Crumpy Gunt Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 As it happened it mattered not. But, for example, Piennars goal against us could have had huge financial ramifications if Everton had cost us the opportunity to go above Spurs. Can't see how it is fair that players can go out on loan and effect the outcome of games that their 'home' club can directly benefit from. It might also stop the richer Clubs stockpiling players then dumping them on loan when they become surplus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 As it happened it mattered not. But, for example, Piennars goal against us could have had huge financial ramifications if Everton had cost us the opportunity to go above Spurs. Can't see how it is fair that players can go out on loan and effect the outcome of games that their 'home' club can directly benefit from. It might also stop the richer Clubs stockpiling players then dumping them on loan when they become surplus. Completely with you on this. Don't even think this is debatable except for the dummies in the FA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 i'd go further, long term loans (ie 3month or over) only for under 21's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Must have given Chelsea at least a 0.1 advantage that season, making every other team play against a Bolton side with a rampant Sturridge in it, except them lot who got to play against all the other no-marks in the side while their loanee had to sit in the stands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 i'd go further, long term loans (ie 3month or over) only for under 21's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Stop same division loans and you'll stop big teams stock piling players. Can only choose 25 of them too. In theory! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 The player's parent club always benefit in a small way just because the player can play against every other club but theirs. (Edit: as Bluestar's said) This definitely needs looked at. Adebayor on daft money at Man City, can't get near their side, goes to Spurs who only pay about half of his wages and he's an integral part of their push for a Champions League place, the whole thing's warped. Bit galling as well actually since Spurs were a big rival of ours and probably couldn't have afforded a player of Adebayor's quality without Man City stockpiling top players. Would they have dropped a handful more points without Adebayor to allow us to sneak into the Champions League? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beren Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Absolutely, OP Encourages divisions within divisions at present. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 As it happened it mattered not. But, for example, Piennars goal against us could have had huge financial ramifications if Everton had cost us the opportunity to go above Spurs. Can't see how it is fair that players can go out on loan and effect the outcome of games that their 'home' club can directly benefit from. It might also stop the richer Clubs stockpiling players then dumping them on loan when they become surplus. Also, say it was the reverse. Say for example that a defeat for Everton, would have meant Pienaar's parent club qualified for CL football. If he were to be involved in conceding a goal, it would leave question marks over the player's integrity etc... Would Everton have benched him in that case to begin with? It could get messy in theory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 The player's parent club always benefit in a small way just because the player can play against every other club but theirs. (Edit: as Bluestar's said) This definitely needs looked at. Adebayor on daft money at Man City, can't get near their side, goes to Spurs who only pay about half of his wages and he's an integral part of their push for a Champions League place, the whole thing's warped. Bit galling as well actually since Spurs were a big rival of ours and probably couldn't have afforded a player of Adebayor's quality without Man City stockpiling top players. Would they have dropped a handful more points without Adebayor to allow us to sneak into the Champions League? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Pretty sure Adebayor was involved in all 5 goals too when they raped us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Aye, outrageous Spurs were subsidised this season by City loaning them Ade and paying most of his wages. Loans should only be to lower league sides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afar Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I'm not sure why they brought this rule back in , in the first place. They took it away for a while, it just makes no sense unless you are one of the 4 or 5 clubs able to loan out your squad players to the others teams in the PL. I honestly think it's kind of cheating in many ways. Where would Spuds have been this year without Adebayor's goals, they didn't even pay for his full wages, while he was playing for them. The loan system is a complete sham iyam, I can live with it for developmental players under 21 as someone has suggested there but really would like to see the system abolished completely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Agree with this. Have always said so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Completely agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I agree too, but then we'd never have experienced Giuseppe Rossi in a Newcastle shirt had it not been for the loan system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Spurs would have had to make do with what they had / buy an inferior player / took a risk with their debt or sell (potentially important) players to be able to afford to sign Adebayor or a similar quality player. Any of these would have been of more benefit to us as their rivals, not that they've broken any rules but it's wrong and needs sorted out. The Sturridge one's a good example as well, could be argued it gave Bolton an unfair advantage compared to other bottom half sides in addition to the points already mentioned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I agree too, but then we'd never have experienced Giuseppe Rossi in a Newcastle shirt had it not been for the loan system. Yeah, that one goal against Portsmouth in the cup would have been a big miss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stottie Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Yep, definitely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Added a poll because I can. And yes, definitely, it's ridiculous that it's allowed IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superior Acuña Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Absolutely, it's fucked up. Couldn't beleive LuaLua was allowed to possibly stop us getting into CL - scoring against his own club! And it bothers me that SPurs got in top 4 with help of another top 4 team's player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Absolutely agree, though think something needs to be done to bring down transfer fees in general, and the whole Man City having tons of players on teh books and never playing them with too high wages to sell...etc. Seems part and parcel of a big cleaning out of the transfer system and all the unintended quirks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 i'd go further, long term loans (ie 3month or over) only for under 21's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Can only echo the views expressed already, the system is extremely flawed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now