What really happened amid claims Fulham broke Premier League loan player rules vs Sheffield United

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




FATTYFOULKE said:
Joking aside, they played 7 loan players during that match. I don’t care what anyone says that seems to go against the spirit of the game for me.

It’s not really Fulham is it? Just an assortment of players from around the world playing against another teams own players.
Click to expand...
This is true of all PL teams (and Championship and below). How many local's in our side? We are all comprised of a random assortment of players who on the whole are only there for the money.

It's been a long long time since a Blades side really represented Sheffield.
 
west_yorks_blade said:
This is true of all PL teams (and Championship and below). How many local's in our side? We are all comprised of a random assortment of players who on the whole are only there for the money.

It's been a long long time since a Blades side really represented Sheffield.
Click to expand...
That’s not really what I mean.

I’m getting at the fact it doesn’t seem right that a club can play so many players that aren’t their own. One or two fair enough but seven in one match? It’s not really that it happened against us either. Just in general I think clubs should have to play at least a sizeable majority of their own actual players in a match, not someone else’s.
 
FATTYFOULKE said:
That’s not really what I mean.

I’m getting at the fact it doesn’t seem right that a club can play so many players that aren’t their own. One or two fair enough but seven in one match? It’s not really that it happened against us either. Just in general I think clubs should have to play at least a sizeable majority of their own actual players in a match, not someone else’s.
Click to expand...
Absolutely spot on, its a right joke, 7 players thats not yours, it isn't your team really is it.

But to be fair to the world 11 they were far superior to us- they had pace/ strategy and desire.
 
coolasanidiot said:
Absolutely spot on, its a right joke, 7 players thats not yours, it isn't your team really is it.

But to be fair to the world 11 they were far superior to us- they had pace/ strategy and desire.
Click to expand...
but as discussed in another thread, precious few chances
 
It seems like standard PL nonsense to limit the number of domestic loans but allow as many foreign ones as you please. Either limit both or neither, surely?

That said, I don't really give a shit beyond getting a laugh out of the general incompetence of the footballing bodies.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
Is it just me that thinks the loan system shouldn't exist at all?
Click to expand...
Correct, the loan system just rapes smaller clubs of any cash left in the game they could get. Ie the big clubs buy players up nice an Cheap early doors, loan them out and some come off some don't vs them staying with clubs playing games and moving up the pyramid financing smaller clubs.

Then you have the loan fee nonsense, some clubs seem to buy up mature talent and loan it out indefinitely raking in loan fees, in fact it's like a total buisness model for clubs like Chelsea.
 



The loan system is a fucking joke, it was brought in to help the lower league clubs who were struggling for money and to get youngsters of certain clubs playing first team football lower down the pyramids, obviously greed came into it yet again in football. There really is no boundaries as to what they’ll do to make money over improvements and fairness to the ‘once’ beautiful game, the times of someone like Oldham who were once in the Premier league will probably never happen again.
 
Hamburg Blade said:
Is it just me that thinks the loan system shouldn't exist at all?
Click to expand...
Yes and no...

No - It shouldn’t exist as a business model, and i think the epl should only allow a maximum of 5 players over age 21 out on loan at one time to avoid this, this should go for both domestic and intl imo

Yes - it is very beneficial for emergency signings and for young players on the fringe to come back and have a shot at their club’s 1st team... and for smaller teams to get players they could only dream of signing on a permanent, eg deano

the problem is that it is abused and its rarely used like this in top level, which is a big shame. For example, I could see Ampadu going on loan for the next few seasons before leaving, may never play for chelsea again which is nuts
 
Last edited:
Hamburg Blade said:
Is it just me that thinks the loan system shouldn't exist at all?
Click to expand...
I remember a good few years back there was an interview with Dario Gradi I read where he said how the loan system over time had become progressively worse for the sport. From memory he said something like "People think it's great when you get an exciting young prospect from Man U on loan, but ten years ago he would've been released by them, I'd have signed him for free, and then we'd have got all the profit of the sale if he turned out to be a good player".

The loan system has become, for the top clubs, a way to generate by loaning players across Europe knowing they'll never play for their parent club. For example, Jamal Blackman, 27, is still contracted to Chelsea. He's has 8 long term loans. I know he's not the best keeper out there but if it weren't for the loan system he'd have signed for someone either Championship or League One and have a lot more games to his name. Clubs like that have upwards of 70 players on their books and they know the majority of them will never play for them. That can't be good for the game.

I don't know if it would make things worse if we ripped up the loan system entirely but as it stands it's another thing that seems to benefit the established elite more than the rest. There has to be a better way.
 
PokerBlade said:
I remember a good few years back there was an interview with Dario Gradi I read where he said how the loan system over time had become progressively worse for the sport. From memory he said something like "People think it's great when you get an exciting young prospect from Man U on loan, but ten years ago he would've been released by them, I'd have signed him for free, and then we'd have got all the profit of the sale if he turned out to be a good player".

The loan system has become, for the top clubs, a way to generate by loaning players across Europe knowing they'll never play for their parent club. For example, Jamal Blackman, 27, is still contracted to Chelsea. He's has 8 long term loans. I know he's not the best keeper out there but if it weren't for the loan system he'd have signed for someone either Championship or League One and have a lot more games to his name. Clubs like that have upwards of 70 players on their books and they know the majority of them will never play for them. That can't be good for the game.

I don't know if it would make things worse if we ripped up the loan system entirely but as it stands it's another thing that seems to benefit the established elite more than the rest. There has to be a better way.
Click to expand...
These are my thoughts really. It probably couldn't be scrapped in one go, but progressively scaled down and then scrapped.
 
bongleblade said:
Yes and no...

No - It shouldn’t exist as a business model, and i think the epl should only allow a maximum of 5 players over age 21 out on loan at one time to avoid this, this should go for both domestic and intl imo

Yes - it is very beneficial for emergency signings and for young players on the fringe to come back and have a shot at their club’s 1st team... and for smaller teams to get players they could only dream of signing on a permanent, eg deano

the problem is that it is abused and its rarely used like this in top level, which is a big shame. For example, I could see Ampadu going on loan for the next few seasons before leaving, may never play for chelsea again which is nuts
Click to expand...
Well, just addressing your Yes points - what's an emergency signing? If a club has injuries but no cover, surely that's their fault. Doesn't the system just prop up bad squad building? If you wanted to keep a system for emergency loans, clubs could apply to the FA for permission, giving their reasons, and get a player for as long as the emergency lasts (as long as the FA agree).
I don't get the bit about fringe players having a chance to come back. If they've lost their place, what's wrong with leaving and going to another club, lower down? Why should there be a system to maintain large squads where so many players become fringe players that they have to go out on loan?
The problem with smaller clubs getting the chance to loan players they couldn't afford on a permanent is the whole problem, though, isn't it? Clubs are winning games because they have a couple of players that by rights shouldn't be there. How does that make any sense at all?
 
PokerBlade said:
I remember a good few years back there was an interview with Dario Gradi I read where he said how the loan system over time had become progressively worse for the sport. From memory he said something like "People think it's great when you get an exciting young prospect from Man U on loan, but ten years ago he would've been released by them, I'd have signed him for free, and then we'd have got all the profit of the sale if he turned out to be a good player".

The loan system has become, for the top clubs, a way to generate by loaning players across Europe knowing they'll never play for their parent club. For example, Jamal Blackman, 27, is still contracted to Chelsea. He's has 8 long term loans. I know he's not the best keeper out there but if it weren't for the loan system he'd have signed for someone either Championship or League One and have a lot more games to his name. Clubs like that have upwards of 70 players on their books and they know the majority of them will never play for them. That can't be good for the game.

I don't know if it would make things worse if we ripped up the loan system entirely but as it stands it's another thing that seems to benefit the established elite more than the rest. There has to be a better way.
Click to expand...
The Jamal Blackman situation appears to be akin to a watered down version of third party ownership. I think there should a limit to how many players a team can loan out in any one season (off the top of my head something like 5) and the receiving club should be allowed a similar maximum.

There should be a limit to how many loan spells or how many seasons a particular player can be out on loan. To be out on 8 long term loans is ridiculous.

Being able to own and then loan players out wily nily doesn't allow lower league teams to discover and then sell on the talent they've discovered because all local talent has been hoovered up by the big city clubs.

I might be wrong but I seem to think the loan system was originally used to help clubs out if they had an injury crisis. I seem to remember month long loans and 3 month loans. I don't think we could go back to that now but equally I don't think the big clubs should be generating income from loans.
 
There is a new rule limiting the number of loan players over 21 to 8 in and 8 out for any one club - both domestic and international. It should have been brought in this season but because of COVID was delayed until next season.

www.si.com

FIFA Plans to Put Limits on Agent Fees, Clubs' Loan Deals

The proposed changes will alter the transfer market.
www.si.com www.si.com
 
Grey Blade said:
The Jamal Blackman situation appears to be akin to a watered down version of third party ownership. I think there should a limit to how many players a team can loan out in any one season (off the top of my head something like 5) and the receiving club should be allowed a similar maximum.

