Jump to content

Player Loans In The Premier League


Loans: Yes Or No?  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Loans: Yes Or No?

    • a) Yes
      10
    • b) No, it's for wankers like small heath
      15
    • c) Only in dire emergencies
      9


Recommended Posts

Posted

What do you think about them?

Personally I think they should be banned, they are for small time teams.

If you can't afford a player you should go without, simple.

Posted

Well, I voted already and I hate loans.

Profession clubs loaning of other pro clubs is stupid and unfair. Even SHA can get some idiot to play for them if theyre short on numbers (maybe).

Posted

I always find it harder to appreciate a player when they are on loan. They never feel like one of your own and you know they're gonna **** off at the end of the season. Ban them.

Posted

We had Milner and Davis on loan in recent years.

I like them, allows the player to get other first team experience, with sometimes permement deal at the end (aka Davis)

Posted

Had to vote yes, but only cos of Gringo's post. Otherwise they're a bit like AOL - a load of gash.

Apart from Jimmy Milner and Curtis.

Posted

I think they should be banned or so severely limited that they aren't that common.

I could see limiting it to loaning to a lower league with a minimum term of 12 months. Perhaps with a proviso that any club that submits a bid of 1 million during an intervening transfer window automatically buys that player (if multiple clubs submit a bid, then the club lowest in the league pyramid as of the close of the window gets the player).

The current system allows the big clubs to stockpile players and loan them out to keep them playing. This addresses the issue by preventing any player rated as more than a million from being loaned out (similar to a claiming horse race)... clubs could still loan out younger players but at a certain point would have to either make room for a new player or sell them on.

Posted

The current system allows the big clubs to stockpile players and loan them out to keep them playing.

Thats the problem. Every rule change is bought in to benefit the big clubs by allowing them to keep massive squads.

It used to be much more difficult to keep players happy. Now you can have seven people on the bench, you can loan players out into the division they want to play in. Clubs with the cash can just keep squads so strong that the rest of us cannot crack that glass ceiling. See our inability to cope with injury, loss of form and suspension last season compared to that of Arsenal and Chelsea who we were competing with until February.

Its **** up. Making the numbers up in a division isnt much fun, and its why I am losing interest in the Premier League.

Posted

It's good for youth players to get playing time, like Bannan possibly going to Derby, don't see much other use for it.

Posted

I hate them i think its completely wrong. It makes the bigger clubs stronger..........like 7 subs i would bring it back down to 2.

Do you know it was Small Heath who suggested it to the FA.....in the words of Benitez FACT!

Posted

Keepers only imo - I dont think its right that if your keepers are crocked that you'd have to wheel in some kid - outfield you can get away with crap like that, in goal you cant.

Its frustrating because it means clubs with huge squads keep their players happy. And shit clubs get themselves some quality players they cant afford normally (or would never, ever get) simply due to the greed of another club.

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â