Zero control loan players

[Overthehills]

I touched on this briefly when rumoured to be in for the Liverpool CB and week or two ago, but I just wanted to touch on it again in the wake of Hecky's refreshing interview in the last week.

It's common knowledge now that when you loan a player from Liverpool, they very much dictate all of the shots.

They are strict on the wage percentages, outlining what they want with little to no negotiation. The prices for players with little first team experience being highly overinflated in terms of value....which is bad enough in it's own right.

But the bit that cheeses me off most, is that whilst the player is technically a member of your squad. You have near no control of the player what so ever and Liverpool still call the shots. If you loan a player, then it is written in the contract that you will play the player!.....unexposed youngsters in most cases and very much a gamble. They may hit the ground running and be amazing in which this isn't a problem, but they may also turn out to be not good enough or not ready yet. But in this instance, you still have to play them... its written in the loan contract.

Like I said above, I was impressed with Hecky's stance on this in his interview this week. Whem asked about Liverpool loan links, he said something along the lines of....

"I don't want players coming to this club, thinking that they are guaranteed a shirt in the team.

If they come here, then they play for it like everyone else and if they put in the work and impress then so be it. But nobody walks straight into my team, they earn it like everyone else".

I couldn't agree with this stance any more.... loan players should be coming in and forcing existing players to up their own games. Like Charlie Goode said the other day....

"This set of lads are decent and I need to hit the ground running and earn a shirt. That's what I'm here to do, I want to force my way into this team"

Correct answer.....

 

[scouseblade]

Unfortunately that is the problem with a loan deal.
The club wanting to loan the player will want that player to get as much exposure to first team football as possible either to gain experience, to show they are recovered from an injury or just to give them much needed game time. The club wanting the loan will have to have some understanding that the club loaning will want certain parameters put in place. Absolutely agree that no player coming on loan should be "guaranteed" to walk into a shirt at the club but you have to wonder then - why do we want to bring them in on loan? Surely the notion of a loanee to is increase the quality/ability of the XI or squad without having to folk out £££ in transfer fee, agent fees etc. So there is an expectation that you play them otherwise it is a waste of space and resource - see Olsen.

 

[Rudders]

I touched on this briefly when rumoured to be in for the Liverpool CB and week or two ago, but I just wanted to touch on it again in the wake of Hecky's refreshing interview in the last week.

It's common knowledge now that when you loan a player from Liverpool, they very much dictate all of the shots.

They are strict on the wage percentages, outlining what they want with little to no negotiation. The prices for players with little first team experience being highly overinflated in terms of value....which is bad enough in it's own right.

But the bit that cheeses me off most, is that whilst the player is technically a member of your squad. You have near no control of the player what so ever and Liverpool still call the shots. If you loan a player, then it is written in the contract that you will play the player!.....unexposed youngsters in most cases and very much a gamble. They may hit the ground running and be amazing in which this isn't a problem, but they may also turn out to be not good enough or not ready yet. But in this instance, you still have to play them... its written in the loan contract.

Like I said above, I was impressed with Hecky's stance on this in his interview this week. Whem asked about Liverpool loan links, he said something along the lines of....

"I don't want players coming to this club, thinking that they are guaranteed a shirt in the team.

If they come here, then they play for it like everyone else and if they put in the work and impress then so be it. But nobody walks straight into my team, they earn it like everyone else".

I couldn't agree with this stance any more.... loan players should be coming in and forcing existing players to up their own games. Like Charlie Goode said the other day....

"This set of lads are decent and I need to hit the ground coming and earn a shirt That's what I'm here to do, I want to force my way into this team of lads"

Correct answer.....

I take what everyone in football says with a large dose of scepticism. I generally agree with the point that is being made about Liverpool, loanees and earning a place but the opposite is that most football managers have their own favourites and are generally too conservative - Hecky did the exact opposite of what he said when he played JL7 for about 5 straight games after Wilder left even though he (Lunny) had spent most of the season t**sing it off and making mugs out of the fans; team; coaching staff etc.

 

[billyblademan]

I touched on this briefly when rumoured to be in for the Liverpool CB and week or two ago, but I just wanted to touch on it again in the wake of Hecky's refreshing interview in the last week.

It's common knowledge now that when you loan a player from Liverpool, they very much dictate all of the shots.

They are strict on the wage percentages, outlining what they want with little to no negotiation. The prices for players with little first team experience being highly overinflated in terms of value....which is bad enough in it's own right.

But the bit that cheeses me off most, is that whilst the player is technically a member of your squad. You have near no control of the player what so ever and Liverpool still call the shots. If you loan a player, then it is written in the contract that you will play the player!.....unexposed youngsters in most cases and very much a gamble. They may hit the ground running and be amazing in which this isn't a problem, but they may also turn out to be not good enough or not ready yet. But in this instance, you still have to play them... its written in the loan contract.

Like I said above, I was impressed with Hecky's stance on this in his interview this week. Whem asked about Liverpool loan links, he said something along the lines of....

"I don't want players coming to this club, thinking that they are guaranteed a shirt in the team.

If they come here, then they play for it like everyone else and if they put in the work and impress then so be it. But nobody walks straight into my team, they earn it like everyone else".

I couldn't agree with this stance any more.... loan players should be coming in and forcing existing players to up their own games. Like Charlie Goode said the other day....

"This set of lads are decent and I need to hit the ground running and earn a shirt. That's what I'm here to do, I want to force my way into this team"

Correct answer.....

In fairness, we binned Ben Woodburn out the team sharp-ish when it was realised he wasn't up to scratch.

At the time, did CW not say that we'd budgeted paying the maximum loan fees/non playing fines when making the deal, and as such didn't feel as though we 'had' to play him?

 

[mancunianblade]

Good on them if that’s how they want to play things. For every Sheffield United who say no there is a Bournemouth who will say yes.

The kids are out to gain experience if they’re not doing that then it’s wasted valuable development time.

I’m I glad we are not being held to terms like this, yes.

Do I respect that Liverpool do this also yes

 

[robbiez666]

In fairness, we binned Ben Woodburn out the team sharp-ish when it was realised he wasn't up to scratch.

At the time, did CW not say that we'd budgeted paying the maximum loan fees/non playing fines when making the deal, and as such didn't feel as though we 'had' to play him?

Didn't he fall out with Liverpool over it?

 

[robbiez666]

I understand if Liverpool loan out Davies and expect him to play because he's clearly been brought in as a first team player.

It's less ok when it's kids. I think there needs to be leeway around how they perform. Sure, they might be expected to play but if they're doing badly it's in the interests of both clubs and the player for them to be pulled out of the starting line-up.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Didn't he fall out with Liverpool over it?

He fell out with them that much that they screwed us over with Rhian Brewster! Proper payback.

 

[Stu_Blade]

Might sound a bizarre question but with a loanee in particular a younger player, are they contracted to the club or the first team. So could we in theory play them in the U23s for 1 or 2 games to get some experience with the formation and training within in the squad before game time in the first team?

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

That's life. You borrow summats from someone and they set the terms. You can't usually lend some money and set your own interest rates.

 

[Bladedog]

If clubs refuse to loan players from Liverpool on those terms it would fuck em up as their players won't develop..so everyone should say shove it.

 

[Trafford]

I understand if Liverpool loan out Davies and expect him to play because he's clearly been brought in as a first team player.

They being the case, perhaps we should ask for a refund for the games he couldn’t play in (some weren’t his fault but they weren’t ours either)

 

[Groucho Blade]

It’s madness and bad for football (and footballers) that the top clubs can stockpile kids and lend them out all over the shop. Clubs should be restricted to how many players they can loan out…just like clubs are restricted to how many they can borrow.

Discuss…

 

[Wards]

It’s madness and bad for football (and footballers) that the top clubs can stockpile kids and lend them out all over the shop. Clubs should be restricted to how many players they can loan out…just like clubs are restricted to how many they can borrow.

Discuss…

Rules to stop this happening are being brought in, albeit with some caveats for younger players and 'home-grown' players. Sure there'll be loopholes aplenty to exploit.

Transfer news: FIFA announces radical new loan plans that will limit clubs to six loan exits per season

FIFAs new loan rules to be given final approval at next council meeting; FIFA wants to implement rules to prevent stockpiling of players; Clubs will be limited to six players loaned out starting from 2024/25 season; club-trained players or players aged 21 or younger exempt from rules

www.skysports.com

 

[Rodley]

Do we do the same when we loan out players? Wouldn’t be surprised to see the same obligations in terms of playing time.

 

[Balham]

I believe that Liverpool's approach is that the less the player features (when they're available) the more the loaning club pays. When it's someone like Nat Phillips who's now on £30k+ per week then the bills would quickly ramp up. The reporting suggests that Bournemouth have paid £1.5m to loan him until the end of the season on top of that salary - that's a £2m+ investment.

Wilder was very clear that he would pick the team based on merit but that approach with Woodburn would have cost the club money.

 

[Stanthemanfan]

The one that gets my goat is loan fee, why??
If you cover wages why is this allowed?
Then you have the absolute farce of the jessie lingard loan conditions, pay his wages, 3 million loan fee and what I read if Newcastle wanted him and stayed up they also wanted 20 million!!!!

 

[steve26272]

The one that gets my goat is loan fee, why??
If you cover wages why is this allowed?
Then you have the absolute farce of the jessie lingard loan conditions, pay his wages, 3 million loan fee and what I read if Newcastle wanted him and stayed up they also wanted 20 million!!!!

Guess it’s a bit like when you rent a van

You pay enterprise or whoever a rental fee - then put petrol in

If Man U loaned Newcastle Lingard and he kept them up, that’s worth what, 50,70 million?

Why should they not receive a payment for the supply of the individual that secured that?

The EPL/EFA should ban the clause about guaranteed starter tho

As the loaning club you would want it, as if they aren’t getting game time they may as well be at parent club for training etc

The hiring club doesn’t want it as it restricts selection, especially if the player is having a dip in form

Powers that be need to ban it so everyone is in on merit

 

[jt64]

If clubs refuse to loan players from Liverpool on those terms it would fuck em up as their players won't develop..so everyone should say shove it.

If Pool are loaning players to the right club, then the destination club shouldn't have an issue with them

 

[mancunianblade]

Wait until some people hear that some loan agreements mean the player is paid a basic greater than his contract with his parent club pays

 

[scouseblade]

It’s madness and bad for football (and footballers) that the top clubs can stockpile kids and lend them out all over the shop. Clubs should be restricted to how many players they can loan out…just like clubs are restricted to how many they can borrow.

Discuss…

Indeed, i think it was 2/3 years ago Chelsea had 32 players out on loan. They could have easily had a "B" team....(we wont go there with that debate!)
I think they have had players who are still on their books but never been in the match day squad.

 

[wak1889]

That's life. You borrow summats from someone and they set the terms. You can't usually lend some money and set your own interest rates.

You absolutely can lend Money and set your own interest rates that's how it works , I think you may be getting lend and borrow confused