Squad Registration Restrictions

killerandflash said:

fenaddick said:

cafcfan said:

It would be good if someone challenged this nonsense in Court. It's clearly a restraint of trade under Common Law. IMO the only way around that conclusion is that it is considered a reasonable imposition to maintain the integrity of the competition.  Now, I see how that works with the rules regarding the maximum total spend allowed on players but the number of actual players combined with an arbitrary under 21 exemption (why not 22 or 18 or whatever?) seems laughable to me.
Comparing the maximum of 25 with the actual match day squad - 11 starters plus 9 named subs, leaving only 5 not selected (one of whom would be a keeper presumably) starts to make the total look completely inadequate in the light of the strains and stresses of modern-day football. 
A mere 5 injuries, illnesses or suspensions to experienced players (or heavily pregnant wives or bereavements) would leave a team unable to put out the 18 outfield players needed to fill the squad without including kids. Utterly bonkers.

The funny thing is that the PFA are legally challenging the financial redirections in L1 and have no issues with the player limits. The idea is to stop the bigger clubs in a division from hoarding all the best players and having bloated squads. 

Your 5 missing players point is an incentive to have a good academy and to give those players a chance. We had large stretches last season with 5+ missing players but because we had TC, Leaburn, Gough and Anderson (at the beginning) under the limit it didn’t stop us putting out a decent bench 

The problem is that those academy players become part of the 25 once they get past 21, which is still a young age.

The system encourages clubs to keep 19 and 20 year olds at the club, but to loan out or sell them as soon as they become 21.

I think the 21 age is just linked to what competitions they can play in, too old to play U21 football for club or country. It's fairly brutal but it has to be somewhere I suppose and if the loans then help out further down the pyramid that's a good thing. It's not a perfect system but I don't think it's as unfair as OP suggested

Genuinely opened this thread intrigued by Spurs Relegation Restrictions 

As it stands, final squad looks like this for me

Okonkwo, Mannion, Brooks
Ramsay, McNamara
Edwards, Mesik
Koumetio, Bell
Jones, Sichenje, Burke
Chalabah, Coventry
Ouda, JRC, Mwamba (U21)
Carey, Knibbs
Campbell, Grant, Alli, Apter
Godden, Kelman
Leaburn, Mbick (U21)

Out - Docherty, Kaminski, Asiimwe, Kanu, Fullah

If JRS signs I can potentially see Knibbs moving out on loan perhaps. Jones has been clear he wants 5 wide players to run at defenders and JRS would complete that. Think Jones would want to play Campbell, Grant and JRS as our 3 in the 4-2-3-1. All of the other attacking players seem to be ahead of Knibbs.

If the good start to the season was to also persuade Holsgrove to join then think JRC would have to be moved on as well. Highly unlikely but we're still edging closer to deadline day.

Easier said than done though to move move on all of the un-needed players. Maybe we might have to sell on players who will be easier to move on than others. eg i'd prefer us to keep Docherty and move on JRC instead but feel Docherty will attract interest and be easier to move on than JRC. I also do wonder if Carey might get sold on instead of Knibbs if JRS arrives if a decent fee say upwards of £4m is offered? Again could be easier to move Carey on than Knibbs even if we'd prefer to keep Carey. I would say maybe not register Burke but I can't see anyone coming in for him.

I wonder if knibbs goes and we push Fullah closer to the starting 11

With Bindon joining and assuming Collins won't be registered where we on numbers now?

And how many loans? Bindon, Okonkwo and Ouma?

So are we able to retain players, even though they are not within the 25 you have registered? If so, apart from the additional wages and costs incurred, you wont actually have to sell the surplus? I so would you then be able to register a "Surplus" player into the first team squad, should an existing registered player leave or incur a long term injury?

gringo said:

So are we able to retain players, even though they are not within the 25 you have registered? If so, apart from the additional wages and costs incurred, you wont actually have to sell the surplus?

Yes you just don’t register them but of course still have to pay them. Likely the situation with Collins. 

I believe it is fixed until January

Thanks @fenaddick

So three out plus as many as we sign.

Two more loan spaces.

Speaking of loans. Am I right in thinking the academy loan player would have to be registered? Because that throws a bit of a spanner in the works 

Whinger said:

It seems ridiculous that homegrown players dont have an extended age limit. U21 for big money clubs are usually buy ins. Another reason clubs like ours with decent academies are penalised.

Asiimwe, Leaburn, TC should not be included in the 25 until at least age 23/4.

I think any player you develop in your academy should never count towards the cap (provided they’ve never left on a permanent transfer). Creates a great incentive for other clubs to do what we are. 

Utter bollox Fen. When they transfer, they are no longer "homegrown".

wolfgang said:

cantersaddick said:

fenaddick said:

cantersaddick said:

Is this a new thing? I don't remember it being an issue in previous summers? Or is it just that we now have a bloated squad and some of our younger players have aged out of being outside the limit? 

Second one. Miles and TC both counted as underage last year

Very annoying. Perhaps the rules should exclude 22 yr olds if they came through your own academy? but not if brought in from elsewhere?

Better to exclude all your 'own" academy players. That would encourage clubs to spend more money on their academies rather than on ever-increasing transfer fees.

Problem is what do you class as an academy player?