Need a new loan system

Kharrell

I think teams shouldn't be allowed to loan players to a team in the same league. Lukaku is at West Brom, who play United on the last day of the season. So we could have a scenario where Lukaku costs United the title, helping Chelsea win the league without actually playing for Chelsea this season. Not to mention West Brom have had a player all season who they probably wouldn't have been able to sign because of how much he cost.

If a team does want to loan a player out to a team in the same league there should be some criteria that player has to meet. Even if it's something simple like players under a certain age or not allowing players earning a certain amount out on loan. That way you don't have players earning 50k a week out on loan to a team whose highest earner is on 30k.

All that's happening is that the big teams are signing quality youngsters for the future, knowing they aren't good enough to get into the first team so they loan them out hoping they can score the goals to beat their rivals. But then say that player can't play against them in case they score a goal that makes them lose that game.

I think if a player is loaned out then they should be allowed to play against their parent club. Either have that or don't loan the player out.

It's getting to the stage where players are loaned out to certain clubs so they can damage other clubs chances of winning games.

It could just be a major coincidence that West Brom play United on the last day of the season and that Chelsea wanted to help out a former colleague by loaning them a player who couldn't get into their team.

Anyone

Kharrell wrote: »

It could just be a major coincidence that West Brom play United on the last day of the season and that Chelsea wanted to help out a former colleague by loaning them a player who couldn't get into their team.

Thats what they want you to believe!!!!

Mitch Connor

Kharrell wrote: »

It could just be a major coincidence that West Brom play United on the last day of the season and that Chelsea wanted to help out a former colleague by loaning them a player who couldn't get into their team.

It is. It really is.

Town Man

Kharrell wrote: »

I think teams shouldn't be allowed to loan players to a team in the same league. Lukaku is at West Brom, who play United on the last day of the season. So we could have a scenario where Lukaku costs United the title, helping Chelsea win the league without actually playing for Chelsea this season. Not to mention West Brom have had a player all season who they probably wouldn't have been able to sign because of how much he cost.

If a team does want to loan a player out to a team in the same league there should be some criteria that player has to meet. Even if it's something simple like players under a certain age or not allowing players earning a certain amount out on loan. That way you don't have players earning 50k a week out on loan to a team whose highest earner is on 30k.

All that's happening is that the big teams are signing quality youngsters for the future, knowing they aren't good enough to get into the first team so they loan them out hoping they can score the goals to beat their rivals. But then say that player can't play against them in case they score a goal that makes them lose that game.

I think if a player is loaned out then they should be allowed to play against their parent club. Either have that or don't loan the player out.

It's getting to the stage where players are loaned out to certain clubs so they can damage other clubs chances of winning games.

It could just be a major coincidence that West Brom play United on the last day of the season and that Chelsea wanted to help out a former colleague by loaning them a player who couldn't get into their team.

Nail on head (part in bold of course )

Loans between teams in the same division happens all over Europe so can't see how teams would agree to a change. Chelsea were playing with 1 striker up top and obviously Torres was that striker. There was also talks of Chelsea being interested in a number of strikers throughout Europe during the summer


If Lukaku had stayed with Chelsea he might not have much game time plus he is still very young. He does not always start for WBA either. It is a better move to send him on loan to a team in the same division where the standard is alot higher then being made send him on loan to a team lower down

Lovely Bloke

I've seen some weird things on forums over the years, but this is worse than RAWK-esque in it's tinfoil hattery.

LiamoSail

Real Madrid generally take advantage of this. They loan players out in la liga who subsequently can't play against real, so essentially real have an advantage over others sides when facing this team as they are automatically missing one player, and hence real face a weaker side

Personally, I don't think loan players should be allowed play in any competition in which their parent club is competing

I'd also add that I believe the January window should be scraped. As arsene wenger said yesterday, looking at Newcastle in particular, it cant be fair that one side face a far stronger Newcastle in their second meeting of the season then another club faced who have played them twice already. Such a set up would also be beneficial to enhancing the opportunities for younger players

Liam O

LiamoSail wrote: »

Real Madrid generally take advantage of this. They loan players out in la liga who subsequently can't play against real, so essentially real have an advantage over others sides when facing this team as they are automatically missing one player, and hence real face a weaker side

Personally, I don't think loan players should be allowed play in any competition in which their parent club is competing

I'd also add that I believe the January window should be scraped. As arsene wenger said yesterday, looking at Newcastle in particular, it cant be fair that one side face a far stronger Newcastle in their second meeting of the season then another club faced who have played them twice already. Such a set up would also be beneficial to enhancing the opportunities for younger players

Literally every top level team sport is the same, maybe Wenger should make his team stronger so it evens it out? Arsenal have a crapload more money than Newcastle.

Kharrell

Lukaku was just an example. And quite a few managers in the league and ex-managers feel the rules should be changed. Not just loans from one PL team to another but loans in general.

Watford have 10 players on loan from Udinese, surely that needs looking at.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/feb/22/football-loans-richard-williams

article from last year saying that the loan system needs looking at.

http://www.wsc.co.uk/the-archive/30-Clubs/7914-on-borrowed-time

another article showing how the loan system is being abused. for people that can't be bothered to read it:

"Arsenal twice beat a Jack Wilshire-less Bolton side last season. In 2006-07 Manchester United beat both Everton and Watford twice when Tim Howard and Ben Foster were forced to watch. At the start of 2007-08, Aston Villa lost 2-1 to Liverpool when denied the services of the loaned Scott Carson, but then kept clean sheets against Everton, Newcastle and Chelsea once he was allowed to play in their next games."

Obviously the article is a few years old but the point i tried to make remains the same. If team are going to loan players out in the same league, let that player play against them

LiamoSail

Liam O wrote: »

Literally every top level team sport is the same, maybe Wenger should make his team stronger so it evens it out? Arsenal have a crapload more money than Newcastle.

I'm not advocating arsenals cause, but what he says is correct irrespective of whether its arsenal, man utd or Wigan who have to face the stronger Newcastle.

It would be fairer system without the January window, and mean those struggling in January have to focus on youth players, better coaching, more astute tactics to lift their season rather then simply attempting to buy their way out of trouble

Soups123

LiamoSail wrote: »

Real Madrid generally take advantage of this. They loan players out in la liga who subsequently can't play against real, so essentially real have an advantage over others sides when facing this team as they are automatically missing one player, and hence real face a weaker side

Personally, I don't think loan players should be allowed play in any competition in which their parent club is competing

I'd also add that I believe the January window should be scraped. As arsene wenger said yesterday, looking at Newcastle in particular, it cant be fair that one side face a far stronger Newcastle in their second meeting of the season then another club faced who have played them twice already. Such a set up would also be beneficial to enhancing the opportunities for younger players

So if I play Newcastle before Xmas and they have 5 injuries after Xmas when another team plays them is that an unfair advantage? Every team is given the same opportunity to buy/sell in January so it fair.

Jayob10

Kharrell wrote: »

I think teams shouldn't be allowed to loan players to a team in the same league. Lukaku is at West Brom, who play United on the last day of the season. So we could have a scenario where Lukaku costs United the title, helping Chelsea win the league without actually playing for Chelsea this season. Not to mention West Brom have had a player all season who they probably wouldn't have been able to sign because of how much he cost.

If a team does want to loan a player out to a team in the same league there should be some criteria that player has to meet. Even if it's something simple like players under a certain age or not allowing players earning a certain amount out on loan. That way you don't have players earning 50k a week out on loan to a team whose highest earner is on 30k.

All that's happening is that the big teams are signing quality youngsters for the future, knowing they aren't good enough to get into the first team so they loan them out hoping they can score the goals to beat their rivals. But then say that player can't play against them in case they score a goal that makes them lose that game.

I think if a player is loaned out then they should be allowed to play against their parent club. Either have that or don't loan the player out.

It's getting to the stage where players are loaned out to certain clubs so they can damage other clubs chances of winning games.

It could just be a major coincidence that West Brom play United on the last day of the season and that Chelsea wanted to help out a former colleague by loaning them a player who couldn't get into their team.

surely the risk of messing about is even greater if this was the case.

Hypothetically speaking, Lukaku may decide to have an off day when playing against his pay masters. Or he may score an accidental own goal

Either way, completely disagree respectfully with all you said.

Soups123

Kharrell wrote: »

I think teams shouldn't be allowed to loan players to a team in the same league. Lukaku is at West Brom, who play United on the last day of the season. So we could have a scenario where Lukaku costs United the title, helping Chelsea win the league without actually playing for Chelsea this season. Not to mention West Brom have had a player all season who they probably wouldn't have been able to sign because of how much he cost.

If a team does want to loan a player out to a team in the same league there should be some criteria that player has to meet. Even if it's something simple like players under a certain age or not allowing players earning a certain amount out on loan. That way you don't have players earning 50k a week out on loan to a team whose highest earner is on 30k.

All that's happening is that the big teams are signing quality youngsters for the future, knowing they aren't good enough to get into the first team so they loan them out hoping they can score the goals to beat their rivals. But then say that player can't play against them in case they score a goal that makes them lose that game.

I think if a player is loaned out then they should be allowed to play against their parent club. Either have that or don't loan the player out.

It's getting to the stage where players are loaned out to certain clubs so they can damage other clubs chances of winning games.

It could just be a major coincidence that West Brom play United on the last day of the season and that Chelsea wanted to help out a former colleague by loaning them a player who couldn't get into their team.

I dont even think Chelsea fans are dreaming of a league win this year!

They only neagitive I would have is that potentially the loaning team gains an advantage when they play the team, e.g. Take Ade to Spurs last year every team had to face a Spurs side twice with a quality striker upfront but Man City didnt (not having a go at Defoe but you get the point).

In saying that the above rule does protect the player from obvious conflict of interest, i.e. playing against the his permanent club

Fr Tod Umptious

Kharrell wrote: »

Lukaku was just an example. And quite a few managers in the league and ex-managers feel the rules should be changed. Not just loans from one PL team to another but loans in general.

Watford have 10 players on loan from Udinese, surely that needs looking at.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/feb/22/football-loans-richard-williams

article from last year saying that the loan system needs looking at.

http://www.wsc.co.uk/the-archive/30-Clubs/7914-on-borrowed-time

another article showing how the loan system is being abused. for people that can't be bothered to read it:

"Arsenal twice beat a Jack Wilshire-less Bolton side last season. In 2006-07 Manchester United beat both Everton and Watford twice when Tim Howard and Ben Foster were forced to watch. At the start of 2007-08, Aston Villa lost 2-1 to Liverpool when denied the services of the loaned Scott Carson, but then kept clean sheets against Everton, Newcastle and Chelsea once he was allowed to play in their next games."

Obviously the article is a few years old but the point i tried to make remains the same. If team are going to loan players out in the same league, let that player play against them

That piece from WSC is very interesting

Basically it shows that a team that can buy a lot of players of top quality (Man City for example) and then load them out in the PL, is at a distinct advantage if those players are not allowed play against their 'home club'

Kharrell

Soups123 wrote: »

So if I play Newcastle before Xmas and they have 5 injuries after Xmas when another team plays them is that an unfair advantage? Every team is given the same opportunity to buy/sell in January so it fair.

They don't have the same opportunity though. Newcastle and QPR are in trouble so are throwing money at the problem instead of looking through their youth ranks and seeing who can make a difference.

People keep saying that the UK aren't producing enough players, if they were forced to go a whole season using the players they have then maybe 1 or 2 players will get a chance throughout the season.

Look at Ben Davis at Swansea. Injuries to the team have meant they had to promote a youngster and look at how well he is doing. Other teams would have put a player not used to playing in that position there as stop gap and then signed a new LB in the window. Instead, Swansea have saved themselves money while unearthing a player who looks like he has a bright future at the club.

Soups123

Kharrell wrote: »

They don't have the same opportunity though. Newcastle and QPR are in trouble so are throwing money at the problem instead of looking through their youth ranks and seeing who can make a difference.

People keep saying that the UK aren't producing enough players, if they were forced to go a whole season using the players they have then maybe 1 or 2 players will get a chance throughout the season.

Look at Ben Davis at Swansea. Injuries to the team have meant they had to promote a youngster and look at how well he is doing. Other teams would have put a player not used to playing in that position there as stop gap and then signed a new LB in the window. Instead, Swansea have saved themselves money while unearthing a player who looks like he has a bright future at the club.

My point is the window is fair to all, everyone can decide to buy/sell. Your above example has a point about the benefits of not having one would have to the English game but it has no impact on the fairness that question you ask in the OP

Kharrell

Jayob10 wrote: »

surely the risk of messing about is even greater if this was the case.

Hypothetically speaking, Lukaku may decide to have an off day when playing against his pay masters. Or he may score an accidental own goal

Either way, completely disagree respectfully with all you said.

Not everyone will agree with what I think but thank you for telling me that in a respectable manner lol.

Obviously that could happen, but then if Lukaku was up against Chelsea he could think, "here's my chance to show that I can play at this level."

If he has an amazing game against them then he's showing first hand his ability. I just feel that teams are scared that said player will come back to haunt them.

It's why teams are so reluctant to sell players to a club in the same league. Best thing for them is to sell to another country, like RVP and Arsenal and why Fergie won't even entertain the idea of selling Nani to Arsenal.

Kharrell

Soups123 wrote: »

My point is the window is fair to all, everyone can decide to buy/sell. Your above example has a point about the benefits of not having one would have to the English game but it has no impact on the fairness that question you ask in the OP

In that sense then yes, every team can choose to buy. Just some have better options because they can afford to buy a higher quality of player.

LiamoSail

Soups123 wrote: »

So if I play Newcastle before Xmas and they have 5 injuries after Xmas when another team plays them is that an unfair advantage? Every team is given the same opportunity to buy/sell in January so it fair.

There's always going to be inconsistencies, from injuries as you mentioned to suspensions, players away on international duty etc. you cant legislate against injuries, but you van against transfers midseason. what I'm advocating isn't removing all of these inconsistencies, but it is removing one that is controllable

Every team as you say do have the same opportunities to buy/sell in January, however this will always benefit those with the deepest pockets. What I'm advocating is a system whereby the advantage richer clubs have over others is reduced during the season. Look at the relegation fight his season, qpr have spent heavily in order to try and stay up, which in turn is putting pressure on their rivals to spend money they may not have to give themselves a chance of survival. What I'm saying is, it would be both fairer and better for the game if in January your prospects of staying up were more reliant on your coaching/tactical ability etc then on your wallet

Soups123

Kharrell wrote: »

In that sense then yes, every team can choose to buy. Just some have better options because they can afford to buy a higher quality of player.

The same issue would still exist in the summer window some can buy more than others, plus if that change did happen and teams couldnt sign in January, the flip would be if they had injuries and lost players until end of season then teams that face them later in the year get and easier ride!

Anyone

Kharrell wrote: »

Not everyone will agree with what I think but thank you for telling me that in a respectable manner lol.

Obviously that could happen, but then if Lukaku was up against Chelsea he could think, "here's my chance to show that I can play at this level."

It would he a hell of a lot easier to throw a game in that situation. Chelsea pay Lukaku's wages, they own his contract. He is employed by Chelsea. And that would go for all players on loan, no way should they be allowed play against the team that own them.

Soups123

LiamoSail wrote: »

There's always going to be inconsistencies, from injuries as you mentioned to suspensions, players away on international duty etc. you cant legislate against injuries, but you van against transfers midseason. what I'm advocating isn't removing all of these inconsistencies, but it is removing one that is controllable

Every team as you say do have the same opportunities to buy/sell in January, however this will always benefit those with the deepest pockets. What I'm advocating is a system whereby the advantage richer clubs have over others is reduced during the season. Look at the relegation fight his season, qpr have spent heavily in order to try and stay up, which in turn is putting pressure on their rivals to spend money they may not have to give themselves a chance of survival. What I'm saying is, it would be both fairer and better for the game if in January your prospects of staying up were more reliant on your coaching/tactical ability etc then on your wallet

Personally I would remove January just for the added annoyance it gives me as an Arsenal fan, I get enough of that in July and August.

There is consistency to it however because everyone can by so its a controlled consistency, QPR spent more money in the Summer and they are still bottom so its not always the benefit it seems to be!

Most of the teams heavily active are clutching at straws

Jayob10

Kharrell wrote: »

Not everyone will agree with what I think but thank you for telling me that in a respectable manner lol.

Obviously that could happen, but then if Lukaku was up against Chelsea he could think, "here's my chance to show that I can play at this level."

If he has an amazing game against them then he's showing first hand his ability. I just feel that teams are scared that said player will come back to haunt them.

It's why teams are so reluctant to sell players to a club in the same league. Best thing for them is to sell to another country, like RVP and Arsenal and why Fergie won't even entertain the idea of selling Nani to Arsenal.

is it not an FA rule that players cannot play against parent clubs?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't think its a clause thats inserted by the clubs (that the player will sit out fixtures against his parent club).

Surely if they were allowed play then you would have the farcical situation where managers loan their players to opposition they are due to face, with strict instructions for them to have a stinker. The scope for fiddling results is alot wider.

I don't see how it needs changing to be honest, sure there are some strategic loans as in the Wilshere and Foster loans mentioned above. But both players got the experience their managers wanted, and WBA and Bolton reaped the rewards relatively speaking.

Seems like a window of opportunity for rival clubs to have a right moan.

Iang87

you cant have players playing against there parent club. Far too much of a conflict there, we all seen the hassle a few years back when a gerrard backpass put chelsea on course to win the league. United fans went ballistic saying he meant it, now imagine he was contracted to Chelsea and did that.


I suppose thats pretty much why it'll never happen

LiamoSail

Jayob10 wrote: »

is it not an FA rule that players cannot play against parent clubs?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't think its a clause thats inserted by the clubs (that the player will sit out fixtures against his parent club).

Surely if they were allowed play then you would have the farcical situation where managers loan their players to opposition they are due to face, with strict instructions for them to have a stinker. The scope for fiddling results is alot wider.

I don't see how it needs changing to be honest, sure there are some strategic loans as in the Wilshere and Foster loans mentioned above. But both players got the experience their managers wanted, and WBA and Bolton reaped the rewards relatively speaking.

Seems like a window of opportunity for rival clubs to have a right moan.

So theoreticly, man city or Chelsea can buy up all the best young players in the league, loan them out to other average epl clubs, gain an advantage as these players can't play against them, then if the players realise their potential, keep them at city/Chelsea, otherwise sell them on, all the while driving up transfer fees making it more and more difficult for traditionally financed clubs to compete

Soups123

Was there not something a couple of years back lower leagues about a loanee scoring to send his parent club down/up or something?

Kharrell

Jayob10 wrote: »

is it not an FA rule that players cannot play against parent clubs?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't think its a clause thats inserted by the clubs (that the player will sit out fixtures against his parent club).

Surely if they were allowed play then you would have the farcical situation where managers loan their players to opposition they are due to face, with strict instructions for them to have a stinker. The scope for fiddling results is alot wider.

I don't see how it needs changing to be honest, sure there are some strategic loans as in the Wilshere and Foster loans mentioned above. But both players got the experience their managers wanted, and WBA and Bolton reaped the rewards relatively speaking.

Seems like a window of opportunity for rival clubs to have a right moan.

It's a agreement clubs make. We will loan you a player if you promise not to play them against us.

Yes Foster and Wilshere got the experience their managers wanted but that's why i originally said there should be some sort of criteria. What did City get from loaning Ade to Spurs? He's didn't need the experience as he's not young.

Jayob10

Kharrell wrote: »

It's a agreement clubs make. We will loan you a player if you promise not to play them against us.

Yes Foster and Wilshere got the experience their managers wanted but that's why i originally said there should be some sort of criteria. What did City get from loaning Ade to Spurs? He's didn't need the experience as he's not young.

are you 100% certain its not an FA enforced rule?

Jayob10

LiamoSail wrote: »

So theoreticly, man city or Chelsea can buy up all the best young players in the league, loan them out to other average epl clubs, gain an advantage as these players can't play against them, then if the players realise their potential, keep them at city/Chelsea, otherwise sell them on, all the while driving up transfer fees making it more and more difficult for traditionally financed clubs to compete

If they see fit, all within the confines of financial fair play rules (which need to be strictly enforced but thats a wholly different debate).

Theres a restriction on the number of loans an EPL club can make, its alot smaller than say a championship club can make.

Its actually not that common of an occurence in reality. Lower level EPL clubs are less likely to rely on loan players when battling to stay in the division. It's happened many times that loan players are bombed out for lack of commitment when all hands to the pump are needed.

These "average" clubs have also benefitted greatly from having the likes of Wilshere, Sturridge, Foster, Lukaku on loan too.

People complaining about Arsenal winning 2 games against a Bolton side that couldn't field Jack Wilshere? If they never loaned him in the first place then he wouldn't be in the team either. Its a risk the loaning club taking, and it benefits all parties in the long run.

If the amount of loanees was increased by the Premier league then there may be an issue but as it stands I don't see the problem.

One point of note, when do United play Wigan and where in the remaining game? Fergie loaned Henriquez and if ever there was a tactical loan move that was it. Interestingly, United never seem to have problems loaning relatively inexperienced young talent to EPL clubs. Maybe the favour they are doing Fergie will come back to help them when it comes to stamps of approval etc...

