The Football League’s JPT compromise still seems too much of a sacrifice

SAM_1480

By Jason McKeown

It is entirely possible that, this October, 3,000 or so Bradford City supporters could be sat inside Old Trafford, cheering on the Bantams in a cup tie. Only the home sections of the famous old ground will be sparsely populated, and the players in red unrecognisable to all but hardcore United supporters.

That scenario is said to be on the table at next week’s Football League meeting. As a compromise solution to the FA’s desire for elite clubs’ youth teams to participate in more competitive matches, the Football League is proposing to allow 16 Premier League B teams to enter the Johnstone’s Paint Trophy for the next two seasons. The revised, 64-team competition would feature an new group stage (16 groups of four, with at least one B team in each group) where teams play each other once (the fixtures drawn at random). The winners and runners up of each group would take part in a 32-team knockout tournament similar to the existing competition.

It is an interesting proposal, and the Football League certainly deserves credit for its measured response to the outrageous ideas that the FA put forward, earlier in May, of setting up a League Three for Premier League B teams, who could rise up to League One. A smug Greg Dyke seemed to believe that throwing money at League One and Two clubs would be enough for them to wilfully rip up the fantastic league pyramid that is the envy of other countries, under the misguided notion that it would help the England football team win a World Cup. There are too many non-English players in the Premier League, the FA feels, and up-and-coming talent needs greater challenges than the underwhelming under-23 league.

Funnily enough, the formation of the Premier League in 1992, which has led to all those foreigners playing in the top flight, was supposed to aid the England team. It is laudable that the FA wants to improve the record of the national side, although worth noting that reports of its decline are misleading. Yes, England won the World Cup in 1966, but it was on home soil. They have only once come close to repeating that feat, in Italia 90, and the routine quarter final exits are more a statement of the nation’s strength in world football than any under-performance.

The current issues around the England team are not as bleak as some would have us believe. And in no way do they justify ripping apart the lower leagues.

The JPT idea is certainly a novel one, and the Football League can propose it from a position of authority – making sure that a number of conditions are met by the Premier League and FA. Yet as Football League clubs themselves consider this idea over the next fortnight, there are undoubtedly potential issues that will leave them wondering whether it is worth making any sacrifices to help the elite clubs in the country.

For a start, the three guaranteed JPT group games would increase an already heavily congested fixture list. From a 49-games a season minimum, it would be 51. To get to the JPT final, you would have to play nine matches. For a competition that is unloved to all but those who reach the final stages, that is a lot of extra football to play on top of the demands of a 46-game league season, plus the potential of a more lucrative run in the FA or League Cup.

And rather than make money from a JPT run, clubs could incur losses. When City reached the quarter finals of the competition in the 2011/12, Mark Lawn commented that the club had barely made any money despite a run that had seen them defeat three Yorkshire rivals and appear live on Sky Sports twice. Profits, Lawn said, were only to be had if they reached the two-legged semi final or Wembley final.

With only two teams qualifying from each group, there are bound to be some dead rubber group games that would be a hindrance. Playing for pride, on a cold October or November evening, will not entice crowds. Bradford City vs Hartlepool with both teams unable to qualify? City would be lucky to attract a four-figure crowd.

The added complication to this is that, under current JPT rules, you have to play at least half of your first team in JPT matches or be fined. Again, imagine the frustration of Phil Parkinson, if he has a big league game four days after this supposed Hartlepool fixture? Like Stuart McCall in 2007, he would probably risk having to pay the fine out of his own pocket rather than risk losing an important player to injury.

The commercial benefits of playing a Premier League B team are also minimal. They would be unlikely to bring many of their own supporters, and there will be no star names in their team to entice fans of the Football League club they are playing. You are, effectively, playing a famous name and shirt, rather than team. Perhaps the players on show will one day go onto bigger and better things (or even lift the World Cup, in Dyke’s dreams), but at the time they are nobodies and few people will pay to watch them.

For all its current faults, I do enjoy the JPT and over recent years have travelled around the North watching City in action. Some games have been utter stinkers, others have been thrilling affairs. For an unloved competition, it continues to be relevant partly because its place in the world is not in doubt. Unlike the FA Cup no one bangs tirelessly on about its magic. It does exactly what it says on the Johnstone’s Paint tin.

Ultimately, the Premier League needs to take greater ownership of the issues affecting the national team, and should face greater pressure from the FA to do so. If the Football League want to compromise the future of the JPT by radically changing its format and entry requirements, they had better drive home the best possible deal for the clubs who have to put up with congested fixture lists and unappealing group games. In my view, this deal is above and beyond how the Football League could respond to the original, deeply insulting proposals. Two fingers would have been more appropriate.

The problems at the very top should not be ours to shoulder on our own, and the worry with this compromise is that the JPT could be completely ruined to the point even League One and Two clubs will be begging to enter their own B teams.

Advertisements


Categories: Opinion

Tags: , , ,

8 replies

  1. Brilliant article Jason – I agree completely. The idea of League Three and entering B teams into the Football League was flawed from the outset and I’m hugely surprised it ever got the backing needed for it to be proposed properly. Premier League teams need to stop hoarding young players, and the FA shouldn’t expect the Football League to sacrifice the sense of belonging that makes it special so that top teams can continue to spend millions on players who will just sit away gathering dust.

    • Let’s face it, the “B team” plan was never meant to benefit anyone but the Greedy Gang (otherwise known as the premiership or premier league.) these clubs refuse point-blank to do ANYTHING to help the national side. as a result, the poor football league has to once again carry the can.

      Meanwhile, if there is a serious plan to aid the england team then there are three almost insurmountable problems that the FA can’t (or won’t) tackle:-
      1. due to EU membership, inability to restrict number of european players in premier 1st teams.
      2. foreign ownership of premiership clubs (not restricted enough by FA when the premier league was originally formed). owners who couldn’t care less about England.
      3. Foreign managers in top tier also couldn’t care less about England.

      With the FA’s room to manouvre so severely restricted (partly through it’s own failings) the B team plan was very much a “Poor-mans” partial solution to the problems.

      • My thoughts exactly Paul, the only thing which would hinder the flow of EU ‘talent’ into the premier league would be a restrictive wage cap. Which, I realise will never happen. How could anyone be able to live on only £10-20,000 a week?, impossible I know!!

      • I guess we could debate this all summer, but for me I like seeing truly world class players in the top division and I think these players actually help the standard of the English game. You want to see the Van Persie’s, the Suarez’s et al playing in England but you can’t persuade me that all the foreigners in the premiership fall into this bracket.

        I agree that the lack of competitive football for English youngsters is a problem but the answer isn’t to mess about with the FL or the JPT. The answer is to simply stop the top clubs from stockpiling the talent. Get them playing down the leagues, develop the skills and then look for a move into the premiership if they are good enough. The problem, as always, is trying to get the premiership to do anything but line their pockets is next to impossible.

  2. I don’t really buy into the philosophy that foreign players in the premier league are weakening the national team. Surely as long as 23 Englishmen play regular football at the highest level then we are fine? Additionally, if the players they are up against are better than the English alternative then that would be better for their own game. This could explain why our national team is better than say China where few of their players compete against top quality opponents week in week out.

    As for the proposal to play reserve teams in competitive fixtures then how about putting them in the FA cup? Perhaps starting in the preliminary rounds. That would appear to be better than playing against half-strength lower league teams in an insignificant tournament. It would also add to the excitement for the non-league teams having the opportunity to face “premier league” opponents. A true contest is surely better for a player’s development.

    With regard to Paul’s comments above, no premier league owner or manager cares about the england team, regardless of their own nationality. Blooding youngsters could cost them in the league. Why would you risk it?

    • I agree that the influx of foreign players in the English game isn’t particularly detrimental to the National team. We went from 1962 to 1982 without actually qualifying for a world cup with very few foreign players in our leagues.
      On the contrary i believe the better the standard of football we have, will make our home grown players better.

      • I’m broadly in agreement that the influx of top quality players from around the world ought to bring the best out of our home grown talent. However I’d take issue with the claim that England didn’t qualify between 1962 and 1982. They didn’t need to, as hosts in 1966 and as holders in 1970. England didn’t qualify for 1974 and 1978. In mitigation in those days only one team qualified from each group and there were no play off for best runners up etc. In 1973 they somehow contrived not to beat Poland at Wembley and in 1978 were a close second to Italy.
        Interesting idea for the JPT but as Jason says too many games and perhaps better to keep it on a knockout basis.

  3. Prem sides already plan youth and fringe players in the League and FA Cups. If they want to incentivise the U21 league and make games meaningful the then the Prem League can offer some big prize money. Perhaps City should (re) enter the youth team into the West Riding County Cup and see how they do on a wet Wenesday night in Goole

%d bloggers like this: