Fifa agrees to limit loan deals and re-introduce agent regulation
Fifa plans to limit the number of players a club can loan out each season to prevent teams stockpiling talent.Excellent news if this is passed for academies at smaller clubs like ourselves
Football's governing body had proposed a maximum of six loans per club.
But it is still has to come to an agreement with the game's other stakeholders - including club, league and player representatives - as to what the limit should be.
The proposed new regulation could affect Chelsea, who have 40 players on loan this season.
Comments
-
Is it excellent or why is just harm young talent.
Will stopping clubs loaning out so many players stop them.signing young players or will they buy them and they will just spend years sat in under 23 squads wasting away.0 -
Or another push for B teams in the FL?paulie8290 said:Is it excellent or why is just harm young talent.
Will stopping clubs loaning out so many players stop them.signing young players or will they buy them and they will just spend years sat in under 23 squads wasting away.1 -
Fewer young players will go to these clubs if they know they'll never get to play in the first team or go on loan. At Chelsea they wouldn't even get into their U23 team!paulie8290 said:Is it excellent or why is just harm young talent.
Will stopping clubs loaning out so many players stop them.signing young players or will they buy them and they will just spend years sat in under 23 squads wasting away.
Instead perhaps they might stay with their original club5 -
If only, unfortunatly alot of the time money talks, and the amount of money in the game atm.killerandflash said:
Fewer young players will go to these clubs if they know they'll never get to play in the first team or go on loan. At Chelsea they wouldn't even get into their U23 team!paulie8290 said:Is it excellent or why is just harm young talent.
Will stopping clubs loaning out so many players stop them.signing young players or will they buy them and they will just spend years sat in under 23 squads wasting away.
Instead perhaps they might stay with their original club
Chelsea say to Player A we will give you 3k
Player A no I want to stay here and possibly play and get my 1k
Chelsea to player A we will give u 10k a week.
Player A where do I sign.
10k wouldnt worry there budget and they get the player1 -
This is the downside and is the way it'll go I thinkScoham said:
Or another push for B teams in the FL?paulie8290 said:Is it excellent or why is just harm young talent.
Will stopping clubs loaning out so many players stop them.signing young players or will they buy them and they will just spend years sat in under 23 squads wasting away.
Hopefully though it wakes a few players up who arent going to be happy just going on loan every year0 -
Big clubs will probably find a way around it.
Chelsea will just 'sell' a load of players to Vitesse and any other feeder clubs for free each season, then buy them back for free the following summer. City will do the same, 'selling' players to Girona, New York City etc.
Yes it will probably stop the stupid loans like that keeper Chelsea had for about 7 years but never played a game for them, but on the whole i don't see it having a huge affect.
Also if they're proposing a maximum of 6 loans, it'll probably end up as something like 6 loans for players over 21, so Chelsea and others can still loan out countless kids.2 -
Most clubs abroad (in Italy and Spain for example) will sell players to lesser clubs with a buy back option or more often a sell on percentage.
If the player develops into something special the original selling club would affectively get a huge discount on the player over every other club as the selling club would have to give a % if sold to anyone else.
Example they sell to another club for 30 million but have to pay a 40% sell on fee. They get 18 million
The original club could offer 20 million. They would get their old player back for 10 million less than any other club could pay0 -
Saw this earlier. Glad something like this is being done. The best part was the talk about solidarity payments, shame it only seems to be for players going to other countries.. although guessing it means we would have got something for Sarmiento at least.
"There will be a big increase in solidarity payments to lower-league clubs who have trained players but then lose them to clubs from other countries."0 -
Yes these clubs will just shift to deals with a “buy back” clause inserted into them so the player can return at any time for a very very small fee.1
-
Is a Buy Back fee all that bad though?
Means a player will be contracted with a new club for potentially two to three years, means they'll be given the chance to settle within a team rather than chopping and changing team mates and styles every season ... Of course Chelsea or whoever could buy them back but in that situation you'd hope its because they've achieved their potential and its a similar case to when they re-signed Matic from Benfica0 - Sponsored links:
-
The only worry for me about buy back clauses (which I imagine will be next thing on the FIFA radar) is clubs buying someone back to sell them on elsewhere at a profitForeverAddickted said:Is a Buy Back fee all that bad though?
Means a player will be contracted with a new club for potentially two to three years, means they'll be given the chance to settle within a team rather than chopping and changing team mates and styles every season ... Of course Chelsea or whoever could buy them back but in that situation you'd hope its because they've achieved their potential and its a similar case to when they re-signed Matic from Benfica
e.g. Chelsea sell Tammy Abraham to Cardiff for £10m, with a buy back fee of £15m. He does really well, so 18 months later they buy him back for the £15m then immediately sell him on to Everton for £40m.1 -
Yeah that is the frustration yet more so for the club that initially buys him...killerandflash said:
The only worry for me about buy back clauses (which I imagine will be next thing on the FIFA radar) is clubs buying someone back to sell them on elsewhere at a profitForeverAddickted said:Is a Buy Back fee all that bad though?
Means a player will be contracted with a new club for potentially two to three years, means they'll be given the chance to settle within a team rather than chopping and changing team mates and styles every season ... Of course Chelsea or whoever could buy them back but in that situation you'd hope its because they've achieved their potential and its a similar case to when they re-signed Matic from Benfica
e.g. Chelsea sell Tammy Abraham to Cardiff for £10m, with a buy back fee of £15m. He does really well, so 18 months later they buy him back for the £20m then immediately sell him on to Everton for £40m.
i.e. If we signed Jay DaSilva for £2m with Chelsea having a buy back of £10m to sell him on £15m then its frustrating for us because we loose a player without being able to put up any resistance... For the player its probably a good sign because if its Everton signing the player then you'd hope its because they intend to play him themselves and so aid his progression further
I do wonder though what would happen to the Buy Back Clauses if we signed Dasilva for £2m, "sold" him to STVV and then purchased him back again six months later - Yes we wouldnt have him for six months but would the Clause then be null and void because we've technically not purchased the player from Chelsea any more or would it remain0 -
about time too0
-
I assume such a transaction could be done in the summer with any team, e.g. Sunderland buy him for £10m, and we buy him back the day after for say £11m to give them a cut of the profit. And then sell him to Everton the day after for £15m!ForeverAddickted said:
Yeah that is the frustration yet more so for the club that initially buys him...killerandflash said:
The only worry for me about buy back clauses (which I imagine will be next thing on the FIFA radar) is clubs buying someone back to sell them on elsewhere at a profitForeverAddickted said:Is a Buy Back fee all that bad though?
Means a player will be contracted with a new club for potentially two to three years, means they'll be given the chance to settle within a team rather than chopping and changing team mates and styles every season ... Of course Chelsea or whoever could buy them back but in that situation you'd hope its because they've achieved their potential and its a similar case to when they re-signed Matic from Benfica
e.g. Chelsea sell Tammy Abraham to Cardiff for £10m, with a buy back fee of £15m. He does really well, so 18 months later they buy him back for the £20m then immediately sell him on to Everton for £40m.
i.e. If we signed Jay DaSilva for £2m with Chelsea having a buy back of £10m to sell him on £15m then its frustrating for us because we loose a player without being able to put up any resistance... For the player its probably a good sign because if its Everton signing the player then you'd hope its because they intend to play him themselves and so aid his progression further
I do wonder though what would happen to the Buy Back Clauses if we signed Dasilva for £2m, "sold" him to STVV and then purchased him back again six months later - Yes we wouldnt have him for six months but would the Clause then be null and void because we've technically not purchased the player from Chelsea any more or would it remain
I'm sure the small print would have something to day about such arrangements though...2 -
Buy back clauses generally have a first refusal term. So you try and sell the player to a third party, the team with the buy back can buy the player at the buy back amount then.2
