The Loan system

[Guest BooBoo]

I've long thought this is something that needs scrapping from football. It just doesn't seem right that the big clubs can stockpile talented players and then send them out for experience which in the long term benefits the parent club. If a club has too many players it should be only able to transfer them permanently if they cant offer them regular first team football which I reckon would improve competition to an extent as we wouldn't have lobsided squads with the leagues more wealthy sides having excessively big squads.

 

 

[ponsaelius]

Agreed. Monopolising players the way big clubs do is sickening, and it is never good for the young players. When clubs are allowed to do this and then lend them to smaller clubs it just increases the gap between the top and bottom.

 

The co-owning system in Italy and other European countries is slightly better, but also favours the wealthier clubs.

[Pilko]

Disagree that it should be scrapped entirely but do think there should be a cap on how many players under a certain age can be loaned out by one club, opposed to a cap on how many can be loaned in by one club.

 

Loans for players under 24:

 

- there should be a limit of roughly ~2 long term loans FROM each club per season.

- there should be a limit of roughly ~4 short term (3 months or less) FROM each club per season.

 

I think for players that are 24 or older, loans are usually for reasons such as them not getting first team football but there being no firm interest in buying the player, or because wages can't be fully afforded by the loanee or the loaning club. Therefore I'd not have things as strict for the older players.

[ponsaelius]

Disagree that it should be scrapped entirely but do think there should be a cap on how many players under a certain age can be loaned out by one club, opposed to a cap on how many can be loaned in by one club.

 

Loans for players under 24:

 

- there should be a limit of roughly ~2 long term loans FROM each club per season.

- there should be a limit of roughly ~4 short term (3 months or less) FROM each club per season.

 

I think for players that are 24 or older, loans are usually for reasons such as them not getting first team football but there being no firm interest in buying the player, or because wages can't be fully afforded by the loanee or the loaning club. Therefore I'd not have things as strict for the older players.

 

Pretty sure there's limitations like that already in place? I might be wrong though.

 

I think the point Otter is more implying is the way the richer clubs can just stock up on players and then lend them to the lower teams who can't afford to buy or keep their own talents. This way they can essentially keep any potentially growing clubs at arms length. Basically creating a big boys club that nobody else can break into - obviously there's other factors that cause this (CL money) but this is a large part of it.

[Guest BooBoo]

Interesting, Pilko.

 

I suppose it's a related arguement but squad sizes should be limited to a set number each season and only players registered in those squads should be available. If you own a player but can't justify him a place in your season long squad then he needs to be sold if he wants to play first.

 

Something like that anyway, I'm rambling.

[Pilko]

I thought the limitations were on clubs being able to loan IN players opposed to loaning OUT. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I didn't think there was any limitations on how many players a club could loan out at a time / in a season.

[Greg]

Don't think there are any restrictions on loaning out, I think Spurs had a stupid amount out last season, 15 or something.

[Disco]

I agree that it needs changing some how but clubs will always find a way round it.

[ponsaelius]

I thought the limitations were on clubs being able to loan IN players opposed to loaning OUT. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I didn't think there was any limitations on how many players a club could loan out at a time / in a season.

 

Aye, sorry I totally misread your post, there is no limit on players being loaned out. I think limiting the loaning OUT of players wouldn't solve the route problem, because clubs would still monopolise young talent - only to stagnate their development even more by having them in their youth/reserves until they fail to reach their potential and are dumped onto smaller clubs, only to keep the ones that do make it.

 

Basically they should be either stopped from buying up too many players in the first place, or if there is no feesible room in the squad for them they should be enforced to move the player on at the going rate. Making sure there is a natural spread of talent would improve competiveness and help to limit the influence that money has on a team's success.

[Guest BooBoo]

Say a fortnight before the domestic league starts, each club can register a max of 23 players. Then have an extra 3 slots for each squad for incoming transfers in the remainder of the summer window and January window. You could also use those 3 slots for youth players should you need to bring in cover for long term injuries.

 

Probably a bullshit idea but something needs to be done to make our domestic league more competitive.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I agree that the big clubs shouldn't be able to stockpile the best players, but at the same time we want home-grown players to be developed.

 

It would be difficult to do bring your young players through if you had to sell them as soon as they had a fancy for first team football.

[Exiled in Texas]

US sports show how this should be managed with their limited rosters and callup/send down processes.

 

Limit the squad size and only allow registered squad players to play.  Other players not in 1st team squad would be reserve players.

 

Then have process where if you want to bring a player in.....then a player must go. Baseball/NFL/NHL has this process....so that teams that want to send a player down to their Minors (Reserves) must pass waivers where any other team can claim that player (contract and all). Only once a player clears waivers then can they get put into minor league team.

 

They have "options' for youngsters so that they can get called up/sent down without going through waivers based either on age or a set number of options.

 

If you had a fixed squad size then Citeh (for example) would have to release a player like Bellers if they wanted to sign Milner.

 

The fixed roster size would perhaps also persuade players to join realistic clubs where they can make the roster rather than just jump into the bloated ranks of Citeh/Chelsea and never see the field. Fighting for the 25th spot migt make them realise that they would be better off elsewhere.

[Village Idiot]

25-man squad sizes will do a lot towards this. Last time I checked City had 36 players in their squad so some will have to go unless they are happy in the reserves for all the season.

 

 

[Guest BooBoo]

The American system seems fair and sensible to me.

[Dokko]

Agreed. Monopolising players the way big clubs do is sickening, and it is never good for the young players. When clubs are allowed to do this and then lend them to smaller clubs it just increases the gap between the top and bottom.

 

The co-owning system in Italy and other European countries is slightly better, but also favours the wealthier clubs.

 

That's a thousand times worse.

 

 

[ponsaelius]

Agreed. Monopolising players the way big clubs do is sickening, and it is never good for the young players. When clubs are allowed to do this and then lend them to smaller clubs it just increases the gap between the top and bottom.

 

The co-owning system in Italy and other European countries is slightly better, but also favours the wealthier clubs.

 

That's a thousand times worse.

 

 

 

How?

 

There are no reserve leagues in Italy meaning players have to leave or they rot. But rather than being loaned out (and kept by the larger clubs completely) they have to be sold, basically the smaller team gets the player for as long as 2/3 years until a bidding process can start between the two clubs to decide who takes 100% control of the contract - of course this once again favours the bigger teams financially, but more often than not it gives the smaller teams more of a fighting chance. Overall it means players are distributed more fairly, of course it's not a perfect system but it's better.

[Dokko]

Agreed. Monopolising players the way big clubs do is sickening, and it is never good for the young players. When clubs are allowed to do this and then lend them to smaller clubs it just increases the gap between the top and bottom.

 

The co-owning system in Italy and other European countries is slightly better, but also favours the wealthier clubs.

 

That's a thousand times worse.

 

 

 

How?

 

There are no reserve leagues in Italy meaning players have to leave or they rot. But rather than being loaned out (and kept by the larger clubs completely) they have to be sold, basically the smaller team gets the player for as long as 2/3 years until a bidding process can start between the two clubs to decide who takes 100% control of the contract - of course this once again favours the bigger teams financially, but more often than not it gives the smaller teams more of a fighting chance. Overall it means players are distributed more fairly, of course it's not a perfect system but it's better.

 

It works nothing like that though. It favours the bigger teams with cash to spend, imagine Citeh having that luxury, they'd part own 200 players, WTF is the point in that for everyone else?

 

It's fine the way it is, its not broken and it doesn't need fixing.

[ponsaelius]

Agreed. Monopolising players the way big clubs do is sickening, and it is never good for the young players. When clubs are allowed to do this and then lend them to smaller clubs it just increases the gap between the top and bottom.

 

The co-owning system in Italy and other European countries is slightly better, but also favours the wealthier clubs.

 

That's a thousand times worse.

 

 

 

How?

 

There are no reserve leagues in Italy meaning players have to leave or they rot. But rather than being loaned out (and kept by the larger clubs completely) they have to be sold, basically the smaller team gets the player for as long as 2/3 years until a bidding process can start between the two clubs to decide who takes 100% control of the contract - of course this once again favours the bigger teams financially, but more often than not it gives the smaller teams more of a fighting chance. Overall it means players are distributed more fairly, of course it's not a perfect system but it's better.

 

It works nothing like that though. It favours the bigger teams with cash to spend, imagine Citeh having that luxury, they'd part own 200 players, WTF is the point in that for everyone else?

 

It's fine the way it is, its not broken and it doesn't need fixing.

 

The part owning isn't long term though, it's basically a loan that gives the smaller teams the option to buy without being held to ransom. The squad limitations and lack of reserve league prevent teams from just stacking up players, it's not as if they own bits of players everywhere like you're suggesting. It's much better than a team buying up loads of players and then just lending them out to everyone, letting the smaller team build them up, then just taking them back leaving the smaller team looking for a replacement. The smaller team has the option of competing in an auction, often a blind auction (even more chance of keeping the player) giving them some kind of competitiveness.

 

It's not a perfect system by any means, often complex, but it's a damn site fairer than total monopolisation which is what will happen with the current loan system in place.

[James]

Without loans, clubs are just going to hold onto their academy players without playing them on the off chance that one will make it. By the time players are released they will have lost out on important years of development and therefore have a smaller chance of making it in the lower leagues. Therefore loans are good, maybe just need slightly more regulation to ensure they are benefitting the right people.

[Dokko]

Agreed. Monopolising players the way big clubs do is sickening, and it is never good for the young players. When clubs are allowed to do this and then lend them to smaller clubs it just increases the gap between the top and bottom.

 

The co-owning system in Italy and other European countries is slightly better, but also favours the wealthier clubs.

 

That's a thousand times worse.

 

 

 

How?

 

There are no reserve leagues in Italy meaning players have to leave or they rot. But rather than being loaned out (and kept by the larger clubs completely) they have to be sold, basically the smaller team gets the player for as long as 2/3 years until a bidding process can start between the two clubs to decide who takes 100% control of the contract - of course this once again favours the bigger teams financially, but more often than not it gives the smaller teams more of a fighting chance. Overall it means players are distributed more fairly, of course it's not a perfect system but it's better.

 

It works nothing like that though. It favours the bigger teams with cash to spend, imagine Citeh having that luxury, they'd part own 200 players, WTF is the point in that for everyone else?

 

It's fine the way it is, its not broken and it doesn't need fixing.

 

The part owning isn't long term though, it's basically a loan that gives the smaller teams the option to buy without being held to ransom. The squad limitations and lack of reserve league prevent teams from just stacking up players, it's not as if they own bits of players everywhere like you're suggesting. It's much better than a team buying up loads of players and then just lending them out to everyone, letting the smaller team build them up, then just taking them back leaving the smaller team looking for a replacement. The smaller team has the option of competing in an auction, often a blind auction (even more chance of keeping the player) giving them some kind of competitiveness.

 

It's not a perfect system by any means, often complex, but it's a damn site fairer than total monopolisation which is what will happen with the current loan system in place.

 

Blaming the loan system for the 'total monopolisation' in our league is like blaming Boeing for 9/11.

 

 

[ponsaelius]

Agreed. Monopolising players the way big clubs do is sickening, and it is never good for the young players. When clubs are allowed to do this and then lend them to smaller clubs it just increases the gap between the top and bottom.

 

The co-owning system in Italy and other European countries is slightly better, but also favours the wealthier clubs.

 

That's a thousand times worse.

 

 

 

How?

 

There are no reserve leagues in Italy meaning players have to leave or they rot. But rather than being loaned out (and kept by the larger clubs completely) they have to be sold, basically the smaller team gets the player for as long as 2/3 years until a bidding process can start between the two clubs to decide who takes 100% control of the contract - of course this once again favours the bigger teams financially, but more often than not it gives the smaller teams more of a fighting chance. Overall it means players are distributed more fairly, of course it's not a perfect system but it's betteHr.

 

It works nothing like that though. It favours the bigger teams with cash to spend, imagine Citeh having that luxury, they'd part own 200 players, WTF is the point in that for everyone else?

 

It's fine the way it is, its not broken and it doesn't need fixing.

 

The part owning isn't long term though, it's basically a loan that gives the smaller teams the option to buy without being held to ransom. The squad limitations and lack of reserve league prevent teams from just stacking up players, it's not as if they own bits of players everywhere like you're suggesting. It's much better than a team buying up loads of players and then just lending them out to everyone, letting the smaller team build them up, then just taking them back leaving the smaller team looking for a replacement. The smaller team has the option of competing in an auction, often a blind auction (even more chance of keeping the player) giving them some kind of competitiveness.

 

It's not a perfect system by any means, often complex, but it's a damn site fairer than total monopolisation which is what will happen with the current loan system in place.

 

Blaming the loan system for the 'total monopolisation' in our league is like blaming Boeing for 9/11.

 

 

 

Already mentioned that it's merely part of the problem, but it does contribute.

[Dokko]

Agreed. Monopolising players the way big clubs do is sickening, and it is never good for the young players. When clubs are allowed to do this and then lend them to smaller clubs it just increases the gap between the top and bottom.

 

The co-owning system in Italy and other European countries is slightly better, but also favours the wealthier clubs.

 

That's a thousand times worse.

 

 

 

How?

 

There are no reserve leagues in Italy meaning players have to leave or they rot. But rather than being loaned out (and kept by the larger clubs completely) they have to be sold, basically the smaller team gets the player for as long as 2/3 years until a bidding process can start between the two clubs to decide who takes 100% control of the contract - of course this once again favours the bigger teams financially, but more often than not it gives the smaller teams more of a fighting chance. Overall it means players are distributed more fairly, of course it's not a perfect system but it's betteHr.

 

It works nothing like that though. It favours the bigger teams with cash to spend, imagine Citeh having that luxury, they'd part own 200 players, WTF is the point in that for everyone else?

 

It's fine the way it is, its not broken and it doesn't need fixing.

 

The part owning isn't long term though, it's basically a loan that gives the smaller teams the option to buy without being held to ransom. The squad limitations and lack of reserve league prevent teams from just stacking up players, it's not as if they own bits of players everywhere like you're suggesting. It's much better than a team buying up loads of players and then just lending them out to everyone, letting the smaller team build them up, then just taking them back leaving the smaller team looking for a replacement. The smaller team has the option of competing in an auction, often a blind auction (even more chance of keeping the player) giving them some kind of competitiveness.

 

It's not a perfect system by any means, often complex, but it's a damn site fairer than total monopolisation which is what will happen with the current loan system in place.

 

Blaming the loan system for the 'total monopolisation' in our league is like blaming Boeing for 9/11.

 

 

 

Already mentioned that it's merely part of the problem, but it does contribute.

 

A tiny part of the problem and one that doesn't need addressing.

[Taylor Swift]

Without loans, clubs are just going to hold onto their academy players without playing them on the off chance that one will make it. By the time players are released they will have lost out on important years of development and therefore have a smaller chance of making it in the lower leagues. Therefore loans are good, maybe just need slightly more regulation to ensure they are benefitting the right people.

 

On the contrary, the smaller teams will have to play some of their youngsters because they won't be able to loan players from bigger clubs to fill places in the squad, which will help develop many youngsters who wouldn't have had the chance to begin with.

 

It will also force the big clubs to be more selective about which youngsters to sign and thus will increase the supply of good youngsters in the league; the likes of Chelsea, City and Man Utd would not be able to sweep any good youngster in and loan them out anymore, because now they'd have to pay wages to the kids and also have to keep them happy while they play in the reserves, something I'm sure would be hard to do for most young, ambitious footballers.