• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

A Loan Again, Practically

Status
Not open for further replies.

gkmacca

6CM Addict
Member
Good to see the club trying to ensure that our loanees really benefit from their deals, although I'm not sure this is going to work on a regular basis. Worth a try, though, as too often in the recent past other managers have been taking the pee.



A proposed loan move for Cameron Brannagan to Wigan is on the brink of collapse – because the Latics cannot meet a clause Liverpool insist on with all their loanees.

Wigan were prepared to pay in excess of £1million to sign the young midfielder permanently, but were told that he still features in Jurgen Klopp’s long term plans.

But a follow up move to take the 20-year-old on loan has foundered because Wigan cannot guarantee that Brannagan will play in at least three-quarters of their matches during his loan spell.

The Echo understands that the Reds now insist on a “75 per cent” clause for all of their loaned players, whereby clubs are penalised financially if a player they have loaned does not play in a specified ratio of matches.

The clause is designed to ensure that all players unable to get first team football at Anfield will benefit by gaining valuable first team experience elsewhere.

Football League rules prevent clubs from demanding that loaned players start matches, so the Reds have shrewdly introduced financial penalties into their loan agreements punishing clubs who fail to meet their specified appearance criteria.

The Reds do not ask for loan fees either, with the savings on players’ wages during the loan spells considered a negligible factor in the Anfield club’s thinking.

JS95149982.jpg

Ryan Kent of Liverpool competes with Jason Pearce of Wigan Athletic during the Pre-Season Friendly match between Wigan Athletic and Liverpool at JJB Stadium on July 17, 2016 in Wigan, England. (Photo by Andrew Powell/Liverpool FC via Getty Images)

As well as Brannagan, Ryan Kent is another player attracting significant interest from the Championship, with seven clubs vying to take him on-loan - including Barnsley, Bristol City and MK Dons.

Goalkeepers Danny Ward and Adam Bogdan have joined Huddersfield and Wigan respectively, where they will be first choice goalkeepers, while Jurgen Klopp is agonising whether to allow Jon Flanagan to join Burnley on loan.

The Clarets are keen to take the Reds defender now that he is completely recovered from the knee problem which sidelined him for 18-months, but Klopp must decide whether the 23-year-old will feature at Anfield this season with fierce competition for the full-back places.

Flanagan has featured in all three pre-season friendlies so far and has not missed a single training session since returning for pre-season training.
 
Yeah, dithers clubs from signing players on loan just as backup options. Will make them think twice (whether the player is suitable to style of play etc.) and also make a conscious effort towards their development (given the fact that they will be playing a big role in the season).
 
At the very least it will focus the minds of other managers and make them really think about how they'll use young players if they do go for them. Too often in recent years they've acted with the same degree of prudence that's found in dozy blokes, drunk and covered in crisps, buying stuff on Groupon at 1 in the morning. It's a big experience for young players to go off to other clubs and they're sometimes left feeling lost as managers suddenly panic about playing kids and ignore them.
 
My only worry will be if it puts teams off taking our players at all. 75% is a hell of a commitment for a player who you haven't seen playing in your team.
Also, might it generate bad feeling towards the loanee in the squad they go into? In this era of larger squads players train their bollocks off during the week to catch the eye of the manager and break into the first team. Then this little princeling arrives who is guaranteed 75% of matches. Macca is right, of course, that some teams take loanees with far too little consideration, but I do wonder if this draconian rule will work for either us or prospective nursery teams for our young players.
 
Maybe a fairer deal might be that they are in the match day squad a percentage of the time, with a lower minimum percentage of starts.
 
I seem to remember Rafa having a clause in place for loanees going out. If they played we would pay the player's wage, if not the loaning club would have to stump up the pay. The thinking was what is the point in a player training at Oldham getting no game time when they could at least be training with us and getting no game time.

I could have made that up because I did drink a lot during Rafa's time in charge. Not down to Rafa though.
 
Good rule.

What's the fucking point in sending them out if they're not going to play? I like it.

Totally agree. I also like the way we have (or Klopp) has insisted on but back clauses on the younger players we've sold this summer.
 
My only worry will be if it puts teams off taking our players at all. 75% is a hell of a commitment for a player who you haven't seen playing in your team.
Also, might it generate bad feeling towards the loanee in the squad they go into? In this era of larger squads players train their bollocks off during the week to catch the eye of the manager and break into the first team. Then this little princeling arrives who is guaranteed 75% of matches. Macca is right, of course, that some teams take loanees with far too little consideration, but I do wonder if this draconian rule will work for either us or prospective nursery teams for our young players.
It should be of matches they are eligible for (i.e. not injured or banned) and 50%. That would still be a substantial amount for a loanee and the loan club would feel under less pressure.
 
I understand the logic at work, but I think 75% seems a little high. What if they don't play well enough to justify their position? Clubs with limited budgets may find themselves simply playing loanees to avoid the financial penalty.

And the player themselves should never arrive at a club knowing already they've got a 75% chance of playing, no matter how they train or play. You play if you're good enough.

50% seems fairer.
 
The article only makes mention of "a specific ratio of matches" not minutes. So surely there is nothing to stop the loan club making most of those late sub appearances, as the article points out - Liverpool can't demand they start.
 
I understand the logic at work, but I think 75% seems a little high. What if they don't play well enough to justify their position? Clubs with limited budgets may find themselves simply playing loanees to avoid the financial penalty.

And the player themselves should never arrive at a club knowing already they've got a 75% chance of playing, no matter how they train or play. You play if you're good enough.

50% seems fairer.
Agree with all of that. Additionally I think it might breed some resentment from the club's other players that some players are not earning their place - and may make life unpleasant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom