Transfer Window - COMPLETE. Where’s Gregg?

[islander200]

6 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I don't like the thought of Liverpool dictating our team selection if that story is true. There are so many variables in this such as loss of form. It's a real looking down the nose at us from them and comes across as arrogant.

Hopefully it's just another bullshit piece from yer man Nixon.

They ain't dictating our team, they want there player playing and if he doesn't they will want compensating.We do not have to play him and without knowing how much we would have to pay its hard to be too critical.

These sort of clauses will be in loan deals all over the place in the EFL

[jim mk2]

It depends how many games Liverpool are demanding. 10-15 games might be OK but more than that would be unacceptable. The lad might be out of form or might not be good enough or fit in with the group. Clarkson was a case of a player not being up to the required standard - what if he'd had a 30-game clause in his loan contract? 

Either way I don't like it and I agree it smacks of arrogance on Liverpool's part. We're doing them a favour by giving him game time in senior competitive football when otherwise he might be warming their bench or languishing in the Under-23s. We're not Liverpool's nursery club 

Edited August 14, 2022 by jim mk2

[bluebruce]

17 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Well we won't get any loans then as this isn't unique similar clauses would have been in place for Elliott,Tosin, Bellis,Van Hecke etc.

Premier league teams send their kids to play not sit on the bench of an EFL side and if they don't make the team they want compensating.

According to Sharpe, there were no such clauses for any of those, or anyone else we have loaned in recent years.

[Sweaty Gussets]

6 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Either way I don't like it and I agree it smacks of arrogance on Liverpool's part. We're doing them a favour by giving him game time in senior competitive football when otherwise he might be warming their bench or languishing in the Under-23s. We're not Liverpool's nursery club 

Not really. He was a regular at PNE for 18 months. They could just send him back there. Same division, same exposure and experience. Or another Championship club like Burnley.

We're desperate for CB's. We've missed out on at least two and all our current ones are either injury-prone or injured.

We're definitely the ones being done a favour here. 

[tomphil]

21 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Well we won't get any loans then as this isn't unique similar clauses would have been in place for Elliott,Tosin, Bellis,Van Hecke etc.

Premier league teams send their kids to play not sit on the bench of an EFL side and if they don't make the team they want compensating.

There were claims to the contrary when TM was in charge.

However if a lot of these are heavily subsidised then it's understandable the clubs doing the lending will want something guaranteeing.  Does seem a bit of a heavy handed way to go about it though but i'm sure we can start looking elsewhere, seeing as he's been at Preston and we are looking it must be a cheap deal to begin with.

Two years at PNE though and now going to another similar level club suggests to me he isn't all that i think some are going over the top in regards to him.  Just because it involves the name Liverpool.

There must be others.

[jim mk2]

2 minutes ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

Not really. He was a regular at PNE for 18 months. They could just send him back there. Same division, same exposure and experience. Or another Championship club like Burnley.

We're desperate for CB's. We've missed out on at least two and all our current ones are either injury-prone or injured.

We're definitely the ones being done a favour here. 

 

Not really. We do need players but we should not be held to ransom by Liverpool dictating how many games he plays. That might be OK for Preston or Burnley but I'd like to think we have a bit more about us and a bit more pride than them 

 

 

[47er]

There's also the issue of Ash Philips. Can't be a good thing to push him further down the pecking order.

[islander200]

11 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

According to Sharpe, there were no such clauses for any of those, or anyone else we have loaned in recent years.

Sharpe looked at the contracts? With all due respect Sharpe has been wrong plenty of times .

Like last January when he said we were no longer interested in Maja as Bordeaux wanted a permanent deal only and we couldn't afford it and then he ended up at Stoke on loan.

Loaning out young players is now big buisness for these clubs hence why they collect so many young players.

[arbitro]

Mark Palios' take on the play or pay system.

Tranmere Rovers have struck six loan deals this summer. According to the League Two club’s chairman, the former FA chief executive Mark Palios, the role lower-league clubs play in developing players remains vital. “The ability to play proper football in front of a paying crowd is missing at the top end of the game,” he says of the situation for younger players. “Proper use of experience in the football pyramid is essential and beneficial if managed properly. Not many others have a pyramid like ours and we’re fans of using it.”

While Palios sees the greater good of the loan system, the list of complications are just as clear “Loans where a club insists the player plays are wrong from every point of view,” he says. “It’s wrong for the player – they have to earn their place as part of a learning process. For the club, it damages the dynamic in dressing room. Finally, from a fan’s perspective, there’s a sense that you’re basically relinquishing your independence if loanees are going to play come what may.”

Palios says Tranmere don’t do such deals but have made arrangements whereby the loan club would pay a higher percentage of the player’s wages if he doesn’t play. He believes the game is not yet at a stage where parent clubs hold undue influence over those lower down the pyramid. “Nobody forces you to take a loan player; every club is entitled to do what it wants and what fits within its budget,” he says, but he acknowledges that the landscape is changing. “I think you can find clubs become dependent on it,” he says. “It’s hard to put a finger on it but you lose that sense of identity, that willingness to play for the club.”

[Sweaty Gussets]

5 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 

Not really. We do need players but we should not be held to ransom by Liverpool dictating how many games he plays. That might be OK for Preston or Burnley but I'd like to think we have a bit more about us and a bit more pride than them 

 

 

Idealistic and naïve. And a bit straw-man. Nobody is being held to ransom. Liverpool are just protecting their asset. And we don't even know if it's true anyway.

And you've ignored the part about us being desperate. Your 'principled' stance (lol) won't mean a lot if we miss out on promotion because we ran out of fit CB's. 

[Sweaty Gussets]

8 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Palios says Tranmere don’t do such deals but have made arrangements whereby the loan club would pay a higher percentage of the player’s wages if he doesn’t play.

I think this is what Nixon is saying is the proposed deal. Seems fair enough if true. Not quite the same as 'being held to ransom' or similar hysterics. 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Sweaty Gussets

[Ossydave]

44 minutes ago, islander200 said:

It isn't bollox it's standard practice for those teams to do this when clubs are only part paying the wage.

Do you think when Elliot came here we didn't have to do the same? Tosin? 

Other clubs will be signing up to such deals to get players over the line.Its bullshit that it's allowed agree,but if everyone else is doing it and we ain't it puts us at a disadvantage.

These clubs just don't give out their better younger players without some sort of guarantee of gametime or compensation if they don't play 

None of the players you've mentioned had that agreement in place.

[islander200]

7 minutes ago, Ossydave said:

None of the players you've mentioned had that agreement in place.

Says who? Sharpe?

There is absolutely no advantage to the club admitting those clauses were in other loan player deals .What you expect the club to start giving the finer details of contracts out to the local media?

I think it is standard practice for these sort of clauses to be in place.

Van den Berg has half the championship after him and from the gist of Nixon's article it is JDT pushing the VDB deal and Is comfortable he will have enough playing time to avoid any penalties 

[Paul Mani]

VDB is a top championship defender, just get him in, we’ll worry about how many games he plays when he’s here.

[Sweaty Gussets]

2 minutes ago, Paul Mani said:

VDB is a top championship defender, just get him in, we’ll worry about how many games he plays when he’s here.

SW's injury record is already a concern. Ayala's always has been. Carter is unproven in a back 4 at this level and currently injured. Philips is 17 and we don't even know if he wants to be here. 

We've already been priced out of two CB's.

We're quite literally desperate. If we can get a proven Championship performer on loan but we have to pay a little bit more in loan fees/wages then so be it. 

[islander200]

This clause is only a problem if the lad is picked due to us not being able/willing to pay the fine.

Just get him signed.

[roverandout]

Imagine if we had the two vans at the back.  Instead of parking the bus we'll be parking the vans 

[1864roverite]

9 hours ago, Finlay McKenna said:

Had little choice in the end, we withdrew the offer.

Don’t be silly the contract offer was and had been on the table for 2 years. Remember after declining several improved offers he took his agents advice telling the club he was a premier league full back THEN when it became clearer no one was in for him HE and his agent crawled back to Ewood for further talks and after more fannying around Rovers pulled the plug as the agent and Nyambe had messed around ! That’s the real story 

 

[Sweaty Gussets]

8 minutes ago, roverandout said:

Imagine if we had the two vans at the back.  Instead of parking the bus we'll be parking the vans 

As long as they help us deliver results then it's all good. At least they'll have good engines for our high-pressing intensity malarkey. 

[Ossydave]

34 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Says who? Sharpe?

There is absolutely no advantage to the club admitting those clauses were in other loan player deals .What you expect the club to start giving the finer details of contracts out to the local media?

I think it is standard practice for these sort of clauses to be in place.

Van den Berg has half the championship after him and from the gist of Nixon's article it is JDT pushing the VDB deal and Is comfortable he will have enough playing time to avoid any penalties 

Yet you're taking Nixons word as gospel, hells teeth 🙄 

[Exiled_Rover]

1 hour ago, jim mk2 said:

Liverpool in effect picking the Rovers team and forcing the manager to play him

Tell them not so politely to go away 

As long as it's not a 'starting' clause I have no issue with it.

With 2 games a week and 5 subs it'd be very easy to get him on the pitch for enough matches to avoid any fines - and we desperately need another experienced CB.

[Armchair supporter supremo]

Even if the reported loan deal demands from Liverpool are only half true the deal should be scrapped.

It goes completely against the "TEAM FIRST" ethos of JDT no player should be in the starting line up unless they're there on merit and ability, it would be completely wrong to have to drop one of our own players just to meet the contract demands of one player.

 

Unless a player is willing to come here andcearn there place in the team and fight to keep it tgen they can frankly do one...

 

And he's a bloody ginge.

[Tugayisgod]

[Armchair supporter supremo]

8 minutes ago, Ossydave said:

Yet you're taking Nixons word as gospel, hells teeth 🙄 

I generally take everything he says with a pinch of salt....  But i don't see why he'd make up specific details like these unless there was some truth in it. 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Armchair supporter supremo

[tomphil]

That Poveda loan deal who the hell signed that off ?

A lot of money down the pan o that one alone....again !