Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Greg Dyke's Big Plans
Comments
-
Whilst there is plainly an acknowledged problem with the shrinking pool of English players in the Premiership, the Commission's report is totally risible.
It lacks any real intellectual rigour and objectivity, instead proceeding largely by way of assertion rather than reasoned argument, whilst conveniently ignoring or glossing over any matters or counter-arguments which don't fit with the Commission's "bold proposals." Their general approach to "evidence" (as they categorise it), is to come up with a series of highly selective, unattributable quotes to buttress their position. The version I read online did not have an appendix with a list of those who have contributed, although we know, of course, that supporter groups (i.e. the paying customers) were not asked for their views. In a sense, that tells you all you need to know.
Note the carefully crafted but insidious way in which the report articulates the principal advantage of Strategic Loan Partnerships over the current loan system, namely, "that the lending club would be able to guide the loaned player’s experience more closely while on loan". Quite so - and at the cost of the 'partner club's' independence - although Dyke is convinced that the lower leagues can, and will, be bought off. I suppose one benefit for, say, Chelsea is that they could have 16 players out on loan at two lower league Strategic Partnership clubs and perhaps reduce the 23 or so currently out with others, notably, Vitesse Arnheim in Holland - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26847853
Despicable toadying to the Premier League, the formation of which was designed to help the England team but has, of course, had the opposite effect.9 -
Great post, @Blucher0
-
That petition is now over 28,000.0
-
Agreed. @Blucher is spot on. I posted the following on another thread.PragueAddick said:Great post, @Blucher
"The B Team plan and the "Strategic Loan Partnership" proposal (which would probably be a much bigger threat to the integrity of the Football League) are both designed to give Premier League Clubs, and the top six in particular, much greater control over the development of an even larger pool of young players.
It's a free option for the big Clubs. Of course they are in favour. However, there is no reason to believe that they'll do a better job of providing the raw material for a competitive England side than they have done over the last twenty years."
The report does present some interesting data, but there is no real analysis. A key assertion is that elite players don't develop between the ages of 18-21 because they don't play enough. There is no real evidence for that statement. It could equally be that compared to young players in Spain and Germany, for example, they are already less well equipped to progress when they reach this critical stage of their career, but this isn't considered. Instead, getting this cohort more playing time is stated as being one of the four critical impediments to developing a more competitive international side.
It is then asserted that the loan system doesn't work because the lending Clubs lose control of the coaching of players, how often they play and in which position, their diet and so on. The arrogance of that conclusion is mind blowing. The Premier League Clubs must be a significant part of the problem, yet the solution appears to be to give them more power and control than ever.
I think that Dyke has misjudged the likely reaction of the majority of genuine football fans and the challenge that their resistance is likely to create. Let's hope that the majority view prevails, if only because it ought to stiffen the resolve of Football League Chairmen.
PS Has anybody looked at attendances in the Football League Championship and Divisions 1 and 2 and compared them with crowds at corresponding levels of the pyramid in other European Leagues? There is no mention of this in the commission's report. For a very good reason. Football League Club owners take note.0 -
@Mundell Fleming
Another excellent post.
re your last point, of course you know the answer. Our network partners in Spain, Alcorcon, have a capacity of 7,000. Admittedly, as you told us, they sometimes sell out. I expect it was because RD was offering 50% off a Charlton game to everyone who turned up:-)0 -
Surely it's not difficult to understand that to improve the level of football in this country we need to have more qualified coaches and have people involved in the game that are hungry with fresh ideas and approaches
You go to a kids game on a Saturday/Sunday morning and you will have the tall big kids boot it and the smaller ones run after it , while hyped up parents shout individual crap to their own sprog confusing them even more than the part time coach/dad did in the pre game team talk.
My nephew plays U9 and they have a qualified high level coach that takes their team talks and training sessions and the willingness to pass is so much more evident than the team's that don't have one. He keeps it simple and enjoyable but the kids stay interested. It sows a seed from that young age to try and play the game in a more technical manner. The physical element comes naturally as they get older.
The FA should be doing everything they can to ensure there are more qualified coaches working with kids and they easiest way to do that is make it affordable!!!
