Everton

[kev776]

Clubs should be limited to how many they can send out on loan. Chelsea just want as many as possible to go out on loan and influence results against their rivals and to prevent them from signing for those rivals.

[Kenneth]

Clubs should not be allowed to loan players to any clubs in the same division, simple as that. With the distance between the top few teams and the rest, the teams that stay up or compete for the minor European places are the ones who have won the favour of the clubs at the top. This significantly impacts the sporting integrity of the league. If the big clubs weren't effectively in charge I doubt it would be allowed, as they are I can't see anything really being done about it.

[Kenneth]

Not to mention if they had the cash reserves and market appeal of Arsenal they could have just bought the players.

Always liked Wenger as a manager but he seems to be getting gradually more bitter.

He's annoyed because Everton have found a way to compete with them despite their disadvantages.

Wenger is absolutely right on this one, as is Samuel once the Mail'isms are removed.

[dom9]

I stopped reading that article half way through. Usual drivel from the author.

What is wrong with borrowing another player for a fee? Think about it. It's not actually borrowing is it. Loan fees are usually paid, and you get the player for a set period. What will happen to these players at the end of the season? They will go back to their clubs and either stay there, or be loaned again, or they will be sold permanently, unless they are at the end of their contract.

Samuel speaks sloblocks as usual.

[Kenneth]

Nonsense. It's not wrong to borrow a player for a fee, it is wrong for Jose Mourinho and Manuel Pellegrini to have such an influence over which other teams will be allowed to have a squad boost for a year.

[dom9]

Nonsense. It's not wrong to borrow a player for a fee, it is wrong for Jose Mourinho and Manuel Pellegrini to have such an influence over which other teams will be allowed to have a squad boost for a year.

Only as far as they determine who to sell players to permanently also.

[Liverpool]

mad that their only 8 points behind us if they win their game in hand. Good job they had that horrendous Christmas/Feb period when they had a run of easy games

[PTP]

the problem is - chelsea and city can pretty much buy anyone they want with no real issues and do what the **** they want with the player.

Salah - chelsea didn't want him, didn't need him, they just didn't want us or spurs to get him. so they sign - this time next year he'll be on loan at Norwich

[Roboklopp]

FFP should fix that **** in theory.

[Pablo]

Nonsense. It's not wrong to borrow a player for a fee, it is wrong for Jose Mourinho and Manuel Pellegrini to have such an influence over which other teams will be allowed to have a squad boost for a year.

That's the real issue here

[Kenneth]

Only as far as they determine who to sell players to permanently also.

No, because there is a different market at play for players at the their level which involves elite teams from around Europe and transfer fees of tens of millions. Nobody outside the top 5 or 6 teams in the PL (except utd ) operate in the same market so couldn't obtain these players (doesn't apply to Gareth Barry obviously). For the young hot prospects, the lesser clubs could never attract them permanently anyway.

[john316]

The article seems to be suggesting that it's Everton gaming the system and that the loaning system is flawed, when that's not at all true. The problem with the system is obvious when you look at the clubs who have loaned the players to Everton. Man City and Chelsea are gaming the system by overpaying for each and every youth prospect then loaning them out to whoever they want.

The mandate for change should be directed towards the clubs with whole squads out on loan.

As I posted about in the General Football thread, Parma FC's list of players out on loan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parma_F.C.#Out_on_loan

The loan system has become totally abused in today's game.

[Fosterbloke]

the problem is - chelsea and city can pretty much buy anyone they want with no real issues and do what the **** they want with the player.

Salah - chelsea didn't want him, didn't need him, they just didn't want us or spurs to get him. so they sign - this time next year he'll be on loan at Norwich

Salah will become a key player for them I reckon. Could Oscar or Hazard be off?

[dom9]

No, because there is a different market at play for players at the their level which involves elite teams from around Europe and transfer fees of tens of millions. Nobody outside the top 5 or 6 teams in the PL (except utd ) operate in the same market so couldn't obtain these players (doesn't apply to Gareth Barry obviously). For the young hot prospects, the lesser clubs could never attract them permanently anyway.

It enables clubs who can't afford to pay top dollar for a prospect on a 5 year deal to access such talent at a price they can afford. The downside for them is that the deal is temporary, but that's the same reason why it's affordable.

Seems fine to me.

[Sarb]

I dont get how Chelsea dont breach FFP