Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,336 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/4233353.stm

Most worrying part:

"Of the 32 sides in last season's Champions League, five clubs would have not had enough homegrown players.

They are: Arsenal, Chelsea, Celtic, Rangers and Ajax."


We must have 4 homegrown by 2006. But i think we will be ok on that matter because:

"Uefa defines a club-trained player as one who has been registered for a minimum of three seasons with the club between the age of 15 and 21."

By 2006, senderos, Fabregas, clichy, lupoli, djorou will all qualify for this.

But by 2008 UEFA want 8 homegrown players, of which 4 Must be english!!

I don't know how we are going to manage that one. And i think this is a completely stupid rule which to me makes no sense what so ever.

I think Chelsea will suffer the most from this
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,336 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Why is it a good rule? Why do we HAVE to have english players in our side?? 95% of the England team are either not good enough for Arsenal or are unavailable. What is the point of this rule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,663 Posts
The point of this rule is to give a chance to young english players, because the ones that are good enough keep failing because they are not given a chance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,336 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
No, if they are good enough they will get their chance.

You think wenger dosen't play young english players like bentley and pennant because they are english?? It is because they are simply not good enough
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,902 Posts
SM ONLINE said:
The point of this rule is to give a chance to young english players, because the ones that are good enough keep failing because they are not given a chance.
Or because they just aren't good enough. We shouldn't have to worry about whether or not England can add another squad player, we should look out for who's our number one: Arsenal FC.

If a 20-year-old French striker is better and cheaper than a 20-year-old English striker, why should we be restricted to buying him because it helps out England? We shouldn't be. England don't matter to us. England's future isn't more important than Arsenal's.

Dumb rule IMO.

But by 2008 UEFA want 8 homegrown players, of which 4 Must be english!!
Not hard. Cole, Taylor, Hoyte, Smith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Personally I think it's a good idea. Only it should be implemented by year 2008 onwards. Because right now I think very few teams will have enough home-grown players. And also, the requirements should have stopped at 4 home-grown players.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,336 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
khimik said:
Or because they just aren't good enough. We shouldn't have to worry about whether or not England can add another squad player, we should look out for who's our number one: Arsenal FC.

If a 20-year-old French striker is better and cheaper than a 20-year-old English striker, why should we be restricted to buying him because it helps out England? We shouldn't be. England don't matter to us. England's future isn't more important than Arsenal's.

Dumb rule IMO.



Not hard. Cole, Taylor, Hoyte, Smith.
yes but will all 4, if any still be here in 2008?

i very much doubt taylor and smith will and hoyte probably wont either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,902 Posts
Petros said:
yes but will all 4, if any still be here in 2008?

i very much doubt taylor and smith will and hoyte probably wont either.
I know. We're effectively reducing our squad to 22 players just so we can accomodate this really stupid ruling. Chelsea will be more f**ked than we will be, but still, this rule is asinine.

It shouldn't matter where you come from if you're good enough and clubs shouldn't be disallowed from buying them :frustrat:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,663 Posts
khimik said:
Or because they just aren't good enough. We shouldn't have to worry about whether or not England can add another squad player, we should look out for who's our number one: Arsenal FC.

If a 20-year-old French striker is better and cheaper than a 20-year-old English striker, why should we be restricted to buying him because it helps out England? We shouldn't be. England don't matter to us. England's future isn't more important than Arsenal's.
It matters to English fans
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,663 Posts
Your post says you shouldn't have to worry about England adding another player to the squad and that England doesn't matter to you, why? If all the other clubs have to do it aswell why should it bother you so much. Look at Brazil the best nation in the world, they have a limit on how many forgeigners they can have in their teams thats why they produce the best players in the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,902 Posts
SM ONLINE said:
Your post says you shouldn't have to worry about England adding another player to the squad and that England doesn't matter to you, why?
a) because it's not our job to find players for England, it's our job to find players for Arsenal, and if a player from France is better than an English player (not to mention will be incredibly cheaper) then we shouldn't be restricted from buying the French player. We should be allowed to buy who's good for Arsenal, not England.

b) I don't care for international football and never have. Not to mention England suck and play horrible football. Brazil and Holland are the only two countries worth watching.

If all the other clubs have to do it aswell why should it bother you so much.
I don't care what they do, I care what Arsenal do. If Arsenal aren't allowed to buy a top class French player and instead have to buy an average and expensive English player because of some stupid UEFA ruling then I should feel bothered.

Look at Brazil the best nation in the world, they have a limit on how many forgeigners they can have in their teams thats why they produce the best players in the world.
So does Spain, and they're crap in international football.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,336 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
SM ONLINE said:
Your post says you shouldn't have to worry about England adding another player to the squad and that England doesn't matter to you, why? If all the other clubs have to do it aswell why should it bother you so much. Look at Brazil the best nation in the world, they have a limit on how many forgeigners they can have in their teams thats why they produce the best players in the world.
if they are good enough they will make it. regardless of nationality
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,902 Posts
Petros said:
By 2006, senderos, Fabregas, clichy, lupoli, djorou will all qualify for this.
Vieira was 19, Henry was 21, Toure was 20, Reyes 20, Eboue 21, RVP 20, Flamini was 20 and Freddie was 20 when we signed all of those players. I'm sure we can wing it so four of those players fall under this part of the regulations. It's just the four English players we'll struggle with.

Once again, stupid rule.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,336 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
no they dont khimik. they have to of been at the club for 3 years between the ages of 15-21
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,902 Posts
They will have a problem when it comes to four players being from their academy. They've got Terry and ... nobody; they don't really have an academy to begin with.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top