Martin Samuel's loan market articles

Status
Not open for further replies.
article-2598349-1CE21CA900000578-344_634x407.jpg


roflwenger

Gollum: No bwown-shoed Hobbitis will takes my preshhious Champions League spot.
 
We are just bridging a gap between stable and the obscenely wealthy. Not sure what else we are supposed to do apart from spend ourselves into bankruptcy to compete in a league where there's a huge financial vacuum at the top. Lets not address that problem though, lets attack a club performing well despite the enormous difference in resources.
 
The whole premise of that article is wrong anyway.

We'd pay £20m to have Lukaku for perhaps 5 seasons. We're paying probably three or four to have him for one.
 

Mourinho got it spot in the other day actually when he illustrated that we had used the loan system the proper way by featuring the players prominently, didnt arsenal try loan bar, did loan kallstrim and tried to loan morrata from real?
 
We are just bridging a gap between stable and the obscenely wealthy. Not sure what else we are supposed to do apart from spend ourselves into bankruptcy to compete in a league where there's a huge financial vacuum at the top. Lets not address that problem though, lets attack a club performing well despite the enormous difference in resources.

He did mate
 
Ill be honest, i stopped reading the article when he said that 33yr old, soon to be free transfer Gareth Barry would command a £6m fee in the Summer.
 
Shame this fat weapon has caused a debate.

That is all this newspaper does, tell lies and spite those it doesn't like.

Back in 2005 the Daily Mail ran an article about how shocking it was that we wouldn't step aside to allow Liverpool to defend the CL that they had earned the right to. I wrote numerous emails asking why:

We should forfit a place when no such rule had been put in place. Therefor top 4 or out.

Why we should 'step aside' for a club that had, through no fault of our own, prevented the finest side Everton had ever produced from competing, and more than likely winning the European Cup.

Absolutley disgusting rag.

And now they have the cheek to question our loan deals when half the Premier League has similar?
Barry would not have played at City, Lukaku would have been on the fringes and Deulofeu would have been in the Barca reserves (He has hardly featured much anyway).

Hopefully we will complete the signings of Lukaku and Barry, and bring in 3-4 more amazing loans and win the thing next year, by then MS will probably have burst in anger like Mr Creosote in Monty Python.
 
from football 365:

Loan WolfMartin Samuel this morning uses the majority of his Daily Mail column to rail against a loan system that has allowed Everton to bring Romelu Lukaku, Gareth Barry and Gerard Deulofeu, all under the headline 'Everton fairytale has us hooked - shame it's built on £50m loan sham'.

Firstly, let's just get this out of the way - Samuel has compared Everton's loans to the welfare state and open-door immigration, something Mediawatch thinks is such a surefire way to get Mail readers onside that we're surprised it isn't compulsory in all articles.

'What would Lukaku cost Everton? Let's say upwards of £25m,' Samuel begins.

'Deulofeu is a rising star in the Barcelona academy who has represented Spain at every level from Under 16 through Under 21, and was voted the Golden Player at the UEFA Under 19 European Championship. He wouldn't come cheap.

'Then there is Barry, a squad player at Manchester City and now 33, but even so he might have commanded £6m as a permanent transfer in the summer. Total: somewhere north of £50m, maybe as much as £60m.'

Well yes, they might have cost that in permanent transfers, but that rather ignores the entire premise of the loan system, namely that such players are only at your club for one season before returning. And so they don't cost that much, which rather undermines the phrase '£50million sham'.

There is certainly an argument to be had regarding the fairness of the current loan rules in terms of avoiding FFP measures, but we can't help feeling that Samuel's argument rather gets lost in the necessity to hoover up the clicks, hence making it a fairly personal attack on Everton.

There is no mention of Sunderland's five loans this season. Or Fulham's five. Or West Ham's four. Or Hull's three. Or Stoke's three. Or Aston Villa's two. Or Newcastle's two. We could go on. Presumably Samuel's rule is that loans are fine as long as those players don't turn out to be any good.

Mediawatch doesn't remember West Brom's climb to eighth last season being labelled as a sham with Lukaku at their club, nor too United's two Premier League titles achieved when Carlos Tevez was on his two-year loan from West Ham or Christophe Dugarry and Jurgen Klinsmann helping Birmingham and Spurs survive relegation struggles.

The loan rule could well be altered, although we don't actually see any issue when the rules are the same for all, but to turn that into an undermining of Everton's achievements this season seems pretty cheap.
 

Football365 have done a good tear-apart in their Mediawatch column today.

www.football365.com/mediawatch/9257068/Mediawatch

Loan Wolf
Martin Samuel uses the majority of his Daily Mail column on Wednesday to rail against a loan system that has allowed Everton to bring Romelu Lukaku, Gareth Barry and Gerard Deulofeu, under the headline 'Everton fairytale has us hooked - shame it's built on £50m loan sham'.

To begin with, Samuel compares Everton's loans to the welfare state and open-door immigration, something Mediawatch thinks is such a surefire way to get Mail readers onside that we're surprised it isn't compulsory in all articles.

'What would Lukaku cost Everton? Let's say upwards of £25m,' writes Samuel.

'Deulofeu is a rising star in the Barcelona academy who has represented Spain at every level from Under 16 through Under 21, and was voted the Golden Player at the UEFA Under 19 European Championship. He wouldn't come cheap.

'Then there is Barry, a squad player at Manchester City and now 33, but even so he might have commanded £6m as a permanent transfer in the summer. Total: somewhere north of £50m, maybe as much as £60m.'

There is certainly an argument to be had regarding the fairness of the current loan rules in terms of avoiding FFP measures, but we can't help feeling that Samuel's view rather gets lost in the necessity to hoover up the clicks, hence making it a fairly personal attack on Everton.

There is no mention of Sunderland's five loans this season. Or Fulham's five. Or West Ham's four. Or Hull's three. Or Stoke's three. Or Aston Villa's two. Or Newcastle's two. We could go on. Presumably Samuel's rule is that loans are fine as long as those players don't turn out to be any good.

Mediawatch doesn't remember West Brom's climb to eighth last season being labelled as a sham with Lukaku at their club, nor United's two Premier League titles achieved when Carlos Tevez was on his two-year loan from West Ham, or Christophe Dugarry and Jurgen Klinsmann helping Birmingham and Spurs survive relegation struggles.

The loan rule could well be altered, although we don't actually see any issue when the rules are the same for all, but to turn that into an undermining of Everton's achievements this season seems pretty cheap.
 
Wow this is so bitter. Let's draft a Writ to the court, forcing the FA to change the structure of the Premier League, which would contain only the Sky6 teams. All other teams would play in the Championship because they are skint.

This will make this moron, Samual happy as ever.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top