Wellington Phoenix Men

New QLD teams allowed more overseas players

63 replies · 904 views
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
New QLD teams allowed more overseas players

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Reports suggesting that the A-League is considering allowing the two new QLD clubs concessions in allowing them to sign more than 4 "visa" players. On one hand we want a strong and even league. But there are issues in giving these clubs a leg up. It doesn't encourage them to promote any home grown players, and it is a short term fix, year 2 for them they have to go back to basics. They will also have plenty more time than the Phoenix did to put a team together. So:

(a) is this fair?

(b) should the Phoenix have been given the same assistance?

(c) knowing the deep pockets of the Gold Coast guy are we going to see an overseas super team in the A-League playing soon?

Try and take your Phoenix hats (or bandannas) off for a while and think about the good of the league. Personally I'm a little nervous about it because even if they are succesful what does it say about the the rest of the league?

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Every team should be allowed more foreign players. It's an international sport with an international labour market, get with the times.

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Not really the issue though...

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
They're doing a similar thing with the new expansion clubs in the Super League in England. I think its not a bad idea but im with Arsenal would like to see a few more international players fullstop

www.kiwifromthecouch.blogspot.com

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Why? Very few of them have been any good!

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
More international players ? Hell no. 

Points to remember:
1, The Asian Champions League only allows 3 foreign players.  The point of the restriction to four is to make it so sides do not have to rebuild to play in Asia.
2, It's about developing players and the game in this region, not to provide a retirement home for players who have failed in Europe.
3, No matter how many they sign JD, they still have to deal with the cap.

Agree totally with you on the original point thoughJD, it's a huge double standard to allow sides more foreign spots than others and really does raise questions about how muc of an even playing field the A-League actually is (cue Melbourne fans giving example of Lowy favouritism of Sydney seeing as he owns them).

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Thats true, the salary cap is still an issue...I don't like the idea of different rules for different people. Like the fact that we can sign injury cover, it's really bit ridiculous and artificial.

If they're not ready they should wait another year, not be given a leg up just to get them on board. james dean2008-07-24 09:59:46

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I think it is fair because the talent pool for quality aussie players is already pretty diluted across the 8 teams, you add two more teams to spread it across expansion teams and they might as well be letting the kni&$ts back into the league for al the competition they would provide.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
If that's the case should they be letting in any more teams at all?

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
james dean wrote:
If that's the case should they be letting in any more teams at all?
Honestly. No. not for at least another 2 years. let the youth league get underway for a couple of seasons, let clubs actually develop there own talent to a degree (phoenix should be allowed to compete)then we will have a better idea of what the player resources are like. if they want to keep the quality of the competition at least, rather than let it digress into a flashier version of the old NSL.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:

2, It's about developing players and the game in this region, not to provide a retirement home for players who have failed in Europe.
[/QUOTE]
Really! Limiting the foreign players only means that the failed retirees will be Aussies.

[QUOTE=UberGunner]
Honestly. No. not for at least another 2 years. let the youth league get underway for a couple of seasons, let clubs actually develop there own talent to a degree.

All the clubs have had their U20 players and given that the new clubs won't join till V6 most of the original U20's will have progressed to senior spots if good enough. That should have provided an additional 2 teams worth of players. 2 more years won't help if the talent isn't there.


Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Malky wrote:
Really! Limiting the foreign players only means that the failed retirees will be Aussies.


...or New Zealanders.  That's what it should be.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Malky wrote:
Hard News wrote:

2, It's about developing players and the game in this region, not to provide a retirement home for players who have failed in Europe.
[/QUOTE]
Really! Limiting the foreign players only means that the failed retirees will be Aussies.

[QUOTE=UberGunner]
Honestly. No. not for at least another 2 years. let the youth league get underway for a couple of seasons, let clubs actually develop there own talent to a degree.

