Impact of New Home Grown Rules in the English Premier League

If you haven't heard, the English Premier League will be bringing in new rules next year that mean squads have to be restricted to 25 players, 8 of whom must be "home grown." Home grown is defined as a player who has played 3 years or more in England under the age of 21 (basically academy players).

As the majority of players that are good enough for our national team are developed in English academies, this will probably be a good thing in terms of the chances that our young players get in England, as they will qualify as home-grown.

Obviously the ultimate goal should be to have a strong domestic league capable of developing players for the national team, but realistically it seems LoI teams are barely capable of paying the bills let alone developing Ireland's next superstar.

Ultimately, I don't think it will have a massive impact, but it may lead to some of our youngsters getting chances that they normally wouldn't have received.

What are your thoughts on the possible implications of this rule change?

A possible negative effect is that players who move from the LOI after the age of 18 (therefore not being able to spend 3 years playing in England under the age of 21) will not qualify as "home grown", and may find their transfer moves restricted. Kevin Doyle, for example.

Not sure if they can do this as we will within the EU and freedom of movement and so on . If I remember right they were going to do something like in Italy but it never got off the ground .

is there not somthing simmilar alreday in place in scotland??

Yeah, I think it won't be of massive impact except, as said above, for the Kevin Doyle scenaraios, which aren't that common.

In due course I think the new 50% tax rate and the strength of the Euro vs Sterling will mean top class international players will be less attracted to the UK and the Premier League's dominant position will be dented.

Furthermore, the sheer scale of the financial difficulties facing the UK game mean that a few years down the line the ability to attract foreign talent will diminish. The tone of the EPL and its clubs reminds me of the tone taken by the Irish and Icelandic banks and governments, and many participants in the private equity industry - "we're different, we're recession proof, we're in control, we're essential".

The reality is that although certain revenue lines are holding up and some TV deals even getting bigger, sponsorship (bar exceptions like Liverpool's new deal) is falling away: e-On not renewing FA sponsorship, Coca-Cola rumoured to be withdrawing from Football League...

The reality is that TV money is essential and there are only a handful of players capable of pumping in the money required to sustain revenues. Hence the need for the clubs to exploit foreign markets for brand-expansion purposes. Even here though the reality is that only a handful of brands have any value. Do Bolton or Hull think they'll attract fans in Asia?

Does anyone here understand the economics of TV & football? What I'm asking is whether the EPL is actually profitable for SKY or have they increased their payments for rights in order to destroy competitors like Setanta? It's a bit like the coffee chains over here. They're all loss making but ultimately only the ones who can stay alive for longest will survive, and then clean up. In the same sense, is SKY's revenue contribution guaranteed in future?

My recollection is that their credit rating is something like BBB, which is decent (known as "investment grade" in banker parlance) but also precarious.

Maybe in 5 years' time more Irish may find their way into the higher end of the English system again. Or maybe it'll just get worse, highlighting the desperate need for a domestic league that can realistically attract investment.

Excellent post Stutts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

The reality is that although certain revenue lines are holding up and some TV deals even getting bigger, sponsorship (bar exceptions like Liverpool's new deal) is falling away: e-On not renewing FA sponsorship, Coca-Cola rumoured to be withdrawing from Football League...

---

Motson mentioned this at the end of Football Focus on Saturday (should be on iPlayer), also Carling and Barclaycard are reviewing their sponsorship deals with the League Cup and Premier League....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Yeah, I think it won't be of massive impact except, as said above, for the Kevin Doyle scenaraios, which aren't that common.

In due course I think the new 50% tax rate and the strength of the Euro vs Sterling will mean top class international players will be less attracted to the UK and the Premier League's dominant position will be dented.

Furthermore, the sheer scale of the financial difficulties facing the UK game mean that a few years down the line the ability to attract foreign talent will diminish. The tone of the EPL and its clubs reminds me of the tone taken by the Irish and Icelandic banks and governments, and many participants in the private equity industry - "we're different, we're recession proof, we're in control, we're essential".

The reality is that although certain revenue lines are holding up and some TV deals even getting bigger, sponsorship (bar exceptions like Liverpool's new deal) is falling away: e-On not renewing FA sponsorship, Coca-Cola rumoured to be withdrawing from Football League...

The reality is that TV money is essential and there are only a handful of players capable of pumping in the money required to sustain revenues. Hence the need for the clubs to exploit foreign markets for brand-expansion purposes. Even here though the reality is that only a handful of brands have any value. Do Bolton or Hull think they'll attract fans in Asia?

Does anyone here understand the economics of TV & football? What I'm asking is whether the EPL is actually profitable for SKY or have they increased their payments for rights in order to destroy competitors like Setanta? It's a bit like the coffee chains over here. They're all loss making but ultimately only the ones who can stay alive for longest will survive, and then clean up. In the same sense, is SKY's revenue contribution guaranteed in future?

My recollection is that their credit rating is something like BBB, which is decent (known as "investment grade" in banker parlance) but also precarious.

Maybe in 5 years' time more Irish may find their way into the higher end of the English system again. Or maybe it'll just get worse, highlighting the desperate need for a domestic league that can realistically attract investment.

---

Considering Irish banks, were on A or AA in some cases until recently, BBB even for a media company, considering its SKY is not a sound rating Stutts.

Great post all the same, my knowledge of Skys revenue is nill, as im not a shareholder and have not seen their prospectus (though I often wondered the same), are sky using revenues from other areas, to bolster their position and squeeze out the competitior to the detriment of their own business?! The key factor here is, lets say in the short to medium term i.e. 3 - 5 years the aspiration to be a monopoly once again, is acheived, but the financial backing/sponsorship that is evident today in Football, is no longer there, then sky could be in serious trouble, and of course Football as a whole in the UK. The one thing that can help the FA(and subsequently EPL) ride the storm is a successful English international football team, if this were to occur. Either way, its interesting to see how this will/could pan out. One often gets the feeling the EPL are just riding the crest of a wave without anybody checking the undercurrent or rip tide. Deloittes yearly reviews of the EPL have been healthy though.

I really think that Shamrock rovers could become the munster of soccer in Ireland over the next few years. Whether or not they will get the same support as Munster have over the last 5 - 10 years is another question, but heres hoping anyway. IT could open up a whole new stream in Ireland, financial and sporting.

Thanks Tets. These guys are living in one of the few bubbles that have yet to pop. The club's have all exahusted their funding revenues and are having to go to all parts of the world. It's like oil, all the easy stuff has been found and is running out.

I don't understand new media & the digital age as well as the youngers guys here but maybe the answer lies somewhere therein, but it looks to me that Germany (the best run league financially - and an increasingly attractive product for international footballers & football media) and Spain are reversing the EPL's dominance, France is well capable of catching up, after all they are still the best developers of youth for most of Europe.

European Super League here we come with sustained mediocrity for the rest of English football. Bankruptcy for some, stability but lower expectation for others.

On the point re Sky, I believe that they are a profitable company and they see football as something they have to have. It's a bit like when 3G licences were sold in the UK, none of the incumbents could afford not to get one so they want for obscene money.

The 4 homegrown players point is a good one for Irish players as they are much more likely to be England trained than e.g Drogba. On the other hand its only required to have 4 of them and Id think all clubs meet this already quite easily.

The bigger point is the restriction on squad sizes to 24(?) given I heard Liverpool have 50 in their squad this is a big change and will mean top clubs cant hoover up players. This would impact on people like Seamus Coleman who would not be in a 24 man Everton squad. It will probably lead to more loans, less speculative purchases and would stop Roy Keane putting together a squad with 12 strikers!

[QUOTE=Stuttgart88;1232383]Yeah, I think it won't be of massive impact except, as said above, for the Kevin Doyle scenaraios, which aren't that common.

In due course I think the new 50% tax rate and the strength of the Euro vs Sterling will mean top class international players will be less attracted to the UK and the Premier League's dominant position will be dented.

Furthermore, the sheer scale of the financial difficulties facing the UK game mean that a few years down the line the ability to attract foreign talent will diminish. The tone of the EPL and its clubs reminds me of the tone taken by the Irish and Icelandic banks and governments, and many participants in the private equity industry - "we're different, we're recession proof, we're in control, we're essential".

The reality is that although certain revenue lines are holding up and some TV deals even getting bigger, sponsorship (bar exceptions like Liverpool's new deal) is falling away: e-On not renewing FA sponsorship, Coca-Cola rumoured to be withdrawing from Football League...

The reality is that TV money is essential and there are only a handful of players capable of pumping in the money required to sustain revenues. Hence the need for the clubs to exploit foreign markets for brand-expansion purposes. Even here though the reality is that only a handful of brands have any value. Do Bolton or Hull think they'll attract fans in Asia?

Does anyone here understand the economics of TV & football? What I'm asking is whether the EPL is actually profitable for SKY or have they increased their payments for rights in order to destroy competitors like Setanta? It's a bit like the coffee chains over here. They're all loss making but ultimately only the ones who can stay alive for longest will survive, and then clean up. In the same sense, is SKY's revenue contribution guaranteed in future?

My recollection is that their credit rating is something like BBB, which is decent (known as "investment grade" in banker parlance) but also precarious.

Maybe in 5 years' time more Irish may find their way into the higher end of the English system again. Or maybe it'll just get worse, highlighting the desperate need for a domestic league that can realistically attract investment.[/QUOTES

Stutts I used to respect your posts but you have lost me at revenue lines, if you start to use going forward and other such terms I think a ban might be in order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I really think that Shamrock rovers could become the munster of soccer in Ireland over the next few years. Whether or not they will get the same support as Munster have over the last 5 - 10 years is another question, but heres hoping anyway. IT could open up a whole new stream in Ireland, financial and sporting.

---

It looks most likely that Rovers have the best chance of breaking into the group stages of the Europa league. Finally a team that could win the league and doesn't appear to have any major financial problems. If they continue to be well managed on and off the pitch they could stay at the top and get a chance to improve their team year-on-year. However, with the amount of teams in the league I can't see them being as successfull as Munster. The fans of the other Dublin teams would prefer to support their team.
If, like the rugby, we could somehow be allowed to enter teams in the European competitions as provicenes rather than individual clubs then that would be different.

HAHA i was at a county board meeting last night and i thought it was the last place i would hear the term "going forward" being used. I was waiting for "adding value" to be thrown out at some stage too. :D

Stutts, going forward, please refrain from using said term, and try not to add value to your arguement by using the term "add value" which you have been guilty of in the past, or a ban may follow. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irish_Praha

It looks most likely that Rovers have the best chance of breaking into the group stages of the Europa league. Finally a team that could win the league and doesn't appear to have any major financial problems. If they continue to be well managed on and off the pitch they could stay at the top and get a chance to improve their team year-on-year. However, with the amount of teams in the league I can't see them being as successfull as Munster. The fans of the other Dublin teams would prefer to support their team.
If, like the rugby, we could somehow be allowed to enter teams in the European competitions as provicenes rather than individual clubs then that would be different.

---

I sorta, throw that one out there, without really going into any detail as to defining "success" etc. Tallaght is pretty much south county dublin, there is a big population down there, with limited rugby and a handful of big GAA clubs. The point about the league is a good one, there is a dense population of clubs in dublin per soccer supporting people, so relatively I think success is limited to a much smaller scale. I dont mean they will win the CL or UEFA cup or anything of the like, but yes group stages definitely seem possible. If Shamrock rovers can get themselves into shape(which they appear to have done and are continuing to do), then I beleive other teams will follow, a City the size of cork for example should be able sustain a club, in the mould of shamrock rovers for example. If Rovers started to knock on the door of group stages, the size of their stadium, the relative popularity of soccer in the area, I think they have a great chance of creating "a machine" like munster, there stadium capacity is going to be increased as well I beleive. I know the term machine wont sit well with LOI supporters, and i only use it in revenue terms really. In the next 3-4 years assuming they keep things going the way they are and can reach the EL group stages, continuous crowds of 6-7k could be seen there. Thats a serious step in teh right direction. For soccer in the area and Ireland as a whole.

