Martin Samuel's loan market articles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joao Moutinho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This latest edict by UEFA will have interesting ramifications for future loan deals. Surely we could raise the Barry issue citing Courtois as an example. But the Premier League is a cosy setup for all concerned so I doubt if we would attempt to upset City.
 
This latest edict by UEFA will have interesting ramifications for future loan deals. Surely we could raise the Barry issue citing Courtois as an example. But the Premier League is a cosy setup for all concerned so I doubt if we would attempt to upset City.
unfortunately it's a different competition, just like the Domestic Cups. Premiership Rules ban it, Champions League Rules don't. It's already happened at least once this season with Celtic's Bangura playing against them for Elfsborg.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/...ure-against-celtic-for-loan-club-if-elfsborg/
 
In all seriousness, though....would we want to play a loanee against his parent club?

I think it would be a difficult position to put a lid in.
 
If Arsehole Whinger is so against the loan system then I'm sure we'll see him not spending yet another window trying to get a top striker in on loan or sending out those who he deems not good enough yet for the Arsenal first team to get experience.
I'm sure he was also gutted when he sent Wilshire, the country's top up and coming talent at the time, out on loan.
 
Samuel has a point about the loan system as it currently stands. It allows the super rich clubs to stockpile young players and let them get experience while on loan.
To a lesser degree we are doing the same with our young players by loaning them to lower league clubs.

Where I think Samuels article fails is that although he points out the failings of the system ,he doesn't suggest a better way.
Reading his replies to the reactions to his article it seems to me that he thinks clubs having a "B" team or club would be better than the present situation...but that would only make it worse as the super rich clubs would now have a vehicle for developing their super expensive young talents within their own club structure and would further stretch the divide betwwen the haves and the have-nots.

The best argument in favour of the loan system is that it has allowed a club with modest means(Everton) to compete at the top table with the super rich teams.
Surely it must be good for the league to have more competition within the league.
If Liverpool were anybody else other than Liverpool I would want them to win the title as it spreads the number of clubs at the top table.
Even Man City have added something because it adds an other horse to the race.
 
Samuel has a point about the loan system as it currently stands. It allows the super rich clubs to stockpile young players and let them get experience while on loan.
To a lesser degree we are doing the same with our young players by loaning them to lower league clubs.

Where I think Samuels article fails is that although he points out the failings of the system ,he doesn't suggest a better way.
Reading his replies to the reactions to his article it seems to me that he thinks clubs having a "B" team or club would be better than the present situation...but that would only make it worse as the super rich clubs would now have a vehicle for developing their super expensive young talents within their own club structure and would further stretch the divide betwwen the haves and the have-nots.

The best argument in favour of the loan system is that it has allowed a club with modest means(Everton) to compete at the top table with the super rich teams.
Surely it must be good for the league to have more competition within the league.
If Liverpool were anybody else other than Liverpool I would want them to win the title as it spreads the number of clubs at the top table.
Even Man City have added something because it adds an other horse to the race.
I think the issue that Samuels raises and I think it's fair is that the players being loaned to us aren't young players lent to us to 'develop their game'. Both Barry and Lukaku are highly coveted players who would start for any number of top clubs. Even Gerard has proved himself at European level. So he's right that it's a problem it's just that he misses the point (or at least ignores it) that it's the fact that Chelsea are allowed to have so many players on their books that is the cause of the issue.

If they weren't, I would suggest we would be first in line to get players like Lukaku and Barry anyway, which is why I would be happy with a clampdown.
 
Last edited:
DM is just using another excuse to promote their anti-immigrant (better say anti-Easteuro cum Muslim) stance.

FFP is there for only one reason: There was (and still is a time) which clubs are propped up by unsustainable investments, and when it dried up the club will find HMRC or its equivalent immediately knocking on their door. FFP is designed to prevent that, and only that. Everything else is just a side effect.

Instead, the DM article spinned that into the exact opposite. True, the FFP system is pretty quickly lambasted as being too protective to the big boys, meaning the gap between the have and have nots has widen up. But FFP has never been supposed to be preventing clubs from going up, if they can somehow find a way to utilize their resources more efficiently. Using the loan system is exactly this: with a lower initial outlay, clubs has access to better players, so they can improve while keeping within their own financial means.

We often hear fans dislike larger clubs hoarding players, and loaning is at the very least a useful method to give players more playing time and exposure to lessen its effect, while the risk of the player not cutting it out still remains at the club holding his registration.

If there is anything related to FFP, loans are actually promoting FFP. And what a pity that the system is underused: I would rather propose a club can loan in/out as many as they want, provided that every player registered at any club should be able to play (in the 25-player list, or List B) for a club or another (i.e. loaned out) at the end of every transfer window, or he should be able go to the CAS to annull his contract with the statutory notifying period/clause (basically, a form of modified Webster ruling which, if a player is not able to play between 2 windows he can terminate his contract for a month or so notice, like every rank and column worker in every other industry).

Instead, the whole article is just a piece of anti-immigrant spin. FFP is analogous to British Nationality laws - to that writer British Nationality should only be offered to those who can afford or already had it in the first place. To him there should be laws to forbade people from buying, or like what he see loaning is "cheats" his way onto the British Isles.

p.s. Chelsea's clause on Courtois should be struck down, in addition Chelsea should be fined the maximum "illegal revenue" from the loan, which can be computed from counting how many matches these 2 clubs could potentially meet in a competitive match. The reason? Anti-trust.
 
Isn't Samuels also conveniently ignoring the fact that there are pretty hefty loan fees attached these days, isnt he kind of suggesting that we are getting these players 'free' in some way which in his eyes makes it unfair?
 
In all seriousness, though....would we want to play a loanee against his parent club?

I think it would be a difficult position to put a lid in.

If you look at it in Italy its basically non-issue. Its not uncommon to see a first team made up of loanees and co-owned players.

Players should be professional, and they should give 100% to the club he's registered and eligible to play for at the moment. The club which holds his "registration" should be of second thought.
 
Samuel has a point about the loan system as it currently stands. It allows the super rich clubs to stockpile young players and let them get experience while on loan.
To a lesser degree we are doing the same with our young players by loaning them to lower league clubs.

Where I think Samuels article fails is that although he points out the failings of the system ,he doesn't suggest a better way.
Reading his replies to the reactions to his article it seems to me that he thinks clubs having a "B" team or club would be better than the present situation...but that would only make it worse as the super rich clubs would now have a vehicle for developing their super expensive young talents within their own club structure and would further stretch the divide betwwen the haves and the have-nots.

The best argument in favour of the loan system is that it has allowed a club with modest means(Everton) to compete at the top table with the super rich teams.
Surely it must be good for the league to have more competition within the league.
If Liverpool were anybody else other than Liverpool I would want them to win the title as it spreads the number of clubs at the top table.
Even Man City have added something because it adds an other horse to the race.
The issue with the article is that he doesn't really criticise the big clubs for stockpiling talent that leads to the situation of them wanting to loan out talented players to other clubs. He chooses to criticise the fact that it has allowed Everton to outperform rivals to a degree he feels they would not have done without those loans. If we were sitting in 8th place no one would be mentioning it.

He makes a spurious link to FFP rules, saying that had we signed all the players we would likely have fallen foul of these rules. Patently ridiculous as the only way we could have bought them would be through proper financing as we don't have a billionaire in charge - not the case at the clubs who have loaned out the players!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top