bjk Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 Having seen the impressive Cork and with the arrival of the Goal machine Pekhart,these two could be vital members of the team this season.Chelsea and Spurs are not likely to play them at all so why do we only take them until January when sending them back to their clubs could be crucial if we're in a position where we still need them.Surely these two clubs and ourselves would benefit by taking them for the season.
stevegrant Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 If they perform well, I'm sure the deals will be renewable. However, if it turns out that they're rubbish (which I'm sure they won't be, mind you) and don't get in the team, we can then send them back without having to pay half a season's worth of wages.
Saint Mikey Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 If they perform well, I'm sure the deals will be renewable. However, if it turns out that they're rubbish (which I'm sure they won't be, mind you) and don't get in the team, we can then send them back without having to pay half a season's worth of wages. Exactly. They could turn out like Adam Hammil...
Matthew Le God Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 I'm sure there is the option to extend them. Spurs and Chelsea may want to see how much we use them and if its in their interest to keep them on loan if they aren't playing. Saints may want to see how they do before comitting to a season long loan. As I said at the beginning I'm sure we can easily extend the loan.
toofarnorth Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 There is bound to be an option for further months/rest of season. Maybe Spurs and Chelsea wanted to keep their options open. Maybe it's because we'll have Saga back and no guarantee he'll be off anywhere else. Could be a host of reasons.
manzo Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 I think that it's also to do with the fact that players on a season-long loan can't be recalled to their club, so doing it this way keeps all options open.
beatlesaint Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 I'm sure there is the option to extend them. Spurs and Chelsea may want to see how much we use them and if its in their interest to keep them on loan if they aren't playing. Saints may want to see how they do before comitting to a season long loan. As I said at the beginning I'm sure we can easily extend the loan. Yes thats right, remember how upset Martin O'Neil got when GB didnt play that full back we loaned from Villa.....whose name escapes me !
stevegrant Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 Yes thats right, remember how upset Martin O'Neil got when GB didnt play that full back we loaned from Villa.....whose name escapes me ! Stephen O'Halloran. There's a good reason why he didn't play, he was absolutely rubbish.
beatlesaint Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 Stephen O'Halloran. There's a good reason why he didn't play, he was absolutely rubbish. Thats him, thanks.
eurosaint Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 Stephen O'Halloran. B. Kinda makes you wonder why we took him in the first place ??
Psycrow Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 Kinda makes you wonder why we took him in the first place ?? To advertise to England vs Ireland U21s match that was happening at Saint Mary's while he was here, he was going to be playing for Ireland against Surman playing for England
Professor Posted 27 August, 2008 Posted 27 August, 2008 Under CCC rules a loan must either be for a season or a half season. A half-season loan can be followed by another half-season loan of the same player, therefore nothing is lost by having the option of letting a player go back if he has not performed well enough, or is no longer needed. There could be the risk of his club not re-loaning him, but if a player is taken on a full season loan, the lending club can activate a recall clause during the second half of the season anyway, if they wish. Conclusion is that no adverse assumptions should be made by half-season loans.
Saint Paul C Posted 28 August, 2008 Posted 28 August, 2008 It's because we'll have this league won by Xmas and we won't need to win any more games.....
southamptonfclegend Posted 28 August, 2008 Posted 28 August, 2008 Exactly. They could turn out like Adam Hammil... don't tempt fate.... we know who to blame if he scores on saturday :mad:
Ruffo Posted 28 August, 2008 Posted 28 August, 2008 It's because we'll have this league won by Xmas and we won't need to win any more games..... you bet me to the obvious answer!!
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 28 August, 2008 Posted 28 August, 2008 Does anyone know if these loan players can play for us on 1st January 09 ? - I'm assuming they go back on 31st December .
Long Shot Posted 28 August, 2008 Posted 28 August, 2008 Stephen O'Halloran. There's a good reason why he didn't play, he was absolutely rubbish. Hold the front page: Burley panic buys another shocking defender
alpine_saint Posted 28 August, 2008 Posted 28 August, 2008 If they perform well, I'm sure the deals will be renewable. However, if it turns out that they're rubbish (which I'm sure they won't be, mind you) and don't get in the team, we can then send them back without having to pay half a season's worth of wages. Problem with that is, if they turn out to be good, the club holding their registration wont allow a renewal because they might want to use them themselves or can then flog them... I reckon if we really thought Cork and Pekhart were up to it, we should have bitten the bullet and got season-long loans.
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 29 August, 2008 Posted 29 August, 2008 Problem with that is, if they turn out to be good, the club holding their registration wont allow a renewal because they might want to use them themselves or can then flog them... I reckon if we really thought Cork and Pekhart were up to it, we should have bitten the bullet and got season-long loans. Isn't this all a pretty well established way to mitigate costs - see where you are at the end of the loan and if in contention for promotion review the situation but if the season is looking a dead duck off load the players to cut costs for the second half of the season? You see it a lot at the lower levels where non-league clubs might have half their team from 'rentasquad' in an endeavour for a good cup run and a shot at promotion and if things don't work out then all the loanees start to disappear
DT Posted 29 August, 2008 Posted 29 August, 2008 Under CCC rules a loan must either be for a season or a half season. A half-season loan can be followed by another half-season loan of the same player, therefore nothing is lost by having the option of letting a player go back if he has not performed well enough, or is no longer needed. There could be the risk of his club not re-loaning him, but if a player is taken on a full season loan, the lending club can activate a recall clause during the second half of the season anyway, if they wish. Conclusion is that no adverse assumptions should be made by half-season loans. Isn't Google marvellous?
Professor Posted 29 August, 2008 Posted 29 August, 2008 Because our money runs out in January! It would have run out before then if there had not been a whole set of major decisions in the close season, that have brought in income and reduced the outgoings, including the players' wages bill. Since the club's finances are now being managed responsibly, what is the purpose of such a pointless negative comment? All the evidence shows that the budget, as projected over the season, allows for new spending by the removal of previous spending commitments. An unknown factor is how gate income will compare against the projection by January, and another is whether the team will be in a position to compete for the play-offs. Seems reasonable to assume that fresh decisions will be taken then, based on the facts as they then are. If Saints are being successful by then, I hope it doesn't spoil some people's miserable Christmas!
70's Mike Posted 29 August, 2008 Posted 29 August, 2008 Under CCC rules a loan must either be for a season or a half season. A half-season loan can be followed by another half-season loan of the same player, therefore nothing is lost by having the option of letting a player go back if he has not performed well enough, or is no longer needed. There could be the risk of his club not re-loaning him, but if a player is taken on a full season loan, the lending club can activate a recall clause during the second half of the season anyway, if they wish. Conclusion is that no adverse assumptions should be made by half-season loans. So are you saying you cannot take players on a months loan, i thought we had Lucketti on a shorter loan spell
Professor Posted 29 August, 2008 Posted 29 August, 2008 So are you saying you cannot take players on a months loan' date=' i thought we had Lucketti on a shorter loan spell[/quote'] There are different rules for emergency loans - check the Football League website.
70's Mike Posted 29 August, 2008 Posted 29 August, 2008 There are different rules for emergency loans - check the Football League website. thank you
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now