Jump to content

The Loan system

Turkish

By Turkish,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted

does anyone else think it has become a farce?

 

How can it be right that clubs like Liverpool and Everton are able to loan players from clubs like Chelsea & Man City. Depsite the excitement on here (which makes this thread Saints related) I found it a little embarassing we were linked with a loan move for Victor Moses.

 

The loan system was set up to enable smaller clubs to boost their squad if they got injures and for younger players to get first team experience at a lower level, not for rich clubs to farm out their players, get large loan fees and sit back and watch their players take points off their opponents in their quest for the title whilst being unable to play against them and do damage to their own chances.

 

We also have loaned Puncheon out to Crystal Palace so it also applies to us from here, again how can it be right that we are loaning out a player to another club that is on record as saying he wants the move for "personal reasons" Well in that case leave.

 

I'm all for loaning out younger players to championship and L1 clubs and even if our squad players want to get match pratice but loans between clubs in the same division is a joke, especially when it's top clubs and players involved. Chelsea will benefit from having a weaker opposition squad when not having Luaka and Moses face them when they play Everton and Liverpool but every other club in the division will. Surely this threatens the integrity of the competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The problem is championship clubs and below cannot afford to pay the wages of premier league players. I do fully agree that the current system sucks but this has been going on for over 10 years now and I cannot see them changing it.

 

And that's because you've got top players going out on loan. Seriously, Chelsea were after a £3m loan fee for Ba, a player that cost them £7m only 8 months ago. How is this right?

 

If the loan system were used properly and how it was meant for they'd either be stuck with Ba or have to sell him. You'd also hopefully stop club stockpiling their squads with players they dont need and have to use them or sell them - see Scott Sinclair on loan at WBA from City FFS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted

It's an interesting topic, the loan system.

 

I do agree it's a bit crazy, not a huge fan of it in the same league. But think it's value for smaller clubs, and getting experience for nippers is great.

 

That said, I wouldn't have minded if we got Moses - mostly as I think he is a decent player. Would obviously much rather it was a permanent deal though.

 

Also don't get those that think loans moves are seen as cheap alternatives. Lukaku will most likely be costing in the region of £6m for the season - with no chance of recouping that (unless he alone propels them to a position they would not have achieved otherwise).

 

When people say "I would rather have loaned x or y than spent £12m on player z", it seems a bit daft to me. It's as if that fee for signing someone only applies to the first year. For example Big Vic, signed for £12.5(ish) on a 4 year deal. So really that is about £3m per season - which makes him of a similar value to what Liverpool & Everton will be paying for Moses & Lukaku.

 

It's a tricky one though. Many European leagues have been doing it for a while, without too much fuss. Some of the deals that go on in Italy, with co-ownership and loans I just find bizarre.

 

If I was in charge I would scrap it, it's just silly and definitely favours the bigger teams. Another good example of your point re Chelsea was Manchester United a few years ago. They had either 2 or 3 keepers out on loan at Premiership clubs (think it was Howard & Foster - possibly Carroll too?), whilst not direct rivals to them, it still made opponents weaker when it came to the games against Utd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ewell

Ewell

Posted
Posted
And that's because you've got top players going out on loan. Seriously, Chelsea were after a £3m loan fee for Ba, a player that cost them £7m only 8 months ago. How is this right?

 

If the loan system were used properly and how it was meant for they'd either be stuck with Ba or have to sell him. You'd also hopefully stop club stockpiling their squads with players they dont need and have to use them or sell them - see Scott Sinclair on loan at WBA from City FFS

 

I agree entirely, I just can't see th changing it but that's not to say they shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dellboypete

dellboypete

Posted
Posted
It's an interesting topic, the loan system.

 

.....................

 

It's a tricky one though. Many European leagues have been doing it for a while, without too much fuss. Some of the deals that go on in Italy/England, with co-ownership and loans I just find bizarre.

 

..........................

 

as highlighted by Watford last season with their multiple loans from the Italian side with the same owners. It p*ssed a lot of championship clubs off so just as well they didn't get promoted

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Garrett

Saint Garrett

Posted
Posted

It's another reason why youngsters think they'll go for a big move, as if it doesn't work out they can just pop out on loan for a bit.

 

If England picked players from less fashionable clubs, and also were only allowed to loan out players to leagues below them, you may see players like Rodwell, Sinclair, Chamberlain etc staying at their clubs or wanting to go somewhere where they will play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Olallana

Olallana

Posted
Posted

Should be a limit on how many players a club can loan out so teams can´t pack themselfs with players and then ship them out on loan all over Europe. I also agree with earlier posts about loans in the same league shouldn´t be allowed. They can drop down a league or go abroad but then the owning club should still pay a minimum 50% of the wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
And that's because you've got top players going out on loan. Seriously, Chelsea were after a £3m loan fee for Ba, a player that cost them £7m only 8 months ago. How is this right?

 

If the loan system were used properly and how it was meant for they'd either be stuck with Ba or have to sell him. You'd also hopefully stop club stockpiling their squads with players they dont need and have to use them or sell them - see Scott Sinclair on loan at WBA from City FFS

 

Agree entirely

 

The loan system should be for players that are under a certain age and should not be able to be loaned to teams in the same league IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
as highlighted by Watford last season with their multiple loans from the Italian side with the same owners. It p*ssed a lot of championship clubs off so just as well they didn't get promoted
Don't see why anyone would have a problem with Watford did? From a different league and country, so no unfair advantage there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
holepuncture

holepuncture

Posted
Posted
Should be a limit on how many players a club can loan out so teams can´t pack themselfs with players and then ship them out on loan all over Europe. I also agree with earlier posts about loans in the same league shouldn´t be allowed. They can drop down a league or go abroad but then the owning club should still pay a minimum 50% of the wages.

 

Years ago I was researching finance in football, went off on a tangent and I started looking at grey sources and read in some detail about the global transfer market and how it is essentially one big money and people laundering scheme.

 

It starts off with agents buying hundreds of south American kids at a time, as they can own their registrations outright over there.

 

These players are filtered to knock off the least talented, then those that make the grade are sent off to middle East, Asia, eastern Europe, Russia etc. Transfers and loans will occur constantly throughout these young players careers, all for the purpose of moving money about.

 

Some players that develop real potential are then moved on to western Europe, starting in the lower profile leagues and eventually through to the big time and big money.

 

Harry Redknapp, Peter Storrie et al are just small fish in the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Mikey

Saint Mikey

Posted
Posted
Agree with the general consensus so far; loan fees should be abolished and loans between clubs in the same division should be prohibited.

 

Maybe an age limit could be introduced? I agree that in general fees and loans between clubs should be abolished. However, if you look at Wilshere, Sturridge, Caulker, Naughton as examples (probably more, if I think about it). They have all benefitted from going and playing at the highest level, whereas they wouldn't have got a game with their club, or pushed beyond their capabilities at a lower level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jai27

Jai27

Posted
Posted

Completely agree with the OP and that you should only be able to 'loan downwards' respective of owning clubs league.

 

The idea of abolishing it is potentially quite harmful to the development of younger players depriving them of first team football (not that it seems to be a problem with us at the moment), so that's not the answer in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted (edited)
Maybe an age limit could be introduced? I agree that in general fees and loans between clubs should be abolished. However, if you look at Wilshere, Sturridge, Caulker, Naughton as examples (probably more, if I think about it). They have all benefitted from going and playing at the highest level, whereas they wouldn't have got a game with their club, or pushed beyond their capabilities at a lower level.

 

Did they benefit from playing at the highest level? Or did they just benefit from playing games at a fairly young age? Beckham to Preston, Lampard to Swansea, Defoe and Rio to Bournemouth, Ashley Cole to Palace; five England internationals with hundreds of caps between them who all benefitted from going to a lower league club.

 

The current loan system just acts as a flag of convenience for clubs to lash out millions on players they don't necessarily need then recoup the wages by having the player turn out for another side. Take that facility away and maybe we might see a bit more frugality and less recklessness in the transfer market.

Edited by The Kraken
Link to comment
Share on other sites
david in sweden

david in sweden

Posted
Posted
Chelsea were after a £3m loan fee for Ba, a player that cost them £7m only 8 months ago. How is this right?

 

agree totally Turkish. I think the answer to that one is ....that he's unlikely to get the nod from Mourinho and Chelsea are trying to re-coup some of the fee as they may never use him to start future games.

 

I'm sure Pardew would like to have had him back, but the Geordie fans might not be so welcoming - after the manner of his departure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
max_saints

max_saints

Posted
Posted

agree with the op. there has been a recent trend where the big clubs have been stockpiling on talent to prevent other big clubs from getting them and end up having to farm them out on loan because they find themselves with a bloated and unhappy squad. one blatant example is Chelsea, with their embarrassing amount of talented attacking midfielders swooping in at the last minute for Willian to prevent spurs getting him.

 

However, do not forget that there is a negative side to this in that the clubs who loan in players to be key members of their squad end up having to patch up the huge holes left behind by these players when they eventually return to their parent clubs. I would much prefer spending on permanent transfers and build up a team that can work together for years to come which is why I was left bewildered when a certain member on here was moaning about how he would rather have Barry and lukaku on loan than wanyama and osvaldo permanently. it might be a successful short term solution but what about in the long term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minsk

Minsk

Posted
Posted
does anyone else think it has become a farce?

 

How can it be right that clubs like Liverpool and Everton are able to loan players from clubs like Chelsea & Man City. Depsite the excitement on here (which makes this thread Saints related) I found it a little embarassing we were linked with a loan move for Victor Moses.

 

The loan system was set up to enable smaller clubs to boost their squad if they got injures and for younger players to get first team experience at a lower level, not for rich clubs to farm out their players, get large loan fees and sit back and watch their players take points off their opponents in their quest for the title whilst being unable to play against them and do damage to their own chances.

 

We also have loaned Puncheon out to Crystal Palace so it also applies to us from here, again how can it be right that we are loaning out a player to another club that is on record as saying he wants the move for "personal reasons" Well in that case leave.

 

I'm all for loaning out younger players to championship and L1 clubs and even if our squad players want to get match pratice but loans between clubs in the same division is a joke, especially when it's top clubs and players involved. Chelsea will benefit from having a weaker opposition squad when not having Luaka and Moses face them when they play Everton and Liverpool but every other club in the division will. Surely this threatens the integrity of the competition.

 

Clubs shouldn't be able to loan players out to the same league. They should only be allowed to drop down a level. Ie Prem to NPC or lower....Players from NPC only to L1 or lower, etc.

 

Fully agree with all of this.

 

I also think loanees should only be players who are 23 or younger, except for emergency goalkeeper loans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
the saint in winchester

the saint in winchester

Posted
Posted

Completely agree with Turkish and all of you who have posted.

The loan system should be to give younger/unused players experience and playing time, but should not be allowed in the same division, and preferably down the food chain.

The Demba Ba £3M fee was ridiculous and it's no wonder no-one paid it. I know Jose said he was looking to sell really, so trying to get a suitor at £7M, but no lower ranking club could afford his wages and a loan fee.

The loan system does need regulating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted
And that's because you've got top players going out on loan. Seriously, Chelsea were after a £3m loan fee for Ba, a player that cost them £7m only 8 months ago. How is this right?

 

If the loan system were used properly and how it was meant for they'd either be stuck with Ba or have to sell him. You'd also hopefully stop club stockpiling their squads with players they dont need and have to use them or sell them - see Scott Sinclair on loan at WBA from City FFS

 

100% this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Mikey

Saint Mikey

Posted
Posted
Did they benefit from playing at the highest level? Or did they just benefit from playing games at a fairly young age? Beckham to Preston, Lampard to Swansea, Defoe and Rio to Bournemouth, Ashley Cole to Palace; five England internationals with hundreds of caps between them who all benefitted from going to a lower league club.

 

The current loan system just acts as a flag of convenience for clubs to lash out millions on players they don't necessarily need then recoup the wages by having the player turn out for another side. Take that facility away and maybe we might see a bit more frugality and less recklessness in the transfer market.

 

You make some good points. However, I think that football has moved on - even since then. Managers are under so much pressure (how long is a Manager's shelf life in the Prem now? Less than a year?). Not saying they weren't under pressure before, but it's just been cranked up a bit. Some Managers particularly in the Top 4 won't take the risk to play youngsters, as their neck is on the line. Even lower level experience doesn't seem to be enough. Look at the question marks on some of our players, Morgan, Lallana and although not a youngster, Rickie too. Undoubtedly Morgan and Lallana have benefitted from game time (200 games for Lallana now), but not all Managers see it that way (not saying this is right). They just don't get a chance unless they are exceptional.

 

For every Ross Barkley who had a loan spell in the Champ and is now getting game time, there is an Andros Townsend or Danny Rose who had loans in the lower leagues, but had to wait to prove themselves at the Top Level before given a chance with their own clubs. Just don't think it's black and white...

 

If there was more stability in Football, then managers could afford to play youngsters and they could develop naturally ala Shearer, Le Tiss, Wallaces etc. However, the 'Win, Win, Win' mentality (that even we, the fans are a big part of) - has made this pretty impossible to ever reverse. That's unless the bubble bursts and we all have to start from scratch...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...