All the clubs have had their U20 players and given that the new clubs won't join till V6 most of the original U20's will have progressed to senior spots if good enough. That should have provided an additional 2 teams worth of players. 2 more years won't help if the talent isn't there.


the problem still is if those current under 20 players all step up, then help form a basis for expanision teams, that leaves a gap in the teams they are leaving?
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
We have a similar ongoing benefit in that we are the only club allowed to sign NZ players who don't count as foreigners. I don't see the other clubs complaining about that so if the new teams are allowed 1 or 2 extra foreign players for a few years then that's fine by me. They are still under the same salary cap with a single marquee player so I don't think they will be able to abuse the rule. Also we currently only have 2 foreign players.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

How many extra are they allowed?

I don't see it as a major issue, even though it is a double-standard that the Phoenix were not extended the same "golden hello" clause.
 
Ultimately, better this than what I think they did in the last NFL expansion. If I recall correctly, existing teams nominated a select number of protected players and the two new clubs could pick any remaining player (one or two per team limit) from each team for free! 
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Arsenal wrote:
Every team should be allowed more foreign players. It's an international sport with an international labour market, get with the times.
 
Only fans of top-flight teams tend to think that way though.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
Arsenal wrote:
Every team should be allowed more foreign players. It's an international sport with an international labour market, get with the times.
 
Only fans of top-flight teams tend to think that way though.



Too right!


<!-- bmi_SafeAddOnload(bmi_load,"bmi_orig_img");//-->
E + R + O

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
WellyT wrote:
We have a similar ongoing benefit in that we are the only club allowed to sign NZ players who don't count as foreigners. I don't see the other clubs complaining about that so if the new teams are allowed 1 or 2 extra foreign players for a few years then that's fine by me.
 
That's a tricky one. We do get a bonus by being a NZ club in an AU league. On the one hand, as a NZ club we have to be able to treat NZ players as domestic. On the other, there aren't enough to allow us to treat AU as non-domestic. I would say the fairest approach would be for the A-League to class both NZ and AU as domestic for all A-League clubs and not just us.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
DeJaVue...
 
There is a whole 108 page thread on the English Forum for the Arsenal supporters.
 
You can try and justify fielding 11 foriegners there but not in this thread,
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Player depth in a League and population this size will always be an issue. I suppose there is a bit of they shouldn't be here unless they can get a team within the current salary and nationality restrictions.

I know that FFA is now part of Asia, but perhaps they'd do well to not count Oceania (including the Pacific Islands) as foreign players - but of course whether they'd be up to the standard. Perhaps they'd be better off with changing the rules for the League - one restriction foreign Asia Confederation player per team?
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
WellyT wrote:
We have a similar ongoing benefit in that we are the only club allowed to sign NZ players who don't count as foreigners. I don't see the other clubs complaining about that so if the new teams are allowed 1 or 2 extra foreign players for a few years then that's fine by me. They are still under the same salary cap with a single marquee player so I don't think they will be able to abuse the rule. Also we currently only have 2 foreign players.
 
Where do you get your information from WellyT?  A Kiwi does not count as a foreigner if playing for one of the other 7 A-League teams, as a Johnny foreigner is someone that would require a work visa for Aussie, we don't.
 
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Yes they do.

As I said earlier the A-League regulations for Australian sides align with the Asian Champions League Rules.  As such ANY non-Australian player counts towards an Australian players 'foreign' cap of four players.

That definitely includes New Zealanders, it was changed before last season.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
We can't complain being allowed unlimited Kiwi's and Aussies.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
That might pose a problem for us if we ever were allowed to play in the ACL (wishful thinking I know).

If we were allowed in as a NZ team then we'd have too many Aussies and if we got in as an Aussie team then we'd have too many Kiwis.

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Malky wrote:
That might pose a problem for us if we ever were allowed to play in the ACL (wishful thinking I know).

If we were allowed in as a NZ team then we'd have too many Aussies and if we got in as an Aussie team then we'd have too many Kiwis.

 
You'd think that would have been covered with the powers that be...

