madras Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 It needs changed but stopping it entirely is daft and I doubt it'll happen. Maximum loan 3 month, no loans within the same league, maximum 5 in 5 out per season. Maybe, just maybe extra rules for under 21's but I hate the way some clubs hoover up kids. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 Buzzing when Salah pops one in off his Qu’ran last game of the season to steal boot from Harold. Inshallah. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 It needs changed but stopping it entirely is daft and I doubt it'll happen. Maximum loan 3 month, no loans within the same league, maximum 5 in 5 out per season. Maybe, just maybe extra rules for under 21's but I hate the way some clubs hoover up kids. Think max loan of a year is fair, three months is barely long enough for a player to get in the swing of thing always imo, barely feels worth it for any party. I don't like the thought of extra rules for younger players either, my biggest gripe against the loan system is its facilitation of stockpiling youth as you say. So maybe max 8 loans out in a season, including youth and senior players. No inter-league loans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Get rid of loans would move Ashley closer to the door. He'd be stuck with mistakes made and unable to cheaply steer out of trouble. I'm all for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Crooks Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Get rid of loans would move Ashley closer to the door. He'd be stuck with mistakes made and unable to cheaply steer out of trouble. I'm all for it. Burn it down. All of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinport53 Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Get rid of loans would move Ashley closer to the door. He'd be stuck with mistakes made and unable to cheaply steer out of trouble. I'm all for it. So we'd have signed nobody this January and been relegated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elric Posted April 12, 2018 Share Posted April 12, 2018 Buzzing when Salah pops one in off his Qu’ran last game of the season to steal boot from Harold. Inshallah. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Loans to clubs in the same league should definitely be stopped IMO, just a fundamentally strange idea. Not bothered at all about VAR, we're fine without it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimbo Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 My main concern is whether it will help someone get sent off against us. If not then I don't care. I'm not happy with things as they are though as we are clearly getting fucked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Get rid of loans would move Ashley closer to the door. He'd be stuck with mistakes made and unable to cheaply steer out of trouble. I'm all for it. So we'd have signed nobody this January and been relegated Other teams will have benefited from loans this season, not just us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinport53 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Get rid of loans would move Ashley closer to the door. He'd be stuck with mistakes made and unable to cheaply steer out of trouble. I'm all for it. So we'd have signed nobody this January and been relegated Other teams will have benefited from loans this season, not just us. Yup like Sturridge and Krychowiak? Or Kurt Zouma and Jese? Kongolo and Lossl? It would have damaged our season far more than our competitors to exclude loan signings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Get rid of loans would move Ashley closer to the door. He'd be stuck with mistakes made and unable to cheaply steer out of trouble. I'm all for it. So we'd have signed nobody this January and been relegated Other teams will have benefited from loans this season, not just us. Yup like Sturridge and Krychowiak? Or Kurt Zouma and Jese? Kongolo and Lossl? It would have damaged our season far more than our competitors to exclude loan signings. It would have meant we bought instead. Which is the point I'm trying to make. Players like Kenedy would be available as well as the player wouldn't be happy just sitting in the reserves. Players like Kenedy may not join Chelsea at all and go to a smaller club where he's get first team football first before being in a position to make an impact at a bigger club. It would change the dynamics considerably, i'm all for it. Opens up a real chance for ourselves to buy decent young players instead of them going to Chelsea/Citeh knowing they;ll be off to a feeder club for a few years before getting anywhere near the first team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Personally i don't think you can use well we befitted best this year so keep it as an argument for, not when there's a much bigger picture. Same argument could be levelled that other teams would have went down in our place last time, Sunderland certainly would have gone if it wasn't for key loans. All that stops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinport53 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Why do you think getting rid of the loan market would encourage Ashley to spend? How much cheaper do you realistically see us getting players for? Kenedy cost close to 7mil as an 18 year old. That's surpassed 15mil now. Mike would settle for neither of those purchase options, whether it was back in 2015 or January just gone. He doesn't want the risk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 The loan system is a joke. Chelsea run a model now where player recruitment is more like asset management than squad building, designed purely to hoover up talent and flip them on at a profit. It's a pretty successful model too (despite the likes of Salah, De Bruyne, Lukaku slipping through the net...) and an obvious culture shift from the club as it enters a period where their spending power will likely diminish slightly during the construction of the new stadium. The loan system in it's current model is exploitative of players, in that it very often hurts the development of both the youngsters who enter academies and particularly expensive recruits who become loan fodder. It's also a negative for the power balance of the league in that it allows big clus to hold all the cards. For example a club like Chelsea potentially beating a smaller club to a player, loaning him out to said club for a couple of years so he can develop, and then they either keep said player or charge the smaller club a huge chunk of TV money to buy him. In a world where the loan system doesn't exist said player would have instead joined the smaller club in the first place, developed there, and then benefited them by being sold on. The loan system is theoretically a good thing for youth development, but in a world of unlimited squads it becomes a tool for reinforcing already existing structural inequalities between clubs and often to the detriment of many players. In a world where the loan system doesn't exist (or is at least severely curtailed), less players will make the often bad choice of joining a team that is way too strong for their abilities, and will instead go straight to a smaller club to play regularly. There's no doubt the likes of Kenedy and Atsu have wasted years of their careers. This will in turn mean smaller club takes on all the benefits