Loan players

[spyinthesky]

With apologies if this has been mentioned before but presumably we will be without Bertrand for the two Chelsea games and Hull will be unable to play Gaston in their fixtures v us?

 

Wonder if Ronald would risk Matt Targett or get Clyne to play LB?

[JxgrSaint]

With apologies if this has been mentioned before but presumably we will be without Bertrand for the two Chelsea games and Hull will be unable to play Gaston in their fixtures v us?

 

Wonder if Ronald would risk Matt Targett or get Clyne to play LB?

 

Would think it'd be Clyne Fonte Gardos Alderweireld unless Targett has really kicked on and impressed in training...

[S-Clarke]

Would think it'd be Clyne Fonte Gardos Alderweireld unless Targett has really kicked on and impressed in training...

 

Would seem a bit of an unnecessary re-shuffle, if we assume that Fonte and Toby will be the ones forming a very strong partnership.

 

Could be a good opportunity for Targett - you never know until you're given a chance, and as a club we've never bulked at the chance of blooding a youngster before!

[ericofarabia]

On the topic of loans ... who pays the salaries?

 

I thought I read somewhere that the parent club was still responsible for paying the salaries, which seems a bit strange, god forbid we are still paying Osvaldo to be crap elsewhere, or Gaston who was reportedly on a big wedge.

 

maybe each loan is negotiated differently. Any ideas?

[pangy]

While we are at it,could we potentially buy Bertrand in January if he plays a blinder in every game or do we have to wait until the current deal expires ?

 

a

[View From The Top]

While we are at it,could we potentially buy Bertrand in January if he plays a blinder in every game or do we have to wait until the current deal expires ?

 

 

What a very good point that is. Anyone know the answer?

[SNSUN]

I was under the impression, I'm probably wrong, that if another team loans a player and pays a fee for that player, then there can't be a clause stating that player can't play against his parent club.

 

MLG to this thread, calling MLG to the thread.

[bowers-sfc]

I'm sure we could 'terminate' the loan, then buy him if that's what all parties wanted etc.

[The Cat]

On the topic of loans ... who pays the salaries?

 

I thought I read somewhere that the parent club was still responsible for paying the salaries, which seems a bit strange, god forbid we are still paying Osvaldo to be crap elsewhere, or Gaston who was reportedly on a big wedge.

 

maybe each loan is negotiated differently. Any ideas?

 

They are all different. Just depends on the deal struck between the clubs.

[cellone]

I was under the impression, I'm probably wrong, that if another team loans a player and pays a fee for that player, then there can't be a clause stating that player can't play against his parent club.

 

MLG to this thread, calling MLG to the thread.

 

Isn't it an FA rule?

[Saint Garrett]

I'm sure we could 'terminate' the loan, then buy him if that's what all parties wanted etc.

 

Think it depends if the option comes into play at the end of the season or anytime while he's on loan. Would expect all loan to be negotiated individually depending on what both parties want out of the deal

[kpturner]

What a very good point that is. Anyone know the answer?

 

Salaries are paid by the borrowing club unless a special arrangement has been made with the loaning club. Sometimes it's a mixture.

[SarniaSaint]

Not sure how that works about a loan player playing against his owning team. My guess is that it depends on the loan deal and since we have option to buy........ who knows:)

 

BTW at some time Targett has to be given a chance seems he is rated better than Shaw bwtf do I know LOL

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I was under the impression, I'm probably wrong, that if another team loans a player and pays a fee for that player, then there can't be a clause stating that player can't play against his parent club.

 

MLG to this thread, calling MLG to the thread.

 

Players are explicitly prohibited from playing against parent clubs, even with loan fees. Not sure if this is just PL or all English clubs. But they can do so in other countries.

 

Wages are on a deal to deal basis. Some deals parent club will pay wages, some the loaning club, often it will be split between the two.

[hutch]

Isn't it an FA rule?

PL not FA (RuleV.7.2)

[Lets B Avenue]

Didn't they bring that in after Lua Lua scored for the Skates against Newcastle and Bobby Robson did his nut about it?

[farawaysaint]

Didn't they bring that in after Lua Lua scored for the Skates against Newcastle and Bobby Robson did his nut about it?

 

Yes, yes they did.

[Bensfcno1]

I remember us selling a player during a season, and it wasan agreement that he would not play against us that season. Can't remember the player involved but want to say Dean Richards to Spurs?

 

Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk

[stevegrant]

Didn't they bring that in after Lua Lua scored for the Skates against Newcastle and Bobby Robson did his nut about it?

Yep. They (rightly) decided it was a potential conflict of interests to let a loan player play against the club that owns his registration as he might not try hard enough etc, but I think it's a bit of a sham anyway. Take Chelsea loaning Lukaku to Everton last season, they could do so safe in the knowledge that he can't hurt them because he couldn't play against them, but he can do so against all their rivals. Loans between clubs in the same division should be banned, if a player's not good enough to get games for you, loan him to another country or division, or sell him.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Yep. They (rightly) decided it was a potential conflict of interests to let a loan player play against the club that owns his registration as he might not try hard enough etc, but I think it's a bit of a sham anyway. Take Chelsea loaning Lukaku to Everton last season, they could do so safe in the knowledge that he can't hurt them because he couldn't play against them, but he can do so against all their rivals. Loans between clubs in the same division should be banned, if a player's not good enough to get games for you, loan him to another country or division, or sell him.

 

Further to that, I think the number of players a club loan out should be capped. At least those over a certain age, say 20/21.

 

Chelsea basically have a buy-to-let(/loan) to transfers. They just hoover up talent, and loan it out. How many have they got out on loan, knocking on 30 or something ridiculous. The majority of them they will be collecting nice little loan fees, recouping most of a players wages and usually seeing the value of this player increase.

 

They then either have a developed player ready for the first XI (Courtois) or someone they can sell at a tidy profit (Lukaku). I mean, fair play to them, they saw a loop-hole and have milked it for all they can. But it does distort the market a bit I feel.

[Bad Wolf]

I remember us selling a player during a season, and it wasan agreement that he would not play against us that season. Can't remember the player involved but want to say Dean Richards to Spurs?

 

Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk

 

I have a vague memory of Grzegorz Rasiak going on loan to Bolton, in the division higher and because they paid such a big fee (considering it was only a half season loan) there was no recall option AND he could play against us if we got them in the cup.

 

I might be wrong though

[Fitzhugh Fella]

What a very good point that is. Anyone know the answer?

 

Hooiveld came to us on loan with a clause to buy at the end but we brought him before his loan was up

[KingdomCome]

Is it just me or has there been an inordinately high number of loans this window?

I don;t seem to remember so many deals being loans, maybe an impact of FFP?

[Minsk]

Yep. They (rightly) decided it was a potential conflict of interests to let a loan player play against the club that owns his registration as he might not try hard enough etc, but I think it's a bit of a sham anyway. Take Chelsea loaning Lukaku to Everton last season, they could do so safe in the knowledge that he can't hurt them because he couldn't play against them, but he can do so against all their rivals. Loans between clubs in the same division should be banned, if a player's not good enough to get games for you, loan him to another country or division, or sell him.

 

Spot on!

 

Further to that, I think the number of players a club loan out should be capped. At least those over a certain age, say 20/21.

 

Chelsea basically have a buy-to-let(/loan) to transfers. They just hoover up talent, and loan it out. How many have they got out on loan, knocking on 30 or something ridiculous. The majority of them they will be collecting nice little loan fees, recouping most of a players wages and usually seeing the value of this player increase.

 

They then either have a developed player ready for the first XI (Courtois) or someone they can sell at a tidy profit (Lukaku). I mean, fair play to them, they saw a loop-hole and have milked it for all they can. But it does distort the market a bit I feel.

 

I've been saying the same thing for a long time too.

 

As for other questions:

 

1. It is a PL rule that stops players playing against their parent clubs. However, Courtois was allowed to play against Chelski in CL.

 

2. Wages on a deal by deal basis. Usually it is the loaning club who is responsible for them, however, players are paid by their parent club and the amount is then recouped from loaning club. - This is something I remember from when the Skates didn't pay their players when in the PL. All the loanees were fine as they still got their wages.

 

3. As for the OS, I guess it depends on form and fitness at the time - of all our defenders.

[Redslo]

I was under the impression, I'm probably wrong, that if another team loans a player and pays a fee for that player, then there can't be a clause stating that player can't play against his parent club.

 

MLG to this thread, calling MLG to the thread.

 

That is a premier league rule, but not an UEFA rule.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2585496/On-loan-Atletico-Madrid-keeper-Thibaut-Courtois-WILL-eligible-play-against-parent-club-Chelsea-two-teams-drawn-Champions-League-quarter-final.html

 

from the BPL Handbook 2014-2015

 

V.7.2. during the period of the Temporary Transfer of his contract registration a Player

shall not play against the Transferor Club;

 

While we are at it, could we potentially buy Bertrand in January if he plays a blinder in every game or do we have to wait until the current deal expires ?

 

Unless there is a contractual provision to the contrary we could finalize the transfer now. Remember what happened with Hooiveld.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos_Hooiveld#cite_note-18

 

On the topic of loans ... who pays the salaries?

 

I thought I read somewhere that the parent club was still responsible for paying the salaries, which seems a bit strange, god forbid we are still paying Osvaldo to be crap elsewhere, or Gaston who was reportedly on a big wedge.

 

maybe each loan is negotiated differently. Any ideas?

 

Speaking from my extensive Football Manager experience, each loan is different. I think that as part of the Osvaldo loan they took over his salary but we took over Taider’s salary. I assume we are off the hook for it now since he was reloaned to somewhere else.

 

I remember us selling a player during a season, and it was an agreement that he would not play against us that season. Can't remember the player involved but want to say Dean Richards to Spurs?

 

Such deals are possible when a loan deal is made permanent in the middle of the season.

 

From the BPL 2014-2015 handbook

 

V.7.3. if during the period of a Temporary Transfer the Player’s registration is transferred

permanently from the Transferor Club to the Transferee Club, the two Clubs may

agree in writing (to be copied to the League) that the Player shall not play against the

Transferor Club for the remainder of the Season;

 

I cannot find a rule that allows such a provision for a regular transfer. If I had to guess, I would guess that such a deal would not be allowed because, if it were, every selling club would insist upon such a provision and that would weaken the competition overall. I suppose you could loan a player to a team with the expectation that the loan will become a permanent transfer the very next day and thereby allow the transaction to prohibit the player playing against the selling club that season.

[Bensfcno1]

Depending on the relationship with the other club, perhaps it would be a possible gentleman agreement as part of the the negotiatiins. Although, I'm sure such agreements are very unlikely in the world off football in the last 10 years.

 

Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk