'He is too young', they say, but do we have a choice?

[Toast]

^ This I fully agree with. As I wrote earlier:

I do agree that we should be loaning more players out. We're doing very poorly on that front. To stick with the Chelsea comparison, they currently have 26 players on loan compared to our 7. And yes, Chelsea are a bit abnormal, but one has to admit that their loans do pay off one way or another. We need to improve.

 

[Iceman10]

Yep, it will be interesting to see how things pan out with Zelalem for example, i.e. there's no point keeping him two to three seasons in between Academy level and First Team, it just causes stagnation and the same cycle of excitement every pre-season and then reality that there is no place in the first team once the season starts. Maybe not this season, but definitely next season he should be loaned, ideally to a PL team. 18 is about the right age, we've been keeping too many players in stagnation within the age range 18-21, and beyond that they are left well behind the curve.

 

[Toast]

The main problem with the loan system is, I think, that there is little to no guarantee that the player will a) get playing time, b) will play in the right position and c) will play the right kind of style.

It would be great if we could find a lower league development club in a non-sleazy (e.g. not like Chelsea -> Vitesse) way. Alternatively, I'd quite like to see the reserves drop into league one or the Championship, similarly to how it's done in Spain or the Netherlands. There has been talk of the creation of a league for B teams:

In 2013, Dyke helped set up an FA Commission - made up of experienced figures in the industry - to look at the state of the English game at club and national level.

One of the proposals was the creation of a new tier within the Football League for Premier League B teams. Twenty of the 25 players in the squad would have to qualify for the home-grown rule and no non-EU players would be allowed.

"We're still discussing with the Football League and others about some possibilities about how to introduce B teams. We'll see what happens," Dyke said.

"I think B teams in a competitive environment is still a possibility."

I'm not a big fan of having a league just for B teams though. That'd basically just be the reserves playing other reserves. An Arsenal B in League One or in the Championship would be my preference.

 

[Rex Stone]

I'm massively in favour of B sides myself. If we look at a case like Zelalem where he's a development player, he would get no game time for us and he's too good for the Reserves.

The obvious answer would be to loan him out but then you have the problem of homegrown players, every player who comes through our academy has to have been at the club for 3 years between 15 and 21 to be classed as homegrown. That's why I imagine we're not keen on sending loads of youth prospects out on loan, especially if we sign them around their 18th birthday.

Spain for me has the English system beat hands down, the Atletico B team currently plays in the Spanish equivalent of League 1 and it allows players to grow at a club without moving all round the country on loan and get a higher standard of football than reserve games.

I've seen guys like Koke and Saul Niguez find their feet for the B team, before moving into the 1st team when they were ready and starring. It would benefit the national team hugely, for example Josh McEachran could have been playing competitive football from a young age rather than being in limbo at Chelsea. Who knows how good he could have been.

 

[bingobob]

[quote="Rex Banner"
The obvious answer would be to loan him out but then you have the problem of homegrown players, every player who comes through our academy has to have been at the club for 3 years between 15 and 21 to be classed as homegrown. That's why I imagine we're not keen on sending loads of youth prospects out on loan, especially if we sign them around their 18th birthday.

[/quote]
I may be wrong but surely if we loan a player to another club in England he is home grown?

There should be b teams also the under 21s internationally should be taken more seriously. Wilshere Walcott Gibbs etc now Chambers should be going there first.

 

[Toast]

^ You're correct. A homegrown player is defined as:

one who, irrespective of his nationality or age, has been registered with any club affiliated to the Football Association or the Football Association of Wales for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or 36 months prior to his 21st birthday (or the end of the season during which he turns 21).

Welbeck is therefore a homegrown player for us despite his time at United and Fabregas counts as homegrown for Chelsea because of the time he spent with us. I am not sure, however, whether the time spent in the football league (i.e. Championship and below) counts, because I'm not sure clubs in those leagues are affiliated with the F.A.

 

[blaze_of_glory]

Tooooasstie.. we used Bellerin yesterday.. Didn't we agree that you'd owe me $100 if he was part of the squad? .

Just kidding of course. And apparently he struggled big time (missed the game myself)

 

[Toast]

Tooooasstie.. we used Bellerin yesterday.. Didn't we agree that you'd owe me $100 if he was part of the squad? .

Just kidding of course. And apparently he struggled big time (missed the game myself)

He's still not part of the squad though. ;D
He did struggle quite a bit, but that was to be expected. Wasn't helped by Wenger playing Özil ahead of him.

 

[blaze_of_glory]

Tooooasstie.. we used Bellerin yesterday.. Didn't we agree that you'd owe me $100 if he was part of the squad? .

Just kidding of course. And apparently he struggled big time (missed the game myself)

He's still not part of the squad though. ;D
He did struggle quite a bit, but that was to be expected. Wasn't helped by Wenger playing Özil ahead of him.

Yeah rough situation all around, for him and Özil in those circumstances.

 

[Rex Stone]

^ You're correct. A homegrown player is defined as:

one who, irrespective of his nationality or age, has been registered with any club affiliated to the Football Association or the Football Association of Wales for a period, continuous or not, of three entire seasons or 36 months prior to his 21st birthday (or the end of the season during which he turns 21).

Welbeck is therefore a homegrown player for us despite his time at United and Fabregas counts as homegrown for Chelsea because of the time he spent with us. I am not sure, however, whether the time spent in the football league (i.e. Championship and below) counts, because I'm not sure clubs in those leagues are affiliated with the F.A.

Yes but a club still needs half of all homegrown players to have spent 3 years registered at the club so loan deals do matter.

"UEFA defines locally-trained or 'homegrown' players as those who, regardless of their nationality, have been trained by their club or by another club in the same national association for at least three years between the age of 15 and 21. Up to half of the locally-trained players must be from the club itself, with the others being either from the club itself or from other clubs in the same association."

That's from an old forum I found talking about the issue, the uefa link is now dead.

So if we loaned Bellerin to Watford for 3 consecutive years he would be a nationally trained player but he wouldn't be a club raised one.

B teams count towards the club trained rule so it would be a win win. You could get them playing the club's style rather than have them sent to some hoofball outfit in League 1.

 

[Toast]

^Didn't know about that rule. Is that still in effect? I'm very much in favour of a B-team, but I don't think the loan problem you describe is that big of an issue. In the case of Bellerin, for example, it isn't. He joined us in summer 2011. He had a short loan spell at Watford, but he's nearing the three years at Arsenal. After he passes the three year mark we can loan him out as much as we want and he'll still count as 'Arsenal homegrown'. If we get a youth player in at the age of 18 it obviously becomes a problem, so let's hope the B-team plan goes through.

 

[Rex Stone]

Yeah I'd assume it is, otherwise City would have sold Boyata and just bought some random English benchwarmer to get round the rule. Yeah obviously Bellerin is fine, just something that would be made easier by B teams.

 

[Iceman10]

Didn't know that either. Yes, if we bring in a player at 18 they had better be at a high level already to break into the first team ASAP otherwise we will keep them at the club to build up their HG status but they won't get regular first team appearances to develop as fast as they could and reach their potential. Just goes to show how a lot of what Chelsea is doing is more about profit making to help them with FFP. Hope the B-team plan goes through also.

In absence of the B-team plan we need to bring in prospects young so that they can have their HG status sorted by around 18, allowing them to be loaned out to "finish" their development process to be of required quality for what we should demand from first team players. If we sign a player at 18 years old then they had better be something like a Gotze was at that age already.

 

[ArseGod]

Bring in Lugano! Woo!

 

[Iceman10]

Bring in Lugano! Woo!

OK, we brought in Chambers (already became a HG player at Southampton), but why the heck didn't we bring in players such as Tin Jedvaj and Kurt Zouma when there was the chance, of the right quality around 17-18 years old so that they can get appearances in the first team while building up their HG status before they reach 21. That would be proper long term planning and squad management as opposed to fire-fighting having to bring in emergency sub-optimal journeymen.

IMO there is too much loyalty to players already at the club who clearly are not going to make it and should have been moved on already. Miquel was always going to be a "nearly not quite" player as I saw it. Same has happened with Coquelin (even though he is CDM). I just bring this up if this played a role in not bringing in Jedvaj or Zouma, although what actual thought processes were aren't known.

 

[Rex Stone]

Yeah Zouma and Jedvaj are ones we should have been all over, Croatia is now in the EU so work permits for Jedvaj shouldn't have been a problem. I thought we had France sewn up as well for young talent so I don't know how Zouma slipped through our net.

We don't have the resources of the Chavs but we should have been able to sell guys like Kalas and Zouma on coming here simply because we have a lighter squad so they'd get more game time and we could have offered them a decent wage as it is.

Don't want to disparage the lad, but I'll predict right now that Hayden won't make it here. Our back up centre backs have dropped in quality, from guys like Senderos and Djourou who were at least top flight level to the likes of Miquel.

 

[VancouverCanuck]

but why the heck didn't we bring in players such as Tin Jedvaj and Kurt Zouma when there was the chance, of the right quality around 17-18 years old so that they can get appearances in the first team while building up their HG status before they reach 21.

Lack of financial resource? Unwilling to spend what we already have? Poor scouting network? Combination of the above?

Let's face it. Three years ago, we didn't even spend enough money on the first team. And I'd argue we still haven't spent enough. So can't blame them for not buying a 17 y.o so that he can be a bench warmer in three years time when there were so many more urgent issues at that time.

 

[Iceman10]

^^ tbh Rex, I'm dubious on Hayden also. The only thing going for him is that unlike Miquel he isn't afraid to commit to last ditch tackles but has to improve his decision making to shake off a reputation of being rash. I'd take that as opposed to a player who has always seemed a bit shy to put their body on the line as long as the rough edges can be improved with experience. It's a bit like a Formula 1 driver, a young driver can be fast and crash a few times when they start out but that's better than being slow right from the start even though driving style may be seen as silky smooth.

Hayden is in make or break time no doubt, I'd compare him to Nathaniel Chalobah who is the same age and in my book has proven considerably more, and of course is on loan currently, in the PL at Burnley.

 

[Iceman10]

but why the heck didn't we bring in players such as Tin Jedvaj and Kurt Zouma when there was the chance, of the right quality around 17-18 years old so that they can get appearances in the first team while building up their HG status before they reach 21.

Lack of financial resource? Unwilling to spend what we already have? Poor scouting network? Combination of the above?

Let's face it. Three years ago, we didn't even spend enough money on the first team. And I'd argue we still haven't spent enough. So can't blame them for not buying a 17 y.o so that he can be a bench warmer in three years time when there were so many more urgent issues at that time.

This is true perhaps for three years back but in the case of Zouma and Jedvaj we are really talking about signing them during the summer of 2013 (last year). The summer of 2013 is the one where we had the new Emirates deal in place and signed Özil (and we could have easily spent on top of that for these players).

 

[trunks206]

Tooooasstie.. we used Bellerin yesterday.. Didn't we agree that you'd owe me $100 if he was part of the squad? .

Just kidding of course. And apparently he struggled big time (missed the game myself)

Check your PMs.