And thats just common sense really, success breeds popularity, popularity generates money, and money breeds success, and its a continuous circle, diameter ever expanding.

What's the story with signing foreign players under the age of 18?

Because if you're not allowed to do it any more, then the only possible way a player could play 3 years before his 21st birthday was a) If he was signed on his 18th birthday, or b) He was from the same country as the club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

What's the story with signing foreign players under the age of 18?

Because if you're not allowed to do it any more, then the only possible way a player could play 3 years before his 21st birthday was a) If he was signed on his 18th birthday, or b) He was from the same country as the club.

---

I was wondering that myself today, and I havent read all that is above but basically the players who are from countries without big time leagues kind of get screwed here, no?

It won't make any difference for us. Kevin Doyle is a one-in-a-million type deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colbert Report

It won't make any difference for us. Kevin Doyle is a one-in-a-million type deal.

---

Shane Long, Keith Fahey, Wes Hoolahan, Neil McGinn, Gary Deegan (maybe), Stephen Ward

I forgot about the no under 18 signings....well then, this could potentially be catastrophic for our players unless they are signed on their birthdays then after all...may help the domestic league I suppose, but is the LoI capable of developing players for our national team on a consistent basis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

Shane Long, Keith Fahey, Wes Hoolahan, Neil McGinn, Gary Deegan (maybe), Stephen Ward

---

None of whom are regulars in the Irish first team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colbert Report

None of whom are regulars in the Irish first team.

---

that wasnt what Tets was answering though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88;

Maybe in 5 years' time more Irish may find their way into the higher end of the English system again. Or maybe it'll just get worse, highlighting the desperate need for a domestic league that can realistically attract investment.

---

at least someone sees the HUGE problems this poses for the Irish national team. I said it when Stan was manager and the point stands today - until we develop a strong domestic league, the fortunes of our national team will fluctuate wildly. We may have some good times but non qualification will be the norm.

Personally, the worst aspect of this is that the "nurseries" here will encourage our youngsters to go to England or Scotland at age 14 even more than they are already.

Good times. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Personally, the worst aspect of this is that the "nurseries" here will encourage our youngsters to go to England or Scotland at age 14 even more than they are already.

---

But I thought clubs couldn't sign players under 18 anymore?

It, like any effort to stiffle competition, is a mistake. I've never know anything to improve by eliminating or stiffling competition. I can't see it making a massive difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colbert Report

None of whom are regulars in the Irish first team.

---

they're players who were developed in the League of Ireland who have moved to England in the last few years.

Did I say "going forward"? I hate that term.

The League of Ireland solution is simple:

attract investment & attract the right type of investor

The only difficult part is to create a climate that means that an investor has some realistic chance of some kind of a return on his investment!

Despite some comments I read on the LOI forum, I think the FAI is doing a good job with its licensing rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irishfan86

But I thought clubs couldn't sign players under 18 anymore?

---

I don't know where you heard that..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fergie's Son

It, like any effort to stiffle competition, is a mistake. I've never know anything to improve by eliminating or stiffling competition. I can't see it making a massive difference.

---

It's not an effort to stifle competition, it's an effort to encourage competition by making sure the bigger clubs don't just hoover up all the promising players from the four corners of the globe.

Also, if more Irish players are playing at home, or are going to have to be developed at home, it can only benefit our national league in terms of standard of play, media exposure, and investment, which is a good thing.