The 25 man squad rule and transfers/loans

[Desert Fox 0]

I read a report in the Times a week or so back which suggested that we were amongst the clubs that were over the 25 man squad limit, although we were well within the home grown quota. This was probably just the usual lazy journalism (e.g. ignoring the released players and loan returnees)However, by my reckoning, if we assume that we buy/loan 7 players over the age of 21 (as at 1st Jan 2011), we will need to sell/release or loan out at least five players. This would be less if any of the new players are counted as under 21s. For example, Pacheo and Lansbury would be under 21.If this right, we would have space in the squad for say Cody McDonald plus one other. Given that 3 of the 7 that I have listed as being potentially marginal players are strikers, this reinforces the impression that we will not be chasing any more strikers (e.g. CMS).Equally, we have room for more new players if all of the marginal sqaud are sold or loaned out.What does everyone else think?

	Core Squad		Marginal Squad		Under 21
1	John Ruddy	24	Luke Daley		Matt Ball
2	Russell Martin	25	Steven Smith		Josh Dawkin
3	Adam Drury	26	Cody McDonald		Jed Steer
4	Zak Whitbread	27	Owain Tudur Jones		George Francomb
5	Andrew Crofts	28	Oli Johnson		Tom Adeyemi
6	Grant Holt	29	Aaron Wilbraham		Korey Smith
7	Simeon Jackson	30	Stephen Hughes		Declan Rudd
8	Andrew Surman
9	Wesley Hoolahan
10	David Fox
11	Chris Martin
12	Simon Lappin
13	Leon Barnett
14	Elliott Ward
15	Anthony McNamee
16	Marc Tierney
17	Steve Morrison
18	James Vaughan
19	Elliot Bennett
20	New Player 4/Ritchie De Laet
21	New Player 5/Bradley Johnson
22	New Player 6
23	New Player 7

	Josh Dawkin
	Jed Steer
	George Francomb
	Tom Adeyemi
	Korey Smith
	Declan Rudd

[Bill 1,788]

I would put MacNamee in the marginal squad which leaves 3 out of -

15 Anthony McNamee

25 Steven Smith

26 Cody McDonald

27 Owain Tudur Jones

28 Oli Johnson

29 Aaron Wilbraham

30 Stephen Hughes

Hughes and Smith are gone, Daley on loan, Oli and or Tudor Jones/ leaving Wilbraham, MacDonald and MacNamee making up the three places left

probably why Lambert has stated that seven will come in as they will have already decided who is going, who is staying

can''t see the problem

[Desert Fox 0]

I dont think there is a problem either, which was the point that I was trying to get across.However, clubs with big academies are going to face a huge pressure in the next few years. This is highlighted by an Arsenal blog (see below) which states that Wenger is going to be under pressure to decide whether to keep Lansbury or not. Liverpool are under less pressure with Pacheo becuase he will still be classed as under 21 at the start of next season. For this reason we are more likley to be able buy Lnasbury now than Pacheo.http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/boards/read/s378.htm?721,12506185,12506567

[chicken 0]

Looks sound to me although I think the players you have as being marginal will go down drastically.

I wouldn''t read to much into the article on Smith via Brown the other day - it read very much to me a man trying to convince Norwich to pay Smith off so they can have him for free.

Wouldn''t surprise me if that happens anyway.

As for Daley - he is 20, so would not count towards our 25 man squad. This may actually be crucial to him staying or not. I don''t think he will though.

I am not sure about the others. But as I have said before: Holt, Vaughan, Morison, Jackson and Martin will not be enough cover up front. I could see Cody and Wilbraham staying with Johnson leaving.

I say that because Wilbraham and Cody can''t be that expensive and Wilbraham isn''t likely to demand a big fee.

The premiership is incredibly cut throat. An injury and a suspension or lack of form, on a small squad could prove to be killer. Ontop of that Lambert likes to have attacking options on the bench - five strikers would only allow us to have one injured or suspended at any one time.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]I dont think there is a problem either, which was the point that I was trying to get across.However, clubs with big academies are going to face a huge pressure in the next few years. This is highlighted by an Arsenal blog (see below) which states that Wenger is going to be under pressure to decide whether to keep Lansbury or not. Liverpool are under less pressure with Pacheo becuase he will still be classed as under 21 at the start of next season. For this reason we are more likley to be able buy Lnasbury now than Pacheo.http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/boards/read/s378.htm?721,12506185,12506567[/quote]

In many ways Wenger is under more pressure to keep Lansbury than Dalgliesh to keep Pacheco.

For starters Arsenal are always needing ''homegrown'' players in their named squad. If the reports on Sky are accurate though, Wenger has offered a new deal to Lansbury - but the player wants to know if he is genuinely in his plans. The same article suggested that if Lansbury didn''t sign the deal Wenger would look to sell this summer.

This is what we will see more of in the future. The best young talent kept in the reserves to for-fill quota''s.

[Desert Fox 0]

Chicken,I agree with everything you say, but my understanding is that Daley was born in November 1989, which means that he was 21 before 1st Jan 2011. If this is correct, he would count towards the 25 man squad, and for this reason, I am sure we will loan him out. With the likes of Adyemi/Steer/Francomb etc, we can decide to loan them out at our discretion (e.g, to gain experience) rather because we more or less have to.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="Desert Fox"]I dont think there is a problem either, which was the point that I was trying to get across.However, clubs with big academies are going to face a huge pressure in the next few years. This is highlighted by an Arsenal blog (see below) which states that Wenger is going to be under pressure to decide whether to keep Lansbury or not. Liverpool are under less pressure with Pacheo becuase he will still be classed as under 21 at the start of next season. For this reason we are more likley to be able buy Lnasbury now than Pacheo.http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/boards/read/s378.htm?721,12506185,12506567[/quote]

In many ways Wenger is under more pressure to keep Lansbury than Dalgliesh to keep Pacheco.

For starters Arsenal are always needing ''homegrown'' players in their named squad. If the reports on Sky are accurate though, Wenger has offered a new deal to Lansbury - but the player wants to know if he is genuinely in his plans. The same article suggested that if Lansbury didn''t sign the deal Wenger would look to sell this summer.

This is what we will see more of in the future. The best young talent kept in the reserves to for-fill quota''s.[/quote]Arsenal have no problems for home grown players;Diaby, Fabregas, Vela, Walcott, Ramsey, Song, Wilshere, Djourou, Clichy, Mannone, Gibbs, Traore, Frimpong, Eastmond, Emmanuel-Thomas, Lansbury, Bendtner, SzczesnyAll of these are counted as home-grown. You don''t need players to fill quotas, you can just leave the space in the squad blank and not have to pay anybodies wages.

[chicken 0]

You are right, I didn''t pay enough attention to this:

http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/25_luke_daley_1_715644

They have him down as aged 20 born Nov 1989. Come on Pinkun - that is pretty cack! That says to me he will be gone then.

As for Arsenal. Don''t hold your breath. If you look at the players that could be going: Fabregas, Clichy, and some of the others - not to mention in future seasons. Wenger has already indicated that he will be opening the purse strings this summer.

And it was more an example of the fact that there is the pressure of the age when there are actually not so many pressures. Wislshere and Ramsey don''t have to be named in the 25man squad due to their age.

But you still have to name a set quota of homegrown players within that 25man squad - at least that is my understanding. Yes you can name under 21 players in the squad but you don''t have to. So you would only really be best served naming them if you have to for that reason.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="chicken"]You are right, I didn''t pay enough attention to this:

http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/25_luke_daley_1_715644

They have him down as aged 20 born Nov 1989. Come on Pinkun - that is pretty cack! That says to me he will be gone then.

As for Arsenal. Don''t hold your breath. If you look at the players that could be going: Fabregas, Clichy, and some of the others - not to mention in future seasons. Wenger has already indicated that he will be opening the purse strings this summer.

And it was more an example of the fact that there is the pressure of the age when there are actually not so many pressures. Wislshere and Ramsey don''t have to be named in the 25man squad due to their age.

But you still have to name a set quota of homegrown players within that 25man squad - at least that is my understanding. Yes you can name under 21 players in the squad but you don''t have to. So you would only really be best served naming them if you have to for that reason.[/quote]The rule is out of the 25 players named a maximum can be non-home grown. So a team with no home grown players could name a squad of 17 overseas players and not one home grown player. Yes, of course this is a disadvantage as your squad will be significantly smaller, but if you have plenty of decent under 21s it doesn''t really matter.I guess Luke Daley''s age was correct when written on the Pinkun, just doesn''t get updated between seasons. The rule is actually players born after Jan 1st 1990 don''t need to be registered so poor Mr Daley is only a 2 months shy of being young enough.

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="chicken"]You are right, I didn''t pay enough attention to this: http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/25_luke_daley_1_715644 They have him down as aged 20 born Nov 1989. Come on Pinkun - that is pretty cack! [/quote]

 

[URL=http://www.imagebam.com/image/750eab136967070][IMG]http://thumbnails36.imagebam.com/13697/750eab136967070.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

 

What does that say about the competition?

[priceyrice 133]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Desert Fox"]I dont think there is a problem either, which was the point that I was trying to get across.However, clubs with big academies are going to face a huge pressure in the next few years. This is highlighted by an Arsenal blog (see below) which states that Wenger is going to be under pressure to decide whether to keep Lansbury or not. Liverpool are under less pressure with Pacheo becuase he will still be classed as under 21 at the start of next season. For this reason we are more likley to be able buy Lnasbury now than Pacheo.http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/boards/read/s378.htm?721,12506185,12506567[/quote]

In many ways Wenger is under more pressure to keep Lansbury than Dalgliesh to keep Pacheco.

For starters Arsenal are always needing ''homegrown'' players in their named squad. If the reports on Sky are accurate though, Wenger has offered a new deal to Lansbury - but the player wants to know if he is genuinely in his plans. The same article suggested that if Lansbury didn''t sign the deal Wenger would look to sell this summer.

This is what we will see more of in the future. The best young talent kept in the reserves to for-fill quota''s.[/quote]Arsenal have no problems for home grown players;Diaby, Fabregas, Vela, Walcott, Ramsey, Song, Wilshere, Djourou, Clichy, Mannone, Gibbs, Traore, Frimpong, Eastmond, Emmanuel-Thomas, Lansbury, Bendtner, SzczesnyAll of these are counted as home-grown. You don''t need players to fill quotas, you can just leave the space in the squad blank and not have to pay anybodies wages.

[/quote]Yeah Bethnal you are spot on here, i think its a bit stupid that rule, there were a few teams this year, i think Chelsea being the worst that had 4/5 homegrown players in their 25 man squad rather than 8, just means you would choose a 21/22 man squad instead.Arsenal have no issues whatsoever with home grown players, so nothing there is going to effect Lansbury, i beleive he is in his last year of his contract isn''t he? If he is there will be a good chance he could leave this summer, Wenger has said anyone with a year left who wont extend their contract will be sold this summer- Nasri is one of those examples. I hope Lansbury isn''t because i don''t think we can honestly afford him this season, he will be a good squad member but the 3/4 M spent on him could be spent somewhere else this season which would be more beneficial. I would much prefer to see Lansbury come alone for another season and then we buy him next season after staying up and we have some more cash to spend.