Loan Clauses

[Razam]

Just seen this on the BBC website...

Liverpool full-back Cameron Brannagan's move to Wigan could collapse because the Championship side cannot guarantee the 20-year-old will play in 75% of games during his loan spell - a clause the Reds insist on with their loanees. (Liverpool Echo)

Is it likely that players we get on loan could have the same type of clause? So we'd have to play them regardless of how good they were?

 

[Tampa Blue]

Just seen this on the BBC website...


Is it likely that players we get on loan could have the same type of clause? So we'd have to play them regardless of how good they were?

Yes this is quite a standard sort of clause but I don't want to reignite the Coulthirst debate all over again - if we sign them with this sort of clause then we are obliged to play them though not necessarily start them.

 

[mrsblue]

Standard practise I'm afraid,some clubs have even stricter clauses.

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

Yes this is quite a standard sort of clause but I don't want to reignite the Coulthirst debate all over again - if we sign them with this sort of clause then we are obliged to play them though not necessarily start them.

Yes - quite a difference between "play" and "start" ........... but if the player does turn out to be poor then Browny has effectively lost 1 substitute option as he will know that he has to bring on the loanee during injury time.

All in all, another reason to work to reduce any reliance on the loan system in the coming seasons.

 

[kentblues]

Just seen this on the BBC website...


Is it likely that players we get on loan could have the same type of clause? So we'd have to play them regardless of how good they were?

I don't think we give such a commitment- if we do we don't keep to it! The loanee has to earn the place and by and large the loanees we have had struggle to do so. Barnett did (but then we had few alternatives). Kamara played occasionally- McQueen more often but not 75%. Hendrie did but he was the only LB. Might be why we don't get loanees from certain clubs perhaps..

 

[Jai]

All in all, another reason to work to reduce any reliance on the loan system in the coming seasons.

Good luck with that last bit. Like it or not we have to rely on loans to a certain extent, all lower-league clubs do as they are financially on their knees and it is a way of filling gaps without committing to a long-term contract.

 

[Beefy]

Didn't Brown say he'd never agree to such a clause?

 

[Beefy]

Cue hilarious comment about how that means that all of our loan contracts have that clause in.

 

[Tampa Blue]

Cue hilarious comment about how that means that all of our loan contracts have that clause in.

I am only guessing that there may be a variety of loan contracts out there.,

For example if it were a Premiership or Championship club loaning out a 'youngster' then presumably they are loaning him out to gain experience and more than likely will want him to play and probably will contribute a reasonable percentage of his wages hence such a clause/guarantee.

However, if it was like the case of Barnett to us or when we let Prosser go to Northampton then I believe that this is more case of getting an unwanted player off the pay roll and the parent club doesn't really care if they play or not and there wouldn't be any such clause.

Like I say, it's only a guess and I'm used to guessing wrong!!

 

[Lord Football]

Just seen this on the BBC website...


Is it likely that players we get on loan could have the same type of clause? So we'd have to play them regardless of how good they were?

From the horse's mouth. "no".

I asked PB this very question at a refs meeting some time ago, and his answer was emphatic. I actually framed it around a situation that was on going at Glasgow Rangers, but I was really talking about Shaq Coulthirst. His answer was along the lines of it undermining the manager's decision on how to set up his team.

 

[rigsby]

Some won't have a clause on actually starting but they make sure they punish you financially if you don't pick the player.

For example if a 18 year old player is on £4500 per week at a premiership academy. Then if he starts we would pay £1500, comes on as sub £3000 and gets dropped the full £4500.

If we are going to have a player for a season then other areas would have to be negotiated, like what if they are injured long term.

I can tell you that we did look at a player from Crystal Palace who is on £15,000 per week. We offered a cheeky £1500.....He never arrived. Signing some one loan with proven quality is not as feasible for us as some might think.

 

[SeaSideDoughnut]

If I remember, didn't Antonio German have a clause that he had to play every game?

 

[Tommy2holes]

Some won't have a clause on actually starting but they make sure they punish you financially if you don't pick the player.

For example if a 18 year old player is on £4500 per week at a premiership academy. Then if he starts we would pay £1500, comes on as sub £3000 and gets dropped the full £4500.

If we are going to have a player for a season then other areas would have to be negotiated, like what if they are injured long term.

I can tell you that we did look at a player from Crystal Palace who is on £15,000 per week. We offered a cheeky £1500.....He never arrived. Signing some one loan with proven quality is not as feasible for us as some might think.

Was that a Finish striker?

 

[Jam_Man]

Cue hilarious comment about how that means that all of our loan contracts have that clause in.

Indeed. Just because those clauses exist doesnt mean we had them or they are in every contract because they clearly arent.

We had this with both Coulthirst and Woodrow. We had people telling us they had to play every game, then they had to be a sub, then they werent playing at all.

Even last season we had loans who barely featured:
McQueen only started 4 games when he was here.
Loza only started 1 game .
Pitor Malarczyk only started 2.

Some won't have a clause on actually starting but they make sure they punish you financially if you don't pick the player.

For example if a 18 year old player is on £4500 per week at a premiership academy. Then if he starts we would pay £1500, comes on as sub £3000 and gets dropped the full £4500.

If we are going to have a player for a season then other areas would have to be negotiated, like what if they are injured long term.

I can tell you that we did look at a player from Crystal Palace who is on £15,000 per week. We offered a cheeky £1500.....He never arrived. Signing some one loan with proven quality is not as feasible for us as some might think.

It might be like for experienced players but for kids the loaning team wants them to play as much as possible, we would rarely have to pick up their entire salary, even if they didnt play.

Who was the left back we had from Palace a season or two ago? Theres no way we kept him all season and barely played him whilst paying his full contract.

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

Who was the left back we had from Palace a season or two ago? Theres no way we kept him all season and barely played him whilst paying his full contract.

I think he had a double barrelled surname with something like Binom and/or Williams in it - he looked casual or disinterested at times and I remember him wandering up the pitch and out of position against York away and a player getting behind him with ease. Poor stuff. I think he went out on loan to Boreton as well last season.

 

[Jam_Man]

I think he had a double barrelled surname with something like Binom and/or Williams in it - he looked casual or disinterested at times and I remember him wandering up the pitch and out of position against York away and a player getting behind him with ease. Poor stuff. I think he went out on loan to Boreton as well last season.

Jerome Binnom-Williams that was it.

He came in and we had people on here telling us he was better than Coker as well. Was a decent young player but no Coker.

 

[rigsby]

Indeed. Just because those clauses exist doesnt mean we had them or they are in every contract because they clearly arent.







It might be like for experienced players but for kids the loaning team wants them to play as much as possible, we would rarely have to pick up their entire salary, even if they didnt play.

Who was the left back we had from Palace a season or two ago? Theres no way we kept him all season and barely played him whilst paying his full contract.

I did say some. Obviously we avoid the deals with that restriction, but they do exist even for an unproven 18 year old. The reason we got a player as good as Hendrie was because with Coker injured we could guarantee that he played every game.

 

[Crowstone Crevette]

are these 'must play' clauses more prevalent because of the change in the loan rules ie being loaned to a club for a season rather than say 1 month?