Who will we play next season?

[king canary 7,580]

 

7 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Fair suggestion, although some might argue that lower league teams can afford better players on a one season loan than they could buying permanently. Also a lot of the players currently being shipped out on loan by the likes of Chelsea, Man City etc would just go abroad rather than moving down the English football pyramid I’d imagine.

The point is though that the reason they can afford these better players only on loan is because of the system. Get rid of the loan system (or severely limit it) and you'll stop clubs stockpiling players and make players think twice about signing for clubs they'll likely never play for and thus need to take lower contracts.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,782]

15 minutes ago, king canary said:

You'd need to combine the 25 man rule with some strict restrictions (or the outright removal of) the loan system. 

The situations at clubs like Chelsea and Man City, where they have an entire squad or two out on loan is absurd and allows them to stockpile players they've got zero interest in actually using. 

FIFA have recently announced a rule to combat this. From 2022, a team can have a maximum of six players on international loans.

[Aggy 752]

23 minutes ago, king canary said:

The point is though that the reason they can afford these better players only on loan is because of the system. Get rid of the loan system (or severely limit it) and you'll stop clubs stockpiling players and make players think twice about signing for clubs they'll likely never play for and thus need to take lower contracts.

But that doesn’t work if the loan system isn’t scrapped everywhere - otherwise you’d move from Chelsea/Man City to Juventus, Inter, Barca, Bayern etc. Who would pay you the same wage to sit in their reserves as opposed to taking a pay cut and going to Everton.

I’d also say with the current FFP rules not many clubs stockpile much anyway. I don’t think it’s anywhere near as prevalent as ten or fifteen years ago and will only continue to decrease. 
 

Edit: other thing as well (slightly different point) - even if a loan system was scrapped across Europe, my guess is that you Would see more of that ‘middle tier’ player group move out to China, USA (maybe even the Middle East if they decided to plough money into growing their own football culture - World Cup etc.?) etc. I don’t know what sort of salaries the big South American clubs pay but the biggest they can probably compete with mid table top flight sides from most European leagues I’d imagine.
 

The same point could be made for a europe wide salary cap.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Aggy

[king canary 7,580]

25 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

FIFA have recently announced a rule to combat this. From 2022, a team can have a maximum of six players on international loans.

It is a start but only covers players over 22 which is only part of the issue.

[king canary 7,580]

36 minutes ago, Aggy said:

But that doesn’t work if the loan system isn’t scrapped everywhere - otherwise you’d move from Chelsea/Man City to Juventus, Inter, Barca, Bayern etc. Who would pay you the same wage to sit in their reserves as opposed to taking a pay cut and going to Everton.

Yes it would need to be a UEFA or FIFA led move, same with salary caps. Won't happen but I think it would be for footballs benefit if it did.

36 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I’d also say with the current FFP rules not many clubs stockpile much anyway. I don’t think it’s anywhere near as prevalent as ten or fifteen years ago and will only continue to decrease. 

I really don't think this is true. Chelsea and Man City have 60 players out on loan between the two of them this season alone.

[BigFish 1,986]

17 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yes it would need to be a UEFA or FIFA led move, same with salary caps. Won't happen but I think it would be for footballs benefit if it did.

I really don't think this is true. Chelsea and Man City have 60 players out on loan between the two of them this season alone.

I am with you on this @king canary, all the big clubs indulge in "player farming", and to a certain degree that is what we do-it is Neil Adams full-time job apparently. Hoover up fit, techinical young players-loan them out to cover the cost, sell them on when they get too old to be a prospect. They know the maybe one per cohort they will be keeping and they know the ones who will never make it. How often do we get linked with a "Real Madrid" or "Barcelona" "starlet" who when you look into they have spent their entire career on loan at second and third tier Spanish clubs and probably have as much chance of making the first team as we do (deliberately exagerating to make the point)

[king canary 7,580]

1 minute ago, BigFish said:

I am with you on this @king canary, all the big clubs indulge in "player farming", and to a certain degree that is what we do-it is Neil Adams full-time job apparently. Hoover up fit, techinical young players-loan them out to cover the cost, sell them on when they get too old to be a prospect. They know the maybe one per cohort they will be keeping and they know the ones who will never make it. How often do we get linked with a "Real Madrid" or "Barcelona" "starlet" who when you look into they have spent their entire career on loan at second and third tier Spanish clubs and probably have as much chance of making the first team as we do (deliberately exagerating to make the point)

Exactly. You just have to look at the careers of players like Tomas Kalas or Lucas Piazon to see the issue. Even Patrick Roberts signed a new deal with City before he joined us, meaning he'll likely be on loan until he's 23/24.

[Indy 3,283]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

Fair suggestion, although some might argue that lower league teams can afford better players on a one season loan than they could buying permanently. Also a lot of the players currently being shipped out on loan by the likes of Chelsea, Man City etc would just go abroad rather than moving down the English football pyramid I’d imagine.

That might be the case, but then it’ll be the same for all clubs in our lower league structure. Might give some youngsters who are snapped up at 17 a little more time to stay at the club and get more games under their belts. Pros and cons.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,782]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Exactly. You just have to look at the careers of players like Tomas Kalas or Lucas Piazon to see the issue. Even Patrick Roberts signed a new deal with City before he joined us, meaning he'll likely be on loan until he's 23/24.

Lewis Baker played against us for Chelsea in the FA Youth Cup final in 2013. He's now 25, still out on loan, and has played a grand total of three minutes for Chelsea.

It may be unethical, but you can't be necessarily blame them for milking the system. They can hoover up teenagers from all over the world when they're teenagers, loan them out whilst collecting loan fees which cover the initial transfer fee, then sell the decent ones for a few million if they develop which allows them to buy next generation with cash left over for FFP.

[king canary 7,580]

3 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Lewis Baker played against us for Chelsea in the FA Youth Cup final in 2013. He's now 25, still out on loan, and has played a grand total of three minutes for Chelsea.

It may be unethical, but you can't be necessarily blame them for milking the system. They can hoover up teenagers from all over the world when they're teenagers, loan them out whilst collecting loan fees which cover the initial transfer fee, then sell the decent ones for a few million if they develop which allows them to buy next generation with cash left over for FFP.

Yep- they're only doing what the rules allow them. It does make me deeply uncomfortable though.

You can also look at City and the conveyor belt of US/Australian players that won't ever play for them. Aaron Mooy, for example, cost them barely anything, was loaned out 6 days later by City and then sold for £10m at the end of the season. You'll see similar with players like Daniel Arizani (bought by City, loaned to Celtic for two years 7 days later) who will never kick a ball for City but will help them make some extra cash and beat FFP.

[BigFish 1,986]

8 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yep- they're only doing what the rules allow them. It does make me deeply uncomfortable though.

You can also look at City and the conveyor belt of US/Australian players that won't ever play for them. Aaron Mooy, for example, cost them barely anything, was loaned out 6 days later by City and then sold for £10m at the end of the season. You'll see similar with players like Daniel Arizani (bought by City, loaned to Celtic for two years 7 days later) who will never kick a ball for City but will help them make some extra cash and beat FFP.

Not a challenge, but a genuine question, what is wrong with this and who does it hurt. The big clubs make some cash, smaller clubs get better players than perhaps the would have otherwise and the lads get a nice lifestyle, albeit not the great success they hope for.

[BigFish 1,986]

17 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I would advocate a Premier League of 16 clubs. That gives them plenty of scope for their beloved European football. Funny how pundits don't say "Chelsea are doing well they are fourth". Instead its "Chelsea are in the last CL spot".

25 teams in each league in the EFL and that gives a team a week off during the season but an extra home game.

16 teams in the Prem I'd probably go for, but add another 16 team Premier 2 to that with all promotion/relegation via playoffs. Leave a 22 team champs and then go regional North/South/East & West down the pyramid.

[king canary 7,580]

9 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Not a challenge, but a genuine question, what is wrong with this and who does it hurt. The big clubs make some cash, smaller clubs get better players than perhaps the would have otherwise and the lads get a nice lifestyle, albeit not the great success they hope for.

Because it warps the competition and makes smaller clubs reliant on the generosity of larger clubs.

If Man City couldn't stockpile players then maybe Huddersfield, Brighton or even little old Norwich could have signed Mooy directly for the initial fee of around £2m as reported. Instead he goes to City who can afford to hold out for £10m, thus adding £8m to his price. It is basically money for doing absolutely zero work. 

As a non football based comparison- how would you feel if you were looking for a house and had a budget of £200k. However the house you like the look of gets snapped up by someone who can pay cash upfront who then offers to let you rent it for a year, do it up at your own expense and then sell it to you for £400k?

[Aggy 752]

3 hours ago, king canary said:

Because it warps the competition and makes smaller clubs reliant on the generosity of larger clubs.

If Man City couldn't stockpile players then maybe Huddersfield, Brighton or even little old Norwich could have signed Mooy directly for the initial fee of around £2m as reported. Instead he goes to City who can afford to hold out for £10m, thus adding £8m to his price. It is basically money for doing absolutely zero work. 

As a non football based comparison- how would you feel if you were looking for a house and had a budget of £200k. However the house you like the look of gets snapped up by someone who can pay cash upfront who then offers to let you rent it for a year, do it up at your own expense and then sell it to you for £400k?

City can only afford to hold out for ten mil if someone is willing to pay that.

If nobody wants to pay ten mil for him, then City either loan him out and recover some of the salary or they let him sit there eating into their FFP-limited budget doing nothing for five years until he walks on a free. 

If Man City loan him out in the circumstances I’ve mentioned above, who is losing out? A club gets a 10 million pound player for a season, if he flops they aren’t losing massive money and if he does well then great! City recoup some of the salary, the player gets a big salary and is playing football and the smaller clubs can still pick him up for free at the end of his contract.

So either Mooy is a player it’s worth paying 10 mil for anyway, or you go and buy someone else and wait til he’s a free agent (and/or possibly loan him for a season in the meantime).

And what was stopping anybody else signing him for 2 mil in the first place? I’m sure if a prem side like Huddersfield were at the time came in a season before City he’d have jumped at the chance. It’s not like City outbid everyone by offering an extortionate 80 mil and then held people to ransom. 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Aggy

[Aggy 752]

4 hours ago, Indy said:

That might be the case, but then it’ll be the same for all clubs in our lower league structure. Might give some youngsters who are snapped up at 17 a little more time to stay at the club and get more games under their belts. Pros and cons.

Presumably clubs could still snap up all the 17 year olds they want, because they don’t count towards the 25 man squad? 

[king canary 7,580]

On 27/05/2020 at 19:38, Aggy said:

City can only afford to hold out for ten mil if someone is willing to pay that.

If nobody wants to pay ten mil for him, then City either loan him out and recover some of the salary or they let him sit there eating into their FFP-limited budget doing nothing for five years until he walks on a free. 

If Man City loan him out in the circumstances I’ve mentioned above, who is losing out? A club gets a 10 million pound player for a season, if he flops they aren’t losing massive money and if he does well then great! City recoup some of the salary, the player gets a big salary and is playing football and the smaller clubs can still pick him up for free at the end of his contract.

So either Mooy is a player it’s worth paying 10 mil for anyway, or you go and buy someone else and wait til he’s a free agent (and/or possibly loan him for a season in the meantime).

And what was stopping anybody else signing him for 2 mil in the first place? I’m sure if a prem side like Huddersfield were at the time came in a season before City he’d have jumped at the chance. It’s not like City outbid everyone by offering an extortionate 80 mil and then held people to ransom. 

The issue is both the artificial inflation of the price, combined with the potential damage to young players careers.

Mooy is a great example of the former- you say City can only get £10m if someone is willing to pay and that is true. But City can also hold out for that £10m as they know they can just loan him out again next season.

So essential, the pay £2m for Mooy and offer him £20k a week. They then loan him out to Huddersfield who likely paid a loan fee (lets say £1m for arguments sake) and cover his wages. He then plays well enough that either Huddersfield pay £10m for him, someone else does or City then loan him out again (likely to a Premier League team) for a larger loan fee. City basically make money on him whatever happens for absoutely zero work, thus helping them get around FFP.

Call me old fashioned but I think players should be signed by clubs who actually see them as players who could make an impact for them on the pitch, not just as economics units to help the balance sheet.

[BigFish 1,986]

6 hours ago, king canary said:

The issue is both the artificial inflation of the price, combined with the potential damage to young players careers.

Mooy is a great example of the former- you say City can only get £10m if someone is willing to pay and that is true. But City can also hold out for that £10m as they know they can just loan him out again next season.

So essential, the pay £2m for Mooy and offer him £20k a week. They then loan him out to Huddersfield who likely paid a loan fee (lets say £1m for arguments sake) and cover his wages. He then plays well enough that either Huddersfield pay £10m for him, someone else does or City then loan him out again (likely to a Premier League team) for a larger loan fee. City basically make money on him whatever happens for absoutely zero work, thus helping them get around FFP.

Call me old fashioned but I think players should be signed by clubs who actually see them as players who could make an impact for them on the pitch, not just as economics units to help the balance sheet.

Not sure that the Mooy case particularly supports you case. Not sure that Huddrsfield would have been in position to scout and bring over the player. Taking him on loan was a low risk option, though, and after a season in the Champs £8m plus extras is probably the going rate for a player stepping up to the Prem (whether that is the case after Covid is another matter. City made money, the player made money and Huddersfield got a known property. Everyone wins.

On your last paragraph I broadly agree but think that horse has bolted. There is a world wide player trading system that has everything to do with money and nothing to do with what clubs put out on the pitch. Outside to top 30 clubs or so in England it is questionable whether the rest play any part in this system. The local club is an anachronism and Covid is likely to push them over the edge. Either they go semi-pro & regional or they piggy back the player farming. Can't see the number of professional teams people are trying to squeeze into the system as sustainable.

[king canary 7,580]

5 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Not sure that the Mooy case particularly supports you case. Not sure that Huddrsfield would have been in position to scout and bring over the player. Taking him on loan was a low risk option, though, and after a season in the Champs £8m plus extras is probably the going rate for a player stepping up to the Prem (whether that is the case after Covid is another matter. City made money, the player made money and Huddersfield got a known property. Everyone wins.

On your last paragraph I broadly agree but think that horse has bolted. There is a world wide player trading system that has everything to do with money and nothing to do with what clubs put out on the pitch. Outside to top 30 clubs or so in England it is questionable whether the rest play any part in this system. The local club is an anachronism and Covid is likely to push them over the edge. Either they go semi-pro & regional or they piggy back the player farming. Can't see the number of professional teams people are trying to squeeze into the system as sustainable.

The Mooy case supports it just fine thanks.

Essentially City were an £8m middle man, signing a player they had no intention of ever putting on the pitch, having him train with them for a grand total of 6 days and then selling him onwards for a 400% profit.

If you think everyone wins from that then we clearly have a very different view of 'winning.'

[BigFish 1,986]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

The Mooy case supports it just fine thanks.

Essentially City were an £8m middle man, signing a player they had no intention of ever putting on the pitch, having him train with them for a grand total of 6 days and then selling him onwards for a 400% profit.

If you think everyone wins from that then we clearly have a very different view of 'winning.'

Eh? City turned a profit, Huddersfield got promotion with a low risk option, Mooy got a Prem career.

Apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

[king canary 7,580]

21 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Eh? City turned a profit, Huddersfield got promotion with a low risk option, Mooy got a Prem career.

Apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?

To put it simply...

The rich (Man City) get richer by virtue of already being rich enough to spend £2m + on a player they dont actually want to play. 

The poor (any other club with an interest in Mooy) then have to overpay to either rent him for a year or sign him permanently. 

This transaction also helps the rich avoid possible sanctions for overspending.

In my opinion that isn't good for football.

[BigFish 1,986]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

To put it simply...

The rich (Man City) get richer by virtue of already being rich enough to spend £2m + on a player they dont actually want to play. 

The poor (any other club with an interest in Mooy) then have to overpay to either rent him for a year or sign him permanently. 

This transaction also helps the rich avoid possible sanctions for overspending.

In my opinion that isn't good for football.

Don't disagree that it isn't good for football.......just that in this case all 3 parties did well out of it. I can't see anything changing until that does.