Football Is the loan system broken in football?

Discussion in 'Sports' started by seabs, Mar 5, 2013.

  1. It is a great system in principle but it's flawed for a few reasons, firstly you have Watford signing people from Udiniese and Granada way out of their budget as they share their owners, secondly my team took Jay Bothroyd on loan whilst he was on 30k a week at QPR, yet we only paid a maximum of a 3rd of that, how does that work? It's a good system in principle which needs a few tweaks to improved.

    1) Clubs must pay the full wages of all players they loan - Yeah it's a risk but no club should have players they can't afford IMO, it's ridiculous.

    2) All loans must be registered as loans, fuck all this international loans are permanent transfers they aren't.

    3) Limit loans in a squad to 3 rather than 5, make teams play their own players. There was a time when we lived off loans ( we even got fined for having too many :haha: ) Special dispensation could be offered if a club has no Goalkeeper.

    Forcing clubs to operate between their means has to be the priority IMO and no club shouldn't be allowed to take on a player they can't afford permanently, it leaves a ridiculously uneven playing field. Bellamy at a debt stricken Cardiff a few years ago as an example.

    This teamed with FFP will help establish competition and long term stability within the football league IMO.
  2. All of this, like you said Watford are getting all of the Italian clubs up and coming stars yet can't afford one of them, and it is massively flawed, I mean last season when Middlesbrough signed Jutkiewicz, the transfer went through too close to our next game so we couldn't play him for it, so we signed him on a loan to play the next game then cancelled the loan afterwards so he had signed for us again, it's ridiculous, so many teams take advantage from it which means more famous championship clubs or teams where the managers are in cahoots have a huge advantage over teams who are just promoted and such, something needs changing, as at the minute there are far too many ways to get around it.
  3. Agreed, it's funny how the punishments are usually fines as well. These clubs with billionaire backers are fined a few grand and are expected to shit themselves? The loan system should be a last resort if you can't get the permanent transfers in not a primary strategy IMO.
  4. I know, it's ridiculous, they should ban them from loans for a season or something imo, for a club at our level it would make a huge difference and definitely have the desired effect. It's gotton to the point where I no longer look towards transfer deadline day, rather the emergancy loan deadline as we make far more loans in a season than transfers nowadays, I can't remember the last time we payed over a million for a player as now we either bring in freebies or bring in a loan. This should never be the case no matter what level club you are imo.
  5. Don't quite agree with #1. Say Scott Sinclair for example is in need of first team football. He's obviously overpaid at Man City but he needs regular football to develop, and a struggling side would love to have him. As long as the club loaning him our is willing to pay enough of the wages so the club getting him can use him, then it's fine imo. It serves both clubs well.

    Club #1 has a young player developing his game, which has been proven over the years to help many players.
    Club #2 has a new young good player to help them push for their league goal.

    I believe there is a rule where you can't have more than like 3 from one British club, but it doesn't apply to foreign teams for some reason. That needs to stop.
  6. It's 5 loan players in a squad during in the Football league although you can sign more just not play them all at the same time. Rule 1 is more of a case of evening the playing field tbh, is it logical for a club such as Cardiff who were in crippling debt at the time to take on Craig Bellamy who's salary was 10s of thousands of pounds over what they could afford?
  7. Maybe a club is only allowed to take a player on loan if they are able to afford their transfer wage?
    • Like Like x 1
  8. But that just plays it more into the hands of clubs with money having the advantage. I think if the club loaning him out is willing to pay the wages, then let them develop where they think they'll get the most football. I know if I was Manchester United manager and I wanted a young player to develop, and play week-in-week-out with a team with a similar style; I would be more than happy to pay the wages if he was playing weekly for Swansea for example (let's say they're in the championship in this scenario).

    It's a system that is flawed, but I do sort of like the idea of a player from a top team inevitably earning more carving his way through with a lower team. Perhaps if they had it so the club that receives the player HAS to pay at least half the wages it would be better. I don't really know enough about the system to project a more exciting opinion, but I like the idea of someone like Jesse Lingard playing weekly for a championship side.
  10. Whilst that reply was really hard to read, I definitely see your point. The Watford situation right now is disgusting; Ian Holloway's rant was completely justified.
  11. Yeah I was gonna format it then thought no one would read it.
  12. You just like to be a pain in the ass really don't you :rock:
  13. Mentions ass with a rock smiley but manages to avoid a horribly cheesy idiotic joke, good guy Crayo is god.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. I love you seabs.
  15. [yt][/yt]

    :yay: let's go running together to romantic music.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. I laugh so hard whenever I see that video. It's hard to believe I mark so hard for Henry now when I see Slater trolls-slapping him and then big Ryback speeding past him.
Similar Threads
  1. Snowman