5 -
@PragueAddick
Many thanks. There is an excellent article by Oliver Kay in today's Times. I'm sure you'd enjoy it.
Here is an excerpt;
"Guess how many people watched Bayern Munich IIs last home game. Go on, have a guess. No, lower, much lower, lower, keep going. The correct answer is 328, which is two more than the average crowd at St Neots Town, but ten fewer than that at Bradford Park Avenue.
Think about that for a moment. More people watch Bradford Park Avenue, reformed in 1974 and now playing in Skrill North, than watched Tobias Schweinsteiger and his fellow tyros as Bayern II swept to a 6-0 victory over Seligenporten in Germany’s regionalised fourth tier.
That, on a Monday night, was down on Bayern II’s previous attendances of 1,251, 760 and 731, but you get the general picture. Many in Germany consider B-team football to be a turn-off and of limited benefit, which is why Bayer Leverkusen have disbanded their B team and Eintracht Frankfurt may do likewise after Peter Fischer, their president, said that the system has “more cons than pros”.
It is little different in Spain. Barcelona B and Real Madrid Castilla have average crowds of 3,912 and 3,049 respectively, which might sound semi-reasonable until you consider that this is the second tier, one below La Liga. The average attendance in the Segunda División is 7,383, largely thanks to the presence of Deportivo La Coruña and Sporting Gijón. The average attendances in the Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two are 16,555, 7,488 and 4,352 respectively.
So forgive me for retching when Greg Dyke and his FA commission tell us that the landscape of English football should be redrawn to German or Spanish design so that the young players stockpiled by the biggest clubs can gain more experience of “real” football in front of “real” crowds.
There are many things we can and must try to emulate from German and Spanish football. A stagnant lower-division scene is not one of them. More cons than pros? This is one great big con, based on a surplus of young pros at a handful of elite clubs."5 -
Blimey.
Did Dyke and his gang really not ask the Germans what their experience of this is?
I have never been quite sure about him, but I thought he was better than this.
2 -
It just becomes more and more laughable.1
-
Someone will have the naming rights to this third tier and dyke will be involved in that process
Not a hope in hell chance that dyke will put that money back in either1 -
Sponsored links:
-
An excellent article which hits the nail on the head. What has upset me the most is that the idea is basically rubbish. Okay, if actually had any chance of making the England Team stronger, that would seriously mitigate the damage to lower league teams it would undoubtably cause, that would be something. But all it shows me is that those running our game are corrupt or inept. I presume it is the latter in Dyke's case, but it doesn't sit easy with me. It needed visionaries in Spain and Germany to look at their current grass roots/coaching set ups and systems and develop systems to improve them. If we had visionaries in charge of our game, they would see the potential benefits of our club structure. Not as a replacement to massive grass roots changes, but to compliment them. We have clubs like Charlton who can offer kids that are good enough football at a much higher level than these b leagues. A small club that has history of producing England internationals and has one or two more coming through now. But we also have clubs like Crewe who have an excellent record in producing talented players. The vision the FA needs, is that to see that we could use the number of significant clubs we have to incentivise them producing top class players. How? Well you have to reward them financially when they do. But the Premier League is all about squeezing money from the game to pay for foreign superstars, it is not desirable to them to allow money to flow to these clubs. Their view of them is that there are too many of them. But think on it, If the most financially productive option for a smaller club was to produce top class players, they would try harder to do it.Mundell Fleming said:@PragueAddick
Many thanks. There is an excellent article by Oliver Kay in today's Times. I'm sure you'd enjoy it.
Here is an excerpt;
"Guess how many people watched Bayern Munich IIs last home game. Go on, have a guess. No, lower, much lower, lower, keep going. The correct answer is 328, which is two more than the average crowd at St Neots Town, but ten fewer than that at Bradford Park Avenue.
Think about that for a moment. More people watch Bradford Park Avenue, reformed in 1974 and now playing in Skrill North, than watched Tobias Schweinsteiger and his fellow tyros as Bayern II swept to a 6-0 victory over Seligenporten in Germany’s regionalised fourth tier.
That, on a Monday night, was down on Bayern II’s previous attendances of 1,251, 760 and 731, but you get the general picture. Many in Germany consider B-team football to be a turn-off and of limited benefit, which is why Bayer Leverkusen have disbanded their B team and Eintracht Frankfurt may do likewise after Peter Fischer, their president, said that the system has “more cons than pros”.
It is little different in Spain. Barcelona B and Real Madrid Castilla have average crowds of 3,912 and 3,049 respectively, which might sound semi-reasonable until you consider that this is the second tier, one below La Liga. The average attendance in the Segunda División is 7,383, largely thanks to the presence of Deportivo La Coruña and Sporting Gijón. The average attendances in the Sky Bet Championship, League One and League Two are 16,555, 7,488 and 4,352 respectively.
So forgive me for retching when Greg Dyke and his FA commission tell us that the landscape of English football should be redrawn to German or Spanish design so that the young players stockpiled by the biggest clubs can gain more experience of “real” football in front of “real” crowds.
There are many things we can and must try to emulate from German and Spanish football. A stagnant lower-division scene is not one of them. More cons than pros? This is one great big con, based on a surplus of young pros at a handful of elite clubs."
The recent changes to the youth system that the Premier League blackmailed the league clubs to pass take the incentive away to produce top class talent if anything. If smaller clubs produce the next Messi, they won't get the money they are due for doing this. So they won't even try! But distributing the money more fairly - and being able to target how the lower clubs use it is a fantastic tool. If more players of the right standard come through, more world class players will be produced. It's like truffles. They grow in the right conditions, but you don't know exactly where they spring up. So you create the right conditions and look for them. Improving grass roots football will do this, but increasing the levels of lower league academies will also have an effect. Finding a way to use the strengths of the English game is the visionary bit.
When Dyke came into his job, he decided that his legacy would be to create a stronger national team. One that in years to come could win the World Cup. I think he honestly set out to do this, but the fact that he did shows his incompetence for the role he has taken. Of course the most effective thing he could do would be to try to change the system from where it is most broken - the top. But he knows that if he did, he would be sacked. So rather than give up - which is what he should have done - accepting he isn't selfless enough to fight his own organisation - he crossed out the things that we can actually learn from the Germans and Spanish and basically asked his commission to find something else we could do. I could form a commission to find the best way to get me to France. But tell them that I don't like trains, boats or planes. They will look at how one or two people have got to France not using these transport options and their report will tell me the best way to France is to swim! With the restriction imposed on them, they would probably be right, but if I took their advice I would drown!6 -
Some Excellent posts on the thread.
In countries with more successful national teams there is a higher ratio of coaches. Coaching courses should be made cheaper. The grass roots organisation and facilities should improve. League and non league clubs should be encouraged to develop their academies and be properly compensated for development of players.
The setting up of the premiership was supposed to help the England team. There is no reason or evidence to suggest that Dyke's inherently stupid plan will do anything about that apart from kill lower league and non league football. The attendances / involvement for league one and lower football will plummet. I understand that B teams at this stage will not be able to be promoted to the championship and other teams promoted from League One. The B teams will dominate the top 10 places. So, It will end up with the spectacle of the 11th team downwards competing for promotion. That is ridiculous. These teams being promoted will be a million miles away from being able to compete in any meaningful way in the championship. It is not much fun watching your team completly outclassed every week by stronger opposition.
The top premiership clubs act in an inherently selfish and monopolistic way. They don't appear to be asked to contribute anything to the development of the national team. For the rest of football supporters are expected to give up competitive football on a dubious promise to help the national team.
Greg Dyke should resign. Not fit for the job.5 -
The only thing is, If I was running Chelsea or Man City, I wouldn't be very pleased he has brought this issue out for discussion. It exposes the premier league to the wrong sort of scrutiny. I think they will get rid of Dyke at the first opportunity when all this has died down. The B league idea is something they would mildy like, rather than something they really want!0
-
They support it because it will be good for their clubs. See John Barnes's article in yesterday's Guardian.red_murph said:I couldn't believe the level of support for the idea yesterday from Giggs, Rogers, Martinez etc.
0 -
Good for top premiership clubs in eliminating competition so that football supporters have no one else to support but their clubs !AddicksAddict said:
They support it because it will be good for their clubs. See John Barnes's article in yesterday's Guardian.red_murph said:I couldn't believe the level of support for the idea yesterday from Giggs, Rogers, Martinez etc.
0 -
They will probably see "B" teams as a good way to get rid of a few players they don't want for a season or two without having to worry about if they actually play at a loan club so its natural these managers will like it.AddicksAddict said:
.red_murph said:I couldn't believe the level of support for the idea yesterday from Giggs, Rogers, Martinez etc.
Just from a playing point of view I am not sure playing in League Two or below is going to turn our kids into world beaters.
Either the games will be un-competitive or the young lads will physically have issues coping with some teams in those league which will do their confidence no good.
0 -
I agree with all of this, except the opening line about Dyke being 'half-witted'. I suspect that like a lot of people who have the job of advancing ideas that benefit the few and disadvantage the many, he often comes across as dim-witted because his ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. When in the spotlight he'll often have to bluster his way through arguments rather than showing a logical progression of ideas. Because he knows in his heart how unpalatable his ideas are - but he doesn't care because the money roles in when you side with the big boys.IdleHans said:Dyke is the half-witted mouthpiece of the richest premier clubs whose only concern is their own financial well-being. The blueprint for football in 1991, a giant step forward in the big clubs' enrichment at the expense of the rest, mortally wounded the soul of football, this stupid idea (not that it will be adopted) would finish it off. Every change in the last 20+ years in the way football is organised has served to widen the gap between haves and have-nots, and reduce competitiveness and oppprtunity. From the home club keeping gate receipts to the catastrophic academy rules that favour the richest, the elite clubs are pulling up the drawbridge by degrees. the national team is just a pretext for continuing this relentless process.
I have him down more as an evil genius than half-witted meddler. I am more than happy to be proved wrong though ;-)1 -
A link to the petition in case anyones struggling to find it
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-football-association-say-no-to-b-teams
0 -
Dyke and his cronies are complete Muppets. For them it's all about money & trying to tickle the top premiership clubs egos'.
Whilst I don't doubt their main ambition to get more English "kids" playing in the premiership, the way they seem to want to go about it defies logic.
What I don't really understand is how at present so much money can be spent each year on the Cat 1,2 & 3 systems but they are, on the face of it a complete failure, if so few English players end up at the top level.
Surely this is an area that should be looked at first, are the coaching systems promoted by the FA correct, are the set ups correct, are the people correct. It seems to me that the answer must be no if they are not achieving the correct results.
Our leagues are considered the best in the World, why change something that is clearly working, try starting with something that is clearly not.
End of rant.4 -
Just some thoughts that are in my head atm:
They made a big step with the 25 squad size they brought in for the Premier League. The problem is the fact that the 25 doesn't include under 21s.
The need to limit squad sizes to a maximum of 30 regardless of age, and limit the amount of players that can be loaned out by a club, as well as the amount of foreigners in a squad, and in a match day squad (or make it so there is at least 2 or 3 under 21 English players in a match day squad).
That will stop the stockpiling by the bigger clubs who currently buy the best talent from abroad and the lower leagues (some of them at 11 or 12 years of age ffs) and loan them all out to other clubs, further preventing young English players to come through.
They also need to limit the amount of under 21 foreign players that clubs buy and bring through their youth system, so they can call them home grown (Arsenal instantly springs to mind here).
Wage caps and transfer fee caps need to also be brought in, limiting big transfers, aiding young players to have to be used by the bigger clubs to bolster their squads.
There is already a massive gap between the Premier League and the Championship in terms of TV money which is never going to close. So I can't see there being more money given to grass roots as it stands unless the FA do something about it. They need to grab Sky by the balls and change the way all TV money is paid, ensuring that a larger percentage is given to the Football League and further percentage is given to grass roots football. This can be through subsidising coaching courses, improving facilities or even funding trips for clubs to St George's Park for decent quality coaching.
Sorry for rambling on, and most of it is probably bollocks!1 -
Sponsored links:
-
We should be using the FA's complaints process (see below) but it would be best, surely, coming from the Trust pulling together all the excellent and well researched (unlike the FA report!) points people have made on here.
Complaints Procedure
The FA is the governing body for the game in England and is primarily responsible for all regulatory aspects of the game, running the England teams and organising The FA Cup and other domestic competitions.
If you would like to submit a complaint to The FA, you can put it in writing addressed to:
Customer Relations
The Football Association
Wembley Stadium
PO Box 1966
London
SW1P 9EQ
Tel: (0) 844 980 8200 (Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm)
We will strive to respond within five working days. If further information is required, we will send a comprehensive response within a further ten working days.
Alternatively, you can e-mail your complaint via the feedback form
Still not satisfied? Contact the Independent Football Ombudsman (IFO).
The Independent Football Ombudsman was established at the beginning of the 2008-09 season and will have a clear remit to receive and adjudicate on complaints from football supporters and participants which have not been resolved by the football authorities, and to raise any policy issues which have been highlighted by those complaints, directly with The FA, Premier League and The Football League.
The creation of an Ombudsman will maintain a position as the independent and final arbiter of football complaints.
For further information on the IFO, please visit www.theifo.co.uk
(It sums up the FA's contempt for supporters that the telephone number is a chargable business rate one and their web site doesn't tell you that or what the charge rate is!)
5 -
Where's it all going to end? Will the rich 5 or 6 'request' that their B teams play in the FAPL, their C teams in the Championship etc etc ?
After that it will be Man U (London) D v Man U (S.Wales) D in L1. Then we'll all be Man U fans!1 -
I've seen it mentioned a few times that The Premier League was meant to improve the national team. What were the reasons put forward at the time to suggest it would do so ?0
-
Believe it or not, the argument was that attracting top foreign players would raise standards and benefit all.Pico said:I've seen it mentioned a few times that The Premier League was meant to improve the national team. What were the reasons put forward at the time to suggest it would do so ?
In reality, discussion of benefit to the national team was a combination of wishful thinking and convenient rhetoric.
The big Clubs in the PL couldn't care less about the national team. Dyke knows that and he's making a pact with the devil. You'd think once bitten twice shy, but it appears not.1 -
Another argument was that by thinning out the number of matches, England players would have more time for training together and would be less knackered when it came to important games. We all know that that was complete and utter bollo. It just mean that there was space for Prem clubs to play more Champions league matches or get involved in meaningless money-spinning overseas tournaments.1
-
In isolation that makes sense. But one then has to ask how many top English players have been willing and able to develop their skills in another top European league. And, as many posters have mentioned, how many qualified coaches are employed.Mundell Fleming said:
Believe it or not, the argument was that attracting top foreign players would raise standards and benefit all.Pico said:I've seen it mentioned a few times that The Premier League was meant to improve the national team. What were the reasons put forward at the time to suggest it would do so ?
In reality, discussion of benefit to the national team was a combination of wishful thinking and convenient rhetoric.
The big Clubs in the PL couldn't care less about the national team. Dyke knows that and he's making a pact with the devil. You'd think once bitten twice shy, but it appears not.
The irony is that the obvious conclusion is that we need 40 clubs able to develop top talent and not six hoarding it! That way we have seven times as many clubs managing and developing talent. This will obviously dilute the power base of the biggest clubs over time but one expects the FA to be looking at the bigger picture rather than convenient deals.
0 -
@ cafcfan
It's on the agenda for Monday night's meeting. We have a guest from Supporters Direct attending, by coincidence. They are seething that they were not even consulted. We will see what is discussed, but a national approach from abode like that is bound to be the most effective.0 -
Response from Maidstone United joint owner.
Predictably decent response from Oliver Ash.
http://maidstoneunited.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/a-cunning-plan.html?m=10 -
I agree with pretty much everything he says.0
-
OK guys, so what exactly is Greg Dykes job and why is he failing. I can see why we are not'appy, but that's not the same thing is it?1
