Everton 'B' Team

[njligernj]

What makes international football more important than all else?

No idea ... I'm not too fussed about it myself. I hate countries.

Trouble is, if you rip out the heart of the 72 other teams In the pyramid, then there will be no third tier anyway so it becomes a self perpetuating issue. The only thing that will change is maybe 70/75% of the supporting public have nothing left to support.

I seriously doubt 75% of people who identify as football fans support a lower league side. Nobody is saying we should purposefully destroy lower league football -- it's a risk some people have identified of entering B teams into those leagues. It's not guaranteed to destroy the lower leagues. It's a discussion of risk ... not a discussion about purposefully destroying that system.

 

[red1]

Nothing is going to work to improve England because the problem England have is called nostalgia. It doesn't matter how good the England youngsters are, Gerrard will still be captain ten years down the line. They will hold on to the old faces for as long as possible thus stunting the growth of the youngsters. And then they'll wonder 5 years down the line why the youngsters haven't improved. Idiots are calling the shots.

 

[kingduncan]

The "B Team system" would probably be great for the premier league clubs and gash for the rest of the league. I'm out.

 

[JordanianEmbassy]

'Say no to B teams' petition on change.org:

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/football-association-say-no-to-b-teams

 

[sharkey1001]

I can just see it now.
Liverpool B getting 10-20,000 fans at their games, making them "the best fans in the world". Scarves in the sunshine, YNWA before kick off.... it would be unbearable. "Oslo LFC B Reds" flags, etc
THIS IS ENOUGH FOR ME TO SAY NO.

Never mind ruining the FA Cup, League Cup and lower league football. Does the FA want everyone in the country to support a Premier League team? Worst idea EVER

 

[Michael Tsui]

The real fix is multifold, this is just ignoring the real problems (and let's be fair, no fix will make England a perennial powerhouse - they never have been):

1. Improve grassroots coaching and infrastructure - give kids a place to go play footie after school
2. Implement Absolute Squad limits as well as limits on number of kids in the Academy - I.E. Loans count against your limit. Totally off the top of my head (24 senior squad, 4 reserve places, 4 for loans on top. Then some academy limits).
3. For above you would only be able to swap reserve places during transfer windows or for injury (think of reserve as injured reserve + players that have almost broke through).
4. Convince the youth to go on loan to foreign leagues - maybe even go play there if they're not getting a game!
5. Eliminate home-grown rules

I think 1 and 2 are the most vital. The biggest problem in England is that teams like Chelsea and City buy any player that looks like they may have a good future and they end up sitting on the bench and stalling their development. This is especially true of highly rated English talent because of the home grown rules.

So City see a kid like Barkley and think - he could be something and he's English! So they buy him to comply with the home grown rules. Then, he's not quite good enough to get into the first team (Barkley is, bear with me), so he sits on the bench from years 20-23. Then he ends up getting sold to Villa after City see another gem. Barkley and the English national team are much better served if he stays at Everton. Everton would rather not sell him...but if a silly big comes in, it's hard to resist. Eliminate the home grown rules and City no longer have any desire to spend silly money until Barkley is 100% ready for their first team.

City have the money, and squad size is no limit to them. So home grown rules tie in with no squad limits to absolutely ruin high-potential kids between the ages of 19-22. If we limit squads, and remove their impetus for wanting English players, then Barkley never gets sold and develops naturally. Think of how many young English players that would have helped?

I can't see how far from reality you are standing at.

Lets see, you are a Sheikh. You want to build a prem club, and you poured a lot of money into youth infrastructure, and buy youngsters around.
Suddenly the FA imposed some restrictions, and tell you you can only have 25 on senior contract. What would you do?

Simple. Buy an Irish, Belgian, or Portuguese club, send the extra players (on a "permanent" transfer of course) out there, and let them play there.
You may say its BS, but that's what the Udinese-Granada-Watford conglomerate are doing.
If I'm really pushing things, I would even make sure the players are registered at an overseas club, only to loan them to different fronts according to ability. Effectively, 3rd person ownership rules are evaded.

The current suggestion, while not ideal, does have an effect of entrusting the larger clubs to hold on the best talents, and provide a more competitive platform for them to play. Its trying to implement a cantera, at the expense of lower league clubs, but at least the ones who can invest on youth got youth.

(and no, the clubs are not paying for general youth football. If you let them tie contracts up at their academy at 9, though...)

 

[Garrick]

Sure it might help Premier League teams compete better in Europe, but at the cost of ruining something amazing and special about English football... The great support that lower league teams get.

Not worth it.

I love the fact that League 1 gets more fans through the gates than Sweden's top flight. That's true love of the beautiful game to me.

 

[Brennan]

The first group of Lads coming through at the start get experience at Conference level. After maybe 6 years and the possiblity of a number of promotions, then they or their follow-ons get chance of Championship. How it is now, they can get premiership or Championship exp. when they need it, straight away.

The problem with of youngster under-development is that the larger clubs buy the players early, hold on to them and have little in the way of encouragement to bring them through.

If, for example, Loans from Premeirship clubs were not allowed after the age of 21, and the squads were limited to size (as they are) then I believe it would force players to potentially further their careers elsewhere. Also, a wage cap for U21's, where each player is on a standard 'apprenticeship' wage. This would mean that the decision on their footballing future is made purely on prospect and playing time.

If this model was so successful in developing players in Spain, why have we got Deulofeu?

That's some weird logic.

 

[Jacko93]

That's some weird logic.

If this is the only bit you find weird, I'll consider it a victory.

 

[Ihaters]

Another option may be to run two separate sets of leagues... The first team one that we all know at current, and another set of 3rd division to premier league set of reserve leagues.

You all start in your respective leagues, and each club's reserves can be promoted/relegated through the divisions, so your team could be top of the premier league but 2nd division for the reserves/youngsters... Or vice versa, where you could have a decent youth/reserve setup but be in the second div.

Put decent rewards in place, pehaps a couple of mil for winning the reserve premier league, and for the lower divison teams it would certainly be worth trying to bring through the youngsters, and the reserves will have a strong incentive to play well. Could maybe even mull over a reserve European competition with UEFA.

Beats killing off local teams with the B team idea.

 

[Ihaters]

I understand it's proper football fan group-think to value the grass-roots and embrace the idea unquestioningly that everything they did a hundred plus years ago was 100% correct and we should never countenance the notion of changing anything ever.

I'm not saying this is the case, just asking a hypothetical: If the lower league system doesn't do as good a job at developing talent as a B team system then why are we so keen to protect it above all else? Is it right to force players into a set-up which stifles their development just because of some romantic notion of the way things should be done?

The answer might well be that the lower leagues as it currently exists is the best way to go. I'm 100% open to that. However the notion that nobody should dare suggest any alternatives and if they do they are trying to "destroy the heart of football" or whatever is not a productive way to conduct a conversation about an issue.

Because there is more to football than just the youth system.
Anything that destroys a local club is a terrible thing.

Its fine saying what your saying from the Ivory Tower of being a premier league club supporter, but if we were supporters of a lesser sized club, this would be a very dark cloud on the horizon.

We suck enough money out of the leagues below us and away from the clubs that need it, without using our reserves to replace those that are not destroyed by the Premier Leagues financial steam roller.