Loan system - fair?

Rich_L

Rich_L

Rich_L

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
18,175
Location
Santa Barbara, Californee
Have thought this for a while but cm1179's post in the Transfer thread prompted me to make this thread:

cm1179 said:
to flip it, man city paid us the bigger share of adebayor's wages to play for us.
Click to expand...
Is this fair or an abuse of the loan system - given that teams can place stipulations that the player cannot play against the loaning team.

Effectively the team which receives the heavily subsidised player is then more competitive against the fellow sides competing against the loaning team, and if the player is a regular and successful fixture, arguably less competitive against the loaning team (due to having to change the team/formation etc).

I understand it's totally within the rules, but it seems slightly open to abuse if a loaded team like City can buy players and lend them to the competition at a subsidised price so they can better take points off their competing teams?

Thoughts?
 
We didn't pay most of it but regardless of that it isn't abuse of it at all. We tried to get rid of Ade and only Tottenham would take him so are we supposed to reject that offer just because it might harm other teams?

If we had wanted to abuse the loan system then the likes of Bellamy would have gone also but we refused every team bar Cardiff because him going to Tottenham etc would have possibly harmed our chances of getting top 4.

Also you say loaded teams like city can buy players and lend them like it is something we did on purpose. We didnt buy him just so no one else could, we bought him to play but Mancini chose he didnt want him when he came in. We couldn't get rid of him to anyone else so we let him go to the only team interested.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I don't think that was the motivation in case I used - was more to illustrate the principle of it. :)
 
I don't think that it should be allowed, if a team wants to loan a player then they should be prepared to pay all of their wages or the player accept a wage cut in order to play regular football (unlikely scenario), else we might end up with situations where lower league teams become semi-reserve outfits for Premiership teams (ie. Darren Ferguson loaning players from daddy and getting numerous promotions).
 
Tricky one, my gut feeling is that it isn't any more "unfair" than the game in general. Some teams have more money than others, is there really that big a difference between a club getting a subsidised loan deal, versus a club getting a sugar daddy owner and paying fortunes in wages.

I would have thought with FFP rules coming it this sort of practice would become less common, in the sense that you can't really afford to be paying wages of players out on loans at other clubs, since it effectively limits how much you can pay on wages/transfers for your first team squad in order to keep within your means.

Then again on the flipside maybe FFP rules would actually encourage this practice since if you have players who can't get in the team, having another club pay say £50k/week of their £150k/week wages would be better than just keeping them at your club in the event that the other club isn't prepared to stump up the full monty.

This was discussed at work the other day and somebody suggested that it was only really a problem within the same league, so he didn't have a problem with e.g. Joe Cole's wages being subsidised, but not Adebayors.
 
My personal feeling is that there is no reason for players over 23 to be loaned out and the system as it is allows players like Adebayor and teams like City to have their cake and eat it.

You want to play football? Then take a wage cut.
You want to get a player off your wage bill? Then be prepared to pay a player to do so.

Sides like Spurs shouldn't be subsidising a massively wealthy team because their transfer policy is ****-balls crazy.
 
Yeah I think it should go either two ways - either the player must be loaned with no restrictions (tricky to enforce though - you can already see the England friendly-esque toe-stubs and head-colds conveniently taking place 2 days before the match-up due to a 'gentlemans agreement') or that within division loans should be disallowed. Due to the problems with the former I'd probably lean towards the latter being the preferred position.
 
Moses said:
Yes, so I'm saying they could stick to that wage cap, and still effectively pay more wages on top of it (through a loan fee). Like if you sign a player and pay him £70k/week, for four years, but also give him a signing on fee of £5m fee... that'd be remuneration of £95k/week over the course of the contract.
Click to expand...

we didn't pay a loan fee.

we were going to offer adebayor a signing on fee of £4m and wages of about £70k for 3 or 4 yrs had city offered him to us for free.

we got edgar davids on a free, if you can class a £1m signing on fee as 'free'.
 
Biz.Kid09 said:
We didn't pay most of it but regardless of that it isn't abuse of it at all. We tried to get rid of Ade and only Tottenham would take him so are we supposed to reject that offer just because it might harm other teams?

If we had wanted to abuse the loan system then the likes of Bellamy would have gone also but we refused every team bar Cardiff because him going to Tottenham etc would have possibly harmed our chances of getting top 4.

Also you say loaded teams like city can buy players and lend them like it is something we did on purpose. We didnt buy him just so no one else could, we bought him to play but Mancini chose he didnt want him when he came in. We couldn't get rid of him to anyone else so we let him go to the only team interested.
Click to expand...

That's massively over simplifying it though. The whole issue of fast tracking success at 'Projects' like City are a good example. Paying over inflated wages to get them to join City on the instant success bandwagon, now they can't get rid of them. Do you really think a few years ago, players in Adebayor's bracket would have joined City if they offered him £40k a week ?? Would they have made the trek upto Eastlands for the love of the club ??? Of course not. Money and greed on both sides are the motivator.

When he is no longer needed at the 'Project' City try and offload but nobody can or will stump up the full wages. So City then have to loan out the player and subsidise the wage. Effectively paying 12 men every Saturday & Sunday to take take points off the opposition. Except when they player each other of course. Bonkers.

Another example a few years back there was a Div1 side who loaned in 9 championship players to try and gain promotion. Peterborough iirc. How is that a fair system to try and get into a higher division for a bigger pot of money with 9 players not officially belonging to the club.

There should be a limit on how many players a team can loan in and a limit on how many they can loan out. Whichever way the player goes i.e loaned in or loaned out, the parent club should not be allowed to subsidise the wage. If the player won't take a wage cut then parent club should pay up the players contract and get him off the books.

Gilly said:
It was fairer when you couldn't loan players to teams in the same division.
Click to expand...

Spot on
 
Last edited:
Shamikebab said:
Maybe for loans to same division there should be an age limit (say 21 or something) and the player is allowed to play against you?
Click to expand...

I agree totally with the age limit (either 21 or 23), but I cant see how the bolded bit is enforcable (oohh he tweaked an injury so had to sit the game out)

No loaning club would ever want the possibility of either injuring their own player, or have him score / take points off them - I just cant see it being workable


edit - personally have no issue with inter-division loans, "your" club has just as much chance of loaning out a player as any other top side


edit - I do agree about Loki's idea about how many can be loaned at any one time - that does make sense.
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
Interesting that Mike Ashley's going to get a stake in Rangers, which'll presumably be worth a few bob in the future... and have his company take over shirts/merch... for some money + a load of Newcastle players who'll go to Rangers on loan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19225698

That could distort SFL3 even more, lol.
Click to expand...

After yesterday's lucky escape I think they'll need all the extra players they can get ;)
 
Derek W said:
After yesterday's lucky escape I think they'll need all the extra players they can get ;)
Click to expand...

If players want to make it at Newcastle, cant imagine playing Elgin and East Stirling will help their progress.

Regarding loans, I think teams should be limited to a certain amount and not allowed to loan in same division. The age of a player shouldnt matter.
 
jamesy505 said:
If players want to make it at Newcastle, cant imagine playing Elgin and East Stirling will help their progress.

Regarding loans, I think teams should be limited to a certain amount and not allowed to loan in same division. The age of a player shouldnt matter.
Click to expand...

Frather Fothers' loan spell in the mighty SPL helped him make that breakthrough right enough!

Regarding loans, i agree that if a player is loaned out, the the parent club should not be able to stipulate that said player cannot then play against them. As you say, this would give the parent club the potential advantage of the loanee helping take points off the parent clubs rivals, whilst the parent club plays against a weakened squad in the fixtures against the loanee's new club!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom