|
Post by EastVanGas on Sept 6, 2018 11:40:51 GMT
Interesting article regarding what loaning player from a Premier League club often involves these days... link
|
|
|
Post by South Stand Ultra on Sept 6, 2018 11:42:31 GMT
404
|
|
|
Post by Wimborne Gas on Sept 6, 2018 12:08:49 GMT
Football League clubs balk at loan deals that have too many strings Lower-division sides help young players develop and benefit from having them but there’s growing disquiet about demands that loanees play regardless of form.
“You can get a player, an 18-year‑old who’s on 10 grand a week, and you do a deal with the club on his wages,” says Darragh MacAnthony. “Then they not only want the wages, they want you to pay for his accommodation. They’re then on you all the time about ‘Why is he playing?’, ‘Why is he not playing?’ They’re on at you every day. If the player then has an attitude issue and we go and complain they say: ‘Get on with it, you’re not sending him back, you’ve agreed a contract, pay his wages.’”
Forthright opinions, such as the one above, are hardly unusual for MacAnthony, but the Peterborough United chairman is not alone in being disgruntled with football’s loan system. This summer, EFL clubs struck a total of 254 loan deals, making up about one in seven of all players in the Football League. Last season, over the course of the year, 458 temporary arrangements were made. It is a crucial process within the English football pyramid but after the loan window came to an end last week smaller clubs are increasingly asking whether the system is working for them.
The case for loans is straightforward and urgently made: young English players need to play competitive men’s football. There is a consensus that club academies (at least those in category one and largely affiliated to Premier League clubs) are producing players able to flourish at the highest level. They need practice, however, to achieve their potential. This is something not only the Football Association and Premier League agree on, but the EFL, too. For the loaning clubs’ part, they get access to players whose talents ought to be above a level they could acquire permanently. The debate, however, is on how best to give players experience and whether arrangements made are fair to all parties.
MacAnthony’s complaints are felt by many clubs but are only part of the problem. Increasingly, loan deals not only include an upfront fee and a share of the player’s wages being paid by the loan club but also include sanctions should the player either fail to play regularly or appear in something other than his favoured position. Liverpool is one club that pursues such measures, especially with coveted young talents such as Ben Woodburn now at Sheffield United for the season. This is necessary, parent clubs argue, as they are unable to insist contractually that their players get game time (this would be seen as undue influence over another club). They also argue that each deal is arranged on its own merits, and more punitive clauses reflect the level of demand for a player. For those clubs trying to recruit, especially lower down the pyramid however, it is sometimes difficult to see where their leverage comes in such an arrangement.
Peterborough’s chairman, Darragh MacAnthony, says: ‘If the player has an attitude issue and we complain they say: “Get on with it, you’re not sending him back.”’ Photograph: John Robertson for the Guardian
Tranmere Rovers have struck six loan deals this summer. According to the League Two club’s chairman, the former FA chief executive Mark Palios, the role lower-league clubs play in developing players remains vital. “The ability to play proper football in front of a paying crowd is missing at the top end of the game,” he says of the situation for younger players. “Proper use of experience in the football pyramid is essential and beneficial if managed properly. Not many others have a pyramid like ours and we’re fans of using it.”
While Palios sees the greater good of the loan system, the list of complications are just as clear “Loans where a club insists the player plays are wrong from every point of view,” he says. “It’s wrong for the player – they have to earn their place as part of a learning process. For the club, it damages the dynamic in dressing room. Finally, from a fan’s perspective, there’s a sense that you’re basically relinquishing your independence if loanees are going to play come what may.”
Palios says Tranmere don’t do such deals but have made arrangements whereby the loan club would pay a higher percentage of the player’s wages if he doesn’t play. He believes the game is not yet at a stage where parent clubs hold undue influence over those lower down the pyramid. “Nobody forces you to take a loan player; every club is entitled to do what it wants and what fits within its budget,” he says, but he acknowledges that the landscape is changing. “I think you can find clubs become dependent on it,” he says. “It’s hard to put a finger on it but you lose that sense of identity, that willingness to play for the club.”
If lower-league sides are integral to the development of young players, the argument that they should not be penalised for doing so is growing in volume. Whereas the chairman of Peterborough’s League One rivals Bradford City, Edin Rahic, has recently said he would be in favour of transforming lower-league teams into feeder clubs for the top flight, others such as MacAnthony argue for imposing limits on loan fees. The EFL’s chief executive, Shaun Harvey, is sympathetic to the latter idea. “I think the Championship is a different beast to League One and League Two,” he says. “Some Championship sides are taking players in order to try to reach the Premier League. In Leagues One and Two it’s much more about development. I think if I could carve out some position where players went to those leagues on terms that were generally agreed to be acceptable, I think that would be a step forward.”
Crystal Palace recently wrote to League One, Two and National League clubs offering to loan their players for free – the proviso being that the players have to play; if they are not in the team a proportion of their wages must be covered. The EFL is believed to have encouraged other clubs to follow Palace’s lead. There remains, however, the possibility that lowering the cost of loans will only further ingrain the system whereby lower-league clubs act as a finishing school for big club talent, rather than developing their own. “It’s always their way or the highway”, says MacAnthony ruefully. “I think that’s something we need to change massively.”
|
|
|
Post by simon1883 on Sept 6, 2018 12:10:11 GMT
So, because the Premiershit is hoarding all the talent, they are stiffling the game at the top.... The Prem is squeezing the life out of football at every other level and they dont give a toss.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Sept 6, 2018 12:19:01 GMT
Thanks for the link. I rarely agree with the Posh chairman but in this instance he’s spot on. The problem is that the PL clubs hoover up a huge majority of the youthful talent, but are unable to meet their footballing needs with game opportunities then impose conditions when loaning them out. The whole system stinks. From a Rovers perspective you can see why DC prefers his own players and it gives a good background to some of the pressures DC must have had to withstand when dealing with PL clubs. To meet the requirement of Palace that the loaners must play would need you to be very sure that the players are good enough to play every week. Being only 18-20 I would think they might not be good enough to do that. UTG!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2018 12:22:32 GMT
One answer would be to limit the number of young players the Prem clubs can sign. Last season, Chelsea had 38 players out on loan, and they still kept enough for their Youth Squad and their Development Squad. If their numbers were limited, maybe those 38 players would be available to other clubs?
