Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In  |  Sign Up
The Mail Bag

Player loans

Comments (34)

I think its time the FA tightened up the rules loaning out players. Loaning players to other Premier League sides should be stopped IMO.

Chelsea spent a huge amount of money in the transfer window and then loaned out a top quality striker, Daniel Sturridge, to another Premier League side. The advantage of having Sturridge to Bolton has been obvious, in yesterday's game against Everton, he made all the difference to Bolton between victory and defeat. Even though Everton didn't play that well, they probably wouldn't have lost if Bolton didn't have Sturridge.

The current rules allow cash rich clubs to give an unfair advantage to another club in the Premier League, of their choice, making things more difficult for their immediate challengers. By making Bolton more difficult to beat, it means other clubs will find it harder to pick up the easier points, giving a distinct advantage back to Chelsea.

Chelsea have been quite selective in who Sturridge went to, as they have already played Bolton twice, so they don't need any "gentleman's agreement" with Bolton not to play Sturridge. Very cunning!

It would be interesting to see what other people think.
Brian Baker, Aldershot     Posted 14/02/2011 at 14:56:38

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Kieran Kinsella
1   Posted 14/02/2011 at 15:02:39

Report abuse

We have loaned players before (Howard, Jo) so it is not something that hurts us specifically but I agree that the rule is stupid and it allows for obvious conflicts of interest, eg, if you can helped you real team by scoring/conceding for a team you are on loan at.

I think it is another sad fact of the game too that greedy players would rather join a team where they won't get a game only to sit on bench or go on loan to a lesser team with their team paying their huge wages.

Ray Robinson
2   Posted 14/02/2011 at 15:11:06

Report abuse

Shouldn't be allowed in my opinion to a team playing in the same division. It's open to conflict of interest, collusion and cynical manoeuvering. I seem to remember a centre forward called Ferguson (not Dunc) being loaned from Brum to Coventry in the 80's and scoring the winning goal for Coventry that sent Brum down.
Anthony Hughes
3   Posted 14/02/2011 at 15:22:50

Report abuse

Agree in principle... but without the loan set-up I don't see how we're going to recruit players in the near future. We certainly won't be able to buy anyone outright.
Alex Rowland
4   Posted 14/02/2011 at 15:37:02

Report abuse

Just a thought that if the loaning of players were scrapped then it would have an effect on the size of transfer fees.....??
Jimmy Hacking
5   Posted 14/02/2011 at 15:45:48

Report abuse

I wholeheartedly agree.

It is great fun when your club nicks a player on loan who does wonders (like Donovan, and, erm, no-one else for us really) but it is very very very obviously ludicrously unfair to be allowed to loan players to other clubs from the same country/division.

This whole area must be a also moral quagmire when it comes to back-scratching, back-handers and dodgy favours.

I'm sure clubs in England couldn't do it, either, up until the mid-90s, or am I wrong? I'm largely basing this on early versions of Championship Manager (!)
Brian Baker
6   Posted 14/02/2011 at 16:07:52

Report abuse

Alex Rowland, I am not suggesting we scrap loaning players completly, but only to teams of the same league, to prevent any conflict of interest
Jason Heng
7   Posted 14/02/2011 at 16:06:09

Report abuse

Previously the Premier League clubs were prohibted from loaning players amongst one another.

If I recall correctly, Everton was one of the clubs that spearheaded the fight to lift the ban because the smaller clubs could not afford to buy enough players for a decent bench. We were one of the first beneficiaries, getting Francis Jeffers from Arsenal.

Now that Everton cannot afford to loan any player, it is right time for the ban to be re-imposed. Great thinking!
Guy Hastings
8   Posted 14/02/2011 at 16:14:10

Report abuse

Ray #2 - that'd be Mick Ferguson, formerly of our parish who, alongside Rod Stewart tribute act Alan Biley, looked like providing the front pairing that would set the league alight. Howard bought them and I think they both scored on their debut - Biley getting two. Against Brum, maybe?
Paul McGinty
9   Posted 14/02/2011 at 16:11:46

Report abuse

It's against FA rules to own two clubs, precisely because it can affect competitive balance. But I guess its within the rules for one club to loan to another a player or players and pay their wages. I think the loan rules should be changed, particularly when it's happening in the same division.
Matthew Lovekin
10   Posted 14/02/2011 at 16:35:33

Report abuse

How about clubs have smaller squads? It would stop the larger clubs having these great youngsters in reserve and not playing them and quality players being more evenly distributed amongst clubs.
James Stewart
11   Posted 14/02/2011 at 16:44:10

Report abuse

I don't agree with loaning players to clubs in the same division. The whole thing is very murky.
Brian Waring
12   Posted 14/02/2011 at 16:45:07

Report abuse

Maybe the reason some of you think it should be scrapped, is because we couldn't afford to get any decent loan players in???

We could have got Sturridge if we had had the cash for his wages. IMO I reckon he would have joined us before Bolton, and at the end of the day, we are no threat to Chelsea, if anything, Bolton are more of a threat to Chelsea than us.
Nick Entwistle
13   Posted 14/02/2011 at 16:53:44

Report abuse

Yep, I don't like it. In the same way you can be cup tied, players should be... division tied. Unless on full transfer. Makes them individual franchises this way.
Bertie Alloff
14   Posted 14/02/2011 at 16:59:13

Report abuse

I just think thats a bit of sour grapes really Brian. We'd have been over the moon if we would have got him, but I can see why you think it creates an uneven playing field, the rich clubs again benefit at the poorer clubs expense. Incidentally I think Bolton would still have beaten us without Sturridge.
Mike Elbey
15   Posted 14/02/2011 at 17:29:57

Report abuse

Brian Waring (11),

Spot on, why we couldnt scrape the money together for him having got rid of the best part of £100k / week off the wage bill i dont know.

Mind you would he have come to sit on the bench whilst watching Saha partnered by Cahill each week. I accept he would have played this week but had Saha not got injured does anyone think Moyes would have played 2 up front leaving out his beloved Tim ?

Another point relating to the article - Sturridge was hardly the difference between victory and defeat for Bolton. Bolton's first goal had no input from Sturridge and he certainly had bo part to play in our inept play that un-suprisingly led to another blank in front of goal. If Sturridge hadnt played we still would have lost yesterday, we were shit end of.
Andrew Conroy
16   Posted 14/02/2011 at 17:30:24

Report abuse

Most of the posts here just sound like sour grapes I'm afraid.

The incompetence of the board is loudly and clearly signalled again when people have stopped talking about which players they'd love to see at Everton and are more concerned with putting a stop to the perfectly reasonable loans system.


As Bertie #13 says, we'd be doing the conga through the Pier Head if Sturridge had come to us.
James Stewart
17   Posted 14/02/2011 at 17:59:31

Report abuse

Not at all sour grapes.

All the best players will get bought up by City and Chelsea etc and then loaned out for experience. Is that really the kind of Premiership we want? The top clubs not only dominating the top 4 but also owning the best players from the club's below them? But more than that it's a conflict of interests and shouldn't be allowed.

I couldn't give a fuck if Sturridge had come to us. We could never afford him permanently so what would be the point in grooming him for Chelsea and paying for the privilege.
Ray Robinson
18   Posted 14/02/2011 at 18:25:13

Report abuse

Not sour grapes at all. Chelsea once had a practice of buying players to stop rivals signing them - and then loaning them out immediately.

Loaning players to teams in the same division is open to abuse.
Jeremy Benson
19   Posted 14/02/2011 at 18:33:22

Report abuse

Definitely sounds like sour grapes to me.
Ernie Baywood
20   Posted 14/02/2011 at 19:41:07

Report abuse

It shouldn't be allowed. But now it is we should be in the market too.

Never used to be the case (I think keepers were the exception) and after the Tim Howard furore there are no gentleman's agreements allowed anymore anyway - under FA rules Sturridge wouldn't be allowed to play against Chelsea no matter who he'd gone to. So there was nothing cunning about selecting Bolton...

...unless they are one of the teams that still has to play Arsenal, City, Chelsea and other potential suitors did not. I haven't checked but that would be the obvious conflict.
Trevor Lynes
21   Posted 14/02/2011 at 19:49:46

Report abuse

I have said for ages that player loaning should be stopped and I don't know why it is allowed. It means that BK can loan out six of our players and youngsters and bring no-one in.

All these players are off the wage bill, not counting Gosling and Pienaar... how much has our club saved?? We are losing places in the league which costs us about £4 to 5 million due to non-investment... what a heap of shit our clubs mismanagement is causing.

Brian Waring
22   Posted 14/02/2011 at 20:15:51

Report abuse

Another point, haven't we just loaned out the Yak and Vaughan to get them off the wages bill, because we had no choice?
Ray Robinson
23   Posted 14/02/2011 at 21:07:35

Report abuse

Brian, yes but both to Championship sides - so no potential conflict of interest there.
Joe McParland
24   Posted 14/02/2011 at 21:20:42

Report abuse

Part of the reason its allowed is to appease the EU as were it not it could be seen as a restrict of trade.
Ray Robinson
25   Posted 14/02/2011 at 21:39:16

Report abuse

Joe #23, how so? The player is under contract just the same as other players who aren't available for loan.
Joe McParland
26   Posted 14/02/2011 at 21:54:34

Report abuse

From what I remember it was one of the things that the likes of UEFA and the premier league agreed when the EU allowed transfer fees to remain. There was a lot of give and take to get an agreement.
Also,to guarantee freedom of movement for workers, which players technically are you must have the same rules in a member state as you do cross border. EU residence rules also cover players who have been resident in any EU country after a period of time. I think it is 5 years.
Hope this helps Ray.
Dick Fearon
27   Posted 14/02/2011 at 22:29:56

Report abuse

Under new rules all clubs have to cap their player numbers to 25. The FA should close the loop hole that allows rich clubs to circumvent that rule by paying all or part of the loanees' wages. As it stands, rich clubs can retain any number of players on their books above the limit of 25.

Joe McParland
28   Posted 14/02/2011 at 22:45:50

Report abuse

That is the most sensible suggestion I've heard regarding this subject Dick. If clubs have less than 25 players then they could still loan players in or out.
Tony Rice
29   Posted 15/02/2011 at 04:08:00

Report abuse

Pretty sure that Everton was one of the clubs that pushed for the rule change allowing Premier League clubs to loan players to one another.
....course back then we were trying to save pennies by not buying players...now we can't even afford to loan them FFS
Eric Myles
30   Posted 15/02/2011 at 05:59:35

Report abuse

It's FA rules that a player can't play against his parent team, nothing to do with a gentlemen's agreement.
Matt Traynor
31   Posted 15/02/2011 at 07:13:48

Report abuse

Eric #29, the reason that the Tim Howard non-appearance when we played Man U, and lost 4-2 after being 2-0 up was so controversial was that it WAS a gentleman's agreement ? Everton had already made his transfer permanent by that stage.

Why whoever agreed to that at Everton wasn't brought to task was mystifying.
Ernie Baywood
32   Posted 15/02/2011 at 09:11:52

Report abuse

Both ourselves and Utd should have been severely punished for that. They interfered with our team selection and we willingly went along with it.

Mind you, I wasn't that comfortable with the terms of the Rooney transfer either. Us playing against them knowing that we stood to gain financially if Utd won!
Ian Tunstead
33   Posted 15/02/2011 at 13:47:30

Report abuse

I have been saying the same myself for a while but more specifically talking about Spurs, the way they can hoard all the good players and then loan them out. Players like Jamie O'Hara, Kyle Walker, Kyle Naughton, Robbie Keane, etc etc... it's just not right, those players should be shared out equally.

What a waste... they will have Pienaar and Krancjar sat on the bench soon and they actually tried to bring in Charley Adam and Phill Neville who no doubt would have sat on the bench too or got sent out on loan, its ridiculous.

Ian Tunstead
34   Posted 15/02/2011 at 14:30:21

Report abuse

David Bentley.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.



© ToffeeWeb


Latest News

Subscribe to The Athletic, Get 40% off

Online Football Betting with Betway

Bet on Everton and get a deposit bonus with bet365 at TheFreeBetGuide.com



Recent Articles





Talking Points & General Forum

Pinned Links

OK

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.