The end is nigh.

[Concrete John]

No, but I think that the distinction between British and foreign is a false one. There is only good and bad and seeing as there are more foreign players than British players (not to mention sub-standard British youth coaching) it's safe to assume that there are more good players abroad than there are here.

Modric is a good player, Balaban wasn't good enough. Foreign or otherwise doesn't enter into it on that front. As for the not spending much, it is well known that English players are overvalued because of the insularity of the Premier League, and that players in mid-career cost more in wages anyway. Therefore the most cost-effective method for success at the moment is good, young players from smaller countries (it's not just England - Dutch, Brazilians, Argentinians and others cost too much as well from reflected glory).

I wouldn't argue with that, but I also agree with Martin that having a British spine/feel to the side is important, so buying young players like Delph, Ash and Milner is also important to make sure what you are doing ultimately results in a successful team.  If you look at Arsenal they are the closest example to what you are suggesting, yet despite being better than us they are not the force they were when thay had that established English back 4.    

It's all about balance, and our stratergy is not balanced at the moment, but that does not mean it needs to be thrown out - just added to.

[Monty]

I wouldn't argue with that, but I also agree with Martin that having a British spine/feel to the side is important, so buying young players like Delph, Ash and Milner is also important to make sure what you are doing ultimately results in a successful team.  If you look at Arsenal they are the closest example to what you are suggesting, yet despite being better than us they are not the force they were when thay had that established English back 4.    

It's all about balance, and ours stratergy is not balanced at the moment, but that does not mean it needs to be thrown out - just added to.

Firstly, on Arsenal I would just say that I said the most cost-effective way to do well is, as you say, essentially what they're doing. However, there are teams finding less cost-effective routes to success ahead of them, which is what limits their progress.

Secondly, what mattered wasn't the Englishness of that famous back 6 ('keeper and linesman also tended to be English), it was the quality. The current champions of Europe have won the Scudetto two years in a row without a single Italian in the team. I really don't see what's important about the Englishness (or domestic-ness) of a team other than it's quite a nice thought - in fact, it's putting heart before head, which is something a manager shouldn't really be doing much of.

[Concrete John]

Firstly, on Arsenal I would just say that I said the most cost-effective way to do well is, as you say, essentially what they're doing. However, there are teams finding less cost-effective routes to success ahead of them, which is what limits their progress.

Secondly, what mattered wasn't the Englishness of that famous back 6 ('keeper and linesman also tended to be English), it was the quality. The current champions of Europe have won the Scudetto two years in a row without a single Italian in the team. I really don't see what's important about the Englishness (or domestic-ness) of a team other than it's quite a nice thought - in fact, it's putting heart before head, which is something a manager shouldn't really be doing much of.

Does the fact that these other teams are doing better than Arsenal not therefore suggest that their cost-effective approach is not working?  So should we not be looking at what they are doing right and then add what they're missing as our blueprint?

The Scudetto is one thing, but we play in the Premier League.  If you look at the top teams throughout the PL's existence (not saying football was invented in 1992, just using is as the timescale for the increase of foreign players in the English game) then their has always been a core of British players at the heart of any of the truely successful teams.

[Monty]

A core, certainly, but a diminishing influence without a doubt. The point about Italy is a fair one, as they went through the same process of foreign influence as we are, but about ten years previously, and it has now reached its logical conclusion - a non-Italian team winning the Italian league. There is no reason, empirically or really theoretically, why Englishness should be important to winning the league.

What Arsenal are not doing to get success is something we can't do either - compete in spending with Chelsea, Man City and Man Utd. Having said that, when Platini's new rules come into force, Arsenal will easily be the club in the best position to combat the new situation.

[Concrete John]

Well, I can't argue that Arsenal aren't running things well, but when we get labelled as having no 'plan b' I often bring up the argument that they don't either.  Should their intricate passing fail to break a side down they can't hit it long or try getting crosses in.  So in many respects a balance of their style and ours would be a great pathway to success.  Going back to transfers, I think the same is true.  I think they would have been a better side last year for having Dunne marehalling their back 4 or having a big striker like carew to bring off the bench.  And that improvement could be made without competing with the mega money clubs.  So, again I think we need to adopt elements of what they do, both on the pitch and off it, but a blending with our own current strengths is the way to get the most out of it, not a complete reversal of tactics from one extreme to the other.

As for the non-English team winning the PL, I would argue that the Italian league/culture is more receptive to foreign players and more fast paced the PL style is not.  While you can argue that theoretically Englishness is not important, there is still a compelling evidence that it is as so far no team has done this.  And in an argument or theory over evidence, I go with the evidence!

[Monty]

That's a bit of an Inspector Lestrade comment, isn't it John? ;)

I actually don't think that Arsenal don't put crosses in, they score from plenty of them. As for long balls, they are really almost totally pointless in any given situation, and that any reliance on them is frankly sad and regressive. As much as Arsenal, like us, lack a Plan B, their Plan A is massively more effective than ours, almost ridiculously so, for scoring goals. What they lack is experience and maturity - a few players in their team have it, but not enough, and that's where, as you rightly say, they could use Richard Dunne (by the way, neither he nor Carew are British, as per our previous discussion!).

Your comment about Italian culture being more receptive to foreigners is curious. In my experience, Italy is one of the least conducive places on earth to foreign influence - it's not uncommon to hear Italians call people from difference regions or towns "stranieri", foreigners. Style of play may be another thing, but it's worth suggesting that in a match between two evenly-matched sides in terms of players, a team playing the Italian style will damn near always beat a team playing the English style.

[old man villa fan]

The reason for the diminishing influence of the English core to teams is due to the reducing quality of the English players and what you have to pay to get the better ones.

I think people have thought that if you sign an English player and he does well at your club and likes the club, there is every chance that he will extend his contract and you then have continuity to build a team over a number of years.  Sadly now, with the rich clubs around, the lesser clubs have their best 'cherry picked'.

I have always seen Europe (with the possible exception of Germany) as a different model to England.  Whether it is the closer proximity to each other and the links between Spain/Portugal and South America or France/Belgium with Africa the team building seemed to be much shorter term with more of a 'mercenary' attitude of the players.  I have felt that players signed on for a certain contract period knowing that they would move on after.  Similarly with managers who build a team to win a competition and then move on, taking players with them.  This does happen in England but to a far lesser extent.  People will say that it has always happened but not to the extent as now where we have a top 4 or 5, a small group below them and then the rest.

We are seeing this more fluid approach to team building in the PL and I believe it is this that is draining the life out of the game, whether it be financial or supporters appetite for the game.  The major leagues around Europe are all now suffering financially due to this fast turnaround in players and the resulting cost of enticement of players/agents.  How much disillusionment is there with Villa fans caused by the Barry/Milner sagas or constant media manufactured threat of losing players like Ashley Young.

[Concrete John]

That's a bit of an Inspector Lestrade comment, isn't it John? ;)

I actually don't think that Arsenal don't put crosses in, they score from plenty of them. As for long balls, they are really almost totally pointless in any given situation, and that any reliance on them is frankly sad and regressive. As much as Arsenal, like us, lack a Plan B, their Plan A is massively more effective than ours, almost ridiculously so, for scoring goals. What they lack is experience and maturity - a few players in their team have it, but not enough, and that's where, as you rightly say, they could use Richard Dunne (by the way, neither he nor Carew are British, as per our previous discussion!).

Your comment about Italian culture being more receptive to foreigners is curious. In my experience, Italy is one of the least conducive places on earth to foreign influence - it's not uncommon to hear Italians call people from difference regions or towns "stranieri", foreigners. Style of play may be another thing, but it's worth suggesting that in a match between two evenly-matched sides in terms of players, a team playing the Italian style will damn near always beat a team playing the English style.

I don't think it's an unfair thing to say.  If I was to post that I thought Martin would crack the top 4 for us this season, there would be a landslide of replies telling me I was wrong and pointing to all the evidence that says so.  By the same token, you can't dismiss the fact that every title winning side since the advent of foreign players has still had an important British contigent simply because you think it could happen i the future.

Yes, Arsenal scored more goals than us last season, but is that solely to do with their style of play or does the fact they have better players also factor into things?  And if long balls (and for the record, I don't like them) are pointless why did the team that broke the top 4 last season play more of them than any other side?  It's because they also balanced it with other tactics and Arsenal have not achieved their potential as they do not do this.      

And would Fulham beating Juventus over two legs not counter your argument over the respective league styles?  I've only ever been to Italy three times so you may have a much greater ppreciation of it's culture than I do, but I do feel there is a stark contrast footballing wise, so what is true there (fully foreign team winning the league) does not necessarily follow here.

[Monty]

It's not impossible teams that with strong British contingents can do well in the league, but my argument is more that is no longer cost-effective, and a lack of cost-effectiveness limits our ability to build a squad, being one of the middle-spending teams.

Arsenal have better players than us, but it's not just about the quality of their best individuals. If you instill the correct ethos and style and, above all, temperament, the players we have can play a more creative, possession-based and, above all, effective style - maybe not as well as Arsenal, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it (and, perhaps, we have more experience in the defence to compensate for not having as potent an attack). Spurs were by no means a direct team - their excellent footballing ability and deep squad got them that fourth spot, as well as a well-timed run of form from Gareth Bale. Even so, with their more balance out style, they did not finish above Arsenal with their supposed one-dimensional style.

As for Fulham's victory over Juve, I would have to firstly say that it was an incredible game in which an old and sub-standard Juve side wilted like it did so many times last season, and secondly that Fulham are not so un-Italian themselves in their style of play. They had decent energy levels, but it was their organisation and well-timed passing which got them to the final last season. Though you are right in saying that Italian football is vastly different to English football, I'd firstly like to point out that their style of tactics and technique is proven to be more effective than ours given a balance of ability, and secondly that, while what happens there does not necessarily follow here, a difference in style does not alter who of any given nationality is most adept to play any given style.

(Finally, can I say that it's such a pleasure to have a proper debate on here without descending into mindless insults. It's almost unnerving.)

[old man villa fan]

Your comment about Italian culture being more receptive to foreigners is curious. In my experience, Italy is one of the least conducive places on earth to foreign influence - it's not uncommon to hear Italians call people from difference regions or towns "stranieri", foreigners. Style of play may be another thing, but it's worth suggesting that in a match between two evenly-matched sides in terms of players, a team playing the Italian style will damn near always beat a team playing the English style.

I wouldn't say that is reflected so much in football as over the years successful Italian clubs have at times built teams around a core of foreign players e.g. the Inter side that beat us in the UEFA Cup in 1990 (was I depressed that night in Milan, having travelled to the game on my own) built on the German core of Klinsmann, Matthaus and Brehme or the AC Milan side built around the Dutch core of Rijkaard, Van Basten and Gullit.

Match ups between English style teams and those of Italian style have usually been about one side going out wanting to win and the other going out not to lose but the latter eventually winning due to having better technical players able to score from fewer chances.

[Monty]

You are largely right about the way that Italian teams beat the English, Old Man, but the foreign legions to which you refer were just Italy doing what the Premier League is doing now, only it happened around the mid-80s. Of course, their football is more open to influence than ours simply because England is so insular and blind to change so much of the time when it comes to football, but their attitude to foreigners in general, and generally in football (especially in places like Rome, Bergamo and the Veneto), is not so dissimilar to England.

[Villa'Zawg]

I do feel that any "fan" that is willing to boo there own team after 45 mins of the season as for the wigan game last season must feel some responsibility.

Totally and utterly complete load of bollocks.

This is something which confuses me. The readiness of seemingly rational people to believe that the booing at 45 minutes against Wigan was purely about the previous 45 minutes.

I didn't boo, but I did remark to my match-attending friends that it was a continuation of the entirety of the previous season at home.

You seem to have arrived at your opinion as to the cause rather quickly. Having a thought pop into you head doesn't preclude other opinions from being valid.

Your opinion doesn't tally with the facts that we had won our 2 preceding PL home games and had finished the season with our highest points total and equal highest league position in 13 years. On that basis, you wouldn't normally expect the team to be boo'd off when only 0-1 down at H-T in the first game of the season.

[Concrete John]

Monty,

Yes - it is good to have this sort of discussion without in degenerating into farce.

My basic point in all of this is that there is no one pathway to the success we crave.  You rightly mention Spurs as varying their tactics and getting 4th, but that does not mean Arsenal were right to go to one extreme as they finished higher, because they also have better players than Spurs.  And for all our talk about where to source your players from, the majority of that Spurs side were bought domestically.

We have achieved a steady 6th place and that is a platfirm upon which to achieve more, but we will not do so by destroying the basis that platform was built on.  Evolution, and not revolution, is the way forward for us.

[pauliewalnuts]

I do feel that any "fan" that is willing to boo there own team after 45 mins of the season as for the wigan game last season must feel some responsibility.

Totally and utterly complete load of bollocks.

This is something which confuses me. The readiness of seemingly rational people to believe that the booing at 45 minutes against Wigan was purely about the previous 45 minutes.

I didn't boo, but I did remark to my match-attending friends that it was a continuation of the entirety of the previous season at home.

You seem to have arrived at your opinion as to the cause rather quickly. Having a thought pop into you head doesn't preclude other opinions from being valid.

Your opinion doesn't tally with the facts that we had won our 2 preceding PL home games and had finished the season with our highest points total and equal highest league position in 13 years. On that basis, you wouldn't normally expect the team to be boo'd off when only 0-1 down at H-T in the first game of the season.

I know we rallied at the end of the season, I was talking about more than the last couple of games - more about the way we struggled to break teams down, and to score goals, at home across the course of the season.

I don't understand your comment about precluding other opinions from being valid, so don't really see what you're getting at. Of course other opinions are valid

My point about rationality was just to say that it's a bit weird to think that suddenly we'd turned into a bunch of fans who will get quite so upset about 45 minutes of football in isolation. I know we've got a bit of a downer on ourselves, but that seems to be stretching it to breaking point.

What i was trying to say re half time was that now, a year on, I think it was about more than just 45 minutes, and I did at the time. Nothing more than that.

[Villa'Zawg]

We do have a lot more admin staff it seems.  However, most of those won't be on any more than £20K a year, which doesn't go anywhere near to explaining teh difference.

Thanks for your objective response, unlike some posters.

I only raised the question as to whether it is possible in club accounts to show payments for 'labour' in places other than just in staff salaries e.g. if subcontracted as a creditor or even off the books if a player controls his own image rights outside of the UK i.e. the club pay a player less in exchange for him controlling the sale of his own image under his own separate company outside UK tax by reciprocal tax agreement with country where his company is set up.

Yes it is possible. It is relatively common for players to have "image rights" limited companies and there is no specific requirement that payments to those companies be recorded as staff costs.

I don't know of any verifiable information on Spurs players wages. Recent reports have suggested that Modric is being awarded a better contract from a current £45k (perhaps Paulie's £25k figure is more reliable and verifiable?)  per week and that Gareth Bale is getting an increase from £25k per week. There were also widespread reports at the time that Darren Bent would have to take a significant pay cut if he had signed for us, even if he came in as our equal highest earner.