do players out on loan go down as an expense to the team who loans them out? that would put a stop to a lot of the ****e that happens, providing the fair play rules are enforced properly obviously, time will tell on that one, i suspect it will only ever punish teams who cant afford it or not what the rules were intended to put a stop to, bit like teams going into administration, so lets **** them up some more and take some points off them as well type crap. look at the state of Portsmouth, why are the fa not feeling any pain for that, fit and proper test!!, ****s should do one on themselves.
What if Everton finish above Chelsea? If there were no loans clubs would probably create "free transfers" so a player can be sold for a low fee then some sort of clause in their contract so they can be "purchased" by the original club after so many months for a minimal amount or nothing. I for one think loans are a good idea.
think its the extent to which loans are being abused, not loans themselves, its part of survival for smaller clubs dont want that to be taken away, also helps bigger clubs to improve their players as well obviously. just a farce that you can basically have 2 whole teams out on loan and doesn't effect you in anyway financially if the team loaning pay the whole wages. should go down as an expense to both teams for me, as both teams are benefiting from the loan arrangement.
yeah it is in fairness something that keeps a lot of smaller clubs ticking over cos it avoids transfers. however i think the numb has boiled down to chelsea really abusing it here but utd and real and barca etc probably do the same? utd did. not sure now. we have borini suso assaidi coady robinson wisdom mclaughlin reina all on loan. assiaidi, reina and borini are senior players... Reina and barry have some close similarities and i certainly have made my feelings known on reina. Last year it was carroll. Suso and wisdom are examples of a good loan IMO... coady, morgan and others are examples of loaning to sell.
Vitesse's dropping attendance numbers is more due to the economical situation in the country, which is currently a lot worse than in England. Unemployment numbers are rising to 10% now for example. For Vitesse the link with Chelsea has been sort of a blessing in the past two or three years: in 2009 the club was on the brink of bankruptcy and was fighting in the relegation zone. Ever since the influx of Chelsea players the club has seen an upward trend and this year, they're even a title contender. The rest of the country may mock them a little for being Abramovich's pet club where he stalls his less talented players but so far, Vitesse gained a lot from this exchange deal with Chelsea.
The thing with loans, wherever you loan a decent player they will make a difference. Chelsea loaned Colchester United a goalkeeper (Sam Walker) last season (and this). On the second to last game Colchester needed a win to pretty much ensure their safety and they were playing Leyton Orient. Colchester quickly took a 2 goal lead before Leyton pulled one back and then in the last 10 minutes Colchester conceded a penalty. Walker then saved the peno (great save) and effectively kept Colchester in League 1 ahead of Scnthorpe (a team wo beat Colchester twice that season) Colchester managed to loan him again this season and he pretty much the only reason they are not in the relegation zone at the moment. Look at these stats from when they played MK Dons last week please log in to view this image Thats a bigger battering than West Ham got against Man City but it ended 0-0 (more shots on target and more corners). Walker is single handed winning them points
well there is a player who might join lfc for a pittance is 2 years time There is however a danger that a set of clubs develop that are so dependant on the "generosity" of chelsea that their independance becomes in question. ie if a cup tie ever came up etc etc etc. what do uefa do when vitesse get to the CL and play chavski?
can i ask one question. what do people think of the theory that for example a cheslea b team in the championship would lessen this issue?
disagree with it mito, because teams can keep swapping players between the 2 teams and can keep swapping and changing until it becomes a farce and both the a and b teams end up in the prem together, and can just keep buying players just to put in the other team to stop other teams using them thats wrong, and it only benefits rich clubs with money to spend, make the rule as fair as possible for all concerned not just the rich, take note torrie ****s!! keep as is, although u21 should have stayed as reserves as thats what they are really, and youth teams in own league.
it works in spain though. I think is there not more examples of it. chelsea b would basically be a championship side with no possibility of promotion. now certain cheslea "reserves" like lukaku and the athletico keeper would still exist i guess. i think the central theme you mention is fairness and how to make rich clubs and poor clubs exist. so... if spurs as a poor club get 100mil for a player does that not tip the balance unfairly too?? no?
wasn't aware spurs was classed as a poor club just a ****e one to my knowledge, well they turned Bale into what he is, not their fault a club was prepared to pay silly money for him, they should see rewards for nurturing talent, more of an issue with Real,Chelsea,City etc the way they throw money around than Spurs having that money to spend. how can you create a rule that no b team can ever get promoted though, end up being a farce, as if they finished top then basically you have a false position as it would go down to the next team who could go up, and if we had the Championship full of say Arsenal,City,Chelsea,utd,Liverpool,Spurs b teams the team who goes into the prem could have finished in 7th position, its bollocks.
spurs have lived within their means by selling players like modric. their net spend is actually low... or was when i looked on transfermartket I guess you are right baout the rewards for developing a player they bought for a little. I don't know but it works in spain anyway (the rules) they can be relegated but not promoted to the top teir so if they win it every year (i don't know that either) the next team is the one promoted.
this is la liga b division http://www.soccerstats.com/latest.asp?league=spain2 real in second, barca b in 18th I guess that if all the teams you mentioned had b teams they would prob still loan players like lukaku out to prem. spurs and us would be mid table at BEST. I think the rules mean you can't drop players down i dunno would have to look them up ... i thin kthey have the 25 man first team registered squad rule in spain so you can't just bring players up or down... you can only bring up 6 players from b team to a team if you've room in your 25 man squad.. or some such.
can both teams enter cups or only one of them allowed as aren't they technically 2 teams. also say a team got so far in cup but had a few key injuries they could steal them from the b team regardless of whether 1 team or both can enter,and carry one as though nothing happened, that's unfair on teams who don't have the funds to do that, it like everything else, only benefits clubs with money and penalizes clubs who don't have money, be a lot of stockpiling of decent players to stop others getting them, and if they are paid silly money from the rich clubs they wont care.
The difference between here and Spain is the spanish sides do their own TV deals so channels pay for rights of Barca B & Barca together. If B teams were in England you'd have all of the top clubs getting their B teams up to the championship/premier league and taking double the TV money
No B teams. They provide benefit to large clubs. None to smaller clubs. Its unfair. I wouldn't be opposed to the entire team having to start from scratch in the lower leagues (10th) on the pyramid. Then do as you like as long as you can't get promoted to the Prem or face your parent club in any of the cups, or maybe even participate in the cups. You can withdraw 3 players per season, except in the summer. Do a maximum of 2 or 3 loans per league over the age of 23, must be able to play against the parent team, etc, and you should fix all these problems. A better idea would be to increase the competition levels in reserve or youth leagues. Fix those and there is no need for a B club. And thanks Cove. What are the trends for other clubs in the area though? If its really an economic situation we should see similar trends elsewhere. I still think it should not be allowed unless heavily regulated. Partizan has a B team, it cannot be promoted, I've never heard of it participating in cups, and it doesn't affect the competitiveness of the league because the league is so awful. There are only two or three players above the age of 23 usually and never over 25. There aren't many half decent football teams in Serbia's top flight let alone the smaller leagues. We also ensure that many of the players that won't succeed in the senior squad go to smaller sides to help them get stronger. If our football was to get stronger I would understand abolishing it.
Read my blog mate, it's in my signature below this post. Tells you everything you need to know about the eredivisie.
I don't believe it 2 whole pages of discussion on a topic without a derail! This site is in danger of becoming a .............................................................................. FOOTBALL FORUM, Perish the thought.
