Teams leaving players out of 25 man squads

[Champagneblade]

I just touched upon this on the Wednesday thread but it isn’t something I’ve seen debated that much.

So, is it just survival of the fittest and if you don’t make the cut, then too bad? Or should clubs be punished for stockpiling players, poorly calculating numbers and sidelining players from window to window?

United are not really guilty of the this, by the way, which is good. Players born on or after 1 January 2002 are classed as U21.

This means of the 30 mentioned on United Transfermarkt site, Seriki, McAtee, Traore, Jebbison and Osula do not count, giving us a solid 25. Incidentally Archer was born in December so would still be counted.

But take Wednesday and Forest as examples. Wednesday look like leaving out three players. Having hard balled Derby by the looks of it, for players who might be excluded.

Is this right? Yes you can say other windows are still open, but is it really right to be saying to Johnson or Vaulks that to play competitive football you either stick to reserve games for half a season or you have to relocate your life to Turkey or some other far flung place? This, after having denied a chance to relocate down the road 30 minutes?

Look at Forest. Undeterred by having screwed O’Brien of his Premier League chance, they then further deny him a chance to join us and he’s having to play his football at the foot of The Championship because of their selfishness.

They now have 36 players listed in the squad. I make it 6 that they can subtract from that. But what of the 5 poor bastards who have to sit on their hands or be forced to uproot to Greece or Turkey or some other far flung land against their will?

To me, the stockpiling of players is against competition. I’d aim to put an end to it, that would mean limiting loan players above a certain age, as FIFA has done, also banning buy-back deals which are effectively a means to circumvent this rule but also punishing teams who still retain eligible players above the 25-man group.

So, you fine them if they do not have plans in place for them by the end of the English window. Yes other windows can save them, but being forced to move or have no football is a poor choice so whilst it creates an escape route, for me the clubs would be punished for not having their house in order by the end of each domestic window.

We all know many clubs laugh in the face of fines. So for me, 1 point deduction for every qualified senior player you have over the 25 by the time the window ends in September. That would encourage more financial discipline, less scope to ruin a player’s career to your own ends and arguably would be better for the competition overall.

Thoughts?

 

[MadDad38]

Ok so really who is genuinely losing out here? The parent club shouldn’t be protected from their own lack of self discipline - they buy too many players, they have to pay their salaries (and are subject to FFP). The players are paid handsomely and no one (unless you are a superstar or have a superstar agent) is guaranteed a starting spot anyway. Other potential clubs have a market and shouldn’t get hung up on seemingly unobtainable average players a la O’Brien. So whilst yes certain players might think they have dropped a bit of a clanger by moving to a club that then bought a load of other, better alternatives - this isn’t the sort of thing that needs legislating against.

 

[Blade56]

Those poor players left out will probably earn as much in their ‘dormant’ period as most will in their working life.

But you make a valid point and I put the decline of our national team down to the likes of Chelsea stockpiling young players denying them higher level experiance to develop into England players.

 

[Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou]

I just touched upon this on the Wednesday thread but it isn’t something I’ve seen debated that much.

So, is it just survival of the fittest and if you don’t make the cut, then too bad? Or should clubs be punished for stockpiling players, poorly calculating numbers and sidelining players from window to window?

United are not really guilty of the this, by the way, which is good. Players born on or after 1 January 2002 are classed as U21.

This means of the 30 mentioned on United Transfermarkt site, Seriki, McAtee, Traore, Jebbison and Osula do not count, giving us a solid 25. Incidentally Archer was born in December so would still be counted.

But take Wednesday and Forest as examples. Wednesday look like leaving out three players. Having hard balled Derby by the looks of it, for players who might be excluded.

Is this right? Yes you can say other windows are still open, but is it really right to be saying to Johnson or Vaulks that to play competitive football you either stick to reserve games for half a season or you have to relocate your life to Turkey or some other far flung place? This, after having denied a chance to relocate down the road 30 minutes?

Look at Forest. Undeterred by having screwed O’Brien of his Premier League chance, they then further deny him a chance to join us and he’s having to play his football at the foot of The Championship because of their selfishness.

They now have 36 players listed in the squad. I make it 6 that they can subtract from that. But what of the 5 poor bastards who have to sit on their hands or be forced to uproot to Greece or Turkey or some other far flung land against their will?

To me, the stockpiling of players is against competition. I’d aim to put an end to it, that would mean limiting loan players above a certain age, as FIFA has done, also banning buy-back deals which are effectively a means to circumvent this rule but also punishing teams who still retain eligible players above the 25-man group.

So, you fine them if they do not have plans in place for them by the end of the English window. Yes other windows can save them, but being forced to move or have no football is a poor choice so whilst it creates an escape route, for me the clubs would be punished for not having their house in order by the end of each domestic window.

We all know many clubs laugh in the face of fines. So for me, 1 point deduction for every qualified senior player you have over the 25 by the time the window ends in September. That would encourage more financial discipline, less scope to ruin a player’s career to your own ends and arguably would be better for the competition overall.

Thoughts?

I thought only the Premier league had 25 man squads?

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

The player losing out is something he can be wary of himself when moving to the club. They can find the squad size as part of the negotiation.
But the anti-competitive, hoarding aspect is the biggest one for me.
I agree it needs controlling officially.

 

[Pintor75]

Are these 25 man squads altered in January, to allow for JTW signings,i.e. some players get ejected after 6 months?

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

I wonder if they could be some sort of post window draft system for these players.

 

[Champagneblade]

I thought only the Premier league had 25 man squads?

Talk of Wednesday having to leave players out, so seems to be a Championship thing too at the very least. Probably less of an issue further down as the finance would unlikely be there to support.

 

[Snake]

Forest are complete scumbags. They are a poor man's Chelsea - stockpiling players in order that one or two might be gems and they stumble on a team that will consolidate them in the Premier League. I don't feel sorry for all the players that they will throw onto to scrap heap though - as has been said above, that should all have been looked at and taken into consideration by the player and his agent before they took the stinking corrupt money that Forest are offering.

In the words of KK, I would luv it, luv it ............if they collapsed and burnt. Didn't think it was actually possible, but I think their fans might be more deluded that our pink and smelly neighbours up the road.

 

[Champagneblade]

Ok so really who is genuinely losing out here? The parent club shouldn’t be protected from their own lack of self discipline - they buy too many players, they have to pay their salaries (and are subject to FFP). The players are paid handsomely and no one (unless you are a superstar or have a superstar agent) is guaranteed a starting spot anyway. Other potential clubs have a market and shouldn’t get hung up on seemingly unobtainable average players a la O’Brien. So whilst yes certain players might think they have dropped a bit of a clanger by moving to a club that then bought a load of other, better alternatives - this isn’t the sort of thing that needs legislating against.

I think the issue is that the likes of O’Brien joined as an early signing in good faith. I’d imagine he was horrified when he saw 29 players come through the door and he was out in the cold.

I’m surprised people let Forest fans get away with the ‘we had no option comment’ as if it is now fact. You do not need to acquire 4 more players than a 25 man squad, not even if you had none left, which wasn’t the case.

I know they get paid, but you’d assume the aim of a footballer is to play. Yes they’ll not starve but for players like O’Brien of good age, then I’d expect he wants to show what he can do.

 

[sheffieldred]

It also makes people like tino livramento worth 40m as they don't count to the squad for a year or two. Not sure that is healthy either given the salary and signing fees for anyone at that level of transfer fee. But particularly for someone who is so unproven

 

[steve26272]

I just touched upon this on the Wednesday thread but it isn’t something I’ve seen debated that much.

So, is it just survival of the fittest and if you don’t make the cut, then too bad? Or should clubs be punished for stockpiling players, poorly calculating numbers and sidelining players from window to window?

United are not really guilty of the this, by the way, which is good. Players born on or after 1 January 2002 are classed as U21.

This means of the 30 mentioned on United Transfermarkt site, Seriki, McAtee, Traore, Jebbison and Osula do not count, giving us a solid 25. Incidentally Archer was born in December so would still be counted.

But take Wednesday and Forest as examples. Wednesday look like leaving out three players. Having hard balled Derby by the looks of it, for players who might be excluded.

Is this right? Yes you can say other windows are still open, but is it really right to be saying to Johnson or Vaulks that to play competitive football you either stick to reserve games for half a season or you have to relocate your life to Turkey or some other far flung place? This, after having denied a chance to relocate down the road 30 minutes?

Look at Forest. Undeterred by having screwed O’Brien of his Premier League chance, they then further deny him a chance to join us and he’s having to play his football at the foot of The Championship because of their selfishness.

They now have 36 players listed in the squad. I make it 6 that they can subtract from that. But what of the 5 poor bastards who have to sit on their hands or be forced to uproot to Greece or Turkey or some other far flung land against their will?