If anything needs looking at its Watford, who have become a feeder team for Udinese, and Peterborough who are a feeder club for Man United.

Kharrell

Jayob10 wrote: »

are you 100% certain its not an FA enforced rule?

This is from wiki, "In the Premier League, players on loan are not permitted to play against the team which holds their registration (section 7.2 of rule M.6). This means that one of the 'big' clubs can loan out a promising young player to an opposing team in the Premiership but the loanee will not be allowed to play against his 'owning' club and his parent club will not be able to observe how he plays against a 'big' club. Loanees are, however, allowed to play against their 'owning' clubs in cup competitions, unless they have played for their owning club in that cup during that season."

It's probably enforced to stop a player playing against his parent club and scoring a hat-trick of own goals but I do think it's a bit of a joke of a rule

Kharrell

"Everton manager David Moyes claims he has a gentleman's agreement with Tottenham counterpart Harry Redknapp which would mean former Toffees' striker Louis Saha will not play at Goodison Park tomorrow.

The Frenchman left Merseyside for White Hart Lane on a free transfer in a late deadline-day move.

Tomorrow he would have been set for a return to the club where he spent four years.

However, Moyes revealed in a conversation he had with Redknapp it was suggested the striker would not feature.


"I think I have an agreement with Harry that he doesn't play," said the Scot.

"If that is the case then Louis does not play unless Tottenham have lots of injuries.

"It was just something but if he plays it is not a problem.

"Harry told me if he is short of players he will play but if he is not he might not use him."

Moyes has experience of gentlemen's agreements in the past as, having signed Tim Howard permanently from Manchester United, he left the goalkeeper out of the fixture against the Red Devils.

At the time Everton claimed that they were only adhering to the agreement and the Premier League ruled there was no case to answer.

"If you are gentleman it is allowed isn't it?" added Moyes.

"I don't think it takes place that often but sometimes you can do it.

"Gentlemen shake hands and do things and me and Harry did that - but if he needs that then he will play."

For me this is when it starts to get out of hand. Players not being allowed to play against a former club despite it being a full transfer?! Loans are one things but this is ridiculous.

Jayob10

Kharrell wrote: »

"Everton manager David Moyes claims he has a gentleman's agreement with Tottenham counterpart Harry Redknapp which would mean former Toffees' striker Louis Saha will not play at Goodison Park tomorrow.

The Frenchman left Merseyside for White Hart Lane on a free transfer in a late deadline-day move.

Tomorrow he would have been set for a return to the club where he spent four years.

However, Moyes revealed in a conversation he had with Redknapp it was suggested the striker would not feature.


"I think I have an agreement with Harry that he doesn't play," said the Scot.

"If that is the case then Louis does not play unless Tottenham have lots of injuries.

"It was just something but if he plays it is not a problem.

"Harry told me if he is short of players he will play but if he is not he might not use him."

Moyes has experience of gentlemen's agreements in the past as, having signed Tim Howard permanently from Manchester United, he left the goalkeeper out of the fixture against the Red Devils.

At the time Everton claimed that they were only adhering to the agreement and the Premier League ruled there was no case to answer.

"If you are gentleman it is allowed isn't it?" added Moyes.

"I don't think it takes place that often but sometimes you can do it.

"Gentlemen shake hands and do things and me and Harry did that - but if he needs that then he will play."

For me this is when it starts to get out of hand. Players not being allowed to play against a former club despite it being a full transfer?! Loans are one things but this is ridiculous.

Thats a different issue altogether now, thats where it gets a bit murky.

Moyes has been very candid there, I wonder what the FA would have to say about that. Surely there has to be some kind of sanction in this case where you cannot simply do someone a favour and leave out a player on a "gentleman's agreement?"

Kharrell

Jayob10 wrote: »

Thats a different issue altogether now, thats where it gets a bit murky.

Moyes has been very candid there, I wonder what the FA would have to say about that. Surely there has to be some kind of sanction in this case where you cannot simply do someone a favour and leave out a player on a "gentleman's agreement?"

Tha FA knew and nothing they could do about it. It's not against the rules

Rega

Soups123 wrote: »

Was there not something a couple of years back lower leagues about a loanee scoring to send his parent club down/up or something?

Yeah. Lua Lua scored the equaliser for Portsmouth against Newcastle when he was on loan from the Toon,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2373980/LuaLua-upsets-Newcastle.html

The FA changed the rules after that.

tok9

The only thing I would agree with is that there should be a limit to the amount of players you can loan which I thought was already in place.

Polar101

It would make some sense to ban same-division loan deals. If a player is good enough to play at that level, why is he not playing for the parent club? The conspiracy part of loans doesn't make any sense, though.

Kharrell

tok9 wrote: »

The only thing I would agree with is that there should be a limit to the amount of players you can loan which I thought was already in place.

Premier League teams can only loan a certain amount but in the lower leagues pretty sure there is no limit, look at Watford

LiamoSail

Polar101 wrote: »

It would make some sense to ban same-division loan deals. If a player is good enough to play at that level, why is he not playing for the parent club? The conspiracy part of loans doesn't make any sense, though.

There's no conspiracy, but there is an obvious advantage gained by the parent club

kksaints

Soups123 wrote: »

Was there not something a couple of years back lower leagues about a loanee scoring to send his parent club down/up or something?

Not so sure about that but players can play against the parent club. Marcel Seip did it against Plymouth a few years ago when he went on loan to Blackpool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Seip

Kharrell

kksaints wrote: »

Not so sure about that but players can play against the parent club. Marcel Seip did it against Plymouth a few years ago when he went on loan to Blackpool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Seip

maybe in the lower leagues but not in the top leagues

roanoke

I would defo be in favour of eliminating loans between prem clubs. Either drop a player down to the championship if he's a young prospect or send him abroad if he's a high profile import or wage-earner like Lukaku. Alternatively if a Prem club wants their player to gain experience then they should be the one who should have to supply it by giving him time in their own XI and risk the short term consequences.

Someone brought up the example of Jack Wilshere. Whilst Bolton might have been whining that they lost 2x to Arsenal because they didn't have Wilshere I think it gave Arsenal a double advantage as not only did they not have to contend with Wilshere but also that Wilshere lined out 14 times for Bolton against Arsenals rivals, essentially giving Arsenal a minute advantage every time he did. That's just one example of course. I'm sure the same thing applies for any top club who loans out a prospect to a prem rival.

Kharrell

roanoke wrote: »

I would defo be in favour of eliminating loans between prem clubs. Either drop a player down to the championship if he's a young prospect or send him abroad if he's a high profile import or wage-earner like Lukaku. Alternatively if a Prem club wants their player to gain experience then they should be the one who should have to supply it by giving him time in their own XI and risk the short term consequences.

Someone brought up the example of Jack Wilshere. Whilst Bolton might have been whining that they lost 2x to Arsenal because they didn't have Wilshere I think it gave Arsenal a double advantage as not only did they not have to contend with Wilshere but also that Wilshere lined out 14 times for Bolton against Arsenals rivals, essentially giving Arsenal a minute advantage every time he did. That's just one example of course. I'm sure the same thing applies for any top club who loans out a prospect to a prem rival.

Exactly, if a player is good enough for the PL then play him. If he's not then send him lower down. A team will suffer injuries and that's how players get a chance.

Like someone said earlier, the top clubs are buying players with no intention of using them for a few seasons and loan them out to other PL clubs. I get that teams don't want to miss out on the next big thing but why not have an agreement where the player stays at the club for the rest of the year, like what United have done with Zaha.

SirDelboy18

Kharrell wrote: »

Lukaku was just an example. And quite a few managers in the league and ex-managers feel the rules should be changed. Not just loans from one PL team to another but loans in general.

Watford have 10 players on loan from Udinese, surely that needs looking at.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/feb/22/football-loans-richard-williams

article from last year saying that the loan system needs looking at.

http://www.wsc.co.uk/the-archive/30-Clubs/7914-on-borrowed-time

another article showing how the loan system is being abused. for people that can't be bothered to read it:

"Arsenal twice beat a Jack Wilshire-less Bolton side last season. In 2006-07 Manchester United beat both Everton and Watford twice when Tim Howard and Ben Foster were forced to watch. At the start of 2007-08, Aston Villa lost 2-1 to Liverpool when denied the services of the loaned Scott Carson, but then kept clean sheets against Everton, Newcastle and Chelsea once he was allowed to play in their next games."

Obviously the article is a few years old but the point i tried to make remains the same. If team are going to loan players out in the same league, let that player play against them

And if any of those players were allowed to play against their parent clubs and they put in a sub par performance then you would have people questioning other things.