Crystal Palace have become the first club in the Premier League to write to lower league clubs to offer them loan players for free, but only if they are picked for the team.
The offer has been sent to all clubs in Sky Bet League One, League Two and those in the National League. It was made amid growing discontent among lower-league sides at the amount that top-flight clubs are charging for loan players.
A Palace source told The Times that the move was seen as a way of ensuring that as many of their young players as possible experience first-team football.
Mark Bright, the club’s director of under-23 development, has written to the club chairmen outlining the new policy of sending out loan players without seeking any contribution to their basic wage. If, however, the loan player does not start a match for any reason apart from injury, then Palace will expect a contribution of half his weekly wage.
The Times revealed last week that clubs in Leagues One and Two had raised concerns with the EFL’s leadership about the rising costs that Premier League sides were imposing when they sent players on loan.
One chairman has called for a cap on the amount they will pay towards a top-flight player’s wages, while another, Edin Rahic, of Bradford City, suggested that lower-league clubs should be allowed to develop formal relationships to become feeder clubs for Premier League sides.
The EFL is considering several ideas to reduce tension over the issue and may push for Palace’s example to be taken up more widely.
About 80 Premier League players are expected to be on loan at EFL clubs when the loan transfer window closes at the end of this month, with a third of those at Championship sides.
Arranging loans is a factor in the negotiations between the FA, Premier League and EFL over work permits for overseas players after Brexit. The Premier League wants work-permit restrictions relaxed so that any foreign player can be given a permit if offered a contract, but the FA is keen for more young English players to be given first-team opportunities.
Crystal Palace have become the first club in the Premier League to write to lower league clubs to offer them loan players for free, but only if they are picked for the team.
The offer has been sent to all clubs in Sky Bet League One, League Two and those in the National League. It was made amid growing discontent among lower-league sides at the amount that top-flight clubs are charging for loan players.
A Palace source told The Times that the move was seen as a way of ensuring that as many of their young players as possible experience first-team football.
Mark Bright, the club’s director of under-23 development, has written to the club chairmen outlining the new policy of sending out loan players without seeking any contribution to their basic wage. If, however, the loan player does not start a match for any reason apart from injury, then Palace will expect a contribution of half his weekly wage.
The Times revealed last week that clubs in Leagues One and Two had raised concerns with the EFL’s leadership about the rising costs that Premier League sides were imposing when they sent players on loan.
One chairman has called for a cap on the amount they will pay towards a top-flight player’s wages, while another, Edin Rahic, of Bradford City, suggested that lower-league clubs should be allowed to develop formal relationships to become feeder clubs for Premier League sides.
The EFL is considering several ideas to reduce tension over the issue and may push for Palace’s example to be taken up more widely.
About 80 Premier League players are expected to be on loan at EFL clubs when the loan transfer window closes at the end of this month, with a third of those at Championship sides.
Arranging loans is a factor in the negotiations between the FA, Premier League and EFL over work permits for overseas players after Brexit. The Premier League wants work-permit restrictions relaxed so that any foreign player can be given a permit if offered a contract, but the FA is keen for more young English players to be given first-team opportunities.
so......you take a player on loan (Kaikai)........he ends up being a load of old tosh & you decide that he is worse than any of YOUR own players, that you've nurtured & brought up through your youth system, & so you decide that he wont be playing..........and they then want paying !!!
yeah.........feck off. Might as well have RD's version of "loaning" (ie network players)
so......you take a player on loan (Kaikai)........he ends up being a load of old tosh & you decide that he is worse than any of YOUR own players, that you've nurtured & brought up through your youth system, & so you decide that he wont be playing..........and they then want paying !!!
yeah.........feck off. Might as well have RD's version of "loaning" (ie network players)
Well it's the choice you take. The alternative is having to pay a share of the wages. IF you get a really good loanee for free who plays every week because he's first choice, the lower club will get a bargain.
Personally as a manager I wouldn't want that situation, where my team selection could be distorted in this way, but I can see certain clubs maybe going for it.
so......you take a player on loan (Kaikai)........he ends up being a load of old tosh & you decide that he is worse than any of YOUR own players, that you've nurtured & brought up through your youth system, & so you decide that he wont be playing..........and they then want paying !!!
yeah.........feck off. Might as well have RD's version of "loaning" (ie network players)
Why do think Kaikai and Mavididi were nearly always on the bench.
Dasilva when he first came to sat on the bench for three months but after his debut didn't get on.
When we loaned Sanogo the proportion of his wages we paid reduced with every game he played.
To be fair, it is not actually a bad idea. Every loan signing any club makes is a risk, as are all transfers. However, with loan signings, both the player and the parent club would be expected to be involved in the squad. It doesn't really make a huge amount of difference.
What it does do though is as mentioned, if you manage to get in a quality player on loan, you won't mind having to play them every week, but you also are not having to pay anything for that player either. It would make the better, quality players who may not be available to certain clubs because of budgets and finance, now available to them.
You have to always weigh up the pros and cons of each situation and you don't of course want to have players who may not be performing for you contractually obliged to play, but that is the risk you take. If they turn out to be good, well, you're laughing.
I'm divided. Obviously it suits Prem clubs because although they pay the wages, their players are getting valuable first team action. However, like others have said, it's going to be difficult to swallow paying someones wages (or half) when they turn out to be a load of shite.
As much as i hate the club and past loanees haven't been great, if there is a decent youngster i wouldn't say no. They produce quite a few over the year so if there is one that we fancy, then i dont see it as a negative.
Cullen is 22-years old now so would (?) have to be named in the 25-man squad if they wanted to involve him in the Premier League (of course this isnt a Premier League game tonight so doesnt matter)
this means that premier clubs (in this caser just palace so far) can dictate team selection and to a certain extent tactics to a smaller/skint/struggling club .. the players loaned out get battle hardened and scouted at no extra expense to the 'home' club .. already some big clubs loan out players with the caveat that the loanee will play (say) 2/3 of the games while he is on loan .. as richer clubs get richer and the lower leagues clubs get poorer and more desperate for success, this ostensibly could seem like a good deal .. BUT, it's the thin end of the wedge towards 'little' clubs being no more than feeder clubs/reserve teams for the Premier teams .. SO .. they can stick it where the sun never intrudes
Comments
Crystal Palace have become the first club in the Premier League to write to lower league clubs to offer them loan players for free, but only if they are picked for the team.
The offer has been sent to all clubs in Sky Bet League One, League Two and those in the National League. It was made amid growing discontent among lower-league sides at the amount that top-flight clubs are charging for loan players.
A Palace source told The Times that the move was seen as a way of ensuring that as many of their young players as possible experience first-team football.
Mark Bright, the club’s director of under-23 development, has written to the club chairmen outlining the new policy of sending out loan players without seeking any contribution to their basic wage. If, however, the loan player does not start a match for any reason apart from injury, then Palace will expect a contribution of half his weekly wage.
The Times revealed last week that clubs in Leagues One and Two had raised concerns with the EFL’s leadership about the rising costs that Premier League sides were imposing when they sent players on loan.
One chairman has called for a cap on the amount they will pay towards a top-flight player’s wages, while another, Edin Rahic, of Bradford City, suggested that lower-league clubs should be allowed to develop formal relationships to become feeder clubs for Premier League sides.
The EFL is considering several ideas to reduce tension over the issue and may push for Palace’s example to be taken up more widely.
About 80 Premier League players are expected to be on loan at EFL clubs when the loan transfer window closes at the end of this month, with a third of those at Championship sides.
Arranging loans is a factor in the negotiations between the FA, Premier League and EFL over work permits for overseas players after Brexit. The Premier League wants work-permit restrictions relaxed so that any foreign player can be given a permit if offered a contract, but the FA is keen for more young English players to be given first-team opportunities.
yeah.........feck off. Might as well have RD's version of "loaning" (ie network players)
Personally as a manager I wouldn't want that situation, where my team selection could be distorted in this way, but I can see certain clubs maybe going for it.
Dasilva when he first came to sat on the bench for three months but after his debut didn't get on.
When we loaned Sanogo the proportion of his wages we paid reduced with every game he played.
What it does do though is as mentioned, if you manage to get in a quality player on loan, you won't mind having to play them every week, but you also are not having to pay anything for that player either. It would make the better, quality players who may not be available to certain clubs because of budgets and finance, now available to them.
You have to always weigh up the pros and cons of each situation and you don't of course want to have players who may not be performing for you contractually obliged to play, but that is the risk you take. If they turn out to be good, well, you're laughing.
I thought Prem clubs could only name 23 in a squad or is that just for Prem games?
Probably just for League games too
http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/premier-league-home-grown-players-rule-how-does-it-work/1mww3y06t775v1a7c6139l53ji
Cullen is 22-years old now so would (?) have to be named in the 25-man squad if they wanted to involve him in the Premier League (of course this isnt a Premier League game tonight so doesnt matter)
already some big clubs loan out players with the caveat that the loanee will play (say) 2/3 of the games while he is on loan .. as richer clubs get richer and the lower leagues clubs get poorer and more desperate for success, this ostensibly could seem like a good deal ..
BUT, it's the thin end of the wedge towards 'little' clubs being no more than feeder clubs/reserve teams for the Premier teams .. SO .. they can stick it where the sun never intrudes