To me, the stockpiling of players is against competition. I’d aim to put an end to it, that would mean limiting loan players above a certain age, as FIFA has done, also banning buy-back deals which are effectively a means to circumvent this rule but also punishing teams who still retain eligible players above the 25-man group.

So, you fine them if they do not have plans in place for them by the end of the English window. Yes other windows can save them, but being forced to move or have no football is a poor choice so whilst it creates an escape route, for me the clubs would be punished for not having their house in order by the end of each domestic window.

We all know many clubs laugh in the face of fines. So for me, 1 point deduction for every qualified senior player you have over the 25 by the time the window ends in September. That would encourage more financial discipline, less scope to ruin a player’s career to your own ends and arguably would be better for the competition overall.

Thoughts?

Great point

In one respect, I dont feel for the players, as they agree to the contract, they can see the situation better than us - so when Cole Palmer comes out moaning that he left City for more game time.............. and went to Chelsea, my sympathy levels will be low

Same as Origi at Florist

However look back to o'Brien last season, he was one of the 1st through the door, so may well have expected to be one of the main men, 20+ transfers later and hes fucked, thats not right

Rather than have a 25 man 1st team squad (with 10 others sat around doing nowt)

Why not have a 26 man club squad, where you can only register 26 players against your club (outside of u21's or development teams)

In effect you have 26 seats, when full if you want to bring someone in, you have to free up a seat by getting someone out

That should put a stop to 8 year contracts, and would put more players on the market, creating a more even spread of talent, as someone such as Palmer would come here, as Chelsea wouldnt want to gamble a seat on a lad with less than 20 EPL games to his name

Prices would go down as theres more players on the market, as would wages

Chelsea have 31 senior pro's, plus another 19 lads out on loan, they and those like them are creating an uneven field of play, as not only do they have the better players, but they stop you having other good ones by buying them too

 

[Geordie Blade]

It’s a free world. Clubs should be allowed to have as many players on their books as they like. But they need to consider two things:

1. They still have to pay the wages of those who are contributing nothing.

2. Over time, they’ll find it harder and harder to attract new players because the players will know there’s a reasonable chance of being completely sidelined.

So it’s not a great long-term strategy.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

Fifa have tried to stymie this so that a club will only be allowed to loan out 6 players from 24/25 (under 21's and academy graduates will be exempt). Not sure if this is going to improve the situation make it worse.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Great point

In one respect, I dont feel for the players, as they agree to the contract, they can see the situation better than us - so when Cole Palmer comes out moaning that he left City for more game time.............. and went to Chelsea, my sympathy levels will be low

Same as Origi at Florist

However look back to o'Brien last season, he was one of the 1st through the door, so may well have expected to be one of the main men, 20+ transfers later and hes [deleted], thats not right

Rather than have a 25 man 1st team squad (with 10 others sat around doing nowt)

Why not have a 26 man club squad, where you can only register 26 players against your club (outside of u21's or development teams)

In effect you have 26 seats, when full if you want to bring someone in, you have to free up a seat by getting someone out

That should put a stop to 8 year contracts, and would put more players on the market, creating a more even spread of talent, as someone such as Palmer would come here, as Chelsea wouldnt want to gamble a seat on a lad with less than 20 EPL games to his name

Prices would go down as theres more players on the market, as would wages

Chelsea have 31 senior pro's, plus another 19 lads out on loan, they and those like them are creating an uneven field of play, as not only do they have the better players, but they stop you having other good ones by buying them too

They have to be careful about employment law. As a general rule I would say your idea is good, but I doubt that under UK or EU employment law it would be legal to tell clubs they are not allowed to employ someone when both employer and employee are in favour.

Perhaps any player on left off the 25 could be given the option of cancelling his contract (without compensation) and signing for someone else. No transfer fee, no paying up of contract. Or he could choose to take the money and sit out for 6 months, so the player doesn't lose out. (Potential problems re. long term injured players here, of course.)

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

They have to be careful about employment law. As a general rule I would say your idea is good, but I doubt that under UK or EU employment law it would be legal to tell clubs they are not allowed to employ someone when both employer and employee are in favour.

Perhaps any player on left off the 25 could be given the option of cancelling his contract (without compensation) and signing for someone else. No transfer fee, no paying up of contract. Or he could choose to take the money and sit out for 6 months, so the player doesn't lose out. (Potential problems re. long term injured players here, of course.)

If a player is left out of the 25 person squad, they could go into a draft pool where they are free to go to another club until the next transfer window. No fees change hands, parent club pays 100% of wages.

 

[BrisBlade]

I think players that want to play need to get savvy to this and insist on trends in their contact to say they are either in the squad or can leave on a free in the next window.

 

[ISZA ⚔️]

When do the squads need declaring by or has it been and gone? Just wondering who Forest have shit on this year? Jonjo Shelvey I’m guessing is one.

 

[sheffieldred]

When do the squads need declaring by or has it been and gone? Just wondering who Forest have shit on this year? Jonjo Shelvey I’m guessing is one.

I think jonjo helped shit on himself but he will be out the squad for sure!

Harry arter has picked up 30k+ a week for the last few years. Regardless of any mental health issues that has been a terrible waste of money for us. We had carl jenkinson before him and seemingly jonjo shelvey will take on the role when arter leaves after his automatic(!) Contract extension to 2024.

 

[steve26272]

I think jonjo helped shit on himself but he will be out the squad for sure!

Harry arter has picked up 30k+ a week for the last few years. Regardless of any mental health issues that has been a terrible waste of money for us. We had carl jenkinson before him and seemingly jonjo shelvey will take on the role when arter leaves after his automatic(!) Contract extension to 2024.

Jesus forgot bout Harry, recall him been immense for Bournemouth, just goes to show how sometimes a player and club just suit each other

If he is on £30k a week, by the time his contract ends in 2024, he will have earned over £6 million pounds, I know we all want to give our families stability, but personally I would rather play week in week out for a Rotherham or Stoke, without the need to uproot, and earn half as much but get game time

when he retires, £6m or £3m in the bank, hes still a rich bloke, but will have more to tell the grandkids than about the 4 games for Charlton he played in 2021

 

[Blade56]

I wonder if they could be some sort of post window draft system for these players.

The loan system should help as a draft but again its manipulated by holding clubs

 

[ColinHill]

Those poor players left out will probably earn as much in their ‘dormant’ period as most will in their working life.

But you make a valid point and I put the decline of our national team down to the likes of Chelsea stockpiling young players denying them higher level experiance to develop into England players.

Hasnt our national team done better than pretty much ever before in terms of how far it has gone in successive tournaments?? WC semi, euro final, nations league semi's....the u21's are euro champs, the under 18's won WC 5 years or so ago. I dont know for sure but i imagine Chelsea have contributed to each of those squads.

I see it totally the other way, i dont see it as stockpiling, its makes such sense financially....charge loan fees, players develop, if good enough they play for chelsea / city if not they eventually get moved on for money. Its smart. Dont forget we got promoted by utilising two city lads. Chelsea have loaned out loads of players who play top level football (Ampadu, Gallagher, Hudson Odoi, Colwell, Loftus Cheek, striker who went to Southampton - and that's without thinking about it).

Think its a common misconception that the media / pundits like to push out that clubs like Chelsea / City spoil it by having lots of players, I would almost argue that they develop more players which enables other clubs access to better footballers

 

[jt64]

Hasnt our national team done better than pretty much ever before in terms of how far it has gone in successive tournaments?? WC semi, euro final, nations league semi's....the u21's are euro champs, the under 18's won WC 5 years or so ago. I dont know for sure but i imagine Chelsea have contributed to each of those squads.

I see it totally the other way, i dont see it as stockpiling, its makes such sense financially....charge loan fees, players develop, if good enough they play for chelsea / city if not they eventually get moved on for money. Its smart. Dont forget we got promoted by utilising two city lads. Chelsea have loaned out loads of players who play top level football (Ampadu, Gallagher, Hudson Odoi, Colwell, Loftus Cheek, striker who went to Southampton - and that's without thinking about it).

Think its a common misconception that the media / pundits like to push out that clubs like Chelsea / City spoil it by having lots of players, I would almost argue that they develop more players which enables other clubs access to better footballers

That's somewhat of a different argument, given a lot of those players will be (will have been) young enough to not count towards squad limits

As far as clubs buying lots of players that they won't be able to fit into their squad, I'm fine with it. It's a free country, if you're offered a contract with a club where you know the amount of first team football you are going to get is minimal, and that the club is likely going to be active in the transfer market, then that's a risk the player takes. O'Brien is the example used but it was clear as day to anyone that he is taking a step up that he is not guaranteed to make, and that Forest needed to buy a shitload of players. It's not like he's not getting paid.

 

[BarcaBlade]

In effect you have 26 seats, when full if you want to bring someone in, you have to free up a seat by getting someone out

I can bear testament to the fact that this works. We implemented it in our Subbuteo League in 1990 (though there's still a few dodgy deals go on).

 

[Blade56]

Hasnt our national team done better than pretty much ever before in terms of how far it has gone in successive tournaments?? WC semi, euro final, nations league semi's....the u21's are euro champs, the under 18's won WC 5 years or so ago. I dont know for sure but i imagine Chelsea have contributed to each of those squads.

I see it totally the other way, i dont see it as stockpiling, its makes such sense financially....charge loan fees, players develop, if good enough they play for chelsea / city if not they eventually get moved on for money. Its smart. Dont forget we got promoted by utilising two city lads. Chelsea have loaned out loads of players who play top level football (Ampadu, Gallagher, Hudson Odoi, Colwell, Loftus Cheek, striker who went to Southampton - and that's without thinking about it).

Think its a common misconception that the media / pundits like to push out that clubs like Chelsea / City spoil it by having lots of players, I would almost argue that they develop more players which enables other clubs access to better footballers

Imagine how good we could have been if all our young players had had to go out and develop in the championship and PL, I give you James McAtee and Palmer as an example. Not turning them into high paid reserve bench warners I give you Henderson

 

[gordoncharles]

I've said for a long time that the 25 player limit should be enforced by UEFA across all leagues, and with the clear proviso that once a player is over 21 he can't be sent out on loan. If an over-21 doesn't make the 25 his contract must be paid up and he becomes a free agent.

That would prevent this overbooking, restore a little bit of order to the transfer market, and be much better for clubs and players in the long run.

 

[jt64]

I've said for a long time that the 25 player limit should be enforced by UEFA across all leagues, and with the clear proviso that once a player is over 21 he can't be sent out on loan. If an over-21 doesn't make the 25 his contract must be paid up and he becomes a free agent.

That would prevent this overbooking, restore a little bit of order to the transfer market, and be much better for clubs and players in the long run.

And would instantly disincentivise big clubs from developing youth players as well as they are doing at the moment

 

[dsr-burnley]

I've said for a long time that the 25 player limit should be enforced by UEFA across all leagues, and with the clear proviso that once a player is over 21 he can't be sent out on loan. If an over-21 doesn't make the 25 his contract must be paid up and he becomes a free agent.

That would prevent this overbooking, restore a little bit of order to the transfer market, and be much better for clubs and players in the long run.

Very often it is to the advantage of a player to be sent out on loan. Nathan Tella came to Burnley and it as one of those deals that was profitable for everyone - Burnley, for scoring lots of goals and winning promotion; Southampton, for getting a fee of £21m; and of course the player himself, whose career took off.

You might of course say that this could have happened sooner if Southampton had been forced to release him earlier, and of course that's true. On the other hand he wouldn't have had Southampton's training and their pay in the meantime. For PL players especially, they may not be worth a place in the squad at 21 but a year or two later, they'll be in.

Limiting over-21 loans, yes; abolishing them, no. Not in my book.

 

[jt64]

Very often it is to the advantage of a player to be sent out on loan. Nathan Tella came to Burnley and it as one of those deals that was profitable for everyone - Burnley, for scoring lots of goals and winning promotion; Southampton, for getting a fee of £21m; and of course the player himself, whose career took off.

See also Tommy Doyle. If City were forced into the position where they would have to sell the player to any bidder or lose him for nowt, they never loan him to us, you never see him over a longer spell at a good level of football, and he goes to whoever is willing to take a punt on him, and he plays at a worse level on less money than he is doing now.

 

[gordoncharles]

And would instantly disincentivise big clubs from developing youth players as well as they are doing at the moment

That's simply not the case. Big clubs have either been developing these players since they were at Primary School or they effectively steal them from the academies of smaller clubs when they're 15-16.

Either way they've had them for a long, long time.

If they're not good enough for the 1st team squad at 21, they're not going to be.

Doyle, who you mention, is a case in point. He's never going to be good enough to hold a place in City's team. On the other hand they could have received a fee for him after his loan at Cardiff.

And in reply to dsr-burnley, Tella had made - what - more than a dozen Premier League appearances for Southampton before he was 21? I don't think his future was in too much doubt. If Southampton didn't think he was good enough for their squad in 2022-23 that's their look out.