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Hard News wrote:
Yes they do.As I said earlier the A-League regulations for Australian sides align with the Asian Champions League Rules.� As such ANY non-Australian player counts towards an Australian players 'foreign' cap of four players.That definitely includes New Zealanders, it was changed before last season.

Well that's the last time I rely on an answer from the FFA.
Half way through last season I got an answer to a question, I asked near the beginning of the season, to what is a foreign player, the reply was someone who would need a work visa.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
SiNZ wrote:
Arsenal wrote:
Every team should be allowed more foreign players. It's an international sport with an international labour market, get with the times.
 
Only fans of top-flight teams tend to think that way though.
 
No,i agree with it also. Except,the A league and football in australia isnt really big enough,so it really is only for developing local talent
 
The EPL is a different story...Im quite convinced english teams wouldnt look at foreigners from certain countries (like NZ) if they were only allowed a couple of foreigners. The no foreigners rule means that countries without the resources for a proper domestic league lose out BIG TIME!
 
Simon elliot, Killen and even maybe Nelsen may not have been given their chance in europe if this pro-europe rule from FIFA goes through. They would instead be slaving away in the NZFC,and not get any better.
 
Didnt quite manage to say that the way i wanted,but hope you get the general idea.

Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Corkster wrote:
Hard News wrote:
Yes they do.As I said earlier the A-League regulations for Australian sides align with the Asian Champions League Rules.  As such ANY non-Australian player counts towards an Australian players 'foreign' cap of four players.That definitely includes New Zealanders, it was changed before last season.

Well that's the last time I rely on an answer from the FFA.
Half way through last season I got an answer to a question, I asked near the beginning of the season, to what is a foreign player, the reply was someone who would need a work visa.


Where would Daniel fit in that having residency now? Or would he be considered a foreigner until he has citizenship?
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Tegal wrote:
SiNZ wrote:
[QUOTE=Arsenal]Every team should be allowed more foreign players. It's an international sport with an international labour market, get with the times.
 
Only fans of top-flight teams tend to think that way though.
 
No,i agree with it also. Except,the A league and football in australia isnt really big enough,so it really is only for developing local talent
 
The EPL is a different story...Im quite convinced english teams wouldnt look at foreigners from certain countries (like NZ) if they were only allowed a couple of foreigners. The no foreigners rule means that countries without the resources for a proper domestic league lose out BIG TIME!
 
Simon elliot, Killen and even maybe Nelsen may not have been given their chance in europe if this pro-europe rule from FIFA goes through. They would instead be slaving away in the NZFC,and not get any better.
 
Didnt quite manage to say that the way i wanted,but hope you get the general idea.
 
 
 
 
Thats exactly the point. Its why the country vote for the FIFA ban on more than 5 foreigners per team was something like 180 for and 6 against(can't remeber the exact figures but it was overwellming)
Countries want their players back to strencthen the domestic league.
 
At the moment there are about 150 Aussies and probably 30 to 50 kiwis(guess) playng profootball overseas. Most of them are journeymen who will never crack the elite level. Better off having them home playing in the A-League... if even half of them came back then we would easily have enough players for 14 teams in the A-League. End result a much stronger A-League.
[/
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Yes but protectionism isn't going to help those players who need to be playing at an elite level, why should Ryan Nelsen be forced into the A-League when he can earn �2m pounds a year?  Why should anyone not be entitled to go to another country and work?  The same principals as apply in ordinary worker rights apply to football.  The 5 + thing is ridiculous, reactionary rubbish from Blatter who has no thought to what he states as FIFA policy.  The FIFA suggestion came about as a result of Blatter stating (in his infinite wisdom) that England didn't qualify for Euro 2008 because they have too many foreigners.  But that's their problem, why should anyone else care what England wants to do other than the English FA?  Ill thought out rubbish.  As is your post.  Go away and have a think... james dean2008-07-25 04:03:59

Normo's coming home

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Bang on james dean. A very eloquent post for 4am in the morning.

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
In his defence, he's in the UK so it wasn't 4:00 AM for him.

