Harry Winks

[Bedfordspurs]

Fabregas spent a significant amount of time in Arsenal's youth/first team before he was 21 hence he counts as homegrown. Dier only spent 6 months developing with an English registered club.

One clearly owes more to his development to England than the other and he isn't named Eric Dier.

I personally though would require either 4 years or lower the limit to 19 or 20 lessening the chance of a super talent player (Fabregas) being bought in and claimed as a youth product.

Fàbregas made his arsenal debut in his first year there and started playing regularly in his second season
That’s development but not in the manner the rule was written for
Christiensen joined Chelsea at 15 and they kept him until he was homegrown before sending him on loan. That’s farming of players imo

 

[elltrev]

Fàbregas made his arsenal debut in his frost year there and started playing regularly in his second season
That’s development but not in the manner the rule was written for
Christiensen joined Chelsea at 15 and they kept him until he was homegrown before sending him on loan. That’s farming of players imo

Good point about Christensen. I haven't read anything about time out on loan not counting towards the required three years? Certainly seems like it shouldn't count. Edit: Never mind, I see that they didn't loan him out until he already counted as homegrown.

-----

I think the questions about Dier, Fabregas etc also depend on what the purpose of the homegrown rule is. If it's just to try and benefit the national team, then the Dier/Fabregas situation is stupid. And in fact, I can't really think of what the intended benefit is of having more association-developed players if it's not just about benefitting the national team? I.e. to keep using the same example, what does the Premier League think is better or fairer about Fabregas being prioritised over Dier?

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Good point about Christensen. I haven't read anything about time out on loan not counting towards the required three years? Certainly seems like it shouldn't count. Edit: Never mind, I see that they didn't loan him out until he already counted as homegrown.

-----

I think the questions about Dier, Fabregas etc also depend on what the purpose of the homegrown rule is. If it's just to try and benefit the national team, then the Dier/Fabregas situation is stupid. And in fact, I can't really think of what the intended benefit is of having more association-developed players if it's not just about benefitting the national team? I.e. to keep using the same example, what does the Premier League think is better or fairer about Fabregas being prioritised over Dier?

The idea behind it is for teams to develop players essentially
I’m not saying we developed Dier at all... but for him to count as a foreign player is as ludicrous as a Spanish player counting as “English”
Simply put you shouldn’t be able to recruit players from outside your league post 16 years old and then make them home grown IMO
The Ben Davies scantily is even worse and again he is less homegrown than players like Fàbregas and Christiensen... I mean really!!!

 

[elltrev]

The idea behind it is for teams to develop players essentially
I’m not saying we developed Dier at all... but for him to count as a foreign player is as ludicrous as a Spanish player counting as “English”
Simply put you shouldn’t be able to recruit players from outside your league post 16 years old and then make them home grown IMO
The Ben Davies scantily is even worse and again he is less homegrown than players like Fàbregas and Christiensen... I mean really!!!

Just on the bolded sentence:

But in the PL there are no rules about having players being developed by your own team - just by another English team. Why does the Premier League care if teams buy players (of any nationality) who've been developed by an English club as opposed to a foreign club? When you start to examine the homegrown policy in any sort of detail, it just seems a bit strange to me.

On the rest of your post:

I agree it seems stupid - indeed that's why I'm trying to understand what the actual purpose / intended benefit of the policy is.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Fàbregas made his arsenal debut in his first year there and started playing regularly in his second season
That’s development but not in the manner the rule was written for
Christiensen joined Chelsea at 15 and they kept him until he was homegrown before sending him on loan. That’s farming of players imo

Didn't we do the same with Parrott?

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Didn't we do the same with Parrott?

Well he was 16 and yes
It’s why we didn’t send him on loan in January as we needed to keep him here to pass the test
That’s not development, its arguably a hindrance

 

[spurspinter1]

The idea behind it is for teams to develop players essentially
I’m not saying we developed Dier at all... but for him to count as a foreign player is as ludicrous as a Spanish player counting as “English”
Simply put you shouldn’t be able to recruit players from outside your league post 16 years old and then make them home grown IMO
The Ben Davies scantily is even worse and again he is less homegrown than players like Fàbregas and Christiensen... I mean really!!!

I think it's not getting caught up on the foreign aspect though, Dele is English but didn't spent 3 years at our club when he was 16 - 19 so isn't HG. Christiansen is Danish but spent enough time at Chelsea in their system to be considered HG. I'm not sure how you'd see that as farming players but I might be missing something, in that example, Chelsea have done the right thing as I see it? I don't see it as breaking any rules, they've just developed a player at the end of the day no?

Davies situation is a joke though but I guess it comes from the odd relationship with England and Wales and the system not being designed for that. Is there another "domestic" league out there that has more than one country's clubs participating?

