a handout, then it's taking a hit. A small hit perhaps, but a hit nonetheless.

I can't imagine the current home games the U21 play at the Etihad make a profit.

Probably not, which is likely one reason City supports the B Team initiative.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

If we're participating in a competition just to give other clubs a handout, then it's taking a hit. A small hit perhaps, but a hit nonetheless.

I can't imagine the current home games the U21 play at the Etihad make a profit.

Probably not, which is likely one reason City supports the B Team initiative.

If our youngsters are good enough they won't be going to slug it out in a mudbath at Newport County or somewhere of that ilk, so who exactly in this new B team is going to play? are you going to ruin our U18/U16 structure by promoting kids to play in it way earlier than they should for their development, or are you going to suggest we keep a whole host of youngsters on the books who aren't good enough to fill a B Squad, as our good EDS will be too good to play at that level, and it will be detrimental to their development.

Instead the JPT suggestion at least means they have to play cup games, a real competitive game with pressure and a real footballing experience, rather than in a league where they can't even get promoted, there's no reward at the end and therefore no real competitive desire amongst the squad, you've got to dangle carrots and incentives to people for them to progress, and 46 games, half on less than brilliant pitches at less than brilliant facilities, with no promotion or genuine reward at the end, against teams that our good players will only gain the risk of career-ending injuries from playing, just makes the whole B team concept utterly pointless.

There's doubts about the likes of Emyr Huws making it in a squad role with us and he played in the Championship last season, shows you the level our good prospects will end up being, a level far beyond the B team proposal.

 

[taconinja]

I can't imagine the current home games the U21 play at the Etihad make a profit.

Probably not, which is likely one reason City supports the B Team initiative.

If our youngsters are good enough they won't be going to slug it out in a mudbath at Newport County or somewhere of that ilk, so who exactly in this new B team is going to play? are you going to ruin our U18/U16 structure by promoting kids to play in it way earlier than they should for their development, or are you going to suggest we keep a whole host of youngsters on the books who aren't good enough to fill a B Squad, as our good EDS will be too good to play at that level, and it will be detrimental to their development.

Instead the JPT suggestion at least means they have to play cup games, a real competitive game with pressure and a real footballing experience, rather than in a league where they can't even get promoted, there's no reward at the end and therefore no real competitive desire amongst the squad, you've got to dangle carrots and incentives to people for them to progress, and 46 games, half on less than brilliant pitches at less than brilliant facilities, with no promotion or genuine reward at the end, against teams that our good players will only gain the risk of career-ending injuries from playing, just makes the whole B team concept utterly pointless.

There's doubts about the likes of Emyr Huws making it in a squad role with us and he played in the Championship last season, shows you the level our good prospects will end up being, a level far beyond the B team proposal.

I'm not looking to ruin anything. I have no horse in the race so to speak. I'm a City fan from the States. What I don't want is precisely what you're saying, which is to see your national system borked. I personally don't think anything should change and was surprised that City was proposing a B Team if it couldn't be promoted up the ladder. I simply don't think that the proposed alternative is very enticing either.

Edit: By "anything to change" I mean the pyramid system as that seems from the outside to be a major component of your national footballing identity.

 

[citytilidie85]

The main issue with this is the coaching and facilities at youth level, as others have mentioned. The FA needs to invest in youth development from the earliest ages, making facilities better and allowing an easier and more affordable route for people to become qualified coaches. The FA want the end result of whatever they do to have more players available to the England manager for future tournaments. Players playing in the lower leagues in "B" teams wont achieve this, being coached correctly at a young age will. This is the main thing that needs to be changed, not creating more leagues and "B" teams etc...
I do, and always have, liked the loan system if used properly. And I do feel that players playing competitive football week in week out will make them better. I just don't see this "B" team as stuff as the answer. What if Oldham are playing City "B" on a Saturday, City "B" are top of the league, but cant be promoted, and odds are they will beat Oldham. Oldham put out a group of their own youngsters because on the Wednesday they have a "meaningful" game against say Preston. What will the City "B" players actually get out of this?
The loan system could be used so PL teams have to put x amount of English 17-20 year olds on a loan list and the FL teams can then "draft" a certain amount of them from any team. Barring injury, at least one of these players has to be in the match day squad for their team. This would mean that young players are exposed to competitive football, not idiotic matches with "B" teams. But it also means that the FL teams get to pick which players they want.
Just a thought, but for me, anything other than "B" teams has to be a better option!

 

[Mr. Aguia]

I can't imagine the current home games the U21 play at the Etihad make a profit.

Probably not, which is likely one reason City supports the B Team initiative.

If our youngsters are good enough they won't be going to slug it out in a mudbath at Newport County or somewhere of that ilk, so who exactly in this new B team is going to play? are you going to ruin our U18/U16 structure by promoting kids to play in it way earlier than they should for their development, or are you going to suggest we keep a whole host of youngsters on the books who aren't good enough to fill a B Squad, as our good EDS will be too good to play at that level, and it will be detrimental to their development.

Instead the JPT suggestion at least means they have to play cup games, a real competitive game with pressure and a real footballing experience, rather than in a league where they can't even get promoted, there's no reward at the end and therefore no real competitive desire amongst the squad, you've got to dangle carrots and incentives to people for them to progress, and 46 games, half on less than brilliant pitches at less than brilliant facilities, with no promotion or genuine reward at the end, against teams that our good players will only gain the risk of career-ending injuries from playing, just makes the whole B team concept utterly pointless.

There's doubts about the likes of Emyr Huws making it in a squad role with us and he played in the Championship last season, shows you the level our good prospects will end up being, a level far beyond the B team proposal.

Totally agree.

I just don't get it. Let's take out the damage it will do to those lower league clubs who will be pushed out of the League and into the conference from the equation. Just how is playing in league 2 going to help promote youth into our first team? How many League 1/2 players are being bought by EPL clubs? I can't think of any. I don't see any EPL clubs loaning players to league 2 sides. If they thought that playing games in League 2 would be beneficial then they'd be doing that already. I just don't see how playing in the lower leagues is going to develop them into a EPL player. Too many living int he past where players from lower leagues would make the jump. Those days are gone. The problem is coaching not playing time. If they were good enough they'd be playing. The reason Scott Sinclaire isn't good enough isn't a lack of playing time. If he was good enough he'd be playing.

 

[Monkey Boy Blue]

Instead of changing the league structure how about this:

Each top team affiliates itself with one lower league club. This affiliation is recognised by the league, and allows a 'revolving door' policy of loans between the two clubs. So for example, if we affliate ourselves with Bury, Bury can loan young players from City with few or no restrictions, and city can recall the players at any time.

It's not too far removed from the current loan system, just with different rules in place for loans between each club and it's affiliate. The lower league club gets a free supply of talented youngsters whose wages are being payed by their parent club, and the parent club gets proper competitive football for more of its youngsters, plus greater control over the on loan players due to stronger ties with the affiliate club (thus avoiding farcical Guidetti-at-Stoke type situations where the on loan player gets no game time).

The only people to lose out in such a scenario might be experienced lower-league pros who might find it harder to find a club or get game time due to the presence more on -loan youngsters at lower league clubs.

 

[greasedupdeafguy]

Instead of changing the league structure how about this:

Each top team affiliates itself with one lower league club. This affiliation is recognised by the league, and allows a 'revolving door' policy of loans between the two clubs. So for example, if we affliate ourselves with Bury, Bury can loan young players from City with few or no restrictions, and city can recall the players at any time.

It's not too far removed from the current loan system, just with different rules in place for loans between each club and it's affiliate. The lower league club gets a free supply of talented youngsters whose wages are being payed by their parent club, and the parent club gets proper competitive football for more of its youngsters, plus greater control over the on loan players due to stronger ties with the affiliate club (thus avoiding farcical Guidetti-at-Stoke type situations where the on loan player gets no game time).

The only people to lose out in such a scenario might be experienced lower-league pros who might find it harder to find a club or get game time due to the presence more on -loan youngsters at lower league clubs.

This idea keeps coming up but its even worse than b teams, why would bury fans want to be basically Manchester City b team?

 

[Bottomless_Sailor]

All that has to be done is make the reserve league more prestigious (which I think is being worked on anyway). And that basically just means money.

 

[m7mcfc]

What happens if the b team gets promoted into the premier league?

As in la liga the B teams dont get promoted even if they win the league.

 

[eastlands oasis]

Instead of changing the league structure how about this:

Each top team affiliates itself with one lower league club. This affiliation is recognised by the league, and allows a 'revolving door' policy of loans between the two clubs. So for example, if we affliate ourselves with Bury, Bury can loan young players from City with few or no restrictions, and city can recall the players at any time.

It's not too far removed from the current loan system, just with different rules in place for loans between each club and it's affiliate. The lower league club gets a free supply of talented youngsters whose wages are being payed by their parent club, and the parent club gets proper competitive football for more of its youngsters, plus greater control over the on loan players due to stronger ties with the affiliate club (thus avoiding farcical Guidetti-at-Stoke type situations where the on loan player gets no game time).

The only people to lose out in such a scenario might be experienced lower-league pros who might find it harder to find a club or get game time due to the presence more on -loan youngsters at lower league clubs.

The problem with this would be those teams who don't get affiliated with a "top team" would see this as an unfair advantage to those that do. Add in that those local kids not good enough for a top teams academy but good enough standard for a league 2/conference team would then find that they don't get an opportunity to progress as their local team will either not take on as many kids into their own youth system, or the team will be made up of players from their affiliate club. Unfortunately this scenario has negative impacts on the players who already pky their trades in the lower leagues who would find it even more difficult to find a club