How “frustrating” home grown rules impacting Arsenal’s transfer business

A lot is made about buying home grown players, and the struggle teams face to recruit enough quality of “English” talent to fulfil the Premier League home grown criteria.

People often get the criteria the wrong way round, talking about how each club must register “8 home grown players”. This is not true. They could for all intents and purposes register none.

The rule is about how many “non home grown” players a team can register:

Each club is able to list up to 17 senior players that are not English or Welsh and did not spend a significant period in an English or Welsh academy.

Currently, to be classified as home grown one must be on an English (or Welsh) team for at least three years before the age of twenty-one. It does not matter if the player was born overseas, or what country they play for.

For this reason, the likes of Alex Iwobi (born in Nigeria, plays for Nigeria) and Wilfried Zaha (born in Ivory Coast, plays for Ivory Coast) are considered home grown. And rightly so.

Both came to England at 4 years old, and are very much British citizens as much as they are Nigerian or Ivorian. Both have representing England as youngsters before deciding to play for the country of their both at senior level. Regardless of what people say, I will always class both as British (interestingly when I do this on Twitter, it riles up mainly Nigerian fans who seem to not realise he can be both Nigerian and British).

You then have players such as Hector Bellerin and Cesc Fabregas.

Both signed for Arsenal from Barcelona as teenagers. Both spent 3 years in England before they were 21-years-old.

Both born in Spain, both capped by Spain, yet both are considered as home grown.

The home grown rule was bought in by Greg Dyke in an attempt to improve the English national team. In theory, to force sides to have more “English” players in the squad. But you could essentially have Zaha, Iwobi, Bellerin and Fabregas in the squad, all home grown, non of whom play for England.

You also have the Welsh criteria.

As Swansea, Cardiff and Wrexham play in England, the Premier League count you as home grown even if you were in a Welsh academy.

This means someone like Ben Davies of Tottenham is home grown, despite being born in Wales and playing for Wales.

This does not extend to Scotland, however.

Bournemouth have to register Ryan Fraser (born in Scotland, plays for Scotland) as non home grown. This has probably impacted some top teams signing him this summer.

Arsenal target Kieran Tiernay is the same.

Tiernay was born on the Isle of Man, a self-governing British Crown dependency in the Irish Sea. He moved to Scotland at a young age and came up through Celtic’s academy. Like Fraser, were he to move to England he will not be considered as home grown.

I am sure these rules impact English teams signing Scottish players. Why go for a player from North of the border  when their are better French / German / Spanish players available?

The oddest rule of them all can be seen with Eric Dier.

Dier was born in Cheltenham, England. He plays for the English national team. At the age of 7, he moved with his family to Portugal as his mother got a job with UEFA working on Euro 2004. He is not considered as home grown.

So we have Zaha, Iwobi, Fabregas, Bellerin and Dier. 1 born in England, 4 born abroad. 1 plays for England, 4 play for foreign nations. Yet it is the English born, England international who is not considered as home grown. It all feels a little backwards.

When teams play in Europe, UEFA confuse matters further.

The “Welsh Rule” which means the Premier League considers players who have come up through an academy in Wales does not apply for UEFA competitions.

So back to the aforementioned Ban Davies.

Davies spent all his time in the Swansea academy (bar a brief spell in Denmark as a pre-teen).

Since 12 years old, he has played within the English football pyramid, working his way through the Swansea junior teams before becoming a 1st team regular. The issue is that whilst Swansea play in England, they still come under the Football Association of Wales rather than the English FA. UEFA do not consider him as home grown.

This led Tottenham having to leave him out of their European squad a few years back, something which baffled Mauricio Pochettino.

The fact the UEFA do not consider players to have come through the Welsh system is confusing, as every top Welsh player would have likely have come through the Swansea or Cardiff youth system (unless they moved to England at a very young age).

It also works the other way round. If Swansea or Cardiff were to play in European competition, any English players would be considered as non home grown.

This could create a situation where Swansea are Champions of England, with a squad containing 25 English-born players, but in Europe could only register 17 of them.

Like with Scotland, I wonder how much this impacts English clubs from buying Welsh players? And how many parents would consider moving their child from Wales to an English academy at 15 to ensure that they are eligible for both countries as home grown?

In summary, it is all a bit of a mess.

When an English born, English international is not considered home grown, whilst a Nigerian born, Nigerian international is home grown, something is broken.

Would Arsenal have signed Ryan Fraser if he was home grown? And is that a key reason we are targeting Zaha?

Keenos

Zaha a no-go for Arsenal

Wilfried Zaha is reportedly Arsenal’s number one attacking target this summer. That worries me.

The Ivory Coast international is one of the most overrated players in the Premier League. One of those players who makes Soccer Am’s highlights reel week in, week out, but actually has very poor output.

Zaha turns 27 next season, and last year was the first time he had ever scored 10 league goals in a single campaign. Crystal Palace’s reported £70million asking price for is too much for a player with his ability and age.

Were Zaha 22 or 23, you would be entitled to think “fantastic young talent” but he is not. In November he turns 27. That means he is not going to get much better. He is at his peak. And any transfer fee spent on him is unlikely to be recouped.

Last season he had a decent season. But it was not an exceptional one.

Yes, he scored 10 goals, but he averaged nearly 300 minutes per goal. The much maligned Theo Walcott Only averaged as high as this twice in his Arsenal career, the last being when he was 22.

In Walcott’s last full season with Arsenal, he scored 19 goals. He was deemed by many as dead wood. Not good enough.

Comparing Walcott to Zaha is one of those ones where Zaha looks a lot better, he beats a man more often, has more tricks. Yet Walcott gets more goals and more assists. Throughout his Arsenal career, Walcott was ugly yet efficient. Zaha is the opposite.

Zaha’s 10 goals this season have come at a very high minutes per goal ratio. Out of all the wingers to score 10 Premier League goals, he had by far the worst ratio.

I understand that on the list, he played for the worst club. But this also means he got the most game time.

Whilst Sterling had to share the limelight with Sane, Silva x2, De Bruyne, everything that Palace did went through Zaha.

Zaha is a good mid-table player. Inconsistent but can win you games. He is the type of player that will put in 5 match winning performances a season, and those 5 performances will be enough to take a team from a relegation battle to mid-table safety.

He would do a job as an impact substitute at a top club, but certainly not at the price Palace are demanding.

There is an argument that he is “better than what Arsenal already have” which whilst true, does not mean we should buy him. Being better than what we have does not necessarily make him the best option.

Even if he was on the market at £40million, I would still feel that as overpriced. There are younger, cheaper, more exciting players in world football.

Keenos

What would a Homegrown Hale End squad look like?

Yesterday I read an interesting blog from out friends over at GunnersTown where it was suggested that with Arsenal unable to compete with Manchester City financially, that we should perhaps stop trying to chase them in the transfer market and concentrate on promoting youth.

No matter how much money we generate through our self-sustain model, or how much Stan Kroenke would mythically pump in, Manchester City owners would just pump in more.

It is why many argue that we should concentrate on doing things smarter, doing things better, as it is completely unrealistic that we can match the oil-state funded side unless we also become oil-state funded.

The argument in the blog from GunnersTown is that if we accept that we are not going to be able to compete financially, and therefore it is unlikely we will challenge for the title; should we concentrate on playing youngsters. On playing local lads who actually care about the club rather than the crazy money they are on.

There is an example as to what GunnersTown are talking about in Germany.

German football is dominated by Bayern Munich who have won the last 7 league titles.

Based on 2017/18 accounts, Bayern Munich have a total revenue £255m higher than Germany’s 2nd richest club – Borussia Dortmund – and there wage bill nearly double. There revenue is higher than the 2nd and 3rd richest teams in Germany combined (Dortmund & Schalke) and they generate £420m more a season than Borussia Mönchengladbach in 4th.

The financial inequality that teams and fans basically write off competing with Bayern Munich for the title. They know it is nearly impossible. There is an acceptance.

So what happens instead is these clubs concentrate on developing and bringing through young players. Seeing youngsters break through into the 1st team, and then go on to the national team is the goal of almost every Bundesliga team bar Munich.

The success of the national team then becomes the success for these fans to celebrate because, even if the players move elsewhere, they remain linked with the club they came through. They are very much still seen as “their players” regardless if they end up at Manchester City, Real Madrid or, inevitably, Bayern Munich.

Returning to Arsenal; if we accept that we can not compete for the title whilst Manchester City are state sponsored, should we stop spending hundreds of millions on mercenary footballers chasing them? Would fans not get more joy seeing local fans breaking through, developing, and then pushing into the England team?

I think at this point we have to make the distinction between match going fans and TV fans which GunnersTown also does.

If you are not challenging for honours, I think match going fans would rather see local players getting their chance, whilst TV fans would want to “see the best players possible.”

Now Arsenal would have to “give something back” to match going fans if they decided to accept not chasing the title and instead promote youth. To put simply, Arsenal would half the season ticket prices.

That would mean my £1,000 season ticket would not only cost £500.

Halving ticket prices would reduce revenue by around £50m (gate receipts currently equal ~£100m a season). Arsenal would then have to shave £50million off the wage bill to manage this.

It would also be sensible for the club to budget without any European football, just in case the worst happens.

In 2018/19 Arsenal earned £37million from Europa League prize money and TV rights.

All other revenue streams would stay the same as domestic and overseas TV rights are agreed by the Premier League and our major sponsors are tied to long term deals.

So Arsenal’s revenue would drop by £87million a year. A huge drop that would come directly off the wage bill.

Arsenal’s wage bill in 2017/18 was reported as £223,000,000. Knocking off £87,000,000 would see the side have an annual wage budget of £136,000,000. That is similar to what Tottenham and Everton pay. Tottenham showing that if you spend right, and develop youngsters, you can still create a competitive team.

Shaving £1.5m off the weekly wage bill is not an easy task, but is manageable:

Ozil: £350k
Aubameyang: £200k
Mkhitaryan: £180k
Kolasinac: £115k
Ramsey: £110k
Xhaka: £100k
Cech: £100k
Mustafi: £90k
Koscielny: £90k
Welbeck: £75k
Monreal – £75k
Elneny – £50k
Jenkinson – £45k

All of the above cost Arsenal just a little shy of £1.6m. 3 have already left and I imagine bar Aubameyang, most would not be too upset to see the others leave.

The key now is that instead of Arsenal going out and buying the likes of Yannick Carrasco, Joachim Anderson, Dennis Praet or Wilfreid Zaha, the club looks internally to replace the majority of those that leave, looking at Freddie Ljungberg’s U23 squad.

Martinez
Ilev
Bellerin
Chambers
Sokratis
Holding
New CB
Mavropanos
Ballard
New LB
Medley
Torreira
Guendouzi
Maitland-Niles
Beilik
Willock
Iwobi
Nelson
ESR
Saka
Amaechi
Lacazette
New ST
Nketiah

Arsenal would still require a new left back, central defender and striker, but with intelligent recruitment on young players, we should not need to pay more than £70,000 a man on all 3 players.

So where would that squad finish?

In the short term we we probably be looking at 6th – 8th. But as the many teenagers continually improve in the mid term, as few sold for big money and reinvested, there is no reason we could not build a Champions League challenging team in the same way Tottenham have done.

It would perhaps be a 5-year project to strip the club down and rebuild it before we become regular Champions League challengers again, and it would take a huge mental shift for fans (and I am sure we would lose some of those fans who only support Arsenal due to certain players).

But lets roll forward 5 years.

We are sitting watching young, local lads, with a conveyor belt of them coming through. Season tickets are half what they are now, and we are back to being a settled top 6 team.

It is well worth thinking about…

Keenos