Seen this and it opened my eyes a little. Looks like Chelsea were effectively wanting a permanent transfer fee for a loan and also to influence team selection via their penalties. Bullet dodged.. please log in to view this image
It's a bit immoral to effectively sign all the talent because you're a big club and very few can compete, then loan them out to the clubs that would realistically have been the logical next step in a career for profit. It, rather oddly, seems revered as a practice across the football community that Chelsea have 1800 players out on loan, but really I think it should be vilified as outwith the spirit of the game and the meaning of "club". They are a football agency, not a club. Two rules would surely prevent it: Firstly, anybody on a clubs books (under contract) between the ages of 15-20 would automatically cost a standard (minimum) £15 million pounds to buy, which makes it expensive for Chelsea to buy everyone and even if they did, would improve massively on the current compensation levels. This would mean that if a club has got it's coaching right, they are not being harvested by big clubs yearly, they either have the players for longer, or get a lot more for them. Surely this would lead to players just awaiting their contract running out between 15-20, and snapping up an 18 year old for free? Well combine this with rule 2... Secondly, your squad of 25 is your squad of 25, you are allowed no more than that, you cannot have "unregistereds". Anyone under-23 can count towards the under 23 squad, in which there again can only be at most 25 players and anybody under 23 on loan counts towards that tally, but if you have a 24 year old and they are on loan elsewhere, it counts as part of your 25 registered squad. Chelsea would stop their practice overnight.
Agree. And ban loans between any teams in the same division and equivalent division abroad AND division below or above and equivalent divisions abroad. See if Chelsea or anyone can hoover up all the talent and then have to pay all the wages.
Off topic on my part but that is basically how I feel about private landlords and buy to let properties. I live in the South East and got reasonably lucky to get on property ladder but I can't see how my kids are going to afford a house of their own. Anyway back on topic, we appear to have dodged a bullet with Abraham's, what a farce that is!
Tell me about it. My job pays me more than any of the jobs my Father ever had, and he looked after a whole family on his one wage, in a 3 bed semi worth £150k... whereas all my money effectively goes on rent and taking my lass to the cinema a once a fortnight!
Here in S.Shields, a reasonable rental will set you back £450-500 p/month. You can get a mortgage and buy a new house for less than that p/month!
That is the ridiculous thing namely that for the same property the rent will inevitably be higher than a mortgage but because the Lenders screwed up a few years back they are hyper cautious as to what they will lend and to who. Essentially from one extreme to the other. Then you have the well off buying houses to rent out thereby increasing the cost of houses. Go back to a system from years ago and regulate how much rent can be charged for any individual property. Ensure rents do not go out of control which then reduces the return to the Landlord which then makes it a less attractive investment which then releases more properties for purchase which then reduces the value of the properties which then means deposits needed are lower which means more affordable houses. Simples really.
Bit of a problem in that if house prices come down then a hell of lot of people who have bought when the prices were high will be put into negative equity. Regular folk, not just landlords. Rent controls may cause people to sell up but then thousands of tenants would be made homeless in the process and possibly cause a collapse in the market - do you fancy losing half the value off your house, or even a fraction of that? Steps have already been brought in this year to curb buy to let purchases such as an additional 3% stamp duty on any 2nd home purchases (applies to buy to let), mortgage interest relief being phased out (watch the effect this has on homelessness over the next 4 years or so), and other punitive tax measures. People need to bear in mind that private landlords are needed. Not everyone can buy, nor wants to buy, and the government prefer to sell off housing stock rather than build more social rented homes. The effect of buy to let on the housing market varies massively across different parts of the country, and I'd agree in London and the south east it is pretty bad, but in the north east I really don't think it has as big of an effect. Anyone in the north east saying they can't get on the housing ladder must not be looking hard enough, or are we just talking about buying in an area which they aspire to live in?
Negative equity is only a problem when selling. Don't sell then no problem. Obviously there will be some for whatever reason have to but only a fraction of the total in negative equity. Yes it will impact but we are talking about the "haves" and the "have nots". To sort out the problem it's going to hurt someone. I would rather it affected the "haves" and not as present the "have nots". Steps have been taken but not effective steps. A Landlord/Buyer has to pay more stamp duty. Guess what, the rent goes up, the tenant pays more, it takes longer to save a deposit, and makes it more difficult and longer for the Buyer/Tenant to buy a property and the Landlord/Buyer is no worse off. Same applies in relation to mortgage interest relief. On renting stop selling off council houses. Make Council tenants pay the going "controlled" rate and not subsidised just because it's a Council house, Also get Council/Social Houses built. That will provide employment, it will provide wages, it will provide houses, it will increase Government revenue (taxes and spending and less benefits). Don't just leave it to big Building Companies to do it and coin in all the profit. Yes private Landlords are needed but not so that they distort a market making it very difficult for others to get onto the property market if they want to which is what has happened over the last number of years. Yet another rant over (I must be getting old) but the topic is one of my many hobby horses.
Agree with pretty much all of that. Though the negative equity does (slightly) affect those who want to remortgage to get a better deal. Having said that I would take a hit on having a less preferable mortgage deal and a considerable amount of equity being wiped off of my house as it's all relative bullshit anyway and if it means the "have nots" have a chance of getting on the property ladder then I, personally, am happy to take a hit
