19 Aug 2016 16:43:40
Hi all, I'm just wondering what everyone makes of Brannagan's loan falling through, apparently it's because Wigan wouldn't guarantee that they'd play him in 75% of games. This clause seems odd and a bit self defeating to me. If you're the loanee club the beauty of the loan system is that you get a risk free player, best case is you get a quality player at a cheap price, worst case is you get a bad player which you didn't have to pay for. With the 75% clause the worst case is now that you have a bad player that you have to play or face a fine, that's not a good position for the loanee club to be in.


If you're the loaning club you want your guy to get games, scaring off a potential loanee club because of your demands is against your own interests. Surely you want to find a club where the guy will play because he's good enough to get in the team on merit not because the club's hands are tied. I realise that sending a guy on loan to a club and seeing him sitting on the bench is frustrating but to me that just means the loaning club have messed up by sending him somewhere he wasn't ready for.


1.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 16:57:20
I'm a little on the fence on this one but allow me to present you with a counter argument.

This tactic prevents us from sending a player on loan to club who are merely looking to add depth to their squad, Wisdom springs to mind, which as Klopp said is useless for the player when they'd be better off here training with the squad back at home.


2.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 17:05:45
The game seems to be shifting towards these "I play this many games at least or I'm not coming". Personally think it's a silly system. I don't understand the whole guarantees thing (the infamous glen Johnson clause that I don't think existed lol) . What happened to earning your place?


3.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 17:09:44
If your picking the right team for the player to go on loan to then I can't see it being an issue.


4.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 17:32:03
You don't want to end up in a situation where the guy goes on loan and not only weakens your squad depth, but never gets an honest chance in the loan team. It's quite right and natural to seek guarantees over how much game time the player will get to ensure that the loan is actually worthwhile you the parent club. Wisdom was given as a great example - went to a club, was way better than the parent club owned player but as soon as the club got into trouble he was frozen out because the manager felt their own player had more to lose. Its up to our club to judge how much gametime the young player will need to make it worthwhile and look for guarentees for that to happen. It's only self defeating if really we want them off the books but are putting in barriers to stop them doing so.


5.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 17:33:59
Dan, I sort of alluded to that, in Wisdom's case I think Liverpool have some responsibility because they organised a bad loan. In Brannagan's case if Wigan weren't looking at him as a starter why were we even talking to them?


6.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 18:27:15
You can no longer recall loans except during the transfer window. Hence the clause, which is to stop clubs just padding out their squad with 'free' players as the correspondent above makes clear.

Previously if a player was just warming the bench you could recall but that option is obviously no longer open.


7.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 20:58:30
I agree with muscat, Brannigan needs to go to a team that's going to play him every week, the wee boy deserves that.


8.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 21:02:17
Here is an idea. Clubs should just stop stockpiling players. You rarely ever had loans 30 years ago because clubs only had about 15 senior players. If they got into an injury crisis they just pulled a kid out the academy/ ressies. Now you have to loan the kids because squads have gone from about 15 players to more like 30!

{Ed001's Note - I totally agree. For starters they should scrap the window system, as that encourages stockpiling in case of injuries, as you can't just go and buy when you need a player. Instead you end up getting them just in case. Then scrap loans.}


9.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 22:28:30
To the op I disagree the point of a loan for club whose is loaning out the player is for the player to improve and gain match experience. It would be self defeating for a club to loan out a player without a guarantee of playing time. As for your loaning in a crap player argument, loans are pretty easy to terminate if they go wrong; a club shouldn't end up loaning in a crap player in the first place if they do their due diligence beforehand.


10.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 22:31:33
Correct me if I'm wrong eds but I'm pretty sure clubs such as Chelsea already put playing-time-guaranteeing clauses in loan contract. So I'm pretty sure it's the norm for clubs who are any good at operating in the loan market.

{Ed002's Note - All clubs want loan players to have the opportunity to improve.}


11.) 19 Aug 2016
19 Aug 2016 23:40:43
I hate the window system also Ed. Personally, I think telling a human being he can only change job in two set windows in a year is a complete violation of basic human rights, but I won't go in to my opinions on the contractual side of the game!

Purely focusing on the football side, I completely agree with you. The windows force teams into "building a squad" capable of making it to the next window! It shouldn't do, they should just give the youth chances to cover injuries. There is so much money in the game though that they probably think it is more financially safe to have a £100k a week bench warmer than take a risk with a youth player. Totally wrong in my opinion, but sadly I think it will only get worse. This U23 league seems like it will just be abused and used as a way to keep an even bigger squad happy.

I miss a brand of football that I wasn't even alive to remember haha.


12.) 20 Aug 2016
20 Aug 2016 08:49:12
It's fairly obvious that our prior loan system wasn't working so needed an overhaul, now people moan about us inserting clauses that address that very issue. If Wigan wanted him for their first team they wouldn't be complaining. The purpose of a loan should always be to develop a player. If they can't guarantee that he's better staying and developing with ourselves.


13.) 20 Aug 2016
20 Aug 2016 09:52:45
What everyone seems to be ignoring is that, because of the clause, Brannagan won't get ANY game time. We've shot ourselves in the foot.