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Sept 6, 2018 12:29:38 GMT
You’re right nobby but when they flash their cash the EFL, chairman of most League 1 and 2 clubs and even the FA just say “yes sir, yes sir, three bags full sir.” No chance of any controls being put on the PL clubs imo. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Sept 6, 2018 12:40:13 GMT
Put a cap on the amount of youngsters you can have at a club and some of them may have a chance at making it.
|
|
|
Post by EastVanGas on Sept 6, 2018 12:42:14 GMT
One answer would be to limit the number of young players the Prem clubs can sign. Last season, Chelsea had 38 players out on loan, and they still kept enough for their Youth Squad and their Development Squad. If their numbers were limited, maybe those 38 players would be available to other clubs? Does anyone know how a club like Chelsea views the players it retains in their Youth/Dev squads, rather than sends on loan? Are these the players that no one else wants to loan, or are they their better "for age" players, which they want their coaching team to work with more closely?
|
|
|
Post by toddy1953 on Sept 6, 2018 12:42:41 GMT
Simple solution is for the EFL teams to get together & not sign any PL players on loan. That won't happen though because there is greed right though the game. It's shocking but what happens when we loan players to L2 or non league. Or what about, For example Mensah - if he wasn't good enough for L1 and we wouldn't play him, but wanted him for future development, why didn't we buy him but let him spend the rest of the season with his parent club? There are lots of things that could change & Things need to change but they won't due to greed or until one of the big clubs go bust.
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,765
|
Post by pirate on Sept 6, 2018 13:57:48 GMT
One answer would be to limit the number of young players the Prem clubs can sign. Last season, Chelsea had 38 players out on loan, and they still kept enough for their Youth Squad and their Development Squad. If their numbers were limited, maybe those 38 players would be available to other clubs? They had all those young players out on loan, but still managed to beat Arsenal 7–1 on aggregate in the FA Youth Cup Final. I agree with you that there needs to be a limit.
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Sept 6, 2018 14:04:41 GMT
The thing is as well, how many of the loans from Premiership clubs have been a success?
I'd wager a bigger percentage of those loan players were no better than the club already had, but you wont know for sure until they play.
Just look at Colkett and Clarke-Salter at Rovers, they were arguably worse than we already had here. Then imagine Chelsea demanding we played them every game!! It could really have a bad impact on a club.
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,765
|
Post by pirate on Sept 6, 2018 14:11:23 GMT
One answer would be to limit the number of young players the Prem clubs can sign. Last season, Chelsea had 38 players out on loan, and they still kept enough for their Youth Squad and their Development Squad. If their numbers were limited, maybe those 38 players would be available to other clubs? Does anyone know how a club like Chelsea views the players it retains in their Youth/Dev squads, rather than sends on loan? Are these the players that no one else wants to loan, or are they their better "for age" players, which they want their coaching team to work with more closely? More that they are their better "for age" players which they want to work with more closely. For example, the Chelsea FA Youth Cup winning team contained the likes of Callum Hudson-Odoi, Daishawn Redan, Charlie Brown, George McEachran, Marc Guehi, Trevoh Chalobah and Billy Gilmour who are all very highly-rated.
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Sept 7, 2018 14:49:39 GMT
Correct pirate. And one of their arguments will be something along the lines of “the cream always rises to the top.” The occasional youngster will come through the system but the numbers who don’t are huge and I suspect will be in the hundreds who don’t make it. I agree a lot with what lmw has said but in a sense now the damage has been done with the criteria about academies and youth players and I doubt the PL will relinquish the control they have. We won’t be able to turn the clock back. UTG!
|
|
|
Post by lastminutewinner on Sept 8, 2018 9:21:54 GMT
Correct pirate. And one of their arguments will be something along the lines of “the cream always rises to the top.” The occasional youngster will come through the system but the numbers who don’t are huge and I suspect will be in the hundreds who don’t make it. I agree a lot with what lmw has said but in a sense now the damage has been done with the criteria about academies and youth players and I doubt the PL will relinquish the control they have. We won’t be able to turn the clock back. UTG!
I wouldn't like my son to go straight to a Premier league side; I'd prefer him to start off in the football league where, although the coaching may not be as good, would surely get more attention than being one of 80 kids at somewhere like Chelsea.
Too many kids and parents get excited when a big clubs comes knocking, and they don't think about the bigger picture.
I believe Jamie Cureton chose to go to Norwich rather than Man Utd for this reason. I wonder how his career would have panned out had he went to Utd?
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Sept 8, 2018 16:59:02 GMT
Yes lmw, parents have the influence to say no, more so than the smaller club imo. So yes I would agree with what you’ve said but I bet most parents wouldn’t turn down the PL club when it comes calling. Those who can perhaps see a bigger picture might do. UTG!
|
|