There should be a limit to how many loan spells or how many seasons a particular player can be out on loan. To be out on 8 long term loans is ridiculous.

Being able to own and then loan players out wily nily doesn't allow lower league teams to discover and then sell on the talent they've discovered because all local talent has been hoovered up by the big city clubs.

I might be wrong but I seem to think the loan system was originally used to help clubs out if they had an injury crisis. I seem to remember month long loans and 3 month loans. I don't think we could go back to that now but equally I don't think the big clubs should be generating income from loans.
Click to expand...
It's tough because for teams across the divisions sending a player out for a few months at a lower level is a legitimate way to develop a player you have a genuine interest in. Players on the cusp that need some real competitive football that you really believe will be in your team in a season's time. I don't want to close off that avenue if it means that the big clubs would just sit on players and potentially ruin their chance of a career. But the system benefits the top few far more than the rest and it's just another thing that widens the gap.

My main worry is that we might be too far gone. We might be past the point that teams like Chelsea or Man City would be affected by any changes. Maybe they really would just keep those players until they're 23, way behind in development, but the parent club doesn't care because they can afford to take those gambles for years.
 
Fulham fielding 7 loan players in a game. 1 Prem and 6 overseas loans. I cannot believe their captain Johansen is a loanee! I dont know the ins and outs of it assuming these guys are on loan to buy? Otherwise if they get relegated and they will have 7 players to replace next season in Championship. Not easy to do at that level.

Sadly it is not against the rules but surely 7/11 being not your clubs players is something the Prem (which wants more home grown players especially now with Brexit) really want?
 
FATTYFOULKE said:
Joking aside, they played 7 loan players during that match. I don’t care what anyone says that seems to go against the spirit of the game for me.

It’s not really Fulham is it? Just an assortment of players from around the world playing against another teams own players.
Click to expand...
And proper kick in the teeth to their players that got them up. 2nd time it’s happened to them too, they must be paid really well or love living in London. Not sure we could keep this many happy, we can’t even keep Billy Sharps wife happy if he doesn’t play
 
To prevent clubs from signing anyone who they don’t actually intend to play in the immediate future, there should be a rule whereby other clubs could purchase them for the price paid if they don’t play say 6 games in their first 2 seasons.
 
PokerBlade said:
I remember a good few years back there was an interview with Dario Gradi I read where he said how the loan system over time had become progressively worse for the sport. From memory he said something like "People think it's great when you get an exciting young prospect from Man U on loan, but ten years ago he would've been released by them, I'd have signed him for free, and then we'd have got all the profit of the sale if he turned out to be a good player".

The loan system has become, for the top clubs, a way to generate by loaning players across Europe knowing they'll never play for their parent club. For example, Jamal Blackman, 27, is still contracted to Chelsea. He's has 8 long term loans. I know he's not the best keeper out there but if it weren't for the loan system he'd have signed for someone either Championship or League One and have a lot more games to his name. Clubs like that have upwards of 70 players on their books and they know the majority of them will never play for them. That can't be good for the game.

I don't know if it would make things worse if we ripped up the loan system entirely but as it stands it's another thing that seems to benefit the established elite more than the rest. There has to be a better way.
Click to expand...

That's right. It's another income stream for the big clubs. Sneaky bar stewards
 
FATTYFOULKE said:
Joking aside, they played 7 loan players during that match. I don’t care what anyone says that seems to go against the spirit of the game for me.

It’s not really Fulham is it? Just an assortment of players from around the world playing against another teams own players.
Click to expand...

Not sure about 'the spirit of the game', but it must be a bit worrying for supporters - even if they stay up. How many of those can they realistically afford to keep next season? That's no way to run a football club.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ShorehamRevolution
What ever happened to….
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
BladeByChoice
BladeByChoice
Idontlikewednesdays
It’s just what United do
3 4 5
Replies
143
Views
12K
Tom Bott
Tom Bott
Deadbat
United 0 Birmingham 0 - summary/ratings
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
HansSegars
H
Deadbat
2025/26 SUFC SEASON REVIEW / SCHOOL REPORT - Part 6: Attack
Replies
7
Views
1K
Shawy24
S
Deadbat
United 2 Wednesday 1 - report/ratings
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Camden Blade
C

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom