Should FA stop teams in the same league loaning players to each other?

As it happened it mattered not. But, for example, Piennars goal against Newcastle could have had huge financial ramifications if Everton had cost us the opportunity to go above Spurs.

Can't see how it is fair that players can go out on loan and effect the outcome of games that their 'home' club can directly benefit from. It might also stop the richer Clubs stockpiling players then dumping them on loan when they become surplus.

This definitely needs looked at. Adebayor on daft money at Man City, can't get near their side, goes to Spurs who only pay about half of his wages and he's an integral part of their push for a Champions League place, the whole thing's warped. Bit galling as well actually since Spurs were a big rival of ours and probably couldn't have afforded a player of Adebayor's quality without Man City stockpiling top players. Would they have dropped a handful more points without Adebayor to allow us to sneak into the Champions League?

Personally i'd go further.... long term loans (ie 3month or over) only for under 21's.

Thoughts? no iam not butthurt lol just think the whole loan system needs looking at.

You do sound butthurt though

animal.crackers wrote:You do sound butthurt though

Probably but i do think it is something that needs to be looked at.....

I mean Spurs finished 4th thanks to a striker that whose wages were paid by a totally different club.... i also think loanee's should be allowed to play against their parent club....

The whole Loan system is moronic and its something that definitely needs looking at.....

Clubs loaning out players because they have no use for them and cant sell them yet still pay thier wages and not allowed to play against said team and go on to effect relegation and european places and even title race in some cases.

Bolton basically stayed up last season due to a Chelsea player.

PL goes on about fair play but how is that fair?

Come on?

England doesn't have a problem IMO.

Why? Because the "supposed loans" are actually temporary transfers whereby one club pays to have the player.

Even in cases like Adebayor...Tottenham has to pay ridiculously high wages.

The only part that needs looking at is the restrictions against playing the parent club.

That's problematic.

Le Samourai wrote:Come on?

England doesn't have a problem IMO.

Why? Because the "supposed loans" are actually temporary transfers whereby one club pays to have the player.

Even in cases like Adebayor...Tottenham has to pay ridiculously high wages.

The only part that needs looking at is the restrictions against playing the parent club.

That's problematic.

That hardly ever happens tho, majority of the time the parent club pays the wages.... as was the case with Sturridge on-loan to Bolton.

This isn't nearly as bad a Serie A.....rivals like Inter and Milan loan each other players. I never understood how rivals are willing to do that.

No, I don't think so.

If you loan players in vast numbers to your direct rivals then it'd be a problem, you know, Arsenal loaning to Manc United or Stoke loaning players to QPR. Adebayor is the only loan this season that comes close to this.

Most of the time it's the top 4-7 clubs that loan their surplus players to the lower teams and I'm fine with that. It's far-stretched to think this is being done to make life more difficult for your rivals.

I wouldn't, however, oppose to a limit, like you can only loan one player to one club in the same division.

Barrettinator wrote:

Nah not really its been a problem for a very long time, even when were shit it was a problem lol.....

Clubs loaning players to other clubs in the same league creates an un-even playing field especially when said loans you cant play against the parent club during the loan.