Sorry, Addickted, a bit slow on the uptake there - I thought you were referring to the possibility of a substantial Joe Gomez sell-on percentage.
Sadly, I don't have any Prussian ancestors. The user name is derived from a Fullers pub around the corner from us on Twickenham Green, which used to have a sign (sadly now replaced) which looked remarkably like Killer Hales. According to that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, Blucher was renowned for his " aggressive approach in warfare", so the likeness was very apt.
10pm after the battle.
Wellington took a glass of wine and Blucher finished the bottle.
I believe he had an 'aggressive approach' to life.
I would love to see some of the negotiating skills of so many contributors to this board in action. It would be an impressive sight.
It never ceases to amaze me how some fans still cling to the notion clubs can dictate the terms of the contracts of top quality players/ prospects. The pre-Bosman days of player servitude have long gone. It really is time for some to move on from this "goods & chattels" mentality in respect of our players.
To seize on Zaha as an example is totally misleading. There is virtually no comparison between the two players, the timing of the transfer, the respective positions of the clubs, (remember Palace had not long walked away from all of their debt and repurchased the ground for pennies on the pound) or any prospective period of loan back.
Zaha at the time of his transfer for a reported up front fee of £10mn (possibly just £4mn more than a reported fee for Gomez) was an established goals scoring forward with over 120 Championship appearances (6 times the number of starts by Gomez) signed in the January transfer window (when fees are always inflated) playing for table topping side chasing promotion.
The only reason he was loaned back for the rest of the season is because the Football League refused to allow the agreed transfer to be delayed until after the season was over. The deal with Man U having no pressing need for his skills at the time never made any sense. It was a collective "brain fart" by the northern club.
I would suggest by his failure to settle in Manchester, his stumbling performances for Cardiff and his at best sporadic contribution to Palace (just 23 PL starts last season) since his return I would suggest at this stage he was over priced.
You could argue RD could have thrown more money at the Gomez contract but unlike Palace he is still working his way through £30mn+ debt incurred when taking over the club.
However is there any fundamental difference to this scenario than the Jenkinson insistence the club received some remuneration for his move to Arsenal? Gomez has been on the radar of every PL club for at least 5yrs - if you do not think he was subject to any range of offers from sundry "representatives" before he signed his last contract then you really do not understand professional football. He could have happily walked to any numbers of clubs with us receiving relatively "nothing" in compensation.
In truth none of us have a clue as to the terms of his current contract where the "devil is always in the detail".
Neither do the press. It is purely educated guesswork and speculation designed to simply feed the ever rapacious rumour mill. The idea anyone of relevance is going to breach specific confidentiality agreements for the media's benefit is laughable. In the past weeks we have seen at least 6 different valuations!! I suppose if you make enough predictions one of them will be right!
Who has anything to gain from such disclosures? The club? The player? No. The players agent? Possibly but the reputational damage of continual leaks to the press carries significant risk. In the end clubs stop talking to you. How about the "media" and "in the know" journalists? Absolutely - rumours sell.
Pages and pages of angst based on little more than thin air.
If the lad moves which seems likely I will wish him well and look to the club to have both maximised the benefit accruing to the club and bring in suitable replacements. I have absolutely no idea whether that will be case. Then again neither have any of you.
So Gomez signed a contract but would always leave for bigger and better things if it suited a small bit like Scott Parker except this time the club have accepted that he's on his way, so no need for Gomez to throw the toys out of the pram
I would love to see some of the negotiating skills of so many contributors to this board in action. It would be an impressive sight.
It never ceases to amaze me how some fans still cling to the notion clubs can dictate the terms of the contracts of top quality players/ prospects. The pre-Bosman days of player servitude have long gone. It really is time for some to move on from this "goods & chattels" mentality in respect of our players.
To seize on Zaha as an example is totally misleading. There is virtually no comparison between the two players, the timing of the transfer, the respective positions of the clubs, (remember Palace had not long walked away from all of their debt and repurchased the ground for pennies on the pound) or any prospective period of loan back.
Zaha at the time of his transfer for a reported up front fee of £10mn (possibly just £4mn more than a reported fee for Gomez) was an established goals scoring forward with over 120 Championship appearances (6 times the number of starts by Gomez) signed in the January transfer window (when fees are always inflated) playing for table topping side chasing promotion.
The only reason he was loaned back for the rest of the season is because the Football League refused to allow the agreed transfer to be delayed until after the season was over. The deal with Man U having no pressing need for his skills at the time never made any sense. It was a collective "brain fart" by the northern club.
I would suggest by his failure to settle in Manchester, his stumbling performances for Cardiff and his at best sporadic contribution to Palace (just 23 PL starts last season) since his return I would suggest at this stage he was over priced.
You could argue RD could have thrown more money at the Gomez contract but unlike Palace he is still working his way through £30mn+ debt incurred when taking over the club.
However is there any fundamental difference to this scenario than the Jenkinson insistence the club received some remuneration for his move to Arsenal? Gomez has been on the radar of every PL club for at least 5yrs - if you do not think he was subject to any range of offers from sundry "representatives" before he signed his last contract then you really do not understand professional football. He could have happily walked to any numbers of clubs with us receiving relatively "nothing" in compensation.
In truth none of us have a clue as to the terms of his current contract where the "devil is always in the detail".
Neither do the press. It is purely educated guesswork and speculation designed to simply feed the ever rapacious rumour mill. The idea anyone of relevance is going to breach specific confidentiality agreements for the media's benefit is laughable. In the past weeks we have seen at least 6 different valuations!! I suppose if you make enough predictions one of them will be right!
Who has anything to gain from such disclosures? The club? The player? No. The players agent? Possibly but the reputational damage of continual leaks to the press carries significant risk. In the end clubs stop talking to you. How about the "media" and "in the know" journalists? Absolutely - rumours sell.
Pages and pages of angst based on little more than thin air.
If the lad moves which seems likely I will wish him well and look to the club to have both maximised the benefit accruing to the club and bring in suitable replacements. I have absolutely no idea whether that will be case. Then again neither have any of you.
Excellent points grapevine but I disagree about the "leaks".
CAFC are clearly briefing Crawley to get a version of the story out there to suit them.
Not complaining about that even if I'd prefer inclusive from clubs but clubs play the media as much as the press guess numbers.
Why people take the numbers or time lines seriously I don't know.
The only two certainties are that it will only be done when it is on the OS and the fee will be undisclosed.
Since I'm clearly the main target of your post, i'll endeavour to answer.
Thank you for clarifying the terms and circumstances of the Zaha purchase.
Wilfried Zaha's talent was identified as early in his career as Gomez was, and indeed because of the type of player, was more visible to the general public. Despite this, Palace managed to hold on to him to the extent that their fans enjoyed him, as you say, for 120 games.
I'd like us to be in a position where we see our young stars for that sort of time before we have to -inevitably- sell them. Not only is it likely to be good business - transfer values may rise exponentially - but perhaps more importantly it will increase the enjoyment of the fan base, many of whom support Valley Gold because they want to see young talent come through.
You say that in the Zaha case Palace were in a stronger position because they had (as some people would say) sneaked their way out of debt, whereas RD is burdened with debt. That of course is a perfectly reasonable point, and i am notone of those who sticks his head in the sand and expects an owner to just chuck good money after bad. I have understood from the first days that RD's strategy is apparently built on the development and sale of young players. I broadly support it as the only reasonable thing for a club in Charlton's position to do. I'm questioning the execution of the strategy in the light of the rapid inflation of revenues in FAPL which widen the gap with the rest of English football to an intolerable degree. I'd like to see RD's debt paid off, and I wonder if in this case he's made the most progress he could have done.
I have always understood and accepted that this contract was the last one Gomez would sign for us. That is why, in the current situation, a loan back deal would have been ideal. If loaned back, £3.5m as the base transfer fee would be good business because we won't have to spend it on bringing in replacements at centre back where we are currently woefully weak. If the base fee were £6m, that would also impress me as being max value, but I am afraid that the balance of rumour and gossip and their sources lead me to the expectation that in fact £3.5m is the figure.
Finally I have highlighted Zaha because it concerns our neighbours and I happen to think we have a blind spot both about their leadership and indeed their fans, because of our history, and I think we should put that aside and take a good long look. However, sale and loan back is more and more common in FAPL deals with lower level clubs. I simply have not got the time to research them, but if you dispute that, then I'll try to find time over the weekend to dig some out. My point was that it seems to me to be the optimal way to deal with the frankly intolerable buying power of the FAPL. if you've got a better one, I'll be interested to read of it.
The transfer loan-back (Term coined here first) is a phenomenon only seen during the January transfer window and whose title makes the term pretty self-explanatory. It is the process of a club purchasing a player from another club and then immediately loaning the player back to his original club for the remainder of the season. The merits, uses and prevalence of this leverage of the loan system is somewhat new and is more interesting in context to how the loan system has been used up to this point. - See more at: http://www.businessofsoccer.come
With this, the loan system added another nuance and use to clubs as a way to shop their players temporarily in an attempt to raise or prove the value of some of their fringe players that they wanted to offload. Other clubs might have been wary about signing them permanently off the bat yet the loan gave them an opportunity to test drive the players first.
Loans can be used tactically like in the examples of MLS players like Clint Dempsey, formerly David Beckham, Robbie Keane, and Landon Donovan, who all did short-term loans in the MLS offseason to augment Premier League squads.
The transfer loan back is a nuance that only adds to the multi-dimensional swiss army knife that is the Premier League’s loan system. While there aren’t a massive number of examples of this phenomenon in the January transfer window there are still some.
Since 2007, looking at every January transfer window, there have been seven transfer loan backs. The first was in 2009 with Adam Ljajic from Partizan Belgrade to Manchester United. This deal fell through in the end, but Manchester United kept chugging forward as in 2010 they signed Chris Smalling from Fulham and loaned him back.
Kevin De Bruyne’s move from Genk to Chelsea was next in 2012 with 2013 being a boom year. Jack Butland moved from Birmingham to Stoke and was loaned back, while a similar deal was made between Crystal Palace and Manchester United for Wilfred Zaha. Chelsea wrapped up the loan back work and kept it international by signing Brazilian left back Wallace from Fluminense and loaning him back for the remainder of the season.
The most recent example from this past January window is Kurt Zouma from French Club St Etienne. Chelsea signed the 18-year-old French Center Back and loaned him right back.
The practice of signing players and loaning them back to clubs for the remainder of the season is and incredibly curious and interesting tactic for clubs. Every time that it has happened, it has been a young player thought to have major potential. Obviously they weren’t needed immediately at their new club so they were loaned back for the remainder of the season, but then why sign them in January?
The natural argument is to cut off the potential of a bidding war that could elevate the transfer fee paid for the player during the summer transfer window dramatically. Why then would the selling club allow the player to be sold though? If they know the player will go in the summer anyway, why not keep him and hold out for a much bigger fee in the summer? A possible answer could be that players push for a move and this solution suits all parties, the player and purchasing club get their move, while the selling club gets their money and retains their asset for the remainder of the season.
Another possibility, though there’s no proof of this, is that maybe the deal was going to happen in January anyway simply from the bigger clubs pressure and players desire and protest. A transfer fee remained the only obstacle and couldn’t be agreed on due to both sides being stubborn. In comes the loan-back potential that allows the club to rationalize a lower asking price since they get to keep their asset while ensuring the player gets his desired move and doesn’t continue to rumble the dressing room. Again that’s pure speculation though.
All in all, to say there’s a growing trend of these kind of deals is most definitely a massive stretch of the term trend since there are only a handful of examples since 2007. It appears though that the practice is increasing somewhat and given the characteristics, it could be something that major clubs use more often with the prevalence of Financial Fair Pay as clubs look for younger players at lower prices.
The loan system was conceived out of simplicity and to give youth players the opportunity to develop. It has since grown and developed into a nuanced and tactical tool utilized by both major clubs to farm out players and smaller clubs to leverage. The versatility of the loan system continues to have its limits of versatility pushed and the transfer loan-back practice is but the latest to emerge. Every transfer window provides a new opportunity to see the loan system change and develop and with Financial Fair Play becoming more and more prominent,
Now that seems to suggest and insinuate that although this loan back is becoming.a feature of the British market place where transfers are concerned , it is only in Januarys window it seems to happen and has only happend 7 times in 7 seasons , so it must be a tricky thing to negotiate In to a deal
Why don't we loan JG to Liverpool for the season then. They can pay us the £3.5M as a loan fee and when he has played 25 EPL games and helped them qualify for the Champions League we can flog him to Arsenal for £16M as a replacement for Chambers.
This way every one wins, we get loads of dosh, JG gets to play for 2 huge teams and become a man up North! Liverpool get back in CL and Arsenal get England's best young defender.
I'm not too concerned about this, if we get a decent fee. His potential is enormous and while I think that playing for us for a whole season would be good for him, it is definitely the right thing for him to go now.
I do hope Cousins signs his contract, but I fear that the logic is the same for him. He would be very difficult to replace, but if a premier league club came in for him, I wouldn't blame him for going. Some doubt that he has the quality to play in the PL and therefore he may feel that a chance to play there on vastly increased money would be too good to turn down.
Where there's no transparency you will get speculation. For at least one time, prove to CAFC fans we haven't been shafted. The Woolwich meeting for me, was all about communication, and yet so many fans now seem fine for being kept in the dark ??
No problem with youngsters moving to premier league teams, just very annoying that we never get to see them for longer then 5 minutes. What annoys me is years ago teams would wait a little longer and seeing how players developed before putting in a bid. Now days where the gulf is so extreme from the premier league and the football league, these teams can just chuck any money on a unproven youngster and not have the worry if they turn out not to be good enough.
Thanks for that post NLA with the text from the article. I could have sworn there were more examples than this, but these people obviously have done their research. Will have to look at this more.
I thought it was a lot more common than just 7 since 2007 also, what I wasn't surprised with was that it seems to be a January phenomenon as that bit makes good negotiation sense ,
I checked to see how old the article was but it seems pretty up to date and there isn't too much info available , without a real amount of time being spent on the transfers
I thought it was a lot more common than just 7 since 2007 also, what I wasn't surprised with was that it seems to be a January phenomenon as that bit makes good negotiation sense ,
I checked to see how old the article was but it seems pretty up to date and there isn't too much info available , without a real amount of time being spent on the transfers
Could you possibly link to the actual article? I got to the homepage, but not obvious how to find the actual article. Looks a good site, though.
I would like to see a loan back and can understand why it is not common outside the reasons used to abuse the rules.
Most players are initiating the transfer because they have a value unable to be realised earnings wise where they are, and want away asap. Little chance for the player or selling club to be involved in a loan back because his new enhanced value only arises if he is playing for the new club.
It has to be a situation like JG's where all parties want to crystallise their positions in advance. The player must have potential value to the new club rather than current value in playing terms. LFC believe the potential value will be realised, so LFC happy to risk buying a prospect to prevent rivals stealing him or creating a bidding war down the line. LFC and JG know he will not walk straight into a premier first team so where does he start his development?
CAFC recognise that you can't buck what a players and his agent want so it's a matter of getting the best deal rather than trying to hold a player to his contract in the hope of more jam tomorrow.
A loan back is a sensible arrangement for all, if LFC and JG think CAFC is a suitable place to continue his development and the agent get's his pound of flesh?
If Joe wants a clean break and LFC have their own development plans not involving a loan spell with a Championship club then he doesn't get loaned back.
According to the Daily Mail, Derby County will look to loan highly-rated England under-19 international Joe Gomez from Liverpool once he completes his £3.5million move from Charlton Athletic, which is expected to be concluded on Friday.
The report states that Charlton will also look to sign the player on loan from Liverpool for next season.
Why would Gomez want to come back on a year's loan? I believe the reason he left was because of the uncertainty over the playing staff next season, particularly at CB, with all the experienced ones gone. Until recently he gave every indication of being happy to stay at Charlton next season, but all the chopping and changing didn't make us an attractive prospect.
Why would Gomez want to come back on a year's loan? I believe the reason he left was because of the uncertainty over the playing staff next season, particularly at CB, with all the experienced ones gone. Until recently he gave every indication of being happy to stay at Charlton next season, but all the chopping and changing didn't make us an attractive prospect.
Why would Gomez want to come back on a year's loan? I believe the reason he left was because of the uncertainty over the playing staff next season, particularly at CB, with all the experienced ones gone. Until recently he gave every indication of being happy to stay at Charlton next season, but all the chopping and changing didn't make us an attractive prospect.
Why would Gomez want to come back on a year's loan? I believe the reason he left was because of the uncertainty over the playing staff next season, particularly at CB, with all the experienced ones gone. Until recently he gave every indication of being happy to stay at Charlton next season, but all the chopping and changing didn't make us an attractive prospect.
The same as most fans are worried about exactly the same issue.
Comments
Wellington took a glass of wine and Blucher finished the bottle.
I believe he had an 'aggressive approach' to life.
It never ceases to amaze me how some fans still cling to the notion clubs can dictate the terms of the contracts of top quality players/ prospects. The pre-Bosman days of player servitude have long gone. It really is time for some to move on from this "goods & chattels" mentality in respect of our players.
To seize on Zaha as an example is totally misleading. There is virtually no comparison between the two players, the timing of the transfer, the respective positions of the clubs, (remember Palace had not long walked away from all of their debt and repurchased the ground for pennies on the pound) or any prospective period of loan back.
Zaha at the time of his transfer for a reported up front fee of £10mn (possibly just £4mn more than a reported fee for Gomez) was an established goals scoring forward with over 120 Championship appearances (6 times the number of starts by Gomez) signed in the January transfer window (when fees are always inflated) playing for table topping side chasing promotion.
The only reason he was loaned back for the rest of the season is because the Football League refused to allow the agreed transfer to be delayed until after the season was over. The deal with Man U having no pressing need for his skills at the time never made any sense. It was a collective "brain fart" by the northern club.
I would suggest by his failure to settle in Manchester, his stumbling performances for Cardiff and his at best sporadic contribution to Palace (just 23 PL starts last season) since his return I would suggest at this stage he was over priced.
You could argue RD could have thrown more money at the Gomez contract but unlike Palace he is still working his way through £30mn+ debt incurred when taking over the club.
However is there any fundamental difference to this scenario than the Jenkinson insistence the club received some remuneration for his move to Arsenal? Gomez has been on the radar of every PL club for at least 5yrs - if you do not think he was subject to any range of offers from sundry "representatives" before he signed his last contract then you really do not understand professional football. He could have happily walked to any numbers of clubs with us receiving relatively "nothing" in compensation.
In truth none of us have a clue as to the terms of his current contract where the "devil is always in the detail".
Neither do the press. It is purely educated guesswork and speculation designed to simply feed the ever rapacious rumour mill. The idea anyone of relevance is going to breach specific confidentiality agreements for the media's benefit is laughable. In the past weeks we have seen at least 6 different valuations!! I suppose if you make enough predictions one of them will be right!
Who has anything to gain from such disclosures? The club? The player? No. The players agent? Possibly but the reputational damage of continual leaks to the press carries significant risk. In the end clubs stop talking to you. How about the "media" and "in the know" journalists? Absolutely - rumours sell.
Pages and pages of angst based on little more than thin air.
If the lad moves which seems likely I will wish him well and look to the club to have both maximised the benefit accruing to the club and bring in suitable replacements. I have absolutely no idea whether that will be case. Then again neither have any of you.
I was a big fan of that little idiosyncratic flourish.
a small bit like Scott Parker except this time the club have accepted that he's on his way, so no need for Gomez to throw the toys out of the pram
CAFC are clearly briefing Crawley to get a version of the story out there to suit them.
Not complaining about that even if I'd prefer inclusive from clubs but clubs play the media as much as the press guess numbers.
Why people take the numbers or time lines seriously I don't know.
The only two certainties are that it will only be done when it is on the OS and the fee will be undisclosed.
Summed it up with a huge strike on the nails head , great post pal
Since I'm clearly the main target of your post, i'll endeavour to answer.
Thank you for clarifying the terms and circumstances of the Zaha purchase.
Wilfried Zaha's talent was identified as early in his career as Gomez was, and indeed because of the type of player, was more visible to the general public. Despite this, Palace managed to hold on to him to the extent that their fans enjoyed him, as you say, for 120 games.
I'd like us to be in a position where we see our young stars for that sort of time before we have to -inevitably- sell them. Not only is it likely to be good business - transfer values may rise exponentially - but perhaps more importantly it will increase the enjoyment of the fan base, many of whom support Valley Gold because they want to see young talent come through.
You say that in the Zaha case Palace were in a stronger position because they had (as some people would say) sneaked their way out of debt, whereas RD is burdened with debt. That of course is a perfectly reasonable point, and i am notone of those who sticks his head in the sand and expects an owner to just chuck good money after bad. I have understood from the first days that RD's strategy is apparently built on the development and sale of young players. I broadly support it as the only reasonable thing for a club in Charlton's position to do. I'm questioning the execution of the strategy in the light of the rapid inflation of revenues in FAPL which widen the gap with the rest of English football to an intolerable degree. I'd like to see RD's debt paid off, and I wonder if in this case he's made the most progress he could have done.
I have always understood and accepted that this contract was the last one Gomez would sign for us. That is why, in the current situation, a loan back deal would have been ideal. If loaned back, £3.5m as the base transfer fee would be good business because we won't have to spend it on bringing in replacements at centre back where we are currently woefully weak. If the base fee were £6m, that would also impress me as being max value, but I am afraid that the balance of rumour and gossip and their sources lead me to the expectation that in fact £3.5m is the figure.
Finally I have highlighted Zaha because it concerns our neighbours and I happen to think we have a blind spot both about their leadership and indeed their fans, because of our history, and I think we should put that aside and take a good long look. However, sale and loan back is more and more common in FAPL deals with lower level clubs. I simply have not got the time to research them, but if you dispute that, then I'll try to find time over the weekend to dig some out. My point was that it seems to me to be the optimal way to deal with the frankly intolerable buying power of the FAPL. if you've got a better one, I'll be interested to read of it.
With this, the loan system added another nuance and use to clubs as a way to shop their players temporarily in an attempt to raise or prove the value of some of their fringe players that they wanted to offload. Other clubs might have been wary about signing them permanently off the bat yet the loan gave them an opportunity to test drive the players first.
Loans can be used tactically like in the examples of MLS players like Clint Dempsey, formerly David Beckham, Robbie Keane, and Landon Donovan, who all did short-term loans in the MLS offseason to augment Premier League squads.
The transfer loan back is a nuance that only adds to the multi-dimensional swiss army knife that is the Premier League’s loan system. While there aren’t a massive number of examples of this phenomenon in the January transfer window there are still some.
Since 2007, looking at every January transfer window, there have been seven transfer loan backs. The first was in 2009 with Adam Ljajic from Partizan Belgrade to Manchester United. This deal fell through in the end, but Manchester United kept chugging forward as in 2010 they signed Chris Smalling from Fulham and loaned him back.
Kevin De Bruyne’s move from Genk to Chelsea was next in 2012 with 2013 being a boom year. Jack Butland moved from Birmingham to Stoke and was loaned back, while a similar deal was made between Crystal Palace and Manchester United for Wilfred Zaha. Chelsea wrapped up the loan back work and kept it international by signing Brazilian left back Wallace from Fluminense and loaning him back for the remainder of the season.
The most recent example from this past January window is Kurt Zouma from French Club St Etienne. Chelsea signed the 18-year-old French Center Back and loaned him right back.
The practice of signing players and loaning them back to clubs for the remainder of the season is and incredibly curious and interesting tactic for clubs. Every time that it has happened, it has been a young player thought to have major potential. Obviously they weren’t needed immediately at their new club so they were loaned back for the remainder of the season, but then why sign them in January?
The natural argument is to cut off the potential of a bidding war that could elevate the transfer fee paid for the player during the summer transfer window dramatically. Why then would the selling club allow the player to be sold though? If they know the player will go in the summer anyway, why not keep him and hold out for a much bigger fee in the summer? A possible answer could be that players push for a move and this solution suits all parties, the player and purchasing club get their move, while the selling club gets their money and retains their asset for the remainder of the season.
Another possibility, though there’s no proof of this, is that maybe the deal was going to happen in January anyway simply from the bigger clubs pressure and players desire and protest. A transfer fee remained the only obstacle and couldn’t be agreed on due to both sides being stubborn. In comes the loan-back potential that allows the club to rationalize a lower asking price since they get to keep their asset while ensuring the player gets his desired move and doesn’t continue to rumble the dressing room. Again that’s pure speculation though.
All in all, to say there’s a growing trend of these kind of deals is most definitely a massive stretch of the term trend since there are only a handful of examples since 2007. It appears though that the practice is increasing somewhat and given the characteristics, it could be something that major clubs use more often with the prevalence of Financial Fair Pay as clubs look for younger players at lower prices.
The loan system was conceived out of simplicity and to give youth players the opportunity to develop. It has since grown and developed into a nuanced and tactical tool utilized by both major clubs to farm out players and smaller clubs to leverage. The versatility of the loan system continues to have its limits of versatility pushed and the transfer loan-back practice is but the latest to emerge. Every transfer window provides a new opportunity to see the loan system change and develop and with Financial Fair Play becoming more and more prominent,
Now that seems to suggest and insinuate that although this loan back is becoming.a feature of the British market place where transfers are concerned , it is only in Januarys window it seems to happen and has only happend 7 times in 7 seasons , so it must be a tricky thing to negotiate In to a deal
This way every one wins, we get loads of dosh, JG gets to play for 2 huge teams and become a man up North! Liverpool get back in CL and Arsenal get England's best young defender.
Easy.
:-)
I do hope Cousins signs his contract, but I fear that the logic is the same for him. He would be very difficult to replace, but if a premier league club came in for him, I wouldn't blame him for going. Some doubt that he has the quality to play in the PL and therefore he may feel that a chance to play there on vastly increased money would be too good to turn down.
For at least one time, prove to CAFC fans we haven't been shafted.
The Woolwich meeting for me, was all about communication, and yet so many fans now seem fine for being kept in the dark ??
I checked to see how old the article was but it seems pretty up to date and there isn't too much info available , without a real amount of time being spent on the transfers
Most players are initiating the transfer because they have a value unable to be realised earnings wise where they are, and want away asap. Little chance for the player or selling club to be involved in a loan back because his new enhanced value only arises if he is playing for the new club.
It has to be a situation like JG's where all parties want to crystallise their positions in advance. The player must have potential value to the new club rather than current value in playing terms. LFC believe the potential value will be realised, so LFC happy to risk buying a prospect to prevent rivals stealing him or creating a bidding war down the line. LFC and JG know he will not walk straight into a premier first team so where does he start his development?
CAFC recognise that you can't buck what a players and his agent want so it's a matter of getting the best deal rather than trying to hold a player to his contract in the hope of more jam tomorrow.
A loan back is a sensible arrangement for all, if LFC and JG think CAFC is a suitable place to continue his development and the agent get's his pound of flesh?
If Joe wants a clean break and LFC have their own development plans not involving a loan spell with a Championship club then he doesn't get loaned back.
The report states that Charlton will also look to sign the player on loan from Liverpool for next season.