are we getting paid to take on the loan players?

[lordswoodsaints]

i dont pretend to know the ins and outs of the process of loaning a player from another club but i expect there are people on here who do know.

 

it doesnt make sense that we should be paying good money to the parent club of the loan players that have not featured at all or have had 'bit part' appearances like forecast or pekhart etc etc if we dont play them?

 

are we 100% sure that we are not being paid to take hese players on? i can understand us covering their wages or part wages but to pay for the privelage of having them and not playing them seems ridiculous.

 

surely before the deal goes through,the management team/directors have some idea of what they are taking on? they must have been watched or videos must have been viewed?

i understand that some players are more successful than others but to not even play a player after paying out good money is a waste.

 

perhaps we are being paid a fee to take them on,just to get them off of the wage bill of the parent club,perhaps there are other factors which trigger us to take a player on for nothing,like the first refusal on one of our players in the transfer window etc. i cannot for the life of me see the advantages for us taking a player on,paying precious money and not getting a return.

 

perhaps somebody could explain the stupidity,because im just not seeing it!

[Weston Super Saint]

i dont pretend to know the ins and outs of the process of loaning a player from another club but i expect there are people on here who do know.

 

it doesnt make sense that we should be paying good money to the parent club of the loan players that have not featured at all or have had 'bit part' appearances like forecast or pekhart etc etc if we dont play them?

 

are we 100% sure that we are not being paid to take hese players on? i can understand us covering their wages or part wages but to pay for the privelage of having them and not playing them seems ridiculous.

 

surely before the deal goes through,the management team/directors have some idea of what they are taking on? they must have been watched or videos must have been viewed?

i understand that some players are more successful than others but to not even play a player after paying out good money is a waste.

 

perhaps we are being paid a fee to take them on,just to get them off of the wage bill of the parent club,perhaps there are other factors which trigger us to take a player on for nothing,like the first refusal on one of our players in the transfer window etc. i cannot for the life of me see the advantages for us taking a player on,paying precious money and not getting a return.

 

perhaps somebody could explain the stupidity,because im just not seeing it!

 

You should have asked this at the AGM, I'm sure they would have given you an answer....

[NickG]

I don't know at all now, but when we were premiership and loaned out young/reserve players we didn't receive a fee and paid most (all in some cases I believe) of the wages.

 

As the tables have now turned my guess is that likes of Cork and Pekhart cost very little, if anything.

 

Rasiak /John etc bit different and would expect us to receive a fee and their wages paid.