Yep I agree but was laughing at the commentator referring to Damage Limitation as the word lols Still tickling me now Where’s Saint Surely he must appreciate that lol
They're paying a loan fee and his wages, why should they be forced to play him if he isn't proving good enough? You lot sound just like the Spuds
If teams were competing to sign him, we should have taken advantage of that to make it part of the contract because it benefits us, and we presumably (don't know if true) were in a market favourable for us to dictate terms. If we really did have our pick of clubs, naturally, we should have pushed for whatever best suited our club (which is him getting game time).
Seriously, if Liverpool loaned a player in and he wasn't cutting it would you expect Klopp to play him?
I actually thought it was interesting Because clearly something happened which led Klopp to stop playing him (I think he tried it on with Mrs Klopp) but whatever happened - Klopp didn’t want to play him it appears RB don’t want to play him - however - the bit that’s really good is none of us know and it’s been kept quite Just quietly moved to one side when not going good good management that imho
They obviously can’t be forced to play him. But whole idea of loaning player out is to get them game time. So lfc should have either loaned him to someone that def gonna play, or as Mito suggesting put some clauses in so that if he doesn’t play lfc are compensated.
Of course not. Unless of course we were contractually obligated to do so. I doubt Liverpool would ever enter into such a contract though. I would absolutely force another club to sign such a contract if I could get away with it though. Liverpool's current position in the world's hierarchy means we are much more frequently the club loaning a player out rather than loaning a player in though. And on the rare cases we do bring in loans we're not in a position to be forced to have such a clause included. We're not where clubs send their players to develop. When we do take loans it's to fill an emergency hole with a stop-gap player.
I big'ish club isn't going to agree to that clause though, and I don't think I'd want us to insert a clause like that either; a player needs to earn the right to play. Guarantee first team football isn't healthy
It's a difficult one with Carvalho. The whole idea of loaning out young players who are knocking on the door of first team football is to get them valuable playing time. You'd think there would be assurances of a good amount of game time from the receiving club, who must have some idea of the players capabilities before agreeing the loan, otherwise why bother. If he's training well and not being played then he may as well come back and at least be another option for the amount of games we have coming up.
Yes, you want them to play but not because we've inserted a clause, they need to earn the right to play still. Maybe he's just not been good enough? If we inserted a 'guaranteed to play' clause, and he then played really well before returning to us, what happens to that confidence or his mental state when he's suddenly a bit part player again that's got to earn a spot in the team? Something he hasn't been used to doing whilst on loan. Or even worse; what if he plays every week because of the 'guarantee to play' clause and he doesn't perform?
I don't know if it would even be possible to insert a must play clause. It is just as harmful to his mental state and confidence though not playing him when he was looking forward to getting game time. He must be wondering what he has to do to get a game especially when he was very good at Fulham.
I would question the destination more than anything. If we wanted to see him play regularly and grow in confidence then he needed to go to a team suitable for that rather than join a half decent side where he'll have a tougher fight for a place.
yes it is. they will get toughened up. it's done Chelsea "players they didn't care about but want to sell" no harm at all when it came to making a buck it's literally zero point to us send him there right now. he is losing value. mlopp never wanted him day 1 and still won't in 11 months time so it's all about getting a return
A guaranteed to play clause does the exact opposite; it makes it easy and means they don't need to fight for a place in the team. It makes them soft! (Unless they have the right mentality beforehand, in which case the clause wouldn't be needed)
