Everton

[YateleyRoyal]

Despite what others have written I still think that the idea of having loans between Premier League clubs is wrong-within the current rules yes, but IMHO the rules are wrong.

Why?

[Sanguine]

I like Martin Samuels idea that if a player doesn't play for his loan club against his owners, he is suspended for his loan club's next game (subject to a medical).

[TBM]

I like Martin Samuels idea that if a player doesn't play for his loan club against his owners, he is suspended for his loan club's next game (subject to a medical).

I don't get it.....explain why he should be suspended

[TBM]

Despite what others have written I still think that the idea of having loans between Premier League clubs is wrong-within the current rules yes, but IMHO the rules are wrong.

Why?

Yeah this ^

There is a limit on the amount of players you can loan in, and what the loan system does well is stop some clubs going bust.

[BR2]

Despite what others have written I still think that the idea of having loans between Premier League clubs is wrong-within the current rules yes, but IMHO the rules are wrong.

Why?

Premier clubs have loads of dosh so why don't they back their own judgement and buy players rather than borrow them?
As I said earlier, the loan system was brought in to cover injuries on a short term basis and not to provide a player for a whole season that the receiving club may well not buy at the end of it.

[BR2]

Despite what others have written I still think that the idea of having loans between Premier League clubs is wrong-within the current rules yes, but IMHO the rules are wrong.

Why?

Yeah this ^

There is a limit on the amount of players you can loan in, and what the loan system does well is stop some clubs going bust.

At the lower level yes, but at Premier League level do you expect Everton, Man City or Chelsea to go bust if Lukaku and Barry stay with their parent clubs?

[YateleyRoyal]

Despite what others have written I still think that the idea of having loans between Premier League clubs is wrong-within the current rules yes, but IMHO the rules are wrong.

Why?

Premier clubs have loads of dosh so why don't they back their own judgement and buy players rather than borrow them?
As I said earlier, the loan system was brought in to cover injuries on a short term basis and not to provide a player for a whole season that the receiving club may well not buy at the end of it.

Taking Tom Cleverly as an example - Utd weren't ready to stick him in their team, Wigan were never going to buy him, he wanted experience better than the Championship - a loan worked out for all three parties.

Lukaku is the same - Everton need a striker, he doesnt want to sit on the bench, and Chelsea dont want a restless player. A loan works out for all parties.

[TBM]

Despite what others have written I still think that the idea of having loans between Premier League clubs is wrong-within the current rules yes, but IMHO the rules are wrong.

Yeah this ^

There is a limit on the amount of players you can loan in, and what the loan system does well is stop some clubs going bust.

At the lower level yes, but at Premier League level do you expect Everton, Man City or Chelsea to go bust if Lukaku and Barry stay with their parent clubs?

I did say "some clubs" - so although Chelsea and Man City won't, it allows the likes of Everton to have a quality player for a season without having to splash out 20m + wages on him - which in turn makes the league more competitive. As said, Barry won't go back to City and Lukaku is only 20 so is getting game time which young players need but might not necessarily get at their parent club.

Look at Jack Wilshere, went on loan to Bolton and then the season after broke in to the Arsenal first team - it benefited both Arsenal and England him going out on loan

[Silver Fox]

I like Martin Samuels idea that if a player doesn't play for his loan club against his owners, he is suspended for his loan club's next game (subject to a medical).

I don't know if that works but loanees should definitely be able to play against their parent clubs, a point I've been rattling on about for years.

[TBM]

I like Martin Samuels idea that if a player doesn't play for his loan club against his owners, he is suspended for his loan club's next game (subject to a medical).

I don't know if that works but loanees should definitely be able to play against their parent clubs, a point I've been rattling on about for years.

It wouldn't work

1) What if he scores the winner? - the fans at his parents club won't exactly welcome him back with open arms
2) What if he decides to score an own goal, to give his parent club the win?

[6ft Kerplunk]

I did say "some clubs" - so although Chelsea and Man City won't, it allows the likes of Everton to have a quality player for a season without having to splash out 20m + wages on him - which in turn makes the league more competitive.

Or maybe if Chelsea and Man City weren't hoarding players on massive wages and letting the likes of Everton pay half the wages for a year they'd think twice about the hoarding. Then player's wages wouldn't cost so much and Everton could afford to but them anyway. All the current loan system does is allow the bigger teams to buy more players than they need and the smaller Premier League clubs to have players they can't afford which just raises the gap between the Premier League and the FL.