Unless I'm mistaken the homegrown aspect is entirely dependant where the formative years are spent and have nada to do with nationality.

 

[MKSpur]

I think the plan for the homegrown rule was for it to be 3 years before 18 rather than 21, as its supposed to be more difficult to transfer players under 16.

I think it’s very difficult to have a nationality based rule, if you think about the legality of trying to enforce this in any other business.
In the case if Fibreglass, would he have not been deemed a homegrown player for Barca?

I’d prefer to see stricter rules around youth transfers and a limit to the amount of loans. Davies is an unfortunate anomaly due to two football associations having teams in the same league - is there any other league that has this issue as if not I think there should be some dispensation.
Dier is also an unfortunate anomaly due to the rule not being passport or international allegiance driven. sexy.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I think it's not getting caught up on the foreign aspect though, Dele is English but didn't spent 3 years at our club when he was 16 - 19 so isn't HG. Christiansen is Danish but spent enough time at Chelsea in their system to be considered HG. I'm not sure how you'd see that as farming players but I might be missing something, in that example, Chelsea have done the right thing as I see it? I don't see it as breaking any rules, they've just developed a player at the end of the day no?

Davies situation is a joke though but I guess it comes from the odd relationship with England and Wales and the system not being designed for that. Is there another "domestic" league out there that has more than one country's clubs participating?

Unless I'm mistaken the homegrown aspect is entirely dependant where the formative years are spent and have nada to do with nationality.

It’s not breaking the rules but recruiting a 15 year old and then shipping him off as soon as he ticks the home grown boxes is imo farming of youth players
It’s their model TBF
To me the whole thing is a joke as it encourages teams to do what we did with Parrott and that’s not developing players with the players best interests, it’s the clubs best interests that’s which then doesn’t necessarily help development of said player

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I think the plan for the homegrown rule was for it to be 3 years before 18 rather than 21, as its supposed to be more difficult to transfer players under 16.

I think it’s very difficult to have a nationality based rule, if you think about the legality of trying to enforce this in any other business.
In the case if Fibreglass, would he have not been deemed a homegrown player for Barca?

I’d prefer to see stricter rules around youth transfers and a limit to the amount of loans. Davies is an unfortunate anomaly due to two football associations having teams in the same league - is there any other league that has this issue as if not I think there should be some dispensation.
Dier is also an unfortunate anomaly due to the rule not being passport or international allegiance driven. sexy.

davies is an anomaly but shows the issue with the rules. I’m not aware of another example but I guess there could be some Clubs from minnow countries like Luxembourg or San Marino playing in Italy or another country I guess.
I don’t have an issue with Dier being classed as overseas developed as that’s factually right. My issue is with players “poached” at 16 and then becoming homegrown when IMO their not. To have foreign players as homegrown seems farcical. To have teams able to field a side made up completely of foreign players yet for some of them to be classed as home grown is just daft
It’s as bad as the cricket and rugby rules where you can change nationalities

 

[spurspinter1]

davies is an anomaly but shows the issue with the rules. I’m not aware of another example but I guess there could be some Clubs from minnow countries like Luxembourg or San Marino playing in Italy or another country I guess.
I don’t have an issue with Dier being classed as overseas developed as that’s factually right. My issue is with players “poached” at 16 and then becoming homegrown when IMO their not. To have foreign players as homegrown seems farcical. To have teams able to field a side made up completely of foreign players yet for some of them to be classed as home grown is just daft
It’s as bad as the cricket and rugby rules where you can change nationalities

I literally just said in my other post to you, homegrown has nothing to do with nationally!!!!!!! Like, really, try to separate the concepts as they have nothing to do with each other. A player doesn't have a certain skillset simply because they are from somewhere, coaching and development is king and the age of becoming HG is a critical one so HG status is granted by where they spent that time. Don't know what else I can say on it, or really what the issue even is tbh.

Anyways, Winks, top top lad

 

[braineclipse]

davies is an anomaly but shows the issue with the rules. I’m not aware of another example but I guess there could be some Clubs from minnow countries like Luxembourg or San Marino playing in Italy or another country I guess.
I don’t have an issue with Dier being classed as overseas developed as that’s factually right. My issue is with players “poached” at 16 and then becoming homegrown when IMO their not. To have foreign players as homegrown seems farcical. To have teams able to field a side made up completely of foreign players yet for some of them to be classed as home grown is just daft
It’s as bad as the cricket and rugby rules where you can change nationalities

I don't think having foreign players as home grown is farcical in itself. Not sure you meant that as written or if it was in relation to poaching players at 16 though.

