Fifa announce new limits on loans

NicolaSacco said:
There are such huge caveats. Any player who has spent 3 years at any club within that national federation at some point between the ages of 15 and 21 is classed as homegrown, and therefore exempt, regardless of current age.
Add to that all players aged 21 and under and I’d be genuinely interested to see which teams are currently non compliant. I don’t think this will have any real effect
Click to expand...

Spot on. Pointless change.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Most count as "homegrown" - e.g. they spent at least 3 years between ages 15-21 at an English club.
Click to expand...

Ah, that post is sort of worded like homegrown counted towards the six as well.

Like someone pointed out, are there even any non-compliant clubs at all.

So much for Chelsea getting docked thirty three points.
 
hungrywing said:
Ah, that post is sort of worded like homegrown counted towards the six as well.

Like someone pointed out, are there even any non-compliant clubs at all.

So much for Chelsea getting docked thirty three points.
Click to expand...

Yep definitely a bit confusing! Probably a whole lot of smoke without fire as is typical when reform is proposed...
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Yep definitely a bit confusing! Probably a whole lot of smoke without fire as is typical when reform is proposed...
Click to expand...

Ok so I wasn't just imagining things.

They should just amend it to include homegrown U21 just to see that one hectic window where you guys have to scatter all those guys to the wind toute suite.
 
hungrywing said:
Ok so I wasn't just imagining things.

They should just amend it to include homegrown U21 just to see that one hectic window where you guys have to scatter all those guys to the wind toute suite.
Click to expand...

I will respectfully disagree with you as to whether they should do that, but I will happily concede that it would be hilarious!
 
roonster09 said:
It changes as home grown over 21 players are loaned out, non home grown players are loaned out too.

For example Chelsea have these players who are 21 and above out on loan.
Baxter
Gilmour
Castillo
Cumming
Gallagher
Michy
Kenedy
Emerson
Miazga
Baba
Bakayoko
Drinkwater
Sterling
Ampadu
Cumming
Click to expand...

Winston Bogarde would be so proud of some of those guys.
 
NicolaSacco said:
That sounds about right!

The small print is just astonishing in this. MEN seem to be saying it won’t apply to domestic loans until 2025, what’s the point?!
Click to expand...

Id guess its to allow clubs to prepare properly for it as regards moving players out for good instead of loaning them, and all long term loans should be finished by then anyway.

It would be kinda funny if they tried to implement it sooner (which Im surprised they havent).
 
I think a better rule would be to forbid teams to to loan out a player for more than three seasons.
 
Sassy Colin said:
I think it was someone that most people would have heard of.
Click to expand...

Matej Delac? That's the goalies name.

We've had loads who have/had been at the club for years and played the odd game (Kenedy, Piazon, Musonda) but I can't think of anyone who has been there longer than Delac without playing at all.

Unless you are including kids who signed at 8 years old and are now 18 without playing a first team game.
 
duffer said:
Matej Delac? That's the goalies name.

We've had loads who have/had been at the club for years and played the odd game (Kenedy, Piazon, Musonda) but I can't think of anyone who has been there longer than Delac without playing at all.

Unless you are including kids who signed at 8 years old and are now 18 without playing a first team game.
Click to expand...

I bet he's thinking of Piazon. He played one game for us but he spent almost 10 years going on loan to different clubs. He's the example most people bring up in a discussion about Chelsea’s loan policy.
 
WeePat said:
I bet he's thinking of Piazon. He played one game for us but he spent almost 10 years going on loan to different clubs. He's the example most people bring up in a discussion about Chelsea’s loan policy.
Click to expand...
Piazon definately played more than 1 game for us.

He was talking about someone who "never played a minute". It's gotta be Delac, when he left there were a few articles about him.
 
duffer said:
We signed an 18 year old Croatian goalie who stayed for 7/8 years and never got a work permit so couldn't even go on loan in England, let alone play for Chelsea. Maybe him!
Click to expand...
What was the issue with the work permit? This is wild.
 
duffer said:
Piazon played 3 games for us.

He was talking about someone who "never played a minute". It's gotta be Delac, when he left there were a few articles about him.
Click to expand...

Yeah I get the feeling never played a minute bit is an inaccurate assumption on Sassy Colin's part. There isn't a player who most people will have heard of who has played 0 games for Chelsea.
 
why do Chelsea buy so many players just to loan them?
 
It would be good to ban in-division loans as well. It’s kind of rubbish seeing a young loan player but they can’t play against their parent side. Or the rule should be amended so they are eligible to play.

Either way stockpiling players is crap and should be addressed. Maybe a total senior plays contract cap could be brought in. They have a contract limit of 50 players in the NHL to stop teams hoovering up every half decent player.
 
Arios said:
why do Chelsea buy so many players just to loan them?
Click to expand...

You buy good potential players for cheap, develop them, sell them for profit.

Clubs can gain lucrative revenue from this model. Even in FM, this is how you operate smaller clubs.
 
Arios said:
why do Chelsea buy so many players just to loan them?
Click to expand...

We don’t sign players just to loan them. We buy players with potential and for whatever reason they don’t work out. Batshuayi and Bakayoko are two examples of this.

Other players such as Drinkwater are signed as squad players but don’t even live up to the standard of that or like Moses, are signed by a manager who is then fired and the replacement doesn’t want him.

