Jump to content

Summer Transfer Window 2022


Loxstock92

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Really. Imagine Villa played City or United in a cup final or a huge league gane and they constantly tapped up our players on the week of the game by bidding for them and offering 3 times the wages

 

Yikes, yeah, good point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, paul514 said:

Not really it used to be like that before and it wasn't really an issue.

This is getting more and more interesting ... Would clubs actually do that then? Top up? Was it a non-issue because it just seemed like stupid management since players wouldn't really be bedded in, and plus, bringing one star in at the drop of a hat would be pricey? So it was sort of self-limiting in terms of damage?

 

Edited by Marka Ragnos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

#humblebrag ;)

Hey now! If I were to humble brag, I'd mention something along the lines of how much better Torrey Pines is in San Diego, or Pebble Beach up north. But I didn't. 😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd bring in a whole raft of changes to the transfer market:

1. Only one window a year (Winter one is largely pointless and just helps desperate big clubs avoid relegation/ panic buys!)

2. Transfer fees set by given formula (contract remaining/experience/caps etc) so all players essentially have buy out clause that's same for everyone.

3. Loans can only be used for U21s

4. Teams can only loan OUT five players (no hoarding 100s of youngsters)

5. Total owned players (including not named in squads) also capped

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Marka Ragnos said:

This is getting more and more interesting ... Would clubs actually do that then? Top up? Was it a non-issue because it just seemed like stupid management since players wouldn't really be bedded in, and plus, bringing one star in at the drop of a hat would be pricey? So it was sort of self-limiting in terms of damage?

 

Clubs would buy players throughout the year until the end of February or March (I forget) when the window closed until the season was over.

I don't ever remember someone buying a player to ruin someone else's chances though.

What I will say is even if that was a perceived risk back then, think about it now....

You have FFP, players wages costing hundreds of thousands and 100 million price tags. That would surely lower the risk.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

Personally, I'd bring in a whole raft of changes to the transfer market:

1. Only one window a year (Winter one is largely pointless and just helps desperate big clubs avoid relegation/ panic buys!)

2. Transfer fees set by given formula (contract remaining/experience/caps etc) so all players essentially have buy out clause that's same for everyone.

3. Loans can only be used for U21s

4. Teams can only loan OUT five players (no hoarding 100s of youngsters)

5. Total owned players (including not named in squads) also capped

I don't agree with any of those points.

1. There is no issue with that.

2. Why on earth do we need a formula for a transfer fee to be set? The club values this player at X buy him or don't works completely fine. Mandatory buy out fees I think it fine.

3. Terrible idea, lots of players haven't developed how you want them by 21. It serves no useful purpose for the club, and would damage the career chances of many professionals.

4. I can see why some people would want this but again I see no problem with Chelsea's system. On the contrary I think it is a great revenue stream for a club that successfully invests in people to become pro footballers.

5. No need for this either, you can only register so many players so realistically they aren't going to be at your club if they aren't registered or don't need to be due to current age.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, paul514 said:

I don't agree with any of those points.

1. There is no issue with that.

2. Why on earth do we need a formula for a transfer fee to be set? The club values this player at X buy him or don't works completely fine. Mandatory buy out fees I think it fine.

3. Terrible idea, lots of players haven't developed how you want them by 21. It serves no useful purpose for the club, and would damage the career chances of many professionals.

4. I can see why some people would want this but again I see no problem with Chelsea's system. On the contrary I think it is a great revenue stream for a club that successfully invests in people to become pro footballers.

5. No need for this either, you can only register so many players so realistically they aren't going to be at your club if they aren't registered or don't need to be due to current age.

Well we disagree, but I just went to do some research and actually a fair bit of this shake up to the loan system is coming apparently! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of transfer weekend - the summer window but condensed into a single 48 hour period that's given live TV coverage - sort of like the NFL draft.

It'd be an insanity of rumour, announcement and contract madness.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paul514 said:

Not really it used to be like that before and it wasn't really an issue.

But was no City/Chelsea moneybag teams back then. United was really the only team with money and were dominating

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

But was no City/Chelsea moneybag teams back then. United was really the only team with money and were dominating

Ok and will they have the ability to randomly drop 100m plus on Rice or Bellingham in a random November..... Nope

Even if they could do that one year, could they follow it up the next year? 100% no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

Well we disagree, but I just went to do some research and actually a fair bit of this shake up to the loan system is coming apparently! 

I know the system is changing.... I can't remember what to though.

We probably had more than 5 senior players on loan last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

4. Teams can only loan OUT five players (no hoarding 100s of youngsters)

5. Total owned players (including not named in squads) also capped

These are both good ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jackbauer24 said:

Personally, I'd bring in a whole raft of changes to the transfer market:

1. Only one window a year (Winter one is largely pointless and just helps desperate big clubs avoid relegation/ panic buys!)

2. Transfer fees set by given formula (contract remaining/experience/caps etc) so all players essentially have buy out clause that's same for everyone.

3. Loans can only be used for U21s

4. Teams can only loan OUT five players (no hoarding 100s of youngsters)

5. Total owned players (including not named in squads) also capped


What’s wrong with loaning out adult players that aren’t getting game time? Loads of players fall out of favour at their current clubs and seek game time elsewhere  and these often result in permanent transfer. With your u21 rule Coutinho and Mings wouldn’t be with us now (but Targett and Trez would). It basically stops players from becoming depressed in limbo at a club that hasn’t got a current use for them (due to loss of form at that level, change of manager/ system etc).

I don’t agree with most of your points either. I would like to see a wage cap though, maybe a fee cap, and maybe a limit to how many players you can own that hit the top fee and wage gap (I’m thinking how to avoid the total domestic dominance of the likes of Man City, PSG etc). Don’t know how any of that would work though, think football is already too far gone to reign it in.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WallisFrizz said:


What’s wrong with loaning out adult players that aren’t getting game time? Loads of players fall out of favour at their current clubs and seek game time elsewhere  and these often result in permanent transfer. With your u21 rule Coutinho and Mings wouldn’t be with us now (but Targett and Trez would). It basically stops players from becoming depressed in limbo at a club that hasn’t got a current use for them (due to loss of form at that level, change of manager/ system etc).

I don’t agree with most of your points either. I would like to see a wage cap though, maybe a fee cap, and maybe a limit to how many players you can own that hit the top fee and wage gap (I’m thinking how to avoid the total domestic dominance of the likes of Man City, PSG etc). Don’t know how any of that would work though, think football is already too far gone to reign it in.

Whilst obviously sometimes there are benefits, I personally believe over 21s shouldn't really be loaned and I think, overall, it's a poor system.

It's a way of keeping good players on your books or making smaller teams do your rehabilitation or for fiddling finances.

If a player is unhappy they should be able to leave during windows. You'd have more permanent moves. When a decent player comes in there is always a strong chance you don't keep them which only benefits owning team. Lots of clubs use loans to balance books. There has to be a limit - Chelsea have some players on perpetual loan!

Experience for U21s in lower leagues yes. Holding on to Henderson (GK) or Batshuayi etc is wrong and stunts growth and is purely a financial thing.

Or, maybe I tweak it, and say you can only have 1 loan out in a five year period as a over 21.

I just think loans should be for youngsters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â