FIFA to limit no of players loaned out (Chelsea !)

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Spursidol

Spursidol

Fifa to introduce rules to stop clubs like Chelsea loaning 40 players

Looking possible that FIFA might deliver on its aim to limit the number of players a club might loan out - the limit being floated is 6 over age 21 players.

Main losers would be clubs like Chelsea who currently have something like 30 players over the age of 21 being loaned out. Possible reform to be phased in over 2 years (unfortunately, otherwise Chelsea would have to have a 'fire sale' of the loanees)

Decision date possible end of October
 
Spursidol said:
Fifa to introduce rules to stop clubs like Chelsea loaning 40 players

Looking possible that FIFA might deliver on its aim to limit the number of players a club might loan out - the limit being floated is 6 over age 21 players.

Main losers would be clubs like Chelsea who currently have something like 30 players over the age of 21 being loaned out. Possible reform to be phased in over 2 years (unfortunately, otherwise Chelsea would have to have a 'fire sale' of the loanees)

Decision date possible end of October
Click to expand...

Its a start so should be welcomed, but probably needs to go further by reducing the age to players over 18 or 19 rather than age 21.

Just to put it into context Chelsea have a total of some 40 players loaned out of whom about 30 are over 21, the rest younger, so FIFA's proposed regulation would deal with the 30 over 21's but not the 10 u21's.
 
I am glad but it does seem to only be an issue once English clubs have done it the Italians and Portuguese had been loaning scores for ages.

Also need to ban buyback clauses which are loans in all but name
 
r-u-s-x said:
I am glad but it does seem to only be an issue once English clubs have done it the Italians and Portuguese had been loaning scores for ages.

Also need to ban buyback clauses which are loans in all but name
Click to expand...

I would ban loans (and buybacks) altogether - I wouldn't even allow a small number of loans. That will force clubs to move players on when they are surplus to requirements, and encourage them to manage their squads appropriately.

I would go even further and allow all players not included in their clubs' main league competition squad list (e.g. the 25-man Premier League squad list) to be allowed to trigger free agency. Basically, players should be a use them or lose them proposition.

All this will have the added benefit of reducing transfer fees for all but the top top players. Clubs won't be willing to spend a lot of money on players who might leave on a free after one season.
 
Always said and thought any loans should NOT be allowed to the same league that the team loaning them out plays in. The players can have an effect on results that directly benefit the loaner club. If they become a 1st 11 player in the Club who has them on loan, then for two games a season against the parent Club, they cant play, so weakening that team, so by benefiting the parent club.
 
simfin said:
Always said and thought any loans should NOT be allowed to the same league that the team loaning them out plays in. The players can have an effect on results that directly benefit the loaner club. If they become a 1st 11 player in the Club who has them on loan, then for two games a season against the parent Club, they cant play, so weakening that team, so by benefiting the parent club.
Click to expand...

I think that is just because of FA / Premier League rules though. UEFA competitions allow players to face their parent clubs.

Just banning the practice of loaning players is for me the best way to address any of the issues. Football doesn't need loans. I think the only position where loans should be allowed is for goalkeepers. All other outfield positions can be filled by non-specialists in those positions.
 
Spursidol said:
Fifa to introduce rules to stop clubs like Chelsea loaning 40 players

Looking possible that FIFA might deliver on its aim to limit the number of players a club might loan out - the limit being floated is 6 over age 21 players.

Main losers would be clubs like Chelsea who currently have something like 30 players over the age of 21 being loaned out. Possible reform to be phased in over 2 years (unfortunately, otherwise Chelsea would have to have a 'fire sale' of the loanees)

Decision date possible end of October
Click to expand...
I'm not in favour of FIFA, or their ill conceived market intervention
 
Maynard said:
I would ban loans (and buybacks) altogether - I wouldn't even allow a small number of loans. That will force clubs to move players on when they are surplus to requirements, and encourage them to manage their squads appropriately.

I would go even further and allow all players not included in their clubs' main league competition squad list (e.g. the 25-man Premier League squad list) to be allowed to trigger free agency. Basically, players should be a use them or lose them proposition.

All this will have the added benefit of reducing transfer fees for all but the top top players. Clubs won't be willing to spend a lot of money on players who might leave on a free after one season.
Click to expand...
I would allow a certain number of players under, for example the age of 21, to be loaned out so they can gain experience. Over 21, no loans allowed
 
stevee said:
I would allow a certain number of players under, for example the age of 21, to be loaned out so they can gain experience. Over 21, no loans allowed
Click to expand...

I get the point of allowing under 21s to be loaned out to develop. However, if they are good enough, they will get game time at a club that is more financially invested in their success. Dele Alli didn't need to be loaned out to develop, and neither did Sterling (for example).

The current system encourages clubs to raid smaller clubs for their youth players and stockpile them and loan them out again just to get the one player in 10 who turns out OK. And the "big clubs" are now actually making money off the smaller clubs because they hoover up the decent talent, loan them out, and then sell them for big bucks when they decide that are not good enough for their own teams. It should be the other way round, bigger teams buying up the proven players from the smaller teams.

We have gotten to the point where a lot of the smaller clubs are shutting their academies because of loans, and this is killing football development. The loan system is part of the problem - smaller teams now don't see academies as worthwhile and survive on loans.
 
Good.
Though we'll just see big clubs forming consortium of clubs like Man city\NYC\Girona\Australian club I can’t be bothered to look up, and selling them in faux sales.
 
Last edited:
Maynard said:
I get the point of allowing under 21s to be loaned out to develop. However, if they are good enough, they will get game time at a club that is more financially invested in their success. Dele Alli didn't need to be loaned out to develop, and neither did Sterling (for example).

The current system encourages clubs to raid smaller clubs for their youth players and stockpile them and loan them out again just to get the one player in 10 who turns out OK. And the "big clubs" are now actually making money off the smaller clubs because they hoover up the decent talent, loan them out, and then sell them for big bucks when they decide that are not good enough for their own teams. It should be the other way round, bigger teams buying up the proven players from the smaller teams.

We have gotten to the point where a lot of the smaller clubs are shutting their academies because of loans, and this is killing football development. The loan system is part of the problem - smaller teams now don't see academies as worthwhile and survive on loans.
Click to expand...
I do get your point, but would Dele have been given as many first team apperances at such a young age if he were at Spurs from the start ? Doubtful
Also the number of different loans Kane had has helped him hugely and even then he only really got his chance because of a change in manager and because there was a big lazy cunt playing who eventually got dropped ,(Adebayor)
 
stevee said:
I do get your point, but would Dele have been given as many first team apperances at such a young age if he were at Spurs from the start ? Doubtful
Also the number of different loans Kane had has helped him hugely and even then he only really got his chance because of a change in manager and because there was a big lazy cunt playing who eventually got dropped ,(Adebayor)
Click to expand...

I am less bothered with loans at younger ages, provided they are still limited in number. And yes, there are players who have benefitted hugely from loans, Harry Kane being a particular case in point. However, he is also a very rare occurrence these days. Most players sent out on loan end up leaving their clubs after years of being loaned off again and again.

But I think it would be easier all round if loans were just abolished.
 
SausageVince said:
Players are assets. Why should wealthy clubs (companies) be prevented from using their wealth to accumulate and develop assets in their industry?
Click to expand...
Because they only do it to stifle other clubs. If they wanted to, they could invest elsewhere. As it is, it helps maintain the disparity between clubs, making the top leagues less competetive and therefore more boring. I live in Germany and have not once in 9 years been tempted to start watching the Bundesliga.
 
THFC-Israel said:
Well it’s not that different to antitrust law. When a monopoly is too strong it hurts the market overall
Click to expand...
Do you think any club has a monopoly? Chelsea aren't even dominant in the market.
I mean, I agree that continued player acquisition might lead to a monopoly, but there are mechanisms in place to break that up.
 
Gareth said:
Because they only do it to stifle other clubs. If they wanted to, they could invest elsewhere. As it is, it helps maintain the disparity between clubs, making the top leagues less competetive and therefore more boring. I live in Germany and have not once in 9 years been tempted to start watching the Bundesliga.
Click to expand...
Your post is meaningless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom