Have United broken the loan rules.....

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

Robbie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
8,165
Reaction score
254
Location
Sothall
We all know the fiasco with loan players and we're 'struggling'.

However - looking at our team on Monday it would appear that mayb we have broken the league rules.

You are allowed 4 loan players in your XI playing players and 5 in total in your match day squad.

We started with Treacy, Harper, Davies and Walker with Bunn on the bench.

Now when Bennett got injured Bunn replaced him and this was then 5 (possible) loan players playing.

So..... has Harper signed a full term contract in August? Or hav United broken the rules?
 



I know the rules depend on what "kind" of loan you're on but I haven't a clue what agreements any of the loan players signed to say whether we've broken the rules or not.

Would Bunn and Treacy's loans be classed as "long term" loans to be differentiated from the usual 90 day ones?
 
Would Bunn and Treacy's loans be classed as "long term" loans to be differentiated from the usual 90 day ones?

I shouldn't imagine there being any difference....

Will try find the report about when Wednesday had too many in their match day squad.

Edit: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-549762/Wednesday-broke-rule-loans-claim-Stoke.html

Does anyone know if....

Songo'o, who arrived from Portsmouth three weeks ago, Graham Kavanagh (Sunderland) and Ben Sahar (Chelsea) started the game while Enoch Showunmi (Bristol City) went on as a late substitute as Adam Bolder (QPR) and latest loan signing, West Bromwich striker Bartosz Slusarski, stayed on the bench.

were season long loan players?

Edit: Soccerbase showing none were season long loans....
 
I believe its 5 in the squad at one time, i believe there was a game earlier this season where we also had 5 loanees on the pitch at once.

Wednesday were done for having 6 in the squad.
 
You're allowed 5 on the pitch at once at any time.

This was cleared up earlier in the season - I think when we played Wednesday as they kicked up a fuss about it.

Edit: yes, we started with five against the pigs.
 
We all know the fiasco with loan players and we're 'struggling'.

However - looking at our team on Monday it would appear that mayb we have broken the league rules.

You are allowed 4 loan players in your XI playing players and 5 in total in your match day squad.

We started with Treacy, Harper, Davies and Walker with Bunn on the bench.

Now when Bennett got injured Bunn replaced him and this was then 5 (possible) loan players playing.

So..... has Harper signed a full term contract in August? Or hav United broken the rules?

I think it's just 5 in the squad, I don't think there's a limit to the number of those on the pitch.
 
ive just e-mailed martin samuels for clarification ,he is well clued up on these matters
 
You're allowed 5 on the pitch at once at any time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-559200/Wednesday-fined-breaking-loan-rules.html

Sheffield Wednesday have been fined £2,000 after breaking Football League limits on loan players.
The Owls named six in their squad in the 1-1 draw against Stoke last month - one more than permitted by the rules.

But the club has escaped a points deduction and remain one point above the Coca-Cola Championship relegation zone.
Of the loan players in the Wednesday squad, two were unused substitutes and only three were on the pitch at any one time during the game.
The decision follows a league precedent set in 2006, when Leeds were fined and also avoided a points penalty for a similar offence.

Can you point to when the rules changed?
 
try reading your on quote properly first


only three were on the pitch at any one time during the game.
 
try reading your on quote properly first


only three were on the pitch at any one time during the game.

C&Ped the wrong one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-549762/Wednesday-broke-rule-loans-claim-Stoke.html

Stoke are set to demand the Football League award them three points after it emerged Sheffield Wednesday broke the rules over loan players.
League rules insist that no more than five loan players can be in the 16 named on a teamsheet ? but Wednesday included six.

Crucially, it was one of them, French winger Franck Songo'o, who scored the 81st minute equaliser that raised their hopes of escaping from the bottom three and toppled Stoke from top spot.
Songo'o, who arrived from Portsmouth three weeks ago, Graham Kavanagh (Sunderland) and Ben Sahar (Chelsea) started the game while Enoch Showunmi (Bristol City) went on as a late substitute as Adam Bolder (QPR) and latest loan signing, West Bromwich striker Bartosz Slusarski, stayed on the bench.
That careless error left Wednesday certain to face disciplinary action and, depending on the severity of the penalty imposed by the Football League, there could be an outcry from both ends of the Championship.
A League spokesman said yesterday: "All we can say at this stage is that the teamsheets from this game will be processed and analysed in due course and any necessary action will be considered when that has taken place."
The fact that only four of the loan players took to the field might tempt the League to take a lenient option by imposing a fine. But that would spark a furious protest and prompt those clubs who consider themselves the losers in the situation to seek legal redress.
There is so much at stake at both ends of the Championship and Stoke, who took the lead through Richard Cresswell, are certain to lead the outcry after dropping two points and being overtaken in top spot by Bristol City.
Stoke chief executive Tony Scholes yesterday confirmed they had taken the first steps towards mounting a strenuous protest.
He revealed: "We went straight on to the League on Saturday evening when the situation first become known to us and were told that it would be considered on Monday morning.
"We're now waiting to see what emerges before deciding whether it would be appropriate for us to consider any further action."
If Stoke do miss out on automatic promotion and then fail to claim a Premier League place via the play- offs it could cost them upwards of £35million.
Sources close to the club were yesterday hinting that they would immediately seek legal advice if Wednesday were to escape with a fine.
Wednesday chief executive Kaven Walker, who must share responsibility for the club' s embarrassment alongside manager Brian Laws, would only say: 'We are making no comment at this stage.'
It is understood, however, that Wednesday will contact the League this morning to admit breaking Football League rules while resisting any move to deduct the point they gained against Stoke.
Wednesday are privately adamant that they committed only a 'technical breach' of the rules that did not materially affect the result of the game.
They will also point out that another League rule states that clubs can only have four loan players on the field at any one time.

Please see the bolded part
 
I can't be arsed to look through the regulations at the Football League, but given that we beat our local rivals with 5 on the pitch, we've played (and won) other games this season with 5 on the pitch and it has been brought to attention in local media that we've had 5 on the pitch, I would wager that the rules have been changed in the last year or so.
 
I can't be arsed to look through the regulations at the Football League, but given that we beat our local rivals with 5 on the pitch, we've played (and won) other games this season with 5 on the pitch and it has been brought to attention in local media that we've had 5 on the pitch, I would wager that the rules have been changed in the last year or so.

I'd not noticed it previously.
Nor had I heard any fuss made about it - media or otherwise.
 
"47.3.1 A maximum of 5 loan Players (either Short Term or Long Term) can be named in the sixteen Players listed on a team sheet for any individual Match. This figure shall
include any additional loan of a goalkeeper approved by the Executive under the
provisions of Regulation 49."


It's quite possible then that we could bring in a keeper under the emergency rule and he would be allowed over and above the 5.
 
If an agreement to sign Harper or any of the other players is in place, then they don't count towards the sum of loan players as far as I can work out.

So it does matter what kind of loan you are, especially when considering:

Club may name up to a maximum of 5 Players on a Team Sheet who are either Long Term Loans, Short Term Loans or Work Experience Players with no more than 2 from any one Category.
 



"47.3.1 A maximum of 5 loan Players (either Short Term or Long Term) can be named in the sixteen Players listed on a team sheet for any individual Match. This figure shall
include any additional loan of a goalkeeper approved by the Executive under the
provisions of Regulation 49."


It's quite possible then that we could bring in a keeper under the emergency rule and he would be allowed over and above the 5.

This seems to be the answer that I am looking for.

So Bunn is exempt from the ruling?

Cheers fella
 
I'd not noticed it previously.
Nor had I heard any fuss made about it - media or otherwise.

By local media, I mean Praise and Grumble where our porcine friends were making lots of fuss about it earlier in the season. Paul and/or Seth seemed to clear it up then.

If we'd broken the rules, Wednesday would have been all over us for it.
 
The way I read the words "this figure shall include" suggests that any emergency loans is within this limit of five?

Hmmmm I'm confused now haha.

Walker and Bunn are both long term loans. Accepted.
Harper is a 3 month loan?
Treacy a 6 month loan?
Davies - emergency loan?

Explain it to me in laymans terms how you understand it Linz...
 
Hmmmm I'm confused now haha.

Walker and Bunn are both long term loans. Accepted.
Harper is a 3 month loan?
Treacy a 6 month loan?
Davies - emergency loan?

Explain it to me in laymans terms how you understand it Linz...

Sorry to jump in. Harper is on loan till the end of the season (day after play off final i guess).

Does anyone know the official or logical reason for not signing Harper (i.e not loan deal) till the end of the season?
 
"47.3 There shall be two categories of temporary loan transfers allowed - Short Term Loans and Long Term Loans. The following restrictions shall apply to both types of loan:

47.3.1 A maximum of 5 loan Players (either Short Term or Long Term) can be named in the sixteen Players listed on a team sheet for any individual Match. This figure shall
include any additional loan of a goalkeeper approved by the Executive under the
provisions of Regulation 49.

47.3.2 No more than 4 loan Players (either Short Term or Long Term) may join one Club
from another Club in any Season.

48.1 Short Term Loans. Subject to the provisions of Regulation 47.3, Short Term Loan
transfers shall only be approved in accordance with following provisions:

48.1.1 A Club can have up to 8 Players on Short Term Loan during any Season,
but no more than 4 at any one time.

48.1.2 Short Term Loan transfers shall be for a period of not less than 28 days or for more than 93 days in any one Season. The loan period is inclusive of the start date and
finishing date.

48.1.3 The Short term loan of a goalkeeper may be subject to a recall clause (including
within the original 28 days) but this may only be implemented in exceptional
circumstances with the consent of the Executive.

48.1.4 The Executive shall not permit a Short term loan transfer for a period in excess of
93 days in any one Season save in extenuating circumstances, at the discretion of
the Executive.

48.1.5 Short term loans which subsequently become permanent transfers, or
simultaneously upon termination become Long Term Loans, shall not count against
a Club’s quota of Short Term Loans for that season.

48.2 Long Term Loans. Subject to the provisions of Regulation 47.3, Long Term Loan
transfers shall only be approved in accordance with the following provisions:

48.2.1 A Player can only be transferred on a Long Term Loan if he was under the age of
23 on the 30th June prior to the Season in which the Long Term Loan transfer is
intended to take place.

48.2.2 A Club can have up to 4 Players on Long Term Loan at any one time during any
Season.

48.2.3 The registration of a Long Term Loan will only be permitted during the period 1st
July to 31st December in any Season.

48.2.4 The period of a Long Term Loan shall expire no earlier than the end of the Season in which the Long Term Loan takes place and a Player signed on such a transfer must
complete the loan period and may not be recalled by his original Club at any time
during that loan period save:
a when the Player is recalled and transferred permanently to another Club; and
b in the case of a goalkeeper whose agreement may contain a recall clause which
may only be implemented in exceptional circumstances with the consent
of the Executive.

48.2.5 Long term loan transfers which subsequently become permanent transfers before
31st December in the same season shall not count against a Club’s quota of such
Long Term Loans for that season.

49 Where a Club has already taken its full quota of Short Term Loan transfers in accordance with Regulations 48.1.1, the Executive shall be empowered to approve a further temporary transfer of an additional goalkeeper in accordance with the following provisions:

49.1 If all the professional goalkeepers at a Club are certified by an independent medical practitioner as being unfit to play, a Club may register (either before or after the deadline laid down in Regulation 37.4) a further goalkeeper on loan.

49.2 The Executive shall allow a Club to sign such a goalkeeper for a period of 7 days
(notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 48.1.2), inclusive of the start and finishing date.

49.3 Any such loan transfer shall be subject to the League having received (including by facsimile) the appropriate medical certificate(s) and the Executive having confirmed that the circumstances conform with the provisions of this Regulation. The period of the loan may be renewed for 7 days at a time but further medical certification must be provided on each occasion.

49.4 Such loan transfers in respect of the same goalkeeper may not exceed 93 days in any one Season.

49.5 Loan transfers of goalkeepers under this Regulation are in addition to the quotas for Short Term Loan transfers permitted under Regulation 48.1.1."

Bunn was initially signed on loan for a month but this was then extended until the end of the year - short term / long term, who knows
Walker - Long term
Treacy - on loan until the end of the year - as with Bunn, not sure how this fits in with long / short term
Davies - 3 months
Cresswell - 3 months, to be made permanent in January
Harper - strange one because he doesn't fit into either the short or long term ruling but there was talk at the time about us 'taking over his contract' whatever that means.
 
Hmmmm I'm confused now haha.

Walker and Bunn are both long term loans. Accepted.
Harper is a 3 month loan?
Treacy a 6 month loan?
Davies - emergency loan?

Explain it to me in laymans terms how you understand it Linz...

I wouldn't swear to it but I thought Bunn was initially signed on a one month loan which we then extented to last until January?
Davies was signed on a 3 month loan and, as already pointed out, Harper is here until the end of the season. At least that's what the OS says them. As far as why we have Harper on loan instead of having signed him permanently, it could be that Reading are still paying some of his wages. Why they would be doing this I don't know though.
 
Hmmmm I'm confused now haha.

Walker and Bunn are both long term loans. Accepted.
Harper is a 3 month loan?
Treacy a 6 month loan?
Davies - emergency loan?

Explain it to me in laymans terms how you understand it Linz...

I don't understand it :) But looking at the rules:

Long term loans are everything over and above the 93 day cut off so:

Bunn, Treacy and Walker are all long term loans.

Harper, if here's here until the end of the season is also a long term loan. The reason for this length of loan is that he is out of contract in the summer, so would be available on a free.

Therefore, unless Bunn is classed as an emergency, we have exhausted our limit for long term loans for the season.

The quotes from the rules:

A Club can have up to a MAXIMUM of 12 Players on short term loan during the season.

The minimum period of a short term loan transfer must be 28 days with a maximum of 93 days in any one season.

Short term loan transfers which become permanent before their expiry date shall not count against a Club’s quota of days or Players.

6.4.5 Long Term Loan Transfers shall be for a Playing Season or from the commencement of the Playing Season to 31st December or from 1st January (the January Transfer Window) to the end of the Playing Season.

The only bit about the limits on the amount of players in the squad is this rule:

A Club may name up to a maximum of 5 Players on a Team Sheet who are either Long Term Loans, Short Term Loans or Work Experience Players with no more than 2 from any one Category.

I can't see anything about a requirement for only four of these players to play at once.
 
Thanks Jim/Linz.

Seems a strange one for me.
Unless they've taken the rule out - which would make sense to be honest.
 
In reply to Santos,


Ran out of time, I'm guessing Reading owe him some money and they couldn't get the agreement sorted to cancel his deal.
I'm guessing Reading tried to use the time running out to do the deal ploy and Harper didn't budge.
I would think the deal will be concluded in January.
 
Bunn, Treacy and Walker are all long term loans.

Harper, if here's here until the end of the season is also a long term loan. The reason for this length of loan is that he is out of contract in the summer, so would be available on a free.

A Club may name up to a maximum of 5 Players on a Team Sheet who are either Long Term Loans, Short Term Loans or Work Experience Players with no more than 2 from any one Category.

Quoting myself is the height of pomposity, but bearing in mind all of the above... we might have broken that rule depending on Harper.

Even taking Bunn out of the equation as a potential emergency loan, we had Treacy, Harper and Walker in the squad. Three loans from the same category if Harper is classed as long term.

I'm confused :confused:
 
Quoting myself is the height of pomposity, but bearing in mind all of the above... we might have broken that rule depending on Harper.

Even taking Bunn out of the equation as a potential emergency loan, we had Treacy, Harper and Walker in the squad. Three loans from the same category if Harper is classed as long term.

I'm confused :confused:

Harper though can't be classed as long term loan (even though he is) as he is not under 23. So that is certainly baffling in itself.

But you'd be right with the Treacy, Walker and Bunn breaking that equation
 
Harper though can't be classed as long term loan (even though he is) as he is not under 23. So that is certainly baffling in itself.

But you'd be right with the Treacy, Walker and Bunn breaking that equation

I thought Harper was only loaned until January when we will complete the deal?
 



Whoa whoa whoa!

Have Fiery, Lenners and Micaljo seen this post?

There seems to be nobody on this post taking responsibility and twisting this around to make this a 'Blackwell out' post!

Can someone please take the lead?
 

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