Premier League: Is the loan system being abused by clubs?

[tototoner]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34125476

While the mind boggled at a record £870m Premier League spend during the summer transfer window, another statistic caught the eye from a club that was relatively prudent.

Chelsea's net outlay amounted to £38m - the fourth-highest in the Premier League - but Nathaniel Chalobah's move to Napoli took the number of Blues players out on loan to 33.

The club are not breaking any rules, and it is a pattern repeated across Europe, with Juventus reportedly owning an additional 58 players not in their first-team squad.

Chelsea's tally could rise even further with the emergency loan window - which opens on Wednesday - giving Football League clubs the chance to sign players for between 28 and 93 days.

But some top-flight clubs have been accused of "abusing" the system by stockpiling talent to the detriment of rivals and players.

So why does a club recruit players in this way and what are the consequences?

What's the motive?
Clubs might not like this analogy, but it can help to think of players in terms of property belonging to a landlord.

If you can afford to own 58 players rather than 25 and no-one is stopping you farming them out, it might make financial sense to do so, especially as big clubs aim to comply with Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules which cap spending in relation to income.

The hope is such players will improve and eventually reach the first team, as Chelsea goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois did. He was bought for £5m from Genk in 2011, sent on loan to Atletico Madrid for three seasons, and broke into the Chelsea side last season.

Even if they don't, the club may hope that a player's value will increase as he matures. Chelsea sent Romelu Lukaku on loan to West Brom and Everton before making a £10m profit on him when he was sold to the Toffees in 2014.

Best of all for the club bean-counters is the fact the loan club will usually pick up the tab for the player's wages.

"We don't send players out because we are trying to recover money, we send them because we want them to play and develop," Chelsea technical director Michael Emenalo has said.

"We felt it is better for players at 18-21 to go on loan somewhere where they get visibility and good competition."

Former Tottenham and Liverpool director of football Damien Comolli also believes clubs have players' best interests at heart, giving them the opportunity to play at a higher level than the current under-21 league, which has drawn criticism for its lack of competitiveness.

Comolli told BBC Sport: "I think Chelsea act in good faith, that they are concerned with the progress of young players. The number of players on loan is amazing, but for me there is no foul play."

Is the system fair?

Chelsea are not the only club to loan players out in this manner, but with great wealth at their disposal, they are certainly more efficient than other Premier League clubs.

Manchester City enjoy similar financial backing to the west London team, yet despite spending a record £160m in this window, they have 14 players on loan, including two who have agreed permanent deals for next season.

Liverpool have 15 players on loan, while Arsenal weigh in with 12, having extended Carl Jenkinson's contract before loaning him back to West Ham for another season. Manchester United only have six players being paid elsewhere this season.

The only rules that teams need to abide by concern the number of domestic players they are allowed to loan in, which is limited to four in one season, two at any one time and one from a specific club.

There are advantages in loaning to rivals, though. Loan players cannot play against their parent clubs, so Chelsea winger Victor Moses, who signed a new four-year deal before being loaned out to West Ham, can now attempt to score against all of Chelsea's Premier League rivals - but not Jose Mourinho's team.
Then there is the wider issue of Premier League clubs scooping up young talent and farming them out to lower league teams.

Not only can this stunt the development of players who are changing clubs every season, according to a Comolli, but a Championship side might sell a player to a Premier League club and see them back on loan at a rival further down the track.

Hull midfielder Tom Huddlestone started his career at Derby and in 2005 was sold for £2.5m to Tottenham. A few months later he was back in the Championship on loan with Wolves.

Chelsea striker Patrick Bamford, 21, came through Nottingham Forest's youth system but two of his four loan deals since signing for the Blues in 2012 have been at fellow Championship sides.

The way clubs are using the loan system is an issue Uefa president Michel Platini is aware of.

The former France captain has said: "It is not possible that the best teams would have all the best players or competition itself is finished. We have to think about football in all of Europe, not only in two or three clubs."
Fifa also plans to scrap the emergency loan system after this season as it believes it affects "the sporting integrity of the competitions".

There is a cautionary tale for stockpiling, however. At one point, Italian side Parma had 226 players listed as affiliated to the club. Italian clubs can co-own players but with debts amounting to £54m, the club went bust in March.

Is it good for players?

Andros Townsend was loaned out to nine teams before making his Tottenham breakthrough - but according to his father it was the making of the 24-year-old.

The winger's emergence came at a similar time to fellow England internationals Harry Kane and Ryan Mason, and his father Troy believes the trio made the grade because they were a small group which the clubs had faith in.

He told BBC Sport: "Being educated in the game in the lower leagues helped Andros in his journey. Tottenham always showed an interest even when he was down at Yeovil as it can be quite difficult for a player if their feel detached from the parent club.

"With Chelsea having 33 out on loan, there will be some players coming back wondering if they have a future at the club and even in English football. For some of them they probably won't, and they are being loaned out because they will be sold somewhere down the line."

Comolli is more critical of Tottenham's approach, however. He believes that Kane, Townsend and Mason made their breakthrough in spite of how the club handled them and believes players benefit from a consistent philosophy rather different plans at numerous clubs.

"That was the opposite of what loans should be for," he added. "Can you imagine a business telling its employees to change company nine or 10 times before you are ready to come back to us? I think making that many loan moves is wrong."


Should there be a limit on players loaned?

Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor admits the current system is "strange" and with clubs owning large pools of players, likens it to third-party ownership, which has been banned in Britain since 2009 and is now outlawed worldwide.

Like Fifa, Taylor's concerns also surround the integrity of competitions as well as opportunities for young players in England.

While Chelsea have five players on loan at Dutch side Vitesse Arnhem, eyebrows were raised in the 2012-13 season when the Pozzo family took over at Watford, then in the Championship, and brought in 12 players on loan from other clubs that they also own - Italian side Udinese and Granada in Spain.

Taylor said: "If it becomes uncontrollable, and you think of Watford and their links with Italy, it invites scrutiny with regards to the integrity of the game.

"You don't want the winners of the competition to be the club that has the best relationships with another club and borrows their best youngsters."


Fortunately for English football, wholesale imports previously seen at Watford are relatively rare and the Hornets only have three loanees this season.

The Premier League's riches mean it is becoming more common to loan players the other way.
And Comolli believes Chelsea have actually made mistakes in loaning out and selling the likes of Kevin de Bruyne and Lukaku before they reached their true value to the team.

Townsend added: "Clubs need to trust their young talent. The loan system can be a good way but it can be abused.

"Victor Moses is still getting Premier League moves on the back of being a Chelsea player, but somewhere down the line younger players will not be getting those moves. They will be sent out on loan before they are sold off.

"That's where we have to look at curbing the loan rules, not to hinder the clubs but to benefit the players."

 

[JerryGarcia]

Maybe they should make it so that you can only loan English players under a certain age to English clubs or if you're in Germany, only to German Clubs etc. It would mean clubs would have to be more careful of which foreign players they bring over and hopefully it would give more chances to home grown youngsters.

 

[dontcallme]

Interesting article and certainly a subject up for debate,

I don't think there is a one fits all type of deal. Some players will benefit from going on loan spells and getting experience while also having the facilities at the expensive clubs they are registered with.

But I also think it can be more beneficial for players to really care about every game and perform for the team. If you play for a lower league club then you are going to want them to succeed, if you are just there on loan you could concentrate more on making a name for yourself.

I'm not convinced all the top clubs are really monitoring the progress of their loanees. They're probably aware that some of their players won't make it but if they perform well at a lower club then they could gain a higher transfer fee.

 

[aliyid]

It's a big issue and (IMO) limits progression of a lot of potentially decent players and should be looked at in the same way as 3rd party ownership.

My preference on how to police this would be a couple of simple rules:

• Can only loan out players under 21yrs old (as of the start of the season).
• Can't loan out players that have been bought during the same transfer window.

The loan system should primarily be for allowing youth players the opportunity to get game time at a decent level. If a player outside the youth level isn't good enough to be in your 25-man squad then they should be sold to a team where they can play not stockpiled and sold for a profit.

 

[Sanj]

thanks @tototoner - i've been thinking about this topic for a long time and do feel that the current system is at the detriment of fair play, league competitiveness and the England team as well.
Understandebly Chelsea won't care about any of these issues - they are speculating (to accumulate?) and also depriving their competitors the possibility of signing up these potentially talented players.
i would love fifa to put limits on the number of players over the age of 22 that can be sent out on loan, and also a limit on the number of foreign imports that can be loaned out. This isn't just an Anti-chelsea issue - but one for the benefit of the worldwide game.
If a foreign, or over 23 player knew that he may not get in the Chelsea squad, or may not even secure a loan deal due to the limitations would they still sign for Chelsea - or would they see villa, or everton or spurs as a better option?
This would lead to hopefully a more competitive league and also allow players to develop more quickly by playing first team games at other clubs.
Hopefully this would also lead to young English players also having more opportunities to play 1st team football - or to secure better loan deals for themselves, ideally exposing some of our youngsters to foreign loan deals as well as lower league english clubs.

Sorry for the rushed response (hope theres some sense in there) - but trying to get a response out before my next meeting starts.....

 

[TaoistMonkey]

I think if you sign a player you must be able to keep them at the club for "X" amount of time before they can be loaned out unless its loaned back to the team you purchased from like we did with Ali.

 

[Danners9]

I don't think clubs in general are. I think Chelsea are. Don't forget they also have an academy side - a good academy side - as well.

The system needs to be tightened up and not allowed to be used as an investment system for the few. The two things I hate most about what has happened are:

1) the stockpiling of young players that concentrates talent at a few clubs and blocks the path of their academy players
2) the impact it has on the leagues where these players are loaned to.

It gives Vitesse, for example, an unfair example over some of their competitors. Chelsea are most likely paying the wages of these players so Vitesse get 5 for free while others in the league do not, it then displaces players there. It is not about the best team, then, it is about the team with the best relationship with another club.

I see the value in loaning players out, but not to the extent some have. 25 in their Premier League squad but 33 on loan.

I don't like the Prem-Prem loans, either, but at least it's limited. The squad limits have made that a necessity, really. Otherwise, what could happen is a set of 25 for the Premier League, a more competitive B or U21 (U23 maybe) league, and then a maximum limit of players 18-21 on loan locally (Spurs to, say, Colchester, Ipswich, Leyton Orient etc) and some internationally (Spurs have a deal with Roda JC now). Players under 18 don't go out, some players 18-21 do go out on loan (in rotation, sort of..) but the club is required to also field a team in the U21 league as well, and a minimum of local academy kids to be involved. Not sure if it's realistic, legal or anything but it's unfair for some to hoover up players from all over with no intention of playing them in the near future.

It was a nice surprise to see Chalobah go to Napoli on loan. He should benefit from that. On the other hand there is Marko Marin who looked decent for Bremen and since joining Chelsea has played for Sevilla, Fiorentina, Anderlecht, and now Trabzonspor. 6 appearances for Chelsea.

 

[talkshowhost86]

It's an odd one because if players are being loaned out, then I'm not convinced it hurts their development. If they are getting games then that is good, and the issue would only be if the big teams were buying these players and then just keeping them in reserve.

Similarly it allows some teams to get players they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. West Brom with Lukaku being a good example of a club getting a player they would never be able to sign properly.

The issue comes when a club buys a player from one club, then immediately loans them to someone else. That's the sort of area where deals could get done to the detriment of other lower league clubs. If Chelsea had a deal with QPR (for example) they could buy QPR's rival's players and then loan them to QPR, with the quid pro quo being that QPR give Chelsea first access to their young players.

I think there needs to be a limit on how many players a team can have on their books at one time. And I agree with @TaoistMonkey that if a player is signed, he should stay at the buying club for a certain amount of time before being loaned, unless it is back to his previous club.

Other than that it's a tough one to manage sensibly, and certainly massively open to abuse as we saw with Watford recently.

 

[nailsy]

The system is definitely being abused by some - Chelsea for a start. There should be a limit of how many purchased players you can loan out, and an age limit for players going out on loan. Players that have come through a clubs youth academy should be treated separately.

 

[nferno]

Chelsea is always the reason we can't have nice things.

 

[talkshowhost86]

What do Chelsea really get out if it though? Is it just having a selection of players that they can use if they want but loan out if they don't?

With the current loan regs they can't simply recall players during the season (I don't think) and they still have to pay for the transfer fees in the first place, plus I suspect contributing towards wages in many cases.

I really don't see what they get out of it.

 

[Sanj]

What do Chelsea really get out if it though? Is it just having a selection of players that they can use if they want but loan out if they don't?

With the current loan regs they can't simply recall players during the season (I don't think) and they still have to pay for the transfer fees in the first place, plus I suspect contributing towards wages in many cases.

I really don't see what they get out of it.

Players with potential that they can loan out. If the players fulfill their potential they can integrate them into the 1st team, or make a large profit by selling the players.
They will also get a loan fee, and the players wages paid by by the club who loans the players.
This also stops Chelsea's competition picking up these players with potential.
(and a chance for roman to wash his money..... p.s. this is a joke Mr. Abramovic).

All in all this works out pretty well for Chelsea, imo

 

[riggi]

Dunno but I am and have been for quite a number of years.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Players with potential that they can loan out. If the players fulfill their potential they can integrate them into the 1st team, or make a large profit by selling the players.
They will also get a loan fee, and the players wages paid by by the club who loans the players.
This also stops Chelsea's competition picking up these players with potential.
(and a chance for roman to wash his money..... p.s. this is a joke Mr. Abramovic).

All in all this works out pretty well for Chelsea, imo

Hmmmmm...I remain unconvinced as to the financial benefit they get from it.

Maybe there is an element of them simply stopping their competition from getting players, but it's not as if these players they are loaning out are world beaters that the likes of City and Arsenal are trying to sign instead.

It just all seems very odd.

The daft thing is that players continue to go there. If you see what's going on and still go there just to chase the money, then frankly I have little sympathy...and that applies at both senior and junior level.

 

[Danners9]

Hmmmmm...I remain unconvinced as to the financial benefit they get from it.

Maybe there is an element of them simply stopping their competition from getting players, but it's not as if these players they are loaning out are world beaters that the likes of City and Arsenal are trying to sign instead.

It just all seems very odd.

The daft thing is that players continue to go there. If you see what's going on and still go there just to chase the money, then frankly I have little sympathy...and that applies at both senior and junior level.

Players do keep going there but Abramovich's mate has an agency in South America. Peter Kenyon also has an agency. The markets they shop in for young players are very dodgy, in my opinion. Players from poorer countries will chase the money.

Chelsea can also sell at a profit to help balance their books. Stocking up on players at a lower rate means they can sell at a higher rate if they need to. This is their business model, even with first team players. From the outside it looks like they are trading numbers on a screen and FFP balances with others - David Luiz for 50m puts Chelsea into profit, and doesn't bother PSG much. Might be wrong, but that's what I've made of their dealings recently.

 

[etchedchaos]

The sheer volume means the Chavs are preventing teams from tapping into that potential, and it's not just the top 4 teams they're disadvantaging but those who might be able to take that potential and parlay it into higher league placings e.g us. Also, there's little risk for them, anyone that excels gets brought back into the fold and the rest get sold at a higher price alleviating any FFP issues. Finally we have the strategic value of loaning out so many players, they can strengthen certain teams who will then be suitably weakened when they play the Chavs, making winning the league easier.

 

[Lilbaz]

It's a big issue and (IMO) limits progression of a lot of potentially decent players and should be looked at in the same way as 3rd party ownership.

My preference on how to police this would be a couple of simple rules:

• Can only loan out players under 21yrs old (as of the start of the season).
• Can't loan out players that have been bought during the same transfer window.

The loan system should primarily be for allowing youth players the opportunity to get game time at a decent level. If a player outside the youth level isn't good enough to be in your 25-man squad then they should be sold to a team where they can play not stockpiled and sold for a profit.

Would also add not being able to loan to teams in the same division, as it gives you an advantage. As they can take points off your rivals but not off you.

 

[yankspurs]

What Chelsea does is stockpiling players, which needs to stop. There needs to be a way to get that to end. These young foreign players they sign from Brazil and other places, they likely wont ever make an appearance for Chelsea. And they continue to loan players out because they pay such high wages to them that the clubs cant pay that on a permanant basis when chelsea decide to sell, so they keep loaning them out to clubs outside of England, so they cant help prospective clubs compete in the league table. They only loan or sell to an England club once they know they're not good enough to be in a side somewhat close to them, and then flog them off to a mid to bottom table side however they can, either via loan or perms. It's a good strategy, really. But it's not a competitively fair one to other clubs and it's not good for the players either. Chelsea is the only club that abuses the loan system.

If a youth player has an excessive amounts of loans, that just means the parent club needs to do a better job picking loan moves and knowing when the player is ready to be loaned out.

 

[nailsy]

And why has Moses signed a new contract at Chelsea?

 

[tototoner]

And why has Moses signed a new contract at Chelsea?

$$$$$$