Fifa Planning To Limit The Number Of Players On Loan

[JJP]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2795569-fifa-reportedly-plans-to-reduce-number-of-players-who-can-be-loaned-out

 

Article states that if this goes through, then clubs will only be able to loan out 8 players who are over the age of 21. 

There is however, no limit onhomegrown players under the age of 21.

The real question is, given our current crop of loan players, which 8 over the age of 21 would you keep to loan out? And which will end up being released

[Zeta]

Would be for the best I think, this loan model of ours just stockpiles talent. We've got so many on the books that will never play for us, we even keep giving them new contracts in the hope of making an extra million or 2 when it comes to a sale. I know its an attempt at being self-sufficient, but I don't see how it really can be making all that difference. We loan out so many each year, and I suspect we're still paying a fair chunk of their wages on loan, and every now and then we manage to sell one for 5m or 10m or something. It's a drop in the ocean when you look at the money the first team spends on players and wages and manager pay-offs. I struggle to see how it can really be having much of an effect.

[JJP]

15 minutes ago, Zeta said:

Would be for the best I think, this loan model of ours just stockpiles talent. We've got so many on the books that will never play for us, we even keep giving them new contracts in the hope of making an extra million or 2 when it comes to a sale. I know its an attempt at being self-sufficient, but I don't see how it really can be making all that difference. We loan out so many each year, and I suspect we're still paying a fair chunk of their wages on loan, and every now and then we manage to sell one for 5m or 10m or something. It's a drop in the ocean when you look at the money the first team spends on players and wages and manager pay-offs. I struggle to see how it can really be having much of an effect.

 

Couldnt agree more, Im one of those who really hope this gets implemented! That way we can focus on actually loaning out worthwhile players and not some of the garbage we have out atm.

If I was to pick 8, they would be: 

Kenedy, Zouma, Bats, RLC, Tammy (21 next month), Musonda, Baka (only because we paid a lot), Clarke-Salter (21 next week)

 

Was tough to narrow the whole list down to 8, but when you really think about it, there's a lot of trash being olaned out that will never make out first team so whats even the point?

Edited September 13, 2018 by JJP

[Argo]

1 hour ago, Zeta said:

Would be for the best I think, this loan model of ours just stockpiles talent. We've got so many on the books that will never play for us, we even keep giving them new contracts in the hope of making an extra million or 2 when it comes to a sale. I know its an attempt at being self-sufficient, but I don't see how it really can be making all that difference. We loan out so many each year, and I suspect we're still paying a fair chunk of their wages on loan, and every now and then we manage to sell one for 5m or 10m or something. It's a drop in the ocean when you look at the money the first team spends on players and wages and manager pay-offs. I struggle to see how it can really be having much of an effect.

I reckon part of it is the player clinging on just as much as us. The likes of Piazon and Kalas for example are journeyman players, their association to Chelsea helps them more than hinders. 

[TheChelseaBlues]

For reasons already stated I doubt this hurts us much. Just means the likes of Kalas, Omuero, Piazon and Hector dont stay on the books. We may miss on a late bloomer because of it but we generally tend to sell 22 or 23 year olds who have talent anyway. Chalobah, Ake and Traore come to mind. 

One positive may be that we stop loaning these talents once they hit 21 and keep them in the squad which could save us from plopping down 30m on the Danny Drinkwaters of the world. 

[Dorset]

“In February, FIFA president Gianni Infantino said "it is important to establish a few rules as a limitation of squad sizes or the number of players out on loan."

If the establishment of new rules was so important back in February why has nothing been done about it in the last nine months? And, perhaps even more to the point, what is it that is so wrong with a system that seemingly satisfies all parties? Sky Sports News tackled this issue yesterday, no doubt in advance of putting Sarri under the press conference spotlight today, and their reporter was quick to single out Chelsea as the main culprit and [would be] ultimate loser should action be taken. The general tone adopted was one of sage agreement with a FIFA president not previously noted for his wisdom, the outrageous analogy was then made with that of a landlord/tenant relationship, presumably where the nasty owner does nothing about squalid conditions whilst charging an extortionate rental in circumstances where there is no alternative but to pay. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth when it comes to club/loanee agreements and it is difficult to see, in a situation where all sides apparently benefit and are happy with their lot, why limitation of squad sizes is such a necessity.

On the Guardian podcast yesterday Chelsea were cast in a similar role alongside Man City, as having a higher number of loanees is deemed to make 'the crime' that much worse, and even here Philippe Auclair got carried away as he told of how at these two clubs loanees had to accept a future in this environment or they 'were told to b****r off'. Yet surely part of the problem, as many pereceive it to be, is that far from telling these kids to b****r off, the more family-minded club keeps them on, thereby inflating the numbers, openly inviting criticism and frustrating those fans who simply can't see the point of hanging on to what they regard as dead wood. To my mind, having a ceiling of 8 loanees over the age of 21 will only serve to increase the b****red off brigade anyway, for no good reason, even though I appreciate that others believe the club should cut its losses rather than continue to provide a homely cushion to fall back on until a sale of the player can be made that suits all parties.

[Blueblur]

Ahhh but our whole business model is built on our system of loaning out 4,678 players each season!

 

[Giordano_Bruno]

5 minutes ago, Blueblur said:

Ahhh but our whole business model is built on our system of loaning out 4,678 players each season!

 

Sell them, get rich and buy Mbappe > Infantino changes his mind. 

[JJP]

16 hours ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

For reasons already stated I doubt this hurts us much. Just means the likes of Kalas, Omuero, Piazon and Hector dont stay on the books. We may miss on a late bloomer because of it but we generally tend to sell 22 or 23 year olds who have talent anyway. Chalobah, Ake and Traore come to mind. 

One positive may be that we stop loaning these talents once they hit 21 and keep them in the squad which could save us from plopping down 30m on the Danny Drinkwaters of the world. 

Exactly. Outside of us losing a few million in potential sales I really can't see a downside to this. We won't be unnecessarily paying loans for players who will never play for us, and also saves us money from panic buys

[Barry Bridges]

So instead of loaning a player will we now just be selling them cheaply with relatively low value buy back clauses?

 

That could actually be more ideal than loans as at least the club receiving a player will have a legitimate interest to invest in developing the player (they develop a player they keep or they sell him back at a profit).

Edited September 14, 2018 by Barry Bridges

[JJP]

On 14/09/2018 at 18:30, Barry Bridges said:

So instead of loaning a player will we now just be selling them cheaply with relatively low value buy back clauses?

 

That could actually be more ideal than loans as at least the club receiving a player will have a legitimate interest to invest in developing the player (they develop a player they keep or they sell him back at a profit).

Seems like it, not to mention we’ll be buying less players in general if it means we can’t loan them out! Sometimes we seem to buy a fairly young player with the sole purpose of loaning them