The Paul Lambert thread - poll reset after our capitulation to Hull

[Ads]

If the players want to go, they will go. Southampton are a lot smaller than us, not as good as we were a few years ago and not paying the big wages we were, yet we couldn't keep the likes of Barry and Milner. How do Southampton keep Shaw etc?

[richard moore]

Yes, great post ViD and sums up the catch 22 that is the Premier League these days. And of how you used to be able to win things with a talented manager who developed a group of players over time and which, de facto, made the winning thereof much more rewarding and fulfilling. Much as I rail against Lambert, Lerner et al down the Villa, they are part of a much bigger depressing picture and you've reminded me why I gave up Sky Sports a couple of years ago and don't miss it one tiny bit. And why modern day football is so soulless and lacking in anything that is really memorable in terms of great games and atmospheres...

[richard moore]

If the players want to go, they will go. Southampton are a lot smaller than us, not as good as we were a few years ago and not paying the big wages we were, yet we couldn't keep the likes of Barry and Milner. How do Southampton keep Shaw etc?

They won't. He's had one season to emerge as a talent and one season to consolidate and now he'll be off. That's about par for the course

[Dante Lavelli]

No offence intended to the "who cares!?" guy, but I've found the last few pages really interesting.  Without doubt most people have been critical but there is usually a constructive element to what they're saying.

For what it is worth I am increasingly starting to think that a new guy needs to be brought in who is a specialist coach.  Get Lambert to identify his Plan A (i.e. his tactics/formation for when we're required to dictate the play) and ask the new guy to deliver it on the training pitch.  This would mean Lambert can concentrate on his strengths (recruitment / managing the club in a sustainable manner / organisation / struggling now).

He might be a bit above us now but that Paul Clement chap would be ideal from what I have read.   

[not3bad]

If the players want to go, they will go. Southampton are a lot smaller than us, not as good as we were a few years ago and not paying the big wages we were, yet we couldn't keep the likes of Barry and Milner. How do Southampton keep Shaw etc?

They won't. He's had one season to emerge as a talent and one season to consolidate and now he'll be off. That's about par for the course

Sounds like Shaw to Chelsea is pretty much a done deal.

[aj2k77]

Squad size is one of the major flaws in the English game right now.

If there truly was a max squad of say 22 players, none of this homegrown shit either to circumnavigate the rules then the likes of Chelsea wouldn't be able to stockpile anyone they think mght have talent and talented fringe players would be getting regular game time at other clubs and improving the overall standard of the league.

As it is, Man City can sign your Jack Rodwells and Millners, never play them, deprive one of the clubs looking to break into the top 4 of one of their better players and not even bat an eye lid that £15m went down the pan.

[fbriai]

I completely agree, aj2k77.

Limiting squad size to 22 players strikes me as being the one simple thing that could be easily applied and have a big impact. It doesn't require anyone to have reduce the amount of money they spend, it simply forces them to prioritise. Doing the double would become a lot more difficult, let alone winning everything in sight, which would mean that more teams would have a chance to be competitive.

As you say, it also means that these players wouldn't spend all of their time parked on the bench.

I'd also get rid of the January transfer window and only allow players to move between clubs during the close season.

[Concrete John]

I don't know - if you scrap the 'home grown' element of the squad numbers, won't that hinder the development of young players?  Clubs will focus their resources on 22 senior pros and the kids won't get a look in.

The real issue is that the money is too tightly focused at the top of the league and therefore the Man City's of this world have a too much power, effecting clubs like us over Milner, as mentioned above.  More even distribution of the cash is the key and not limiting squad sizes, IMO.   

[dave.woodhall]

Said it before, say it again:
No loans to clubs at the same level or higher.
Players can't be loaned out in the same window or to the club they were bought from.
Loans end at the start of the next transfer window.
A player can't go to the same club more than once.

[Jon Crofts]

Said it before, say it again:
No loans to clubs at the same level or higher.
Players can't be loaned out in the same window or to the club they were bought from.
Loans end at the start of the next transfer window.
A player can't go to the same club more than once.

How about a limit on how many can go out on loan from one side?
Would stop teams like Chelsea buying up talent just to stop others getting it.

[Concrete John]

Said it before, say it again:
No loans to clubs at the same level or higher.
Players can't be loaned out in the same window or to the club they were bought from.
Loans end at the start of the next transfer window.
A player can't go to the same club more than once.

While all sensible steps, it doesn't really stop the richest club stockpiling the best players and then paying them to sit on their arses.

[Dante Lavelli]

A squad of say 20 players, plus any products of your own youth system would help the problem. 
This would prevent stock piling of players and also encourage clubs to develop younsters as it would effectively free up a spot in the squad for an expensive signing.

Maybe adding a player or three following qualification into Europe as there are a benefits in our clubs doing well and maintaining the 4 pots we currently have in the chumps league.  If they failed to qualify they'd be forced to sell/loan the players which would be fun to watch.

[aj2k77]

I don't know - if you scrap the 'home grown' element of the squad numbers, won't that hinder the development of young players?  Clubs will focus their resources on 22 senior pros and the kids won't get a look in.

The real issue is that the money is too tightly focused at the top of the league and therefore the Man City's of this world have a too much power, effecting clubs like us over Milner, as mentioned above.  More even distribution of the cash is the key and not limiting squad sizes, IMO.   

It wouldn't hinder the development of younger players because if they weren't getting a chance they'd join another club. Take Lukaku as an example, if he wasn't in Chelsea's Premier League squad he'd have left 2 years ago. The younger talented players would end up at the mid to lower premier league clubs, except for the exceptional ones, and get a chance of developing through proper game time and having actual team responsibilities, rather than playing 15 minutes in cup games for the big clubs and earning a massive wedge to keep them happy.

Also there should be a serious Premier League u21 league set up, maybe played the same day as Premier League matches, pre match entertainment perhaps? And should a side suffer a serious amount of injuries (say 4 or more) they can call up players from their U21 set up.

Probably major flaws in that idea as I haven't thought it out but it sure beats teams having squads of 45, loaning out 15 of them and depriving everyone else of a share of the talent.

[Concrete John]

It wouldn't hinder the development of younger players because if they weren't getting a chance they'd join another club. Take Lukaku as an example, if he wasn't in Chelsea's Premier League squad he'd have left 2 years ago. The younger talented players would end up at the mid to lower premier league clubs, except for the exceptional ones, and get a chance of developing through proper game time and having actual team responsibilities, rather than playing 15 minutes in cup games for the big clubs and earning a massive wedge to keep them happy.

But Chelsea could afford to keep Lukaku for those 2 years, play him in reserve, friendlies and youth games, plus train with the senior squad.  His forcing a move would mean a pay cut, so would he do that?

I'm not saying yours isn't a good idea, just that the greed of the modern footballer has to be taken into account.

[pauliewalnuts]

It wouldn't hinder the development of younger players because if they weren't getting a chance they'd join another club. Take Lukaku as an example, if he wasn't in Chelsea's Premier League squad he'd have left 2 years ago. The younger talented players would end up at the mid to lower premier league clubs, except for the exceptional ones, and get a chance of developing through proper game time and having actual team responsibilities, rather than playing 15 minutes in cup games for the big clubs and earning a massive wedge to keep them happy.

But Chelsea could afford to keep Lukaku for those 2 years, play him in reserve, friendlies and youth games, plus train with the senior squad.  His forcing a move would mean a pay cut, so would he do that?

I'm not saying yours isn't a good idea, just that the greed of the modern footballer has to be taken into account.

I think a lot of these players who sign for Chelsea but then get sent out on loan, sign for them knowing that this will happen, but they're confident that their talent will show through whilst loaned, which will earn them a place either in the Chelsea squad, or elsewhere, permanently.

If they knew that there would be a good chance that, having signed, they would not only not get loaned out, they'd only be able to play for the youth squad - where they'd be invisible to the wider world - a hell of a lot more of them would think twice about joining Chelsea.

There will always be some players who care only about the money, but the vast majority of younger players at the level where Chelsea would want to sign them will be extremely confident in their own ability, and not sufficiently stupid to sign up for a youth team.

I don't think there is much of a valid excuse for top flight sides to be borrowing players at all, to be honest, unless in a true emergency, but when it is done by a club as wealthy as Chelsea, it is clearly absurd.