Is anyone else concerned about the dilution of English/British players in our squad? I don't mean from a racial perspective, but more in terms of things like playing style, passion, verbal communication. We have all been pretty scathing about Wenger's disregard for English players and his preference towards French or French speakers.
With the addition of Paulinho, Soldado and Chadli as well as likely arrival of Capoue, plus the departure of Caulker and rumoured/potential departures of the likes of Bale, Parker, Livermore and Huddlestone, under Portuguese Manager AVB we could become way more international as a squad than we have ever been.
It could look like this:
British squad members - Rose, Naughton, Walker, Dawson,Fryers, Lennon, Townsend, Carroll, Defoe
French nationals/speakers - Lloris, Bennie, Capoue, Kaboul, Ade
Dutch and Belgians - Vertonghen, Dembele, Chadli
Others - Friedel, Holtby, Sandro, Paulinho, Gylfi, Soldado
Do we think this is a good thing, bad thing, or couldn't care less so long as we are successful?
Spurs new balance of nationalities
posted on 12/8/13
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/8/13
"It may be worth paying a little more for an English player of similar ability, if the likelihood of them staying long-term is increased."
What is the premium you deem acceptable ??
And the transfer fee threshold beyond which you ditch the Brit ??
posted on 12/8/13
Chronic,
I think we might be getting crossed wires here as the points i was opposing are :
1) That foreign players are better behaved off the field.
2) That Chadli is better than an English equivalent based on the fact he scored against Spurs.
3) That Chadli is better than English players based on the fact he has featured in the CL.
4) That Chadli is value for money (in the foreigner Vs home grown debate) based of the fact a newspaper valued Tom Ince at £8m.
posted on 12/8/13
It's hard to gauge really.
See I think even if two players look as if they have similar abilities, the certainty of success will always be higher with the player who has already played in your league. Minimising the risk means paying a premium in most walks of life.
Where that balance is struck is what you have to weigh up case by case. I'm not sating buy wholly British PL proven players, but it should always be knocking on half if possible. If you want a RB and there is no value in England, go abroad. If you need a LB and Shaw was available for example, it may be worth the extra.
It gives you much more leeway with the 17+8 too when looking at new players. Not having to make room for a new NonHG by getting rid of another nonHG.
Saying that I don't think we have got much value this Summer from Europe. Soldado was 26m for a 28yr old and Chadli 9m for a player not wholly proven either. Capoue I know little about to be honest, but 9/10m seems decent - not cheap, not dear.
posted on 12/8/13
"It's hard to gauge really."
Well to say something like :
For any position, paying a 20% premium for a UK rather than overseas player, until the fee hits 15m quid
would be a start.
posted on 12/8/13
It doesn't just rest on foreign v British.
I'd always pick a Scandinavian to settle over an Eastern European for example.
Which league are they coming from? Have they experienced a Northern European league before?
Too many variables to apply any sort of simple formula.
posted on 12/8/13
"It doesn't just rest on foreign v British."
Isn't this what has been debated all day ??
The "home-grown" vs overseas player.
Not buying overseas players over UK players purely for cost reasons (and what price premium should be tolerated if necessary) .
posted on 13/8/13
In its most basic form, yes.
You want a simple mathematic formula though that encompasses all foreign players. I say it isn't that simple, the variables are too high. Chiriches for example represents a higher risk than Vertonghen did in my opinion.
Chiriches is Romanian, an Eastern European country with little PL pedigree past the 94 Spurs two. He has played all his football in a very minor league and has never left his own country.
Vertonghen is from Belgium, a country which consistently produces footballers for the PL. He has played and lived in a different country, in a better league than the Romanian one, and has been captain at Ajax, a club with huge history there.
To me, the risk is/was far less for the latter. They may actually be similarly talented for all I know, but I wouldn't be able to apply a one-size-fits-all formula when comparing them to British/PL players as I couldn't even match those two evenly.
posted on 13/8/13
"You want a simple mathematic formula though"
Nothing so precise.
Just something broad-brush like you'd pay a premium of 25% on the price of an overseas player to get the equivalent ability UK player. But if the transfer fee goes over say 15m quid, then you may have to forget the UK player.
Like all such things in principle, the premiums are often tolerated. But there always comes a point where principles get thrown out the door.
And for clubs with lesser budgets, the door gets opened a lot sooner.
posted on 13/8/13
is chickens role in this article to continously miss the point?
shows up, says something, gets a response, misses the point, says something else, gets corrected, misses the point again, etc etc etc
chicken my argument is not very hard to understand, i have laid it out very clearly and whether or not others agree with it at least they can understand it, whereas you just misinterpret absolutely everything.
possibly on purpose but not sure. either way am fed up of having to rexplain myself over and over and over.