I've seen him at 4:00 AM at Electric Ave and he ain't that lucid.

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago


I see.

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
james dean wrote:
Yes but protectionism isn't going to help those players who need to be playing at an elite level, why should Ryan Nelsen be forced into the A-League when he can earn �2m pounds a year?  Why should anyone not be entitled to go to another country and work?  The same principals as apply in ordinary worker rights apply to football.  The 5 + thing is ridiculous, reactionary rubbish from Blatter who has no thought to what he states as FIFA policy.  The FIFA suggestion came about as a result of Blatter stating (in his infinite wisdom) that England didn't qualify for Euro 2008 because they have too many foreigners.  But that's their problem, why should anyone else care what England wants to do other than the English FA?  Ill thought out rubbish.  As is your post.  Go away and have a think...
 
FFS - is that the level we've descended to? The "your post is rubbish, go away and have a think" line of debate? Way to kill any chance of an intelligent debate.
 
The whole foreigner thing has been building up for ages. That happens when your country's top flight is two thirds foreign players - by far the largest lack of balance in Europe (probably global, but I don't know if so). England's failure to get to Euro2008 is not especially relevant except being the latest example. Why should any other country feel obliged to have rules that allow Ryan Nelsen to earn �2m pounds a year?
 
The massing of talent into a few leagues has damaged domestic football in other countries. The Dutch used to produce strong club sides, but they are a shadow of their former selves. If NZ send all their good players overseas, no wonder you're complaining about the relative skill level of the NZFC.
 
You talk about an ordinary worker being able to move to another country and work. It's not that unrestricted. To accept a job offer in NZ, I had to undergo a points system analysis. The company had to write a letter to NZ immigration showing why they could not employ a NZer to perform the role I was being assigned. When I spent 2003 working in Thailand, it was even more stringent. People wanting to come to work in NZ from overseas get turned down all the time. The same thing happens going the other way. Football clubs in England are nearly always able to get players a work permit. Although it's supposed to be based on international appearances that is often circumnavigated. Just because the borders are down in Europe and the Premier League has absolutely no restrictions at all for non-EU players (unlike other leagues in Europe) does not mean that football should not apply the same rules as ordinary workers.
 
The fact is that there used to be restrictions and it worked just fine. The old restrictions were very hard-line, unlike the idea that Blatter tabled. Something needs to be done to put the balance back.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Oh, you're English. That explains it then.

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
In Europe a player from a country within the EU can move freely and work freely in any country within the EU, so a team in England could be filled up with French players, Spanish players, Portuguese players and still be fine though players from outside of the EU they take up a foreign player slot and there are restrictions on how many can be named in a match day squad, usually around 3/4. So Ryan Nelson, until he gets citizenship of a country in the EU he will count as a foreigner, yet he is still good enough to make the grade.

I am not sure on all the details on the closer economic relations free trade deal NZ and OZ have, but there could be scope to have player movement similar to that in the EU.
from wikipedia: Persons registered to practise an occupation in one country, can practise in the other. (There are some exemptions to this though, including medical practitioners) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closer_Economic_Relations

sportsmen might be in the category that is not allowed

Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Arsenal wrote:
Oh, you're English. That explains it then.
 
Indeed - though I now I have dual nationality with NZ. And to be honest, I find it somewhat amusing when non-English fans of English clubs complain about proposals to make English clubs English again.
Permalink Permalink
over 17 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Bullion wrote:
In Europe a player from a country within the EU can move freely and work freely in any country within the EU, so a team in England could be filled up with French players, Spanish players, Portuguese players and still be fine though players from outside of the EU they take up a foreign player slot and there are restrictions on how many can be named in a match day squad, usually around 3/4.
 
In England, at least in the Prem (I'd have to check the other divisions) there no restrictions on the number of non-EU players. It's completely open. Various other European leagues have restrictions - Germany for example limit the non-EU players to 4 (I think it's 4 - could be 3).
Permalink Permalink