There are clubs that sign a lot of foreign imports and throw them into their academy and never make it. We don’t do this, most of our academy is homegrown and local talent and that is why a lot of these rules do not actually have any affect on us.

Once this current crop of older players is gone we won’t be continuing this model. They are literally players we are unable to move on in a Covid world. But our player development model will not change. As for homegrown rules, they’ve always been retarded. Fabregas was considered homegrown as is Christensen.
 
WeePat said:
Those are players that were signed for the first team and weren't good enough and Chelsea have since been unable to sell them. They'll just be released when their contracts run out, or in the event they have a great loan, could be sold for a fee.
Click to expand...
This is a revelation. I thought it was only United who bought shit players, paid them too much, then found it impossible to sell. Mind you we also find it pretty tough to loan out the bastards.
 
Jamal Blackman, was named in a squad in 2011, loaned out every year and never played a game for Chelsea in 10 years. He finally joined LA Galaxy last September. At least he was a youth team player and for him, carved a reasonably profitable career, if spectacularly unadventurous.
 
OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
Can't believe Batshuayi is still a Chelsea player. Looked up a few more of those, some of them have just been on 5 or 6 consecutive loans and are now in their mid/late 20s. From Chelsea's perspective, what is the point?
Click to expand...
 
OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
Can't believe Batshuayi is still a Chelsea player. Looked up a few more of those, some of them have just been on 5 or 6 consecutive loans and are now in their mid/late 20s. From Chelsea's perspective, what is the point?
Click to expand...

Bring tonnes of promising players in.
If any step up, brilliant.
If they don't, sell them for 10-20m

If you waste loads of careers into the bargain, who cares. That's the Chelsea way with youngsters.

And in fairness there will be loads of players who don't mind trousering high wages whether they get near a pitch or not.
 
Ceeps said:
Jamal Blackman, was named in a squad in 2011, loaned out every year and never played a game for Chelsea in 10 years. He finally joined LA Galaxy last September. At least he was a youth team player and for him, carved a reasonably profitable career, if spectacularly unadventurous.
Click to expand...

Had him on loan at wycombe for a season.
I think that'll probably still be a high percentage of his total career appearances even this many years on.
 
So if Chelsea is currently compliant, is there anyone who isn't?
 
duffer said:
I can't imagine anyone in England.

The footy press have presented this like it's some kind of repsone to Chelsea but it's really not.
Click to expand...
Watford fairly sure have too many.

Its weird how it’s always Chelsea when this comes up. Fairly sure I read City have more loans than you, and Italian clubs have had over 200 players on their books with ~100 on loan but are never mentioned.
 
limerickcitykid said:
Watford fairly sure have too many.

Its weird how it’s always Chelsea when this comes up. Fairly sure I read City have more loans than you, and Italian clubs have had over 200 players on their books with ~100 on loan but are never mentioned.
Click to expand...

Atalanta currently have 63 players out on loan. Sassoulo have 29. Genoa 38.
 
Chelsea are truly fecked. They also make so much money on these loan moved it’s absurd. They can loan a player for 7 years straight and recouped more money than if they had sold him.
 
limerickcitykid said:
Watford fairly sure have too many.

Its weird how it’s always Chelsea when this comes up. Fairly sure I read City have more loans than you, and Italian clubs have had over 200 players on their books with ~100 on loan but are never mentioned.
Click to expand...

It's not really weird, because Chelsea have been doing it for years and years, and clearly most of us are based in England so see it happening there, and have less knowledge of foreign teams who may be doing similar. Not sure anyone else get the same levels of profit from it either.
 
duffer said:
These new rules don't impact Chelsea at all.

We're not even mildy inconvenienced, let alone "truly fecked".
Click to expand...
It’s part of your business structure so that part of it is surely fecked. Now you have to try to sell and let go of players you hoard.
I mean you surely know you do it for a reason or you think it’s just for fun keeping all these players and loaning them?
 
lloyd2wayne said:
It’s part of your business structure so that part of it is surely fecked. Now you have to try to sell and let go of players you hoard.
I mean you surely know you do it for a reason or you think it’s just for fun keeping all these players and loaning them?
Click to expand...

You either don't understand the new rules or don't know who Chelsea actually have out on loan (or both).

If the new rules came in tomorrow, Chelsea are already meeting the criteria.

I know its often said that Chelsea buy and then loan out tons of players but in reality it's only a handful.

*edit: sorry for the condecending tone but it's been explained a few times in this thread already.
 
duffer said:
You either don't understand the new rules or don't know who Chelsea actually have out on loan (or both).

If the new rules came in tomorrow, Chelsea are already meeting the criteria.

I know its often said that Chelsea buy and then loan out tons of players but in reality it's only a handful.

*edit: sorry for the condecending tone but it's been explained a few times in this thread already.
Click to expand...
No offense taken about your tone. You know Chelsea better than I do so your point is taken.

I just believe it will take a few pounds out of the bank account even if not much. It might also be a good thing for Chelsea, a lot of kids might break through instead of a loan which has been happening the past few years.
 
big rons sovereign said:
City/Chelsea will be politely asked not to do it again, or else FIFA might get cross.
Non oil rich clubs unable to pay bribes will be heavily fined and dragged through the mud.
Click to expand...

Oh my, forget the fines, I think the world would settle for that being applied to City/Chelsea. Also the players/staff/executives have to wear whatever kit is lightest in color that season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.