Minsk Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Now that we have signed Guly, Saints are 1 of only 5 FL teams without a player on loan. On top of that, over half of the PL teams have players on loan. Therefore, I think a rule should brought in immediately whereby every team is deducted 3 points for each player it has on loan. Seriously though, I have mixed emotions about the loan market. I can see it's value for sending out promising youngsters to gain valuable experience (as we did with Lallana, and so many others) and as a 'try before you buy'; possibly also to help out financially to get high wage earners of the books (ala Rasiak) but then again one could say it is the club's fault for giving such players too big a contract. I certainly believe that it is crazy when clubs like Citeh have 12 players out on loan, and especially so when they include the likes of Bridge and Santa Cruz. I definitely do not think players should be loaned to teams in the same division as this does give an unfair advantage. (i.e. Bridge and Santa Cruz can play against all their title rivals but not against Citeh.) All in all, I think that loans should be restricted to players aged 21 or under, or those which have a set in concrete 'option to buy'. What are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 21 January, 2011 Author Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Forgot to say in the OP: the other FL clubs without any loanees are Forest, QPR and Swansea in the Championship and, surprisingly, Hartlepool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Not one for the loan system as it stands - I'm with you on your comments "I think that loans should be restricted to players aged 21 or under, or those which have a set in concrete 'option to buy'." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Porter Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Bringing in that under21 / option to buy rule would just affect the smaller teams more. Sure we'd get an advantage because we're the big fish at the moment, would really cost us when we're trying to get out of the CCC or trying to survive in the prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu0x Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Your argument criticising the loan system eats itself when you start it with "now that we have signed Guly"... In fact we've arguably had greater success with the loan market at Saints in the past two seasons than 95% of other clubs out there. It is unlikely that we would have signed Chaplow, and certain that we would not have signed Guly, if we had not been able to take them on loan. Our two major loan players last season (Papa and Antonio) had a significant effect on our season. The loan market is perfect for a club in our position - we're upwardly mobile, and able to offer the chance of attractive first team football to players at Prem/CCC clubs. Despite us being favourites to go up, a player from a higher division is far more likely to come to us on loan than permanently. That way both sides of the deal keep their options open. If they perform and we're promoted, we sign them permanently. If they don't or we don't, we aren't lumbered with a long contract we don't want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 21 January, 2011 Author Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Your argument criticising the loan system eats itself when you start it with "now that we have signed Guly"... In fact we've arguably had greater success with the loan market at Saints in the past two seasons than 95% of other clubs out there. It is unlikely that we would have signed Chaplow, and certain that we would not have signed Guly, if we had not been able to take them on loan. Our two major loan players last season (Papa and Antonio) had a significant effect on our season. The loan market is perfect for a club in our position - we're upwardly mobile, and able to offer the chance of attractive first team football to players at Prem/CCC clubs. Despite us being favourites to go up, a player from a higher division is far more likely to come to us on loan than permanently. That way both sides of the deal keep their options open. If they perform and we're promoted, we sign them permanently. If they don't or we don't, we aren't lumbered with a long contract we don't want. But Guly WAS with an 'option to buy' as was Papa last season. Although never actually announced as such, most believe the same was true with Chaplow. Antonio is under 21. So all 4 loans would still have been legit with my proposed new guidelines. Oh, and make that Saints are now 1 of 4 FL clubs without a loanee; QPR have just had a loan bid for Routeledge accepted by Newcastle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSFC Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 I would be amazed if we go the rest of the season without a loan or two in. Your "option to buy" clause a you put it would make no difference because both player and club would have to agree on permanent terms anyhow. I do think your point about loaning to same division is right, in fact didn't it used to be that way? Remember though that loaning a player out can benefit then and player when things aren't going quite right for whatever reason, I.e. Puncheon. Looks better than before he left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labibs Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 What if a team had three keepers at a club and they were all injured? Would they not be allowed to loan someone over the age of 21 as a replacement? The agreed fee clause means nothing, the club could just choose not to exercise their right to buy. I agree, situations such as Man City are laughable, but there are a number of times when the loan market can benefit both parties (E.g. if a player is just coming back from a major injury and the club loan them out to get match fitness back). You're right, it used to be banned to loan from one prem club to the next, but the big teams quashed it as for their young players it was better for them to get premier league experience rather than Championship games (E.g Wilshere at Bolton last season, or Cleverly at Wigan) It does annoy me when you see teams where seemingly the majority of their side are on loan, but this is often only a short term gain and makes it difficult for a club to build and develop players for the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokingFun Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 What if a team had three keepers at a club and they were all injured? Would they not be allowed to loan someone over the age of 21 as a replacement? The agreed fee clause means nothing, the club could just choose not to exercise their right to buy. I agree, situations such as Man City are laughable, but there are a number of times when the loan market can benefit both parties (E.g. if a player is just coming back from a major injury and the club loan them out to get match fitness back). You're right, it used to be banned to loan from one prem club to the next, but the big teams quashed it as for their young players it was better for them to get premier league experience rather than Championship games (E.g Wilshere at Bolton last season, or Cleverly at Wigan) It does annoy me when you see teams where seemingly the majority of their side are on loan, but this is often only a short term gain and makes it difficult for a club to build and develop players for the future If this was to happen it would be tough titties on the club it happened to as they should have double that cover for each eventuality that might or might not occur during the course of a season .... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Loans seem perfect for our position right now. We want players to add to our team, but it's silly to buy now, when we'd be able to attract far better when we go up than we can now. We've clearly been pretty shrewd with loans this season as we've wanted to buy both the ones we had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Forgot to say in the OP: the other FL clubs without any loanees are Forest, QPR and Swansea in the Championship and, surprisingly, Hartlepool. That will change soon with Routledge Woodgate, O Hara, McCaarthy rumoured to be going to QPR soon. Season long loans are good if the players clearly improve the squad and dont just make up the numbers but I dont like short term loans unless its a real emergency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 That will change soon with Routledge Woodgate, O Hara, McCaarthy rumoured to be going to QPR soon. Season long loans are good if the players clearly improve the squad and dont just make up the numbers but I dont like short term loans unless its a real emergency. Routledge to QBR, Lee Cook to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu0x Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 But Guly WAS with an 'option to buy' as was Papa last season. Although never actually announced as such, most believe the same was true with Chaplow. Antonio is under 21. So all 4 loans would still have been legit with my proposed new guidelines. In which case, what possible difference would inserting a compulsory 'option to buy' clause in every loan make? You will simply have a replica of the farcical situation in Spain and Portugal, where players have astronomical compulsory buyout clauses in their contracts because they have to that no buying club will ever meet, and the selling club is perfectly at liberty to accept a rational, lower, offer should they wish to sell. The club borrowing the player will still loan them, because they still get the temporary services of that player (which is after all *what they wanted in the first place*) and if it works out they are at liberty to offer a lower reasonable sum at the end of the loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Emergency loans are different but loans in general should be disallowed because they can be used to create an unfair advantage for some wealthy clubs who can store players up until needed and can try out players in other people's teams instead of theuir own. A loan player not being able to play against his owner club is such an ovbvious cheat of the game and the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Routledge to QBR, Lee Cook to us? Hes said hes quite happy to go out on loan but hed have to start at LW. Hes good enough for the NPC but needs to build up his match fitness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 21 January, 2011 Share Posted 21 January, 2011 Emergency loans are different Only in that they are shorter and after the main transfer window has closed. It doesn't mean they are loans because of an injury crisis. Richard Chaplow and Nicholas Bignall were emergency loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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