of purchasing and developing the player, rather than developing the player for somebody else and then either a. losing them or b. paying a small fortune to sign the player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 The loan system is a joke. Chelsea run a model now where player recruitment is more like asset management than squad building, designed purely to hoover up talent and flip them on at a profit. It's a pretty successful model too (despite the likes of Salah, De Bruyne, Lukaku slipping through the net...) and an obvious culture shift from the club as it enters a period where their spending power will likely diminish slightly during the construction of the new stadium. The loan system in it's current model is exploitative of players, in that it very often hurts the development of both the youngsters who enter academies and particularly expensive recruits who become loan fodder. It's also a negative for the power balance of the league in that it allows big clus to hold all the cards. For example a club like Chelsea potentially beating a smaller club to a player, loaning him out to said club for a couple of years so he can develop, and then they either keep said player or charge the smaller club a huge chunk of TV money to buy him. In a world where the loan system doesn't exist said player would have instead joined the smaller club in the first place, developed there, and then benefited them by being sold on. The loan system is theoretically a good thing for youth development, but in a world of unlimited squads it becomes a tool for reinforcing already existing structural inequalities between clubs and often to the detriment of many players. In a world where the loan system doesn't exist (or is at least severely curtailed), less players will make the often bad choice of joining a team that is way too strong for their abilities, and will instead go straight to a smaller club to play regularly. There's no doubt the likes of Kenedy and Atsu have wasted years of their careers. This will in turn mean smaller club takes on all the benefits of purchasing and developing the player, rather than developing the player for somebody else and then either a. losing them or b. paying a small fortune to sign the player. Good post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinport53 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 I agree with everything Sewelly says aswell. But if you think getting rid of the loan market means Ashley is going to start mopping up all the young talent in Europe and South America you are mistaken. And if he does it'll be at a sacrifice to the first team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Why do you think getting rid of the loan market would encourage Ashley to spend? How much cheaper do you realistically see us getting players for? Kenedy cost close to 7mil as an 18 year old. That's surpassed 15mil now. Mike would settle for neither of those purchase options, whether it was back in 2015 or January just gone. He doesn't want the risk. He did with Thauvin, and some extent Cabella, then instead of sticking with them loaned them back out at the first sign of them not fitting. We'd have had to keep Thauvin last year in the Championship and could now be sitting on a £50-60m player. I personally think Ashley likes the loan market, and see's a big use for it with himself being cheap. One less crutch for him to fall back on is fine by me. Same for clubs like Sunderland, they'd have been down 5 seasons ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 I agree with everything Sewelly says aswell. But if you think getting rid of the loan market means Ashley is going to start mopping up all the young talent in Europe and South America you are mistaken. And if he does it'll be at a sacrifice to the first team. Twisting it. But aye, whatever make you tick. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinport53 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Why do you think getting rid of the loan market would encourage Ashley to spend? How much cheaper do you realistically see us getting players for? Kenedy cost close to 7mil as an 18 year old. That's surpassed 15mil now. Mike would settle for neither of those purchase options, whether it was back in 2015 or January just gone. He doesn't want the risk. He did with Thauvin, and some extent Cabella, then instead of sticking with them loaned them back out at the first sign of them not fitting. We'd have had to keep Thauvin last year in the Championship and could now be sitting on a £50-60m player. I personally think Ashley likes the loan market, and see's a big use for it with himself being cheap. One less crutch for him to fall back on is fine by me. Same for clubs like Sunderland, they'd have been down 5 seasons ago. Without the loan market Mitro and Sels would be depreciating in the reserves, instead we might get 20mil+ combined for them. It works both ways. Loans needs capped not scrapped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Why do you think getting rid of the loan market would encourage Ashley to spend? How much cheaper do you realistically see us getting players for? Kenedy cost close to 7mil as an 18 year old. That's surpassed 15mil now. Mike would settle for neither of those purchase options, whether it was back in 2015 or January just gone. He doesn't want the risk. He did with Thauvin, and some extent Cabella, then instead of sticking with them loaned them back out at the first sign of them not fitting. We'd have had to keep Thauvin last year in the Championship and could now be sitting on a £50-60m player. I personally think Ashley likes the loan market, and see's a big use for it with himself being cheap. One less crutch for him to fall back on is fine by me. Same for clubs like Sunderland, they'd have been down 5 seasons ago. Without the loan market Mitro and Sels would be depreciating in the reserves, instead we might get 20mil+ combined for them. It works both ways. Loans needs capped not scrapped. Well we wouldn't loan Slimani and Mitro would be getting his minutes. We've signed so many players like Sels, 4-5th choice at best, not good enough, total punt at best and its blown up in our faces. You'd hope they'd be a more measured approach in future without the safety net of being able to loan failed players out to try and sell them on. But yes, perfect world capped loans. However as someone said do you really trust this lot getting it right? Much easier to scrap it all together and the abuse stops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinport53 Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Well we wouldn't loan Slimani and Mitro would be getting his minutes. We've signed so many players like Sels, 4-5th choice at best, not good enough, total punt at best and its blown up in our faces. You'd hope they'd be a more measured approach in future without the safety net of being able to loan failed players out to try and sell them on. But yes, perfect world capped loans. However as someone said do you really trust this lot getting it right? Much easier to scrap it all together and the abuse stops. Mitro getting Slimanis two sub appearances wouldn't increase his value as much as a dozen goals in half a championship season, man But I see what you're getting at Of course they can get it right, just look a VAR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts