Fifa to clamp down on City and Chelsea business model

[domalino]

Our 27 players on loan:

3 Right to Dream academy kids (Agyiri, Agyepong, Tanor). I suspect that program might be over post football leaks anyway.

4 old players bought for CFG groups (Diskerud, Mari, Brattan, Caceres)

6 speculative purchases (Moreno, Harrison, Herrera, Luiz, Arzani, Palmer-Brown)


Then there's the academy kids. Currently there's 15 but I don't think more than 4 or 5 would be considered great prospects with a chance of either getting in the team or making us a decent amount.

There's kids who are 21/22 who I don't think we or other clubs should be holding onto, bouncing around on loans not impressing and ending up lower down the pyramid than if they'd just been sold at 18/19 as a decent prospect coming out of our academy.

To be honest I don't dislike this rule. We can easily trim down our numbers with CFG, and it should make the club put more thought into securing the correct loans for the right players at the right times, because currently our success rate with loaning kids is bloody awful, so many 6 month loans where the player ends up not getting a single start, or foreign loans where they end up playing for the B team of the small club we sent them to.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

How will this affect the clubs we loan them to? Some, obviously, can’t afford to buy that is why they take the loan.

I was just thinking the same. Actions like this often have unintended consequences and an obvious one in this case would be lower league clubs being denied good players from PL clubs that they couldn't otherwise afford.

 

[twosips]

Our 27 players on loan:

3 Right to Dream academy kids (Agyiri, Agyepong, Tanor). I suspect that program might be over post football leaks anyway.

4 old players bought for CFG groups (Diskerud, Mari, Brattan, Caceres)

6 speculative purchases (Moreno, Harrison, Herrera, Luiz, Arzani, Palmer-Brown)


Then there's the academy kids. Currently there's 15 but I don't think more than 4 or 5 would be considered great prospects with a chance of either getting in the team or making us a decent amount.

There's kids who are 21/22 who I don't think we or other clubs should be holding onto, bouncing around on loans not impressing and ending up lower down the pyramid than if they'd just been sold at 18/19 as a decent prospect coming out of our academy.

To be honest I don't dislike this rule. We can easily trim down our numbers with CFG, and it should make the club put more thought into securing the correct loans for the right players at the right times, because currently our success rate with loaning kids is bloody awful, so many 6 month loans where the player ends up not getting a single start, or foreign loans where they end up playing for the B team of the small club we sent them to.

Only when you break it down like that do you see how bloated it all is. There's a whole lot of nothing there. Our loan system is terribly hit and miss, with many more misses than hits. The fact that lots of these loans end up being done last minute is usually a good sign that it's a bit 'who's gonna take them?', which unsurprisingly ends up with them sitting on the bench of a club who probably got them in to be the 3rd choice LB just incase. In that instance, just let them go ffs. Give them away on a free with a nice buy back or sell on fee.

 

[twosips]

I was just thinking the same. Actions like this often have unintended consequences and an obvious one in this case would be lower league clubs being denied good players from PL clubs that they couldn't otherwise afford.

Well, given that most of our lads end up sitting in the stands on loans, I'm gonna guess most clubs are using these loans opportunities as haphazardly as City are in giving them out.

 

[domalino]

Only when you break it down like that do you see how bloated it all is. There's a whole lot of nothing there. Our loan system is terribly hit and miss, with many more misses than hits. The fact that lots of these loans end up being done last minute is usually a good sign that it's a bit 'who's gonna take them?', which unsurprisingly ends up with them sitting on the bench of a club who probably got them in to be the 3rd choice LB just incase. In that instance, just let them go ffs. Give them away on a free with a nice buy back or sell on fee.

It's also poor PR management from a club supposedly obsessed with PR. Some of these seem really unnecessary as Manchester City loans, and take half a dozen away and we're not sticking out from the pack with 27 loanees and this legislation probably doesn't happen.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Our 27 players on loan:

3 Right to Dream academy kids (Agyiri, Agyepong, Tanor). I suspect that program might be over post football leaks anyway.

4 old players bought for CFG groups (Diskerud, Mari, Brattan, Caceres)

6 speculative purchases (Moreno, Harrison, Herrera, Luiz, Arzani, Palmer-Brown)


Then there's the academy kids. Currently there's 15 but I don't think more than 4 or 5 would be considered great prospects with a chance of either getting in the team or making us a decent amount.

There's kids who are 21/22 who I don't think we or other clubs should be holding onto, bouncing around on loans not impressing and ending up lower down the pyramid than if they'd just been sold at 18/19 as a decent prospect coming out of our academy.

To be honest I don't dislike this rule. We can easily trim down our numbers with CFG, and it should make the club put more thought into securing the correct loans for the right players at the right times, because currently our success rate with loaning kids is bloody awful, so many 6 month loans where the player ends up not getting a single start, or foreign loans where they end up playing for the B team of the small club we sent them to.

Only when you break it down like that do you see how bloated it all is. There's a whole lot of nothing there. Our loan system is terribly hit and miss, with many more misses than hits. The fact that lots of these loans end up being done last minute is usually a good sign that it's a bit 'who's gonna take them?', which unsurprisingly ends up with them sitting on the bench of a club who probably got them in to be the 3rd choice LB just incase. In that instance, just let them go ffs. Give them away on a free with a nice buy back or sell on fee.

I'm not overly bothered with the restriction to 8. It just highlights how flawed the system is. We effectively don't trust our EDS team to get players ready for the first team preferring them to play on loan. It says a lot about the quality of football in the PL2 and Youth CL. That and the stockpiling of talent and hoping one or two come good, can't be good for the culture of the youth set up.

Restricting loans to 8 will shake things up and it needs it.

 

[domalino]

I was just thinking the same. Actions like this often have unintended consequences and an obvious one in this case would be lower league clubs being denied good players from PL clubs that they couldn't otherwise afford.

I expect the opposite will be true.

If we have to be more selective then only the best prospects will be kept at the club beyond 19/20 years old, and the rest will be sold. The clubs who pick those players up will be the league 1 and championship teams who can look at a 20 year old City or Chelsea academy graduate and treat them as a little project player. Low wages, good footballing education, probably some England age group caps, available for a few hundred thousand, it's a nice investment.

I also think it will be better for the kids because we get a lot of kids who get picked up for a loan by a championship or top League 1 club straight out of the academy but then when they don't do well immediately (often because of the fact they're a loanee), the next season they have to drop down, even when they might be good enough to play higher up if given a proper chance, like they would if the club bought them.

 

[domalino]

I'm not overly bothered with the restriction to 8. It just highlights how flawed the system is. We effectively don't trust our EDS team to get players ready for the first team preferring them to play on loan. It says a lot about the quality of football in the PL2 and Youth CL. That and the stockpiling of talent and hoping one or two come good, can't be good for the culture of the youth set up.

Restricting loans to 8 will shake things up and it needs it.

I guess it might make the u23 league a little bit stronger too, if fewer of the good players around that age are loaned out.

 

[schfc6]

If I`m being honest to myself this is a good move,assuming that its likely to be implemated via FIFA.
Lets be honest, because we can afford it,doesn`t mean that its the right way to buy the best for the sake of it.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way is, we, Chelsea and the more progressive thinking clubs abroad offer far superior facilities and coaching to our kids. If you don't make it with City or Chelsea you'll make it else where after a decent move. Look at Lyon on Tuesday, Denayer & Traore, two players below what we or Chelsea deemed good enough, but after a few loan moves and experience they have the move they deserved and are now set for life.

I keep hearing Foden would be better off elsewhere, if he wasn't at City he'd be playing every week. Well, if he wasn't at City, he would be a totally different player.

 

[oakiecokie]

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way is, we, Chelsea and the more progressive thinking clubs abroad offer far superior facilities and coaching to our kids. If you don't make it with City or Chelsea you'll make it else where after a decent move. Look at Lyon on Tuesday, Denayer & Traore, two players below what we or Chelsea deemed good enough, but after a few loan moves and experience they have the move they deserved and are now set for life.

I keep hearing Foden would be better off elsewhere, if he wasn't at City he'd be playing every week. Well, if he wasn't at City, he would be a totally different player.

My main criticism of "stock-piling" young talent lies with the lack of numbers actually coming through our system and eventually making it to the first team.
We do have some very talented youngsters,who feel they may be stifled by constant loans or lack of opportunities,hence my slight fear.
However,when look at how much we have "cashed in" from the transfers (£70+ M was it or more) then yes it works.
We musn`t lose sight that its not an entire block on loanees going out ... just the numbers and I must be honest and say that in the past I have been very critical of Chelsea,so I must therefore say the same about City.
I read on this thread from someone that its only our name and Chelsea thats being banded about via the media,when in essence it will affect every club ... its just that we are one of the big boys now,hence why our name always crops up first from the media.
Ref Foden,hell NO,he shouldn`t be going anywhere but showing he`s good enough for a first team regular place.Pep will watch over him,of that we know and I trust him to develop Foden even more.