[YateleyRoyal]

I like Martin Samuels idea that if a player doesn't play for his loan club against his owners, he is suspended for his loan club's next game (subject to a medical).

I don't know if that works but loanees should definitely be able to play against their parent clubs, a point I've been rattling on about for years.

It wouldn't work
2) What if he decides to score an own goal, to give his parent club the win?

Oh the lols if that happened!

[TBM]

I did say "some clubs" - so although Chelsea and Man City won't, it allows the likes of Everton to have a quality player for a season without having to splash out 20m + wages on him - which in turn makes the league more competitive.

Or maybe if Chelsea and Man City weren't hoarding players on massive wages and letting the likes of Everton pay half the wages for a year they'd think twice about the hoarding. Then player's wages wouldn't cost so much and Everton could afford to but them anyway. All the current loan system does is allow the bigger teams to buy more players than they need and the smaller Premier League clubs to have players they can't afford which just raises the gap between the Premier League and the FL.

Isn't this what the financial fair play rules is trying to stop them doing?!

[6ft Kerplunk]

So the parent club gets an advantage of playing two games against a weaker team. Either they should be allowed to play or you shouldn't be allowed to loan within the same league.

[Sanguine]

I like Martin Samuels idea that if a player doesn't play for his loan club against his owners, he is suspended for his loan club's next game (subject to a medical).

I don't know if that works but loanees should definitely be able to play against their parent clubs, a point I've been rattling on about for years.

It used to be a gentleman's agreement - so the Premier League acted to stop that and loanees are now actually not allowed to play against their parent clubs, full stop. As Samuels highlighted - whilst Mourinho's argument looks a little made up after the event, it's very true that clubs like Chelsea and City can send good players out to stick one over their rivals, safe in the knowledge that the player isn't allowed to do it against them.

[TBM]

I like Martin Samuels idea that if a player doesn't play for his loan club against his owners, he is suspended for his loan club's next game (subject to a medical).

I don't know if that works but loanees should definitely be able to play against their parent clubs, a point I've been rattling on about for years.

It used to be a gentleman's agreement - so the Premier League acted to stop that and loanees are now actually not allowed to play against their parent clubs, full stop. As Samuels highlighted - whilst Mourinho's argument looks a little made up after the event, it's very true that clubs like Chelsea and City can send good players out to stick one over their rivals, safe in the knowledge that the player isn't allowed to do it against them.

Yeah but as i said, they could also send a player to another team to aid them - as that player could influence the outcome of the game by either playing shit or scoring an oggy [if allowed to play against parent club]

[Sanguine]

Extending Vic's point, I think a rule with a decent long-term effect would be a UEFA ban on top tier clubs loaning a player to other top division clubs in Europe.

In the long-run this would lead to, for example, Lukaku gracing the reserves at Stamford Bridge, or probably moving on to another club, like Everton. Or moreover, not joining Chelsea in the first place.

It would also deal to an extent with big clubs hoarding talent, as they won't be able to ship them out for experience. Take Thibault Courtois, the Chelsea keeper who has been on loan at Atletico for three years. Arguably the best young keeper in Europe, such a rule would have seen Atletico or some other club sign him permanently, and he wouldn't have ended up at a club where Petr Cech will be the first choice until he retires.

TBM - I don't think the utterly transparent use of a loan player to rig matches should really be a concern.

[YateleyRoyal]

Only this morning, Everton have revealed that they could have Delofeau for another season if he impresses.

[TBM]

he wouldn't have ended up at a club where Petr Cech will be the first choice until he retires.

Who says that would happen though, it only takes like what happened to Joe Hart for Courtois to get a place in the side and then its up to him to keep it. Same with McCarthy and Federici - McC came in and impressed and is now number 1.

Courtois doesn't want to return to Chelsea until he is guaranteed a start, whereas Chelsea cant offer him that but also don't want to sell him as they see him as Cechs replacement. The loan system here works in both the players and clubs favour.

[YateleyRoyal]

It would also deal to an extent with big clubs hoarding talent, as they won't be able to ship them out for experience. Take Thibault Courtois, the Chelsea keeper who has been on loan at Atletico for three years. Arguably the best young keeper in Europe, such a rule would have seen Atletico or some other club sign him permanently, and he wouldn't have ended up at a club where Petr Cech will be the first choice until he retires.

How do you enforce it - you can only sign a young player, but only if you promise not to loan him out, and he has to be a first team regular within x number of years?