A transfer is designed to send one player to another club under the contract the buyer gives to the player. He belongs to the 'buyer'. A loan is designed to send one player to another club temporarily under the contract the 'seller' gives to the player. He belongs to the 'seller'. What you're doing is between the two so you can play more loan players in each game than you're meant to be allowed. It's bending the rules, but obviously its 'legal'. You're exposing a loophole the F.A. have failed to cover.
The loan rules have already been changed. You wont be allowed to do the same next season. EU law has sod all to do with it. Any loan player will count as part of the 5 allowed as part of the matchday squad
Interestingly i entirely disagree. Look at England and Tom Cleverley. He was at us, then Watford (different leagues i know) then at Wigan and as a result of that premier league experience he is now a part of the man utd 1st team and england. It was vital for progressing youngsters. Yes you can have the 'dont buy them till their ready' argument but teams always will and they will rot and also there are the youngsters who come through the ranks. A player may be coming back from an injury and not good enough for their top premiership team, but able to improve himself and another PL club by playing for them and then returning to the parent club - all is happy. ALso can prevent unnecessary spending as if you get a long term injury (eg jan to the end or season long) you can loan someone just to cover that players injury time which does not affect the injured players status at the club he is at and also gets a player who is out of the picture elsewhere playing again, which makes sense for everyone. Also, it is not possible for them to play against the club as say they score and put them out the cup or dock crucial points then the fickle nature of fans makes it difficult to comer back. Plus football is a physical sport, say they injured a player at their parent club, think how awkward it could make things.
No surprise there ed - but I come from a different age So, in a nutshell, you're happy with a system that could, in theory, (and at its extreme), allow Man United to buy Messi, Ronaldo and Cavani then loan them out to Everton whilst still having the best 'team' in the league themselves - thereby potentially guaranteeing not just 6 points a year from their closest rivals but potentially 12? - now nobody has done that yet, but Watford have exploited one 'loophole' ... for me it makes a mockery of the league - West Brom's league position proving the point ... it is Steve Clarke's relationship with his former employers that enabled that deal - and if factors like that are going to start to influence how a team performs over a league season then, for me, that's not acceptable. A viable / competitive reserve league would provide 'experience' and players would step up when ready - worked before the loan system until teams started cost cutting by ditching reserve sides to pay the wages of expensive (and not always superior) foreign imports.
I actually partially agree with both of you. I think loans should be to cover injuries only (not sure about only two months because that doesn't cover window-to-window. Maybe the loan should be comparable to length of injury?) EXCEPT for young players, say 21 and under. It's hardly fair that a club like Man U would have to sell a young player to a club like ours, we give him experience, then United have to buy him back (although, actually that sounds very fare to me!). Developmental and injury loans should be the only ones allowed (and yes, I'm aware that means we should never have had Yakubu).
Can you please tell me where you have got this from? The loan rules are not due to be discussed until June and as of today it seems unlikely that enough clubs are prepared to vote for any change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...bosses-tighten-loan-rules-Watfords-farce.html "Watford's nursery club system will be blocked by the Football League next season. The whole article says it will be changed, then it says "League clubs are being urged to vote against the strategy at their annual meeting this summer." So, who knows!
The author of that Daily Mail article has been going on about Watford all season in this way. It appears that him and our CEO do not see eye to eye since a dispute they had at West Ham. Whatever said author says needs to be taken with a very large dose of salt. The point I was making simply was showing that Proud Fox had got it wrong, that the rules have not been changed yet.
Watford 01 Almunia 12 Doyley 18 Pudil 27 Cassetti 39 Chalobah 40 Ekstrand 08 Hogg 21 Anya 22 Abdi 20 Vydra 36 Geijo Substitutes 30 Bond 06 Hall 17 Briggs 04 Eustace 07 Yeates 38 Battocchio 41 Forestieri Ref: Swarbrick
Leicester City 01 Schmeichel 02 De Laet 05 Morgan 15 M Keane 10 King 11 Dyer 16 James 24 Knockaert 18 Schlupp 35 Nugent 39 Wood Substitutes 13 Logan 03 Konchesky 22 Moore 04 Drinkwater 07 Marshall 09 Vardy 37 Kane
big game for schlupp. for me the right decision, but only time will show if the experienced head of konchesky would have been better
