FIFA to limit the amount of players clubs can loan out

Watch this thread
username47781
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
This comes after Chelsea have 40 players out on loan, thoughts? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45643965
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
I agree that football agents get paid far too much for not a lot of work. At a ratio even worse than the footballers themselves.

If the loan restrictions hurt the larger/richer clubs more I'm all for that.

Football is too marketised at present.
0
reply
bj27
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
It just means they cut back on youth spending and have more money to buy bigger signings/build infrastructure. Only people it hurts are the smaller clubs who rely on the loan system to progress up the leagues.
0
reply
Jimmy Seville
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Italian clubs are worse. Juve have almost twice as many out as Chelsea.
0
reply
Guru Jason
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Big clubs hoade all the talent so that no one else can have them then loan them out to places where half of the youngsters don't even benefit or play. This would stop that so its good in my book.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by bj27)
Only people it hurts are the smaller clubs who rely on the loan system to progress up the leagues.
Surely it means the smaller clubs will be able to afford to buy the junior players, rather than rely on crumbs from the top table.
0
reply
S.G.
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by Good bloke)
Surely it means the smaller clubs will be able to afford to buy the junior players, rather than rely on crumbs from the top table.
As an example, Chelsea are more than happy to loan Mount to Derby, who is one of their best players, but won’t sell him to them. Derby lose out on a great player for their team and the player loses out on development.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by S.G.)
As an example, Chelsea are more than happy to loan Mount to Derby, who is one of their best players, but won’t sell him to them. Derby lose out on a great player for their team and the player loses out on development.
As an example, Chelsea, inhibited by the new rules, do not make a bid beyond the reach of smaller clubs and Derby County are able to employ the player directly, thereby ensuring that neither the player nor the lesser club loses out but that Chelsea lose a source of revenue and have one less opportunity to make money count..
0
reply
bj27
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
Nope because a guy of Mason mounts talent is not staying at Derby County permanently while they are in the championship when they could get 30k a week for being at Chelsea and sitting in their reserves.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
No loans, but what about having B and C teams playing in the lower leagues...?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Drewski)
No loans, but what about having B and C teams playing in the lower leagues...?
You mean get rid of the problem by getting rid of the lesser clubs totally? Who wouldn't want to see a Russian oligarch's corrupt money decimate British football?
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Good bloke)
You mean get rid of the problem by getting rid of the lesser clubs totally? Who wouldn't want to see a Russian oligarch's corrupt money decimate British football?
It works in the Spanish and, I think, the German leagues.

And who's had a lot of international success through the years? Spain and Germany.

And it's not getting rid of the lower league teams. In many cases you can use them as feeder clubs.

The point is valid because it's the bigger clubs that can afford the academies and taking the players on when they're younger, giving them the education alongside the training, and then provide playing opportunities when they're old enough. Something a smaller club isn't capable of / doesn't have the money for.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Drewski)
It works in the Spanish and, I think, the German leagues.

And who's had a lot of international success through the years? Spain and Germany.

And it's not getting rid of the lower league teams. In many cases you can use them as feeder clubs.

The point is valid because it's the bigger clubs that can afford the academies and taking the players on when they're younger, giving them the education alongside the training, and then provide playing opportunities when they're old enough. Something a smaller club isn't capable of / doesn't have the money for.
Those leagues do not have the PL's riches. I'd bring in a UEFA-wide salary cap alongside a total running five year spending limit and a ban on agents being paid by both sides of a transaction to try to even things up. The Americans have the right idea in trying to keep the playing field for NFL, say, as even as possible in the interests of close competition, and they generate more revenue that way by making sure the audience is always interested.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Good bloke)
Those leagues do not have the PL's riches. I'd bring in a UEFA-wide salary cap alongside a total running five year spending limit and a ban on agents being paid by both sides of a transaction to try to even things up. The Americans have the right idea in trying to keep the playing field for NFL, say, as even as possible in the interests of close competition, and they generate more revenue that way by making sure the audience is always interested.
No need for a cap, just make the financial fair play rules actually work, give them actual teeth.

And the American model is not to be lauded. No promotion / relegation, limited franchise numbers allowed, and nothing short of abuse of the amateur athletes on their way up.
0
reply
bj27
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
Found the communist. And golden state warriors basically said screw the American model to sport. At most they stop inflation of wages and the players at the top will just focus more on endorsement deals. It will not make anything fairer. Gsw have won 3 out of the last 4 nba titles for a reason and will definitely win it this year.
0
reply
bj27
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
Ffp was built so that it effectively is impossible for mobility. They effectively established a top 6 in England and have made it next to impossible for other teams to come in(Leicester fluke aside). The big clubs generate enough revenue and will always cook the books enough to be exempt from Ffp. It should have been done in 1993, not 2013.

If a club does come in you just get 6 bayern Munich type teams ready to take their best players(see Chelsea with Leicester e.g.)
0
reply
sr90
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
A limit of 6 is far too low if it includes reserve players. For first team only it's fine, we only have 2 first teamers out on loan and they're still relatively young academy players who've gone to get experience. Lower league clubs rely on the loan system as well and their rights should be protected.

I wonder how this'll affect unwanted players who are on long, big money contracts. For example we've loaned out Wilson & Borthwick Jackson for the third season in a row because nobody will pay their wages to take them permanently. Neither of them will play for the club again. Ditto City & Patrick Roberts, or Liverpool and Lazar Markovic.

(Original post by bj27)
Nope because a guy of Mason mounts talent is not staying at Derby County permanently while they are in the championship when they could get 30k a week for being at Chelsea and sitting in their reserves.
Or, more likely, he's just sold for £5m with a buy back clause.

If he's any good then Chelsea would pay the clause, if he isn't then he's no longer their problem.
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by sr90)
A limit of 6 is far too low if it includes reserve players. For first team only it's fine, we only have 2 first teamers out on loan and they're still relatively young academy players who've gone to get experience. Lower league clubs rely on the loan system as well and their rights should be protected.

I wonder how this'll affect unwanted players who are on long, big money contracts. For example we've loaned out Wilson & Borthwick Jackson for the third season in a row because nobody will pay their wages to take them permanently. Neither of them will play for the club again. Ditto City & Patrick Roberts, or Liverpool and Lazar Markovic.



Or, more likely, he's just sold for £5m with a buy back clause.

If he's any good then Chelsea would pay the clause, if he isn't then he's no longer their problem.
Yeh there will be buy backs on deals, probably with first option clauses included so the player can't be sold from underneath the 'parent' team.

Your also going to get teams selling lots of players to the same places, clubs with owners who have strong links will end up buying lots of players from one side then the money will mysteriously end up at whichever club has most need of it at any one time.

Might also get an increase on smaller clubs doing bigger clubs a favour and buying players for them instead of getting them on loan. If those clubs are outside the UK the club will get no development compensation (Think the Zeki Fryers deal from a few years ago).

Remember this is FIFA, they don't have a great track record with regulation.

As far as agents, wait till one of them gets near Infantino's pockets and this will be quashed pdq.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (275)
42.18%
The paper was reasonable (269)
41.26%
Not feeling great about that exam... (60)
9.2%
It was TERRIBLE (48)
7.36%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed