Eight Home Grown Players Required Next Season

[Huey]

'Home Grown' Rule For 2010 – News Archive – News – evertonfc.com – The Official Website of Everton Football Club

Think it will make much of a difference for any clubs?

The Premier League explained that: "A home grown player means a player who, irrespective of his nationality or age, has been registered with any club affiliated to the Football Association or the Football Association of Wales for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or 36 months prior to his 21st birthday (or the end of the Season during which he turns 21)."

 

[GrandOldTeam]

We wont have a problem.

Liverpool look hardest hit;

According to a recent poll from the Professional Football Players' Observatory, English clubs employ the highest proportion of expatriate players, with 59.2% coming from abroad.
Liverpool have the highest percentage in Europe of expatriate players within their squad, measuring 90%.

 

[Basil Fawlty]

It's in a 25 man squad though??? who has a 25 man squad? We don't even have that many pro's on our books.

From the start of the 2010/11 season, clubs must nominate a 25 man squad with no less than eight 'home grown' players.

We easily have 8 English trained lads though but most will be academy players

 

[BigBurger]

Expect the recreation of the G-14 on this one in my opinion.

 

[kenada_blue]

Wont be hard really. If you've got a great depth of quality, 17 players is well enough to cover a season. The 8 can just be academy youth bumped up to 1st team squads and still never seeing a kick of the ball or making the bench.

 

[Neiler]

Dont mind these rules: but Uefa's exec committee today annonced that clubs will only be allowed to sign players out of there revenue form the 2011/2012 season.

Oh well the transfer rumours were nice while they lasted.

Though this also means theat the likes of Chelsea and City etc cant be given sponds by their owneres.


BBC SPORT | Football | Europe | Uefa approves new spending plans

 

[chicoazul]

Do we have to grow them?

Sack that organic muck and get some chemicals on the go, I want eight massive grocks.

 

[njligernj]

Dont mind these rules: but Uefa's exec committee today annonced that clubs will only be allowed to sign players out of there revenue form the 2011/2012 season.

Oh well the transfer rumours were nice while they lasted.

Though this also means theat the likes of Chelsea and City etc cant be given sponds by their owneres.

BBC SPORT | Football | Europe | Uefa approves new spending plans

That article is utterly useless (not blaming you Neiler). It just says "revenue." So, going by Forbes latest list (Forbes' list of the most valuable football clubs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), we'd have 151 million dollars (it's in USD) for transfers? Man City would have 164 million dollars -- which granted would be a decrease for them but still hardly peanuts. The difference is we don't have 151 million dollars to spend -- so our budget is unchanged. City meanwhile will have less but 80-90 million pounds per summer is hardly going to slow them down that much.

If it's by profit then our budget (and the budget of most clubs) is zero ... which doesn't make much sense.

So basically, either the article doesn't explain it well, or it's a giant waste of time which won't make the slightest bit of difference.

Thoughts?

Oh and speaking of giant wastes of time that won't make any difference: the fewest home grown players any Prem team has right now? 8. So this other rule doesn't change a thing for a single club (even the RS or Chelsea).

 

[TheDevils2001]

Wont be hard really. If you've got a great depth of quality, 17 players is well enough to cover a season. The 8 can just be academy youth bumped up to 1st team squads and still never seeing a kick of the ball or making the bench.

Not true, one of them would make the bench as there are 7 place on the sub bench, which mean a team normally have to name 18 players!

Don't forget there could be injuries throughout the season, meaning couple of them could make the bench sometime along the season.

 

[Neiler]

That article is utterly useless (not blaming you Neiler). It just says "revenue." So, going by Forbes latest list (Forbes' list of the most valuable football clubs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), we'd have 151 million dollars (it's in USD) for transfers? Man City would have 164 million dollars -- which granted would be a decrease for them but still hardly peanuts. The difference is we don't have 151 million dollars to spend -- so our budget is unchanged. City meanwhile will have less but 80-90 million pounds per summer is hardly going to slow them down that much.

If it's by profit then our budget (and the budget of most clubs) is zero ... which doesn't make much sense.

So basically, either the article doesn't explain it well, or it's a giant waste of time which won't make the slightest bit of difference.

Thoughts?

Oh and speaking of giant wastes of time that won't make any difference: the fewest home grown players any Prem team has right now? 8. So this other rule doesn't change a thing for a single club (even the RS or Chelsea).

Well revenue is bascialy reacurring, dependable income - like T.V. money, placement money and season tickets. They are trying to ban billionaires, dropping 200 mil in a season - basicly owners cant make cash gifts/loans to their clubs. Or in our case by my reading of this we cant borrow to buy - any transfer dealing would come out of our turnover.

 

[kenada_blue]

Not true, one of them would make the bench as there are 7 place on the sub bench, which mean a team normally have to name 18 players!

Don't forget there could be injuries throughout the season, meaning couple of them could make the bench sometime along the season.

Okay, but he'd just be making numbers on the bench, wouldn't get played. And all the top teams don't use more than 17 1st team players throughout the season so it won't make much of a difference IMO

 

[Scottoffee]

I think Cahill may even qualify, he signed for Millwall at 18 - not entirely sure if it'll count.

If not Rodwell, Jagielka, Osman, Neville, Hibbert, Baines, Gosling and Vaughan (plus Nash?) will be in the squad without having to revert to completely inexperienced kids - although Baxter & Wallace will probably make the nominated 25 anyways.

Unfortunately, this is going to see the price of buying British rocket even higher.

 

[jonuk]

I dont think that anyone wil have to make any changes to their squads really - all clubs are taking foreign players early and UEFAs definition of 'home grown' is so wishy washy.

 

[SevertonT]

glad we have the likes of ossy and hibbo in the side.

but it wont have much effect on the top4 sides.. they can just stick a few young lads in to the squad and just never put them on the bench simple really

 

[Neiler]

So the likes of Mustafi would be considered home grown.

It really is a shift in thinking, you could have Anichebe as a homegrown player even though he plays for Nigeria.

I wonder will anyone bring a case to the EU for restriction of trade, seems most of the clubs signed up to it. Maybe a foregin spuad filler who is forced out of a club for a young lad.