StanBalaban Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 This the answer to the question that no one has asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 No matter how awful the first team were, you could be proud of the reserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnbull Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 I don't like the loan system at all. Me neither. The system needs an overhaul, with at least a limit on how many players clubs can loan out in the same division they play in and for how long. Play 'em or sell 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 This would destroy the clubs towards the bottom of the leagues , to me the answer is to bring back proper reserve football Far more sensible idea. Why did they ever scrap it? Lots of clubs just stopped fielding sides for it over the last couple of years of its life, to the extent that there wasn't really going to be a league left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted May 6, 2014 Author Share Posted May 6, 2014 Also the likes of Man City and Chelsea would prefer it if their reserves were playing against seasoned pros in The Championship rather than against other bunches of 21 year old kids in the reserve league. It's ****. It's another one of those changes which makes me think I'm done with football. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers13 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 It wouldn't necessarily hurt villa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 i agree, think its hard to know exactly how it would impact villa, our next gen team playing as a team in say league 1, better than either not playing or being spread here there and everywhere throughout the lower leagues, i also think it would benefit the likes of helenius, steer, tonev, cheap tickets for kids etc we might even be able to convince more in the area to be villa fans rather than watching sky and taking their pick of their favourites but would the likes of grealish and carruthers get signed by chelsea / city just to make up the numbers in their B teams? would the disparity in cash between us and the top 4 get bigger? would anyone actually go and watch us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 My first thoughts when hearing this is what a terrible idea. Its going to have drastic effect on clubs in the lower divisions. Premier League won't be loaning any players out to them as well and it will benefit the bigger clubs....Will it help the England team? Not sure really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewiek2 Posted May 6, 2014 Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) Ah Greg Dyke. the t*sser on the manure board who brought us Roland f***king Rat. Who I hated even as a kid. How the f**k did this ponce become head of the FA!?!? Edited May 6, 2014 by stewiek2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Idiotic idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommybread Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 i agree, think its hard to know exactly how it would impact villa, our next gen team playing as a team in say league 1, better than either not playing or being spread here there and everywhere throughout the lower leagues, i also think it would benefit the likes of helenius, steer, tonev, cheap tickets for kids etc we might even be able to convince more in the area to be villa fans rather than watching sky and taking their pick of their favourites but would the likes of grealish and carruthers get signed by chelsea / city just to make up the numbers in their B teams? would the disparity in cash between us and the top 4 get bigger? would anyone actually go and watch us? Why are they needing to make up numbers? I'll use Manchester United as an example as I am a supporter of them and know their youth setup. Currently there is 25 players in the U21 squad. Those 25 players would be with the B team minus a few who would need a higher level loan plus a few u18s that aren't on the U21 list but of the required level like Josh Harrop and Sean Goss. There would be no extra hoarding of young players as they already have loads of young players to fill the B team. It would just be placing the U21 teams into a lower league. If Chelsea / City wanted Samir or Grealish they would have signed them to make up the numbers in their U21 side. I'm all for it. In the first half of the season there were players at United like Ben Pearson and the other u19s averaging 1 match a month. There simply isn't enough playing time for the lads and a full season against proper teams would be massive for the development of players in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OutByEaster? Posted May 7, 2014 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted May 7, 2014 Rather than have the big teams hoarding up so many players they need to field teams in other leagues to make sure those players get games, why not restrict the number of players big teams can have and let players actually develop naturally at other clubs? The clubs have already changed the rules to allow them to take the better U18 players from small clubs without having to pay a pesky fee - this idea is cut from the same cloth. This rule would allow City and Chelsea to have first team squads of 20-30 players, U21 and youth squads of 40-50 players, 20 players on loan and a B team featuring another 25 player squad. With better rules, 50 of those players could be having proper careers playing regular competitive football at an appropriate level - if big teams still wanted them, they could pay for them once they reach the right stage in their development - and in the process, help finance lots of other clubs in the lower divisions. Nope, let the biggest half a dozen clubs have everyone, regardless of the cost to the careers of young players or the extinction of smaller clubs - well done Mr Dyke. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) I'd rather they just limit how many players you're allowed. Like this 25 man squad idea, but if players aren't on it then you have to sell them for free during that summer. If you no room for a player in a squad of that size (which is basically 2 entire sides AND 3 subs) then you have no need for him. If you sign players for the sake of it, tough. This is the only kind of thing that will solve the problem, because the problem is the top clubs storing players. This new league idea means they can have even more. Edited May 7, 2014 by kurtsimonw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Clubs can't keep their best young players as they are poached by moneybags clubs. But those clubs can't spend to compete because of FFP. So the next step is to make sure the moneybags teams have even more room to buy players from other clubs. Brilliant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Who in their right mind will support one of these B teams? When (and it is when) the teams all get to the 2nd tier everybody will be watching the team in the top tier or the team they already support (i.e. Walsall) all this means is that eventually the Championship will be full of B teams who no-one supports. they allowed 1 team in Ireland to play a B team and they offer free entrance to season ticket holders to the B games and get decent attendance as play at home on opposite weekends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 I'd rather they just limit how many players you're allowed. Like this 25 man squad idea, but if players aren't on it then you have to sell them for free during that summer. If you no room for a player in a squad of that size (which is basically 2 entire sides AND 3 subs) then you have no need for him. If you sign players for the sake of it, tough. This is the only kind of thing that will solve the problem, because the problem is the top clubs storing players. This new league idea means they can have even more. the 25 man squad rule has to developed further IMO, including team wage caps, said many many times, yaya toure on £250k a week isnt the problem, rodwell and sinclair on £50k a week and never playing is the problem how you then stop chelsea signing courtois and lukaku, and monaco signing traore, i dont know what you do, but that needs fixing too, would this do it? maybe, can you imagine lukaku leaving anderlecht for chelsea B in league 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG_Villa_Fan Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Horrendous idea. Could easily imagine Chelsea's and man City's B teams being at the top of the championship in a couple of seasons. Then what? The first two non-B teams would be promoted? A wage cap in football is useless and will never work, as has been dicussed in countless topics, however limiting the number of players that can be registered is good, probably should be less than 25 + home growns. Also, IMO teams should be allowed to loan only players from their own academy, the HGs, not buying 20 million players and loaning them out. What good is poaching a team's best player, say Sinclair, then not playing him, destroying his career, then having to get rid. If some of this talent that sits on Man City's, or Chelsea's benches is spread out to the less rich teams then the league would be far more competitive. Chelsea's loaned out players could form a team that'd probably be top 6, that's bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted May 7, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted May 7, 2014 Proposal: 22 man active roster for the A team B team cannot ever be in the same league as the A team (however that's implemented) B team doesn't enter cups Players can be moved between A squad and B squad outside of windows, however if an experienced (perhaps defined as 19 career starts or 38 career appearances in the league the A team are currently in or a higher league?) player is dropped, the clubs in the pyramid above the B team but below the A team in the table could claim the player on loan for the remainder of the season, if they're willing to pay the entirety of the player's wages over the period (and perhaps pay the player an extra 500 quid per day if the new club's stadium is more than 50 miles from the previous club's) Other than this, nonemergency loans are abolished Perhaps allow removal of experienced players from the A team without the waiver process by making them ineligible for six months (this is basically an injured reserve) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommybread Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Rather than have the big teams hoarding up so many players they need to field teams in other leagues to make sure those players get games, why not restrict the number of players big teams can have and let players actually develop naturally at other clubs? The clubs have already changed the rules to allow them to take the better U18 players from small clubs without having to pay a pesky fee - this idea is cut from the same cloth. This rule would allow City and Chelsea to have first team squads of 20-30 players, U21 and youth squads of 40-50 players, 20 players on loan and a B team featuring another 25 player squad. With better rules, 50 of those players could be having proper careers playing regular competitive football at an appropriate level - if big teams still wanted them, they could pay for them once they reach the right stage in their development - and in the process, help finance lots of other clubs in the lower divisions. Nope, let the biggest half a dozen clubs have everyone, regardless of the cost to the careers of young players or the extinction of smaller clubs - well done Mr Dyke. Wrong. The B teams would be replace the U21 sides. So as I said where are they going to be hoarding more players? Manchester United have 25 players in their U21 side, those 25 would be the B team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 so if man city's B team are languishing in 14th in the league you dont think they'll buy players specifically for their B team so that they push up the leagues? because Barca B do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts