Does any one know why the loan rules on players from foreign clubs should differ from English clubs? I'm not saying Watford have done anything wrong, they are clearly operating within the rules and good luck to them. If there continues to be no restriction on foreign loans will we see a club have no first team players of their own and just borrow a team for a season? This could ultimately lead to a number of lower league teams being bought out by the owners of big European clubs just to develop their young players. Leading to a weakening of our league structure. I think the whole loan system has got out of hand and needs reviewing by the football authorities. My own view is that clubs should only be allowed three loan players at any one time and no more than five in a season. Also only one from any single club. That way clubs would keep their own identity. As I said at the start this is not a dig at Warford, they have done nothing wrong. Any views on the subject?
We certainly took some flak on here the season before last when we pushed it to the limit, but we always stayed within the rules. To be perfectly honest, at that time it was our only option with our parlous financial situation other than playing academy youngsters. Watford/Udinese reserves took a while to gell and struggled fro the first 3 months of the season. Most opposition supporters took delight in Zola's difficulties in blending in the new arrivals and were having a good laugh at their expense when it suited them. Now a lot of them are whinging like hell at the system now he's got them playing so well. I agree Hampshire, the loan system certainly needs sorting. There are far too many variables that can be exploited. I've never fully understood what constitutes an "emergency" loan and who decides the extent of the said emergancy that warrants an approval.
