Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Kerrydale Street. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.

If you decide to register, please be aware that we don't accept email addresses from free web accounts like gmail, Hotmail, live.co.uk etc. Sorry, but almost all of the abuse and spam that we get is from free web accounts. The software on the forum will automatically block any requests using a free email account.

Upon Registration, you will be given access to all our varied Forums, and you will be expected to comply with our fairly stringent Rules and Regulations. Meantime, enjoy your visit

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Summer '18 Transfer Window; all Celtic stuff in here
Topic Started: 21 May 2018, 11:41 AM (855,269 Views)
Bhoyball
Member Avatar
No trouble with trebles.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
chopper_18
6 Jul 2018, 09:12 AM
DKB
5 Jul 2018, 11:07 PM
paulfg42
5 Jul 2018, 11:01 PM
Charging more if a loanee doesn't get games! GIRUY Liverpool.
IMO that is fair

You don't loan our your promising players to sit on the bench, you loan them out to get the first team football that they can't get with your team

Ciftci kind of loans, you do to get the player of your payroll (at least some of it), in that case it really don't matter if they play or not, you are just happy that you aren't playing (some) of their wages
Is it eff fair. Liverpool can do one.
End of the day a contract is a contract . If we agree and sign it then it is what it is. It is fair enough.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luca
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Man City and Juve battling it out for his signing :(

Here he is anyway -

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Thats_Ma_Bhoy
Member Avatar
Jimmy Bell moligator
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Celtic set to fight Swansea and Hull for Yeovil town defender Tom James. DR twitter feed, so more made up pish then.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chopper_18
Member Avatar
First name on the team-sheet
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Bhoyball
6 Jul 2018, 09:21 AM
chopper_18
6 Jul 2018, 09:12 AM
DKB
5 Jul 2018, 11:07 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Is it eff fair. Liverpool can do one.
End of the day a contract is a contract . If we agree and sign it then it is what it is. It is fair enough.
Of course, but no chance does Celtic and Brendan Rodgers agree to that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pussyfoot
À la mode if you will
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Thats_Ma_Bhoy
6 Jul 2018, 09:38 AM
Celtic set to fight Swansea and Hull for Yeovil town defender Tom James. DR twitter feed, so more made up pish then.
We've been fighting them for this player since March looking at some reports, we'll have more of a chance now you'd think if true but that could just be a rehash of an old story.
Edited by Pussyfoot, 6 Jul 2018, 09:53 AM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tonyjaa-csc
Older than dirt
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Thats_Ma_Bhoy
6 Jul 2018, 09:38 AM
Celtic set to fight Swansea and Hull for Yeovil town defender Tom James. DR twitter feed, so more made up pish then.
He a right back / left back?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pussyfoot
À la mode if you will
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
tonyjaa-csc
6 Jul 2018, 09:56 AM
Thats_Ma_Bhoy
6 Jul 2018, 09:38 AM
Celtic set to fight Swansea and Hull for Yeovil town defender Tom James. DR twitter feed, so more made up pish then.
He a right back / left back?
Right Back
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
behan
Member Avatar
past his best.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Whether or not its 'fair' doesn't really matter. More importantly, it's not particularly good for the progress of the player. If you've a young player leaving your club on loan for a year, you want him busting his balls to come back a more improved player. Essentially guaranteeing him games by charging the loan club a fee for not playing him can't be good for the players growth physiologically.
Edited by behan, 6 Jul 2018, 10:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
searcher52
Member Avatar
You can observe a lot by just watching
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Memories of the Tony Watt loans?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
randombloke
Member Avatar
Off treasure hunting in Holland
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
behan
6 Jul 2018, 10:00 AM
Whether or not its 'fair' doesn't really matter. More importantly, it's not particularly good for the progress of the player. If you've a young player leaving your club on loan for a year, you want him busting his balls to come back a more improved player. Essentially guaranteeing him games by charging the loan club a fee for not playing him can't be good for the players growth physiologically.
I think the way Liverpool are reported to be doing this sounds fair enough - they're not actually asking clubs to guarantee a loan player games, but they are putting a disincentive there to clubs who might take the player on just to boost their cover options and not give him the game time he needs.

If a club is certain they have a real need for the player in their team then they can probably take him on loan without worrying about triggering significant extra charges. If it's a club who already have good options in that area and might just leave the lad sitting on the bench week after week if their primary options stay fit and on form then they'll need to be prepared to stump up the extra compensation.

The Musonda deal was probably a bad move for us and him - he was brought in to compete for a starting slot in a position where Rogic, McGregor and Armstrong were already established as reliable options. It's a classic case of timing being everything in Football - we'd apparently been trying to get him in on loan for a year or more, but by the time we finally got him the need for him in the squad was questionable....so we probably should have passed rather than just take him and see if he can fight his way in ahead of established players.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bobby Peru
Member Avatar
The Maestro

randombloke
6 Jul 2018, 10:28 AM
behan
6 Jul 2018, 10:00 AM
Whether or not its 'fair' doesn't really matter. More importantly, it's not particularly good for the progress of the player. If you've a young player leaving your club on loan for a year, you want him busting his balls to come back a more improved player. Essentially guaranteeing him games by charging the loan club a fee for not playing him can't be good for the players growth physiologically.
I think the way Liverpool are reported to be doing this sounds fair enough - they're not actually asking clubs to guarantee a loan player games, but they are putting a disincentive there to clubs who might take the player on just to boost their cover options and not give him the game time he needs.

If a club is certain they have a real need for the player in their team then they can probably take him on loan without worrying about triggering significant extra charges. If it's a club who already have good options in that area and might just leave the lad sitting on the bench week after week if their primary options stay fit and on form then they'll need to be prepared to stump up the extra compensation.

The Musonda deal was probably a bad move for us and him - he was brought in to compete for a starting slot in a position where Rogic, McGregor and Armstrong were already established as reliable options. It's a classic case of timing being everything in Football - we'd apparently been trying to get him in on loan for a year or more, but by the time we finally got him the need for him in the squad was questionable....so we probably should have passed rather than just take him and see if he can fight his way in ahead of established players.
You have to remember Musonda was an 18month deal though and I’m sure part of the thinking was that at least 2 if not all 3 of Rogic, Roberts and Armstrong would be leaving in the summer. I’m not sure we took him just for the sake of it I think he was seen as a player for the 2018/2019 season but just didn’t impress once we got him here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bigdavie
Member Avatar
Occasional Substitute
[ *  *  *  * ]
randombloke
6 Jul 2018, 10:28 AM
behan
6 Jul 2018, 10:00 AM
Whether or not its 'fair' doesn't really matter. More importantly, it's not particularly good for the progress of the player. If you've a young player leaving your club on loan for a year, you want him busting his balls to come back a more improved player. Essentially guaranteeing him games by charging the loan club a fee for not playing him can't be good for the players growth physiologically.
I think the way Liverpool are reported to be doing this sounds fair enough - they're not actually asking clubs to guarantee a loan player games, but they are putting a disincentive there to clubs who might take the player on just to boost their cover options and not give him the game time he needs.

If a club is certain they have a real need for the player in their team then they can probably take him on loan without worrying about triggering significant extra charges. If it's a club who already have good options in that area and might just leave the lad sitting on the bench week after week if their primary options stay fit and on form then they'll need to be prepared to stump up the extra compensation.

The Musonda deal was probably a bad move for us and him - he was brought in to compete for a starting slot in a position where Rogic, McGregor and Armstrong were already established as reliable options. It's a classic case of timing being everything in Football - we'd apparently been trying to get him in on loan for a year or more, but by the time we finally got him the need for him in the squad was questionable....so we probably should have passed rather than just take him and see if he can fight his way in ahead of established players.
You don't really think clubs take on loanees and maybe pay them 10-20 grand a week just as cover do you?

If the boy isn't good enough for the team holding his registration who do they think they are asking for guarantees?

As has been mentioned on many different posts, the "Big Clubs" are hovering up all this young talent with next to no intention of playing them unless they are obvious Superstars in the making.

Sure I heard during the World Cup a week or so ago Chelsea had a guy for about 5 years and never started one season at them. Ridiculous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Davybhoy344
Member Avatar
First team training
[ *  *  * ]
The way I see it is Liverpool are just protecting their investment. If we sent Mikey Johnstone out on loan tomorrow and he sat on the bench at Aberdeen from now until the end of the season, Aberdeen would have cost us time and money in developing the player. They deserve to foot the bill for that. Same goes for us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
adammce
Member Avatar
Send in....the clowns!
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-punish-cardiff-city-marko-14176372

I mind when Marko Grujic went on loan to Cardiff City, Warnock explained how it works quite well. Basically, there is no enforcement on the club loaning him to play him: but basically they pay either his wages or an extra fee (depends on the deal) if they don't play that week. As Warnock says, it's to safeguard players being taken to just make up squad numbers. bigdavie, you say that clubs taking 10-20k a week players on loan isn't realistic just to make up the numbers:

1. Did we not (supposedly) pay Musonda a lot more than that to get splinters in his arse? While that wasn't the original intent, that's what happened.
2. Many clubs who use these deals are in the English first and second division: they mostly can afford another 500k-1m per year on their wage bill if having an extra body might get them promoted.

I personally think it's quite a good system, and would probably discount just about anything the Record or that say about clubs being put off due to the Musonda deal. Davybhoy344 above me is spot on, IMO: it's merely making sure that the club has a desire to use the player, that the player fits into their side and that the manager can't just put him on the bench. I remember reading a piece with Harry Kane, and he said that at Millwall (I think) when on loan he just kind of played without any real fear or worry. When it was put to him that faffing around and 'learning the game' might mean his poor performances cost Millwall their league position, and that the manager didn't have the luxury to just blood a player, he was gonna be on the benched.

If you loan out a young player to a team that's struggling, their manager will rarely risk their job and will just use the young player as cover. With this kind of guarantee in place, you at least know that the manager is willing to take the risk and play him regardless. Hardly a perfect system, but one I would suggest works quite well in the present way of doing things. While it's not the same as the Harry Wilson deal, I presume the aim would be to make sure he never wound up like Roberts last season: missing a bit of the season then never really getting near a run of games again.
Edited by adammce, 6 Jul 2018, 12:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bigdavie
Member Avatar
Occasional Substitute
[ *  *  *  * ]
I'd say in this case Liverpool are stifling their player. This boy has been there a few years now at U18 and U23 with a couple of loan deals thrown in as well, looks like the same for next season.

If he is out the picture at Liverpool surely it's better for them and him if he is out there fighting for a game at a club rather than just being given a game?

At the end of it he is still their player.

Or is it just simply they will get more money for a Liverpool reserve with a few cameos than they would for a guy that couldn't even get a game at Celtic.

If there is no option to buy then I say we forget all about these kind of loans.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Country Mac
Member Avatar
First-team starter
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Davybhoy344
6 Jul 2018, 11:52 AM
The way I see it is Liverpool are just protecting their investment. If we sent Mikey Johnstone out on loan tomorrow and he sat on the bench at Aberdeen from now until the end of the season, Aberdeen would have cost us time and money in developing the player. They deserve to foot the bill for that. Same goes for us.
No issue with Liverpool behaving this way at all. Makes perfect sense. It just means we should avoid. Really not the type of deal we need right now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tonyjaa-csc
Older than dirt
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
John McGinn linked apparently
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Broadsword
Member Avatar
Can I have 12 bottles of bleach please?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
tonyjaa-csc
6 Jul 2018, 12:27 PM
John McGinn linked apparently
Do we need to pay Liverpool anything if we don’t play him?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Asgardstreasure
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
McGinn begin ag'in
Edited by Asgardstreasure, 6 Jul 2018, 12:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
leangreen
Member Avatar
Club Captain
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
tonyjaa-csc
6 Jul 2018, 12:27 PM
John McGinn linked apparently
Not needed. Sign precontract January
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
25 users reading this topic (15 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Celtic Football Club Discussion Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply