Are loan deals unfair.

Samich

i.e Adebayor at Spurs, he's a city player really, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility the loaned player might want his own club to do well, thus not playing well against teams who are challenging his own club. Just using Adebayor as an example.

Also these 2 month loans etc, like Henry. Henry will play against some teams and not against others. Why should for example Villa have to play against Henry yet Man Utd didn't.

What do you think?

Eathrin

If a player on loan doesn't perform to protect his own team then he is damaging his own credentials as a player. Footballers also want to play football so underperforming won't get them playing weekly. The club loaning the player also have no obligation to play a player sabotaging their club!

Villa may have to play against Henry, but Arsenal may have to play against Keane(if that story was true?). Besides the transfer market isn't exactly universally fair, look at the buying power of Man City, clubs like Wigan aren't expected to compete.

cson

City wouldn't have loaned Adebayor to Spurs had they any inclination as to how well Spurs were going to do this season imo.

Anyway, no they aren't.

Brendan97

Samich wrote: »

i.e Adebayor at Spurs, he's a city player really, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility the loaned player might want his own club to do well, thus not playing well against teams who are challenging his own club. Just using Adebayor as an example.

Also these 2 month loans etc, like Henry. Henry will play against some teams and not against others. Why should for example Villa have to play against Henry yet Man Utd didn't.

What do you think?

That is a risk the clubs are aware of and know they run the risk but do the loan anyway its their own choice.

Because a loan is, well a loan really, for those 2, 6 or whatever amount of months he is at the club for, he is a player (just like any of the others at the club) of that team and therefore can play the games for the team that he is a player for (just like any of the others at the club) and when the loan runs out and he is no longer a player for that team. (he is contracted to his other club but during the loan he is contracted to the team that loans him whether they pay his wages or not)

smokedeels

Samich wrote: »

i.e Adebayor at Spurs, he's a city player really, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility the loaned player might want his own club to do well, thus not playing well against teams who are challenging his own club. Just using Adebayor as an example.

The incentive of a loan deal is for the player to prove himself. I can't imagine a player performing poorly against his parent clubs rivals. See Welbeck vs Chelsea last season.

Samich wrote: »

Also these 2 month loans etc, like Henry. Henry will play against some teams and not against others. Why should for example Villa have to play against Henry yet Man Utd didn't.

How does this differ from normal signings?

Samich

^^ Nothing.

What's unfair I think is, Arsenal play Fulham without Henry.

Next game they play with Henry.

It's not fair for the next team to play against Henry, giving the first team an advantage. I think anyways.

smokedeels

Samich wrote: »

^^ Nothing.

What's unfair I think is, Arsenal play Fulham without Henry.

Next game they play with Henry.

It's not fair for the next team to play against Henry, giving the first team an advantage. I think anyways.

Blackburn played against a United team without Rooney, is that fair on Man City?

I don't get your point at all tbh

Samich

smokedeels wrote: »

Blackburn played against a United team without Rooney, is that fair on Man City?

I don't get your point at all tbh

That's just injury though.

Technically City could loan in the best 11 players in the world for one match.

smokedeels

Samich wrote: »

smokedeels wrote: »

Blackburn played against a United team without Rooney, is that fair on Man City?

I don't get your point at all tbh

That's just injury though.

Technically City could loan in the best 11 players in the world for one match.

You've lost me

G.K.

You can only play 5 loan players in a game.

Jax Teller

Samich wrote: »

That's just injury though.

Technically City could loan in the best 11 players in the world for one match.

No they couldn't they would have to be registered and then they wouldn't be able to register their own players .

Soups123

Loan deals do have an element of unfairness, let's say Spurs loan 2 forwards from City, both players are eligible for all games except those against City, that gives City an unfair advantage over other teams that have to play spurs.

everdead.ie

Soups123 wrote: »

Loan deals do have an element of unfairness, let's say Spurs loan 2 forwards from City, both players are eligible for all games except those against City, that gives City an unfair advantage over other teams that have to play spurs.

You can only loan one player from another PL club

ImpossibleDuck

smokedeels wrote: »

You've lost me

Samich wrote: »

That's just injury though.

Technically City could loan in the best 11 players in the world for one match.

Ehhhhh no. There's a limit!

Soups123

everdead.ie wrote: »

Soups123 wrote: »

Loan deals do have an element of unfairness, let's say Spurs loan 2 forwards from City, both players are eligible for all games except those against City, that gives City an unfair advantage over other teams that have to play spurs.

You can only loan one player from another PL club

Okay Same example with one player, it's still a disadvantage to all other teams that have to play spurs with Ade when against City he is not eligible.

A loan player should be available to play all teams or not allowed be loaned in the division at all.

If City loan out 3 players to 3 Prem teams then that's potentially 6 games

Personally I don't think it's the most significant impact on a season but there is a disadvantage there

Inquitus

Soups123 wrote: »

Loan deals do have an element of unfairness, let's say Spurs loan 2 forwards from City, both players are eligible for all games except those against City, that gives City an unfair advantage over other teams that have to play spurs.

Its about conflict of interest, not Man City or whoevers loans the players desire to not have to face the player on loan. And its sensible.

Soups123

Inquitus wrote: »

Soups123 wrote: »

Loan deals do have an element of unfairness, let's say Spurs loan 2 forwards from City, both players are eligible for all games except those against City, that gives City an unfair advantage over other teams that have to play spurs.

Its about conflict of interest, not Man City or whoevers loans the players desire to not have to face the player on loan. And its sensible.

Agree it is sensible but it's also an advantage over other teams

batistuta9

Soups123 wrote: »

Loan deals do have an element of unfairness, let's say Spurs loan 2 forwards from City, both players are eligible for all games except those against City, that gives City an unfair advantage over other teams that have to play spurs.

someone said you can't loan 2 players to the same club but with one player it's the same and what you've said is what a lot of people think(football writers especially) for example city are gaining an advantage from adebayor not playing against them and loan deals for should be for young players only

PARKHEAD67

Samich wrote: »

i.e Adebayor at Spurs, he's a city player really, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility the loaned player might want his own club to do well, thus not playing well against teams who are challenging his own club. Just using Adebayor as an example.

Also these 2 month loans etc, like Henry. Henry will play against some teams and not against others. Why should for example Villa have to play against Henry yet Man Utd didn't.

What do you think?

I think theyre unfair , yes. The example you have given re Henry proves why.

racso1975

Players are loaned for 2 reasons.

1. young and need experience.

2. Cant make their own team.

I think the examples given above are fairly poor. If i was a manager i'd rather face Henry then RVP.

Adebayor wont play for city again and it is unrealistic to think he'll underperform when he can use the chance to showcase himself.

Soups123

racso1975 wrote: »

Players are loaned for 2 reasons.

1. young and need experience.

2. Cant make their own team.

I think the examples given above are fairly poor. If i was a manager i'd rather face Henry then RVP.

Adebayor wont play for city again and it is unrealistic to think he'll underperform when he can use the chance to showcase himself.

Ignore underperforming he is not eligible against City but can face united that gives City unfair advantage!

The option of loan was created mainly for youngsters, not for the caliber of player like Ade.

Players above an agreed youth age should not be allowed to loan in the same league

gnfnrhead

I can't believe people are actually arguing over this.

What about teams who aren't sure on a player and so take him on loan instead of potentially wasting their money? Should they not be allowed try before they buy just cause the player is 25 instead of 17?

What about teams who don't have the funds to sign certain players permanently and thus need loans in order to remain competitive? Should they be told "tough luck, back to the Championship you go!"?

What about teams who are having an injury crisis and need to sign someone for a few months? Tough luck?

What about players who aren't getting a game and thus are getting very little interest for a transfer? A loan deal can save a players career if he makes the most of it.

There is absolutely nothing unfair with loans because everyone can do them. I don't see any problem whatsoever with that.

Soups123

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I can't believe people are actually arguing over this.

What about teams who aren't sure on a player and so take him on loan instead of potentially wasting their money? Should they not be allowed try before they buy just cause the player is 25 instead of 17?

What about teams who don't have the funds to sign certain players permanently and thus need loans in order to remain competitive? Should they be told "tough luck, back to the Championship you go!"?

What about teams who are having an injury crisis and need to sign someone for a few months? Tough luck?

What about players who aren't getting a game and thus are getting very little interest for a transfer? A loan deal can save a players career if he makes the most of it.

There is absolutely nothing unfair with loans because everyone can do them. I don't see any problem whatsoever with that.

The question was are loan deals unfair? I don't have a problem with them but it creates an advantage to the team that loans out a player like Ade, as he is eligible to face all clubs bar City, you have to see the advantage to city in that??

I understand why loans happen and they should be allowed for the reasons you state but if you take a club like City who loan lets say Bellamy to Pool, Ade to Spurs & Cruz to Everton if all 3 are banging in goals City don't have to face that threat and all others do that is unfair.

My point only relates to loans from one team in a division to another, Loan deals like Henry, Donavan etc are different as they are eligible to face all.

As I said in an earlier post though I don't think it's a deciding factor in a season and loans should continue to be allowed

amacachi

Samich wrote: »

^^ Nothing.

What's unfair I think is, Arsenal play Fulham without Henry.

Next game they play with Henry.

It's not fair for the next team to play against Henry, giving the first team an advantage. I think anyways.

So no transfers whatsoever during the season?

LuckyLloyd

amacachi wrote: »

So no transfers whatsoever during the season?

Was going to post the same question! I wonder if the OP had a problem with Cleverly being sent to Wigan for a season to develop himself? Or Welbeck to Sunderland, etc, etc?

~Rebel~

On this line of reasoning, giving Suarez a ban is unfair on the 34 league games he got to face, giving the 4 teams he misses a game against an advantage.

A loan deal is a temporary transfer, with the players registration being given temporarily to a team rather than sold. Looking at it that way, its much the same as the Keane Spurs/Liverpool/Spurs transfer, except with no money changing hands as it suits both parties not to. Obviously extra rules have been put in place to regulate this, and to be fair I think they have done.

They're no more unfair than the way its unfair that ManU can attract and pay for bigger players than, say, Blackburn. If anything, it's a method of somewhat evening out the playing field.

jordainius

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

I think theyre unfair , yes. The example you have given re Henry proves why.

No it doesn't!! If that is a fair analogy to make then it would be fair to argue that the January transfer window is unfair and that transfers should only be allowed in the summer, as apparently it would be unfair for a club to have a player available from January onwards that they didn't have available before.

Optimalprimerib

Loaning benefits both parties. Adeboyeur is proving successful at spurs, benefitting spurs, but also keeping the player sharp for city if they need him next year or if they decide to sell him.

Wellbeck and sturridge may not ever play for Chelsea or united if they did not gain experience at Sunderland and Bolton.

In the above cases,
1. None of the players would want a permanent transfer to the teams they were loaned to.
2. The teams would not be able to afford them anyway.

The unfairness to other clubs is like saying messi is banned because he is too good.

citytillidie

Soups123 wrote: »

The question was are loan deals unfair? I don't have a problem with them but it creates an advantage to the team that loans out a player like Ade, as he is eligible to face all clubs bar City, you have to see the advantage to city in that??

I understand why loans happen and they should be allowed for the reasons you state but if you take a club like City who loan lets say Bellamy to Pool, Ade to Spurs & Cruz to Everton if all 3 are banging in goals City don't have to face that threat and all others do that is unfair.

My point only relates to loans from one team in a division to another, Loan deals like Henry, Donavan etc are different as they are eligible to face all.

As I said in an earlier post though I don't think it's a deciding factor in a season and loans should continue to be allowed

That one is not a loan

Soups123

I didnt know that but either is Cruz to Everton. Just an example of what could happen.

Loans should happen and are essential to development I just dont think that the rule set up expected a situation where you could have the potential of any one team loaning out that amount of quality to other Premier league teams, which is realistically something that can currently happen with City.

I think though they will tidy up there fringe player set up this year to resemble more like the other top teams.

smackbunnybaby

I think loaning players is unfair.

It defeats the purpose of youth teams and b-teams.

If a team are badly hit by injuries, tough sh1t. Promote a young fella to gain experience. You own the young fella, use him, that's why you have him.

If a club sign too many players (hoarding) and fellas aren't getting a run, deal with it with squad rotation.

This pattern of signing players on loan during their leagues off-season is ridiculous!

~Rebel~

smackbunnybaby wrote: »

It defeats the purpose of youth teams and b-teams.

This is a big part of why it's done to be honest. The reserve league is a bit of a joke and they dont play half enough games. When they do, it's not nearly competitive enough. The gap between premiership football and reserve games is like night and day. Championship football experience is far more valuable than reserve league football. Loaning is the best way for those young players to develop as the step from reserve to Prem is just huge.

This is one of the things Rafa was pushing for, to actually allow the clubs to have a genuine B team who can compete in proper competitive leagues (like in Spain) rather than the semi competitive reserve league.

The new underage european competition is a step in the right direction, but that still only caters for under 18's. There's a step still missing to really get to blood 18 - 22 year olds.

Bounty Hunter

its not like only certain teams are allowed to make loan deals though, the unfair thing is the moneyball aspect of it all because not every team can afford to get an Henry in for 2months. Otherwise the only aspect that can be deemed unfair is for the very best squad in the league already because they are the only side (whoever you deem them to be) whos cast offs should be of the standard to have an unfair influence on the league i.e such a good squad you can afford to let them go yet they are so good no opponent will want to face them whilst they wont have to.

Sean7

I remember in 2004 when Fernando Morientes, on loan at Monaco from Real Madrid, scored against Madrid in the Champions League. He scored in both legs and Monaco went through and all the way to the final. A footballer on loan from a 'bigger' club wants to prove himself and show he shouldn't have been let out on loan in the first place, he should be in the team. A true competitor wants to win all the time.

EDIT: I believe Madrid were even paying a substantial amount of his wages during the loan period too, must have been sickened.

aidan24326

Sean7 wrote: »

I remember in 2004 when Fernando Morientes, on loan at Monaco from Real Madrid, scored against Madrid in the Champions League. He scored in both legs and Monaco went through and all the way to the final. A footballer on loan from a 'bigger' club wants to prove himself and show he shouldn't have been let out on loan in the first place, he should be in the team. A true competitor wants to win all the time.

EDIT: I believe Madrid were even paying a substantial amount of his wages during the loan period too, must have been sickened.

Normally it's a part of the loan agreement that the player being loaned can't play against his own club. If Real didn't do that they were very foolish. Probably they didn't think they'd have to play Monaco at any stage. I bet they learned from their mistake though.

v3ttel

Samich wrote: »

Why should for example Villa have to play against Henry yet Man Utd didn't.

Are injuries fair? They can lead to the same outcome.

Pepe LeFrits

Broadly speaking loans benefit the big clubs the most, so yeah I'd say they're unfair.

If there were no loans, smaller clubs would be able to hold onto their talented young players more often because they'd be able to offer them first team football earlier. Big clubs can already offer youngsters more money, potentially better facilities and coaching, and loans allow them to also offer first team football too, without really having to take the risks associated with blooding young players (ie lost points).

Loaning adult players doesn't bother me quite so much because it's often for different reasons, although again perhaps if teams weren't allowed loan out their wantaways, certain teams might become a bit more cautious in the market... and players might not be so quick to move to bigger clubs' benches.

Beefy78

Sean7 wrote: »

I remember in 2004 when Fernando Morientes, on loan at Monaco from Real Madrid, scored against Madrid in the Champions League. He scored in both legs and Monaco went through and all the way to the final. A footballer on loan from a 'bigger' club wants to prove himself and show he shouldn't have been let out on loan in the first place, he should be in the team. A true competitor wants to win all the time.

EDIT: I believe Madrid were even paying a substantial amount of his wages during the loan period too, must have been sickened.

It happened in the Premier League as well, with Lua-Lua scoring for Portsmouth against Bobby Robson's Newcastle. It was the outrage that that goal caused which prompted the Premier League to ban loaned players from playing against their parent club.

Samich

Suarez is missing due to his own fault.

If a reason for a loan is to keep a player sharp, why not send him to a different league?

For cleverly and welbeck I'd agree, send them to a different league.