I'm beginning to understand the Three Club rule a bit better...
Because Callum Harriott was on a long term loan with Colchester (i.e. August-January) it means that he can only play for two clubs this season (Charlton and Colchester being those sides)... I'm also guessing the same will apply for Joe Pigott and Ayo Obileye, so dont expect either to play for Charlton in the coming weeks as we won't be allowed to send them back on loan.
Tony Watt has played for Charlton and Cardiff (same with Diego Poyet who has played for Milton Keynes Dons and West Ham) this season yet because it was a short-term loan, he's allowed to go and play for a Third team this season
it doesn't read well does it. no chance really of any incomings until Watt goes and if he stays then we are fooked. said all along that only money spent will be that generated, RD won't be dipping his hands into his pockets for us.
Bleh. Get rid of a few of the crap imports and keep Watt. I'd like to think we have a clause in Maks contract to send him back, if so bloody well use it!
Seems like KM is still working then - holding on tight to those purse strings! Do they have any real idea about the implication of relegation on the finances?
The loan/transfer rules are just dumb and leave you with the idea that they were set up by whoever devised Gordon Brown's ridiculously complex tax regime. Why three? Why not two or four or five? No sound reason just a figure plucked from thin air. It must surely be inevitable that a player does a Bosman and challenges this restraint of trade. There can be no way that such restrictions are legal under EU law. They are arbitrary and unreasonable. Imagine the infamous restaurant scenario. Who would accept being able to work at McDonalds, switching to Burger King within a few months, hating it and then not being able to get a job at Wimpy? Ludicrous.
The loan/transfer rules are just dumb and leave you with the idea that they were set up by whoever devised Gordon Brown's ridiculously complex tax regime. Why three? Why not two or four or five? No sound reason just a figure plucked from thin air. It must surely be inevitable that a player does a Bosman and challenges this restraint of trade. There can be no way that such restrictions are legal under EU law. They are arbitrary and unreasonable.
Or simplify it even more... You can send a loan player out for the season, for the first half of the season (Aug-Jan) or for the second half of the season which can include play-offs (Jan-May).
He can play for a maximum of three sides (The Parent Club / The first loan / The second loan) and thats it.
Any club who wants to send out their player for 28-days (Williams ... McAleny am looking at these two), then tough, they cant... If you want to get your player fit then use your U21 squad!!
Just goes to show how naive the senior management at Charlton have been over the last few months! Imagine the boardroom, looking at the financials -
RD - We have lots of red numbers Katrien? Huh? KM - That's because the FL have rules about how many clubs players can play for in a season. So now we cannot sell them this window... RD - And you knew this when you sent the boy Harriott out on loan, huh? KM - Yes, but we didn't think he was any good then. Guy said so. RD - I am beginning to think that you don't know what you are doing my dear. Huh? Maybe for you a switch to a role at St Truinden may be better for us all? Huh?
The loan/transfer rules are just dumb and leave you with the idea that they were set up by whoever devised Gordon Brown's ridiculously complex tax regime. Why three? Why not two or four or five? No sound reason just a figure plucked from thin air. It must surely be inevitable that a player does a Bosman and challenges this restraint of trade. There can be no way that such restrictions are legal under EU law. They are arbitrary and unreasonable. Imagine the infamous restaurant scenario. Who would accept being able to work at McDonalds, switching to Burger King within a few months, hating it and then not being able to get a job at Wimpy? Ludicrous.
As far as I know, this is a UEFA rule, not the FA's, so it's consistent across Europe. It gets even more ridiculous when you consider leagues that run over the summer, as the rule is based on a July-June season. So a player in Sweden might play for one club up to early July, then transfer to another Swedish club in the mid-season transfer window. After that, they're locked in for the rest of their current season, plus the first half of the next season.
This refers to two of our most dangerous, potent players. Ludicrous that we should be even thinking of selling such players in our current predicament. Why the hell is a Euro Billionaire so concerned about a couple of million pounds? I hope fate is playing a part here and that the heavens are aligning for Jose Riga. Getting Watt and Harriott back and firing could give the team a huge boost.
So we have eleven days to sell Watt for decent money and then sign some players with the proceeds.
Anyone else see this not ending well.
Yep. Watt will go cheap and lastminute.com so that we can't bring anyone else in other than loanees. Look on the bright side at least we won't get in trouble with FFP.
I'm happy to have Watt stay. He's better than Mak and Reza for a start.
Whether or not you agree with the 'loan, 3 clubs' rule, it exists. It is there for all clubs to know, follow and adhere to.
If now, we find ourselves in trouble, because we hadn't realised the implications of this rule on the players we have shipped out on loan, you have to ask yourself, simply, why not?
Surely someone within CAFC is responsible for knowing who is where, who they can and cannot play for etc? If they don't, then that is the club's fault.
When Watt was sent out on loan to Cardiff whoever was responsible for arranging that (KM I assume), surely should have used a degree of common sense and looked into whether or not it was totally feasible for Cardiff to sign him at the end of or during the loan period. Would it have not been an idea to contact the FA and enquire as to whether or not Cardiff would be in a position to sign players in January? Is that not just part of the process of loaning players out to clubs - to first investigate whether or not that club is capable of actually signing players? Someone is ultimately responsible for sending a Charlton striker to a rival team on loan, denying us the opportunity to play him when we arguably needed him the most, for no real reason at all. Dreadful decision making once again. Demonstrates total incompetence.
So we have eleven days to sell Watt for decent money and then sign some players with the proceeds.
Anyone else see this not ending well.
Yep. Watt will go cheap and lastminute.com so that we can't bring anyone else in other than loanees. Look on the bright side at least we won't get in trouble with FFP.
So we have eleven days to sell Watt for decent money and then sign some players with the proceeds.
Anyone else see this not ending well.
Yep. Watt will go cheap and lastminute.com so that we can't bring anyone else in other than loanees. Look on the bright side at least we won't get in trouble with FFP.
I'm happy to have Watt stay. He's better than Mak and Reza for a start.
Whether or not you agree with the 'loan, 3 clubs' rule, it exists. It is there for all clubs to know, follow and adhere to.
If now, we find ourselves in trouble, because we hadn't realised the implications of this rule on the players we have shipped out on loan, you have to ask yourself, simply, why not?
Surely someone within CAFC is responsible for knowing who is where, who they can and cannot play for etc? If they don't, then that is the club's fault.
When Watt was sent out on loan to Cardiff whoever was responsible for arranging that (KM I assume), surely should have used a degree of common sense and looked into whether or not it was totally feasible for Cardiff to sign him at the end of or during the loan period. Would it have not been an idea to contact the FA and enquire as to whether or not Cardiff would be in a position to sign players in January? Is that not just part of the process of loaning players out to clubs - to first investigate whether or not that club is capable of actually signing players? Someone is ultimately responsible for sending a Charlton striker to a rival team on loan, denying us the opportunity to play him when we arguably needed him the most, for no real reason at all. Dreadful decision making once again. Demonstrates total incompetence.
I think we should let them off that one. Cardiff intended to buy Watt, and weren’t expecting it so understandable that we weren't either. It would probably be more reasonable to factor into the rules that it was Cardiff’s fault and shouldn’t restrict us. Having said that, Watt is a player we will need to stay up, unless we have given up. It would be a false economy not to factor in the cost of relegation, and Watt will still have a potential value in the summer. If he plays well for us, that value may even increase!
Surely someone within CAFC is responsible for knowing who is where, who they can and cannot play for etc? If they don't, then that is the club's fault.
I think that's part of Chris Parkes remit. Im pretty sure he knows what he is doing :-)
Surely someone within CAFC is responsible for knowing who is where, who they can and cannot play for etc? If they don't, then that is the club's fault.
I think that's part of Chris Parkes remit. Im pretty sure he knows what he is doing :-)
I'm happy to have Watt stay. He's better than Mak and Reza for a start.
Whether or not you agree with the 'loan, 3 clubs' rule, it exists. It is there for all clubs to know, follow and adhere to.
If now, we find ourselves in trouble, because we hadn't realised the implications of this rule on the players we have shipped out on loan, you have to ask yourself, simply, why not?
Surely someone within CAFC is responsible for knowing who is where, who they can and cannot play for etc? If they don't, then that is the club's fault.
When Watt was sent out on loan to Cardiff whoever was responsible for arranging that (KM I assume), surely should have used a degree of common sense and looked into whether or not it was totally feasible for Cardiff to sign him at the end of or during the loan period. Would it have not been an idea to contact the FA and enquire as to whether or not Cardiff would be in a position to sign players in January? Is that not just part of the process of loaning players out to clubs - to first investigate whether or not that club is capable of actually signing players? Someone is ultimately responsible for sending a Charlton striker to a rival team on loan, denying us the opportunity to play him when we arguably needed him the most, for no real reason at all. Dreadful decision making once again. Demonstrates total incompetence.
I think we should let them off that one. Cardiff intended to buy Watt, and weren’t expecting it so understandable that we weren't either. It would probably be more reasonable to factor into the rules that it was Cardiff’s fault and shouldn’t restrict us. Having said that, Watt is a player we will need to stay up, unless we have given up. It would be a false economy not to factor in the cost of relegation, and Watt will still have a potential value in the summer. If he plays well for us, that value may even increase!
on this occasion I agree. Also, Cardiff didn't expect sanctions and are taking legal advice and may appeal as they believed they were within FFP rules, borne out by the fact they let Kenwyne Jones leave on loan so that has now left them short up front. Don't think we could have foreseen this a couple of months ago.
My concern is that if we go down, we'll be left with all these players on long contracts, with a fall in revenue caused by relegation - fire sale at The Valley in the summer & a lot of them will go for a fraction of their value just to balance the books
After signing Roger Johnson on an 18-month deal, bringing Diego Poyet back on a season-long loan from West Ham and snapping up Middlesbrough’s Rhys Williams on a temporary deal, Charlton need to bring down their spending.
I like Rich Cawley, I honestly do think he is bang on the money most of the time and he clearly has a good connection somewhere within the club, but the above quote is pony. Williams - a short loan will in no way affect our spending. Surely the wages saved on Watt's time at CCFC offset the wages we are contributing to William's loan? It really doesn't fincially affect us that much overall does it? even with the addition of Poyet!?
Sad thing is, the above sort of scaremongering is becoming a bit more frequent from Cawley. No need for it considering the genuine problems we have at the moment.
Surely someone within CAFC is responsible for knowing who is where, who they can and cannot play for etc? If they don't, then that is the club's fault.
I think that's part of Chris Parkes remit. Im pretty sure he knows what he is doing :-)
Comments
Because Callum Harriott was on a long term loan with Colchester (i.e. August-January) it means that he can only play for two clubs this season (Charlton and Colchester being those sides)... I'm also guessing the same will apply for Joe Pigott and Ayo Obileye, so dont expect either to play for Charlton in the coming weeks as we won't be allowed to send them back on loan.
Tony Watt has played for Charlton and Cardiff (same with Diego Poyet who has played for Milton Keynes Dons and West Ham) this season yet because it was a short-term loan, he's allowed to go and play for a Third team this season
Why three? Why not two or four or five? No sound reason just a figure plucked from thin air.
It must surely be inevitable that a player does a Bosman and challenges this restraint of trade.
There can be no way that such restrictions are legal under EU law. They are arbitrary and unreasonable.
Imagine the infamous restaurant scenario. Who would accept being able to work at McDonalds, switching to Burger King within a few months, hating it and then not being able to get a job at Wimpy? Ludicrous.
He can play for a maximum of three sides (The Parent Club / The first loan / The second loan) and thats it.
Any club who wants to send out their player for 28-days (Williams ... McAleny am looking at these two), then tough, they cant... If you want to get your player fit then use your U21 squad!!
RD - We have lots of red numbers Katrien? Huh?
KM - That's because the FL have rules about how many clubs players can play for in a season. So now we cannot sell them this window...
RD - And you knew this when you sent the boy Harriott out on loan, huh?
KM - Yes, but we didn't think he was any good then. Guy said so.
RD - I am beginning to think that you don't know what you are doing my dear. Huh? Maybe for you a switch to a role at St Truinden may be better for us all? Huh?
Much rejoicing and jubilation abounds!
A fit and firing Watt was one of the reasons to enjoy watching Charlton at the end of last season. I am hoping Jose can help him to recapture this.
Anyone else see this not ending well.
Whether or not you agree with the 'loan, 3 clubs' rule, it exists. It is there for all clubs to know, follow and adhere to.
If now, we find ourselves in trouble, because we hadn't realised the implications of this rule on the players we have shipped out on loan, you have to ask yourself, simply, why not?
Surely someone within CAFC is responsible for knowing who is where, who they can and cannot play for etc? If they don't, then that is the club's fault.
When Watt was sent out on loan to Cardiff whoever was responsible for arranging that (KM I assume), surely should have used a degree of common sense and looked into whether or not it was totally feasible for Cardiff to sign him at the end of or during the loan period. Would it have not been an idea to contact the FA and enquire as to whether or not Cardiff would be in a position to sign players in January? Is that not just part of the process of loaning players out to clubs - to first investigate whether or not that club is capable of actually signing players? Someone is ultimately responsible for sending a Charlton striker to a rival team on loan, denying us the opportunity to play him when we arguably needed him the most, for no real reason at all. Dreadful decision making once again. Demonstrates total incompetence.
Williams - a short loan will in no way affect our spending. Surely the wages saved on Watt's time at CCFC offset the wages we are contributing to William's loan? It really doesn't fincially affect us that much overall does it? even with the addition of Poyet!?
Sad thing is, the above sort of scaremongering is becoming a bit more frequent from Cawley. No need for it considering the genuine problems we have at the moment.