There are cases that might make the rule look silly or not strict enough. I think the overall goal of the rule is to encourage youth development, I think it has a positive effect in that regard even if not perfect.

 

[milo]

Well he was 16 and yes
It’s why we didn’t send him on loan in January as we needed to keep him here to pass the test
That’s not development, its arguably a hindrance

I don't think that the rules says that. We hold his registration and could have loaned him to a club in England in January without it impacting on his homegrown/developed status.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I literally just said in my other post to you, homegrown has nothing to do with nationally!!!!!!! Like, really, try to separate the concepts as they have nothing to do with each other. A player doesn't have a certain skillset simply because they are from somewhere, coaching and development is king and the age of becoming HG is a critical one so HG status is granted by where they spent that time. Don't know what else I can say on it, or really what the issue even is tbh.

Anyways, Winks, top top lad

Yeah I do I understand the rules but the principle of home grown is to develop players within the country isn’t it, so nationality has a massive bearing on it as in theory the players would be from that country
And I’ve of the view that the biggest core coaching phase is before their 16 not after their 16. All the rule does is encourage clubs to offer more money to poorer clubs and countries to nick their talent. That’s not the idea behind it

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I don't think that the rules says that. We hold his registration and could have loaned him to a club in England in January without it impacting on his homegrown/developed status.

Nope he has to be with us
That was made clear at the time otherwise we wouldn’t have “developed him”

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/punditarena.com/football/robredmond/troy-parrott-loan/?amp

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I don't think having foreign players as home grown is farcical in itself. Not sure you meant that as written or if it was in relation to poaching players at 16 though.

There are cases that might make the rule look silly or not strict enough. I think the overall goal of the rule is to encourage youth development, I think it has a positive effect in that regard even if not perfect.

I’m all for a rule that encourages clubs to develop players
That can only be a good thing
I don’t like a rule that means clubs can buy “kids” and then park them until their old enough to ship off to another pain somewhere else
It’s what Chelsea do all the time
We have just done it with Parrott

 

[spurspinter1]

Yeah I do I understand the rules but the principle of home grown is to develop players within the country isn’t it, so nationality has a massive bearing on it as in theory the players would be from that country
And I’ve of the view that the biggest core coaching phase is before their 16 not after their 16. All the rule does is encourage clubs to offer more money to poorer clubs and countries to nick their talent. That’s not the idea behind it

If you understand the rules I'm not sure what makes it farcical, there's a slight oxymoron if you've misunderstood the rules, that's it. I hadn't linked the objective HG players to help national teams so I haven't had a problem with it. Perhaps I haven't been looking at it broadly enough but it's not like we can change it.. *

Fair play on the core coaching phase, I've no idea really and think that players develop at the different times and alongside culture / life so much can affect or change a players path but it's maybe a whole different discussion...

*Not trying to have a go or sound arsy here honest guv!!!

 

[elltrev]

I don't think having foreign players as home grown is farcical in itself. Not sure you meant that as written or if it was in relation to poaching players at 16 though.

There are cases that might make the rule look silly or not strict enough. I think the overall goal of the rule is to encourage youth development, I think it has a positive effect in that regard even if not perfect.

But encouraging youth development to what end, if it's not about the national team? That's what I'm trying to understand.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

If you understand the rules I'm not sure what makes it farcical, there's a slight oxymoron if you've misunderstood the rules, that's it. I hadn't linked the objective HG players to help national teams so I haven't had a problem with it. Perhaps I haven't been looking at it broadly enough but it's not like we can change it.. *

Fair play on the core coaching phase, I've no idea really and think that players develop at the different times and alongside culture / life so much can affect or change a players path but it's maybe a whole different discussion...

*Not trying to have a go or sound arsy here honest guv!!!

Don’t worry it’s cool
The logic as i understood it was too stop clubs poaching the best players form around the globe and therefore ignore their own countries need (at a domestic level)
But rich clubs can afford to get around it and exploit it still which is my issue with it
There’s a reason clubs like Chelsea sign kid’s and then loan them out and it’s detrimental in some cases to the players and to players at the club their loaned too who don’t get games for example

 

[elltrev]

I literally just said in my other post to you, homegrown has nothing to do with nationally!!!!!!! Like, really, try to separate the concepts as they have nothing to do with each other. A player doesn't have a certain skillset simply because they are from somewhere, coaching and development is king and the age of becoming HG is a critical one so HG status is granted by where they spent that time. Don't know what else I can say on it, or really what the issue even is tbh.

Anyways, Winks, top top lad

Do you have a view on why the focus is on being home grown rather than being of English nationality? What's the benefit (to whom) of encouraging PL teams to buy players (of any nationality) that have been developed in England rather than abroad?