Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2018 23:48:35 GMT
I have watched this a couple of times and tried to get my head round two players who have contracts with and are paid by Chelsea, playing against them for another club, with Lampard saying its great they will be getting experience at Stamford Bridge? Are you f**king sure? In what possible way is this classy? Chelsea clearly dont give a sh** about the players or cup (we know that), the players clearly dont give a sh** about Chelsea.
What if one of them scores the winner to knock Chelsea out the cup?
Would you accept the same if Rovers were the club loaning players to play against us?
I don't know how often this happens but it's shameful. Might think I'm overreacting but its got my goat!
Should simply not be allowed, but time the FA got some fecking morals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 0:28:26 GMT
Its not right in my view,totally agree with the op.
I dont think it does happen very often as its usually written into the loan stipulating you cannot play v your own club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Oct 26, 2018 4:06:27 GMT
I have watched this a couple of times and tried to get my head round two players who have contracts with and are paid by Chelsea, playing against them for another club, with Lampard saying its great they will be getting experience at Stamford Bridge? Are you f**king sure? In what possible way is this classy? Chelsea clearly dont give a sh** about the players or cup (we know that), the players clearly dont give a sh** about Chelsea.
What if one of them scores the winner to knock Chelsea out the cup?
Would you accept the same if Rovers were the club loaning players to play against us?
I don't know how often this happens but it's shameful. Might think I'm overreacting but its got my goat!
Should simply not be allowed, but time the FA got some fecking morals.
I think you're definitely overreacting. I don't see the problem with it myself. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Oct 26, 2018 6:11:34 GMT
They've currently got 38 players out on loan. That's a shocking number, given that nearly all of them are young players who will have signed for Chelsea knowing full well they had little or no chance of breaking into Chelsea's first team.
It's a money making scheme. They buy them young and cheap (under the EPPP rules that allow Premier League clubs to buy young talent for fixed rates, not their market value). They loan them out and most are talented enough to increase in value before Chelsea sell them for a profit, usually higher than their combined cost (initial transfer fee plus total wages).
Definitely time that the FA or FIFA or the Premier League (whoever it is who has jurisdiction) implemented rules to stop it. Clubs are rightly limited to the number of players they can loan in during one season, but why are there no limits on the number that can be loaned out? If more Premier League clubs start to follow their lead there will be no decent young players available for League One clubs to buy - they'll all be on the books of a big team and out on loan somewhere.....
|
|
|
|
Post by paulpirate on Oct 26, 2018 6:31:33 GMT
I have watched this a couple of times and tried to get my head round two players who have contracts with and are paid by Chelsea, playing against them for another club, with Lampard saying its great they will be getting experience at Stamford Bridge? Are you f**king sure? In what possible way is this classy? Chelsea clearly dont give a sh** about the players or cup (we know that), the players clearly dont give a sh** about Chelsea.
What if one of them scores the winner to knock Chelsea out the cup?
Would you accept the same if Rovers were the club loaning players to play against us?
I don't know how often this happens but it's shameful. Might think I'm overreacting but its got my goat!
Should simply not be allowed, but time the FA got some fecking morals.
cant see the problem,derby are paying part of their wage so they should play if fit |
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 26, 2018 6:43:34 GMT
They've currently got 38 players out on loan. That's a shocking number, given that nearly all of them are young players who will have signed for Chelsea knowing full well they had little or no chance of breaking into Chelsea's first team. It's a money making scheme. They buy them young and cheap (under the EPPP rules that allow Premier League clubs to buy young talent for fixed rates, not their market value). They loan them out and most are talented enough to increase in value before Chelsea sell them for a profit, usually higher than their combined cost (initial transfer fee plus total wages). Definitely time that the FA or FIFA or the Premier League (whoever it is who has jurisdiction) implemented rules to stop it. Clubs are rightly limited to the number of players they can loan in during one season, but why are there no limits on the number that can be loaned out? If more Premier League clubs start to follow their lead there will be no decent young players available for League One clubs to buy - they'll all be on the books of a big team and out on loan somewhere..... I totally agree but your asking the Premier league to do something to help the small lower clubs at the detriment of the big Premier league clubs , good luck with that. And as for the FA they’re in the Prems pocket anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Congas on Oct 26, 2018 7:14:42 GMT
Football isn't f**ked, we've never had it so good. Football hooligans, unsafe stadiums, the Bradford fire, Hillsborough, Heysel Stadium, three-year ban from Europe leading to the lowest ever gates and a return to the 1950s hoof-ball. It took years to get anywhere near the European elite after that. That was well and truly f**ked.
|
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Oct 26, 2018 7:32:31 GMT
Footballs eating itself and the smallest clubs will be swallowed first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 7:46:20 GMT
It's only the rumbelows cup isn't it? I don't see the big problem if the parent club is happy with it. My understanding is that premier league clubs are not allowed to have loanees play against their own club in league matches which is right and proper - in "the good ole days" that people yearn after first div teams could loan to each other and players play against their parent clubs.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapletongas on Oct 26, 2018 7:49:04 GMT
If anyone interested in this whole subject wants the bigger picture, the BT Film, No Hunger in Paradise based on the book and report by the excellent football journalist Michael Calvin , is compulsory viewing. Word of caution, if you care about the state of the English game, it may make your blood boil sport.bt.com/video/bt-sport-films-no-hunger-in-paradise-91364241852638 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 7:51:15 GMT
Footballs eating itself and the smallest clubs will be swallowed first. Does being swallowed up mean disappearing? If so how many clubs have ceased to exist in the prem era? Is it any worse than the 60's and 70's? |
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Oct 26, 2018 7:54:44 GMT
Putting it out there, this isn’t the reason football is f**ked. A World Cup taking place in a country that’s used slave labour to build stadiums, yeah that one I would give you. Manchester United being linked with a takeover by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia in the same week a Saudi dissenter is brutally murdered in the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul, pretty bad. Let’s not get carried away on such trivial matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Oct 26, 2018 7:57:00 GMT
Football isn't f**ked, we've never had it so good. Football hooligans, unsafe stadiums, the Bradford fire, Hillsborough, Heysel Stadium, three-year ban from Europe leading to the lowest ever gates and a return to the 1950s hoof-ball. It took years to get anywhere near the European elite after that. That was well and truly f**ked. Agree. Football is now a billion dollar, global business, with a global fanbase. The only sport which has that kind of exposure would be elite level motor sport, like F1, Indy and Nascar. They money is huge, the investment is huge. Clubs have given loads back to fans but also they are sucking the life out of the actual game by hovering talent and making wages and fees over inflated. The similarity F1 share with football is the suck of young driving talent into the big teams. It never existed 10 years ago. Hoarding and garnering young talent in the hope of finding the next big thing. The amount of drivers Red Bull have signed and let go, even before they make F1 is huge. They should cap it or cap the contract length somehow, like having 4 drivers per team, 2 race drivers, 1 reserve and 1 test driver. Football should do the same. Squad limits of 30 for the first team, 20 for the U23's and 18 for the U18's. A friend of mine is very well connected with Chelsea and he says they have signed young players who have never been to Stamford Bridge. A big black mark that went against Mourinho the second time around at Chelsea was a £25m purchase of a player who was 18 from a South American country who couldn't even get a work permit to play. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas_Quarters on Oct 26, 2018 8:05:41 GMT
They've currently got 38 players out on loan. That's a shocking number, given that nearly all of them are young players who will have signed for Chelsea knowing full well they had little or no chance of breaking into Chelsea's first team. It's a money making scheme. They buy them young and cheap (under the EPPP rules that allow Premier League clubs to buy young talent for fixed rates, not their market value). They loan them out and most are talented enough to increase in value before Chelsea sell them for a profit, usually higher than their combined cost (initial transfer fee plus total wages). Definitely time that the FA or FIFA or the Premier League (whoever it is who has jurisdiction) implemented rules to stop it. Clubs are rightly limited to the number of players they can loan in during one season, but why are there no limits on the number that can be loaned out? If more Premier League clubs start to follow their lead there will be no decent young players available for League One clubs to buy - they'll all be on the books of a big team and out on loan somewhere..... I don’t have a problem with the op’s post as much as other people seem to. But this what you’ve highlighted here is a real problem and has been for a few years. As you say they are treating these young players as products in their business model and that’s wrong. What they’re doing probably isn’t best for the players development because they’ll never get near the first team. And Chelsea have gained them self a reputation in recent years of not giving their young academy products a chance even when they deserved one (Loftus-Cheek for example). So by letting it happen the FA are letting potential English stars have their careers hindered just so Chelsea can carry on with their money making scheme, as well as it being detrimental to lower league clubs who are never going to keep hold of their best youth players and give them a chance of stepping up to the first team. It is a total farce but has been for a few years now and I can’t see it changing any time soon. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2018 8:07:03 GMT
The likes of Chelsea, Man City and Liverpool are developing some amazing talent year after year. It's usually Man City v Chelsea in youth cup finals and they make up a large chunk of the England teams at U16 to U20 which have had major tournament success in recent years and is giving a lot of cause for optimism that the senior side will win something in the future.
If players like Loftus-Cheek and Foden find they cannot break through in to the club first XI then rather than sit on large long term contracts they should move on like Chalobah, Sancho etc.
I think football is in a good place at the moment and despite all the romanticising about bygone eras I would never want to go back to the 80's which is when I started watching. Much more long ball was played, donkeys were allowed to butcher skilful players, matches were played on mud and sand, hooliganism was rife, we watched from behind fences and had to water in open air trenches.
|
|
|
|
Post by Congas on Oct 26, 2018 8:07:51 GMT
Footballs eating itself and the smallest clubs will be swallowed first. With all respect, that's a big exaggeration. Let's go back to the days of re-election when you only had to lobby enough support to get re-elected. Some clubs finished bottom of the league season after season knowing their mates wouldn't let them down. It's a much healthier situation now because you have to compete properly and progress to stay in the league, a no-brainer really. A host of clubs have got into the league and established themselves. Some have become yo-yo clubs, others have got as far as the Championship because they're being run properly. Many have new or revamped stadiums, thus laying the foundations for gradual progress and establishing themselves as league clubs. The league clubs who initially took their place in non-league with the attitude that "it won't happen to us, we're mighty XXX" only have themselves to blame for not waking up and smelling the coffee. Nowadays, old established league clubs that drop out know they have to change their ways to get back again and have plenty of examples of clubs to study that have gone up again. It's a healthy situation for all because if you don't adopt a forward-thinking approach you'll be out of the league again. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 26, 2018 8:18:57 GMT
Footballs eating itself and the smallest clubs will be swallowed first. With all respect, that's a big exaggeration. Let's go back to the days of re-election when you only had to lobby enough support to get re-elected. Some clubs finished bottom of the league season after season knowing their mates wouldn't let them down. It's a much healthier situation now because you have to compete properly and progress to stay in the league, a no-brainer really. A host of clubs have got into the league and established themselves. Some have become yo-yo clubs, others have got as far as the Championship because they're being run properly. Many have new or revamped stadiums, thus laying the foundations for gradual progress and establishing themselves as league clubs. The league clubs who initially took their place in non-league with the attitude that "it won't happen to us, we're mighty XXX" only have themselves to blame for not waking up and smelling the coffee. Nowadays, old established league clubs that drop out know they have to change their ways to get back again and have plenty of examples of clubs to study that have gone up again. It's a healthy situation for all because if you don't adopt a forward-thinking approach you'll be out of the league again. The re-election issue, and the distribution of income issue are two separate ones. There's no reason you can't have a fairer distribution of income between clubs and also have pro/rel to the conference. Arguably, you could say the gap between the conference and League 1 has narrowed considerably, but the gap between, say, League 1 and the Prem has widened. |
|
|
|
Post by Baxtinho on Oct 26, 2018 8:23:25 GMT
I'm sure I'll be corrected on this ( chewbacca), but I think it's only in England that loanees are forbidden from playing against their "Parent" club. Happens a lot in Spain & Italy, that I know of, and I'm sure there's others.
As for it being the ruination of English football, not making it at Chelsea/Man C doesn't mean you won't be a decent FL or even PL player. Everyone will point to Jadon Sancho as the example, but the PL is littered with players who have come through at a "big" club and not been kept on.
|
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Oct 26, 2018 8:49:51 GMT
I'm sure I'll be corrected on this ( chewbacca ), but I think it's only in England that loanees are forbidden from playing against their "Parent" club. Happens a lot in Spain & Italy, that I know of, and I'm sure there's others. General rule of thumb loanees on the continent will play against their parent clubs. It's also happened plenty of times here most notably;
Lomana Lualua scoring an 89th minute equaliser against his parent club
Thibaut Courtois helps knock Chelsea out of the Champions League
Personally, if you sign for any period with a club you should be available for all games. If your parent club don't want you for that period then that's there problem. Hopefully, if anything it'll stop large clubs stock piling youngsters if they know they can't loan them out and not feel any repercussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gas_Quarters on Oct 26, 2018 9:07:05 GMT
The likes of Chelsea, Man City and Liverpool are developing some amazing talent year after year. It's usually Man City v Chelsea in youth cup finals and they make up a large chunk of the England teams at U16 to U20 which have had major tournament success in recent years and is giving a lot of cause for optimism that the senior side will win something in the future. If players like Loftus-Cheek and Foden find they cannot break through in to the club first XI then rather than sit on large long term contracts they should move on like Chalobah, Sancho etc. I think football is in a good place at the moment and despite all the romanticising about bygone eras I would never want to go back to the 80's which is when I started watching. Much more long ball was played, donkeys were allowed to butcher skilful players, matches were played on mud and sand, hooliganism was rife, we watched from behind fences and had to water in open air trenches. That's all well and good but it doesn't mean much if they don't then make the step up to the first team and become stars on the biggest stage.I agree with your points about Loftus-Cheek and Foden but I think the latter is benefiting from working under Pep Guardiola and he is at least getting some game time in the best team in the country (and one of the best in the world) at a very young age. Rashford burst onto the scene a couple of years ago as a very good prospect and he still is one but I think his progress has been slow and I think that's due to the lack of game time he's had at Man Utd. If he'd have spent last season being one of the main men in a lower Prem side I think he would've improved a lot more. |
|
