I think Talksport might be overestimating your sale numbers, or doing some funky maths. Transfermarkt seems to think you've near as anything broken even (2.1m profit). Not sure why they'd do that for Chelsea, but they have Villa's number pretty close at 19m profit. Looks like a few others made a bit more too.
Not knocking it by the way, your transfer team are top notch and made some properly good sales. Not many teams spend 100m on a player and break even, it's to be applauded
Something doesnt add up
13. Liverpool – Net spend of £6.8million
_________________
Konate 36m
...
Georginio Wijnaldum - free
Kamil Grabara £3,000,000
Liam Millar £1,300,000
Taiwo Awoniyi £6,500,000
Marko Grujić £10,500,000
Harry Wilson £12,000,000
Xherdan Shaqiri £9,000,000
Net profit of of 6.3million no?
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 1 minute ago
I think Talksport might be overestimating your sale numbers, or doing some funky maths. Transfermarkt seems to think you've near as anything broken even (2.1m profit). Not sure why they'd do that for Chelsea, but they have Villa's number pretty close at 19m profit. Looks like a few others made a bit more too.
Not knocking it by the way, your transfer team are top notch and made some properly good sales. Not many teams spend 100m on a player and break even, it's to be applauded
----------------------------------------------------------------------
transfer market gave 23m to chelsea u23s for the sale of a defender to palace was it?
Players Club Transfer sum
Marc Guehi Chelsea FC U23 Chelsea U23 £21.00m
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/crystal-palace/alletransfers/verein/873
Liverpool apparently spent 36m
Sales for
Wilson 12.6
Awoniyi 5.85m
Shaqiri 5.4m
Grujic 1m loan fee with option to buy
Net spend - 11.25m
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1?saison_id=2021
Oh
Take those number with a pinch of salt then
yeah well its wrong
Liverpool midfielder Marko Grujic has today sealed a permanent move to FC Porto.
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/438390-marko-grujic-seals-permanent-transfer-to-fc-porto
transfermarkt is a gd site to give an idea but ultimately its wikipedia edited by random users isnt it? wouldnt trust it as fact.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 minute ago
yeah well its wrong
Liverpool midfielder Marko Grujic has today sealed a permanent move to FC Porto.
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/438390-marko-grujic-seals-permanent-transfer-to-fc-porto
transfermarkt is a gd site to give an idea but ultimately its wikipedia edited by random users isnt it? wouldnt trust it as fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, no idea! I had assumed that they had some level of actual fact checking involved! Definitely be a bit more wary of that now.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Net spend is neither here nor there really. Player sales are just another source of income for a club to add to everything else.
Chelsea do well buying and selling youth for sure. Papers over the cracks of huge losses on zappacosts bakayoko batshuayi drinkwater etc though. And the fees n wages etc theyre probably having to contribute to whilst on loan.
Can't fault them selling their youth though of which they have squads worth of talent and get a lot of interest in and good money for.
i mean they have some talent on loan too gallagher at palace? gilmour at norwich, that rb for southampton looks good they only got 5m for him but 25m buyback clause could work out.
if they dont make it with chelsea like mount and james etc you can see them getting good money for them.
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
yeah they have 20 out on loan atm, probably increase if the loan windows still open?
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make loads of money out of it. Even with the older players like Batshuayi or Emerson - they make them sign contracts to protect their transfer value, loan them out for fairly hefty loan fees and get their wages off the books. Good business model.
comment by Poolmyfinger (U12438)
posted 2 hours, 35 minutes ago
“top of that she has to be the hottest director of football”
She’s the only thing nice about your club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe but you lot dont even have that to fall back, but could be the poster club for sewage waste disposal dump sites
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make loads of money out of it. Even with the older players like Batshuayi or Emerson - they make them sign contracts to protect their transfer value, loan them out for fairly hefty loan fees and get their wages off the books. Good business model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbh, the loan system needs to be overhauled.
Should be limited to U21 players and it shouldn't be a fee-paying transaction.
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make loads of money out of it. Even with the older players like Batshuayi or Emerson - they make them sign contracts to protect their transfer value, loan them out for fairly hefty loan fees and get their wages off the books. Good business model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbh, the loan system needs to be overhauled.
Should be limited to U21 players and it shouldn't be a fee-paying transaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree. It's a business. They are also investing a lot of resources into their academies. Without La Masia, God knows how much worse Barca's plight would be now. The academies produce a lot of good quality players even if they end up playing for other teams.
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make loads of money out of it. Even with the older players like Batshuayi or Emerson - they make them sign contracts to protect their transfer value, loan them out for fairly hefty loan fees and get their wages off the books. Good business model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbh, the loan system needs to be overhauled.
Should be limited to U21 players and it shouldn't be a fee-paying transaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree. It's a business. They are also investing a lot of resources into their academies. Without La Masia, God knows how much worse Barca's plight would be now. The academies produce a lot of good quality players even if they end up playing for other teams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't stop teams loaning out players from the academy from being loaned out to get experience. Thats what it should be for really.
Not renting out 25/26/27 yr old players year after year. Either a player that age is good enough for the 1st team squad or he isn't. If he's not then he should go permanently or be released.
I think you also have to look at the loan / youth development and sales system as very positive. Ake, Bertrand, Kalas, Traore, Abraham, Tomori, Ola Aina, Guehi, Lamptey ... to name a few ... came through the Chelsea academy but play for other teams at a top level.
The same for City, just off the top of my head, Sancho, Trippier, Eric Garcia, Schmeichel etc came through and play elsewhere at a high level.
comment by vavarising (U21731)
posted 2 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by Poolmyfinger (U12438)
posted 2 hours, 35 minutes ago
“top of that she has to be the hottest director of football”
She’s the only thing nice about your club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe but you lot dont even have that to fall back, but could be the poster club for sewage waste disposal dump sites
----------------------------------------------------
I'm sure even Liverpool fans know deep down they're a right cu*ty club. Think they get off on being hated like we do, we're just more honest about it
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 14 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make loads of money out of it. Even with the older players like Batshuayi or Emerson - they make them sign contracts to protect their transfer value, loan them out for fairly hefty loan fees and get their wages off the books. Good business model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbh, the loan system needs to be overhauled.
Should be limited to U21 players and it shouldn't be a fee-paying transaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree. It's a business. They are also investing a lot of resources into their academies. Without La Masia, God knows how much worse Barca's plight would be now. The academies produce a lot of good quality players even if they end up playing for other teams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't stop teams loaning out players from the academy from being loaned out to get experience. Thats what it should be for really.
Not renting out 25/26/27 yr old players year after year. Either a player that age is good enough for the 1st team squad or he isn't. If he's not then he should go permanently or be released.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
supply & demand though.....both in abundance...what's not to like...it's not going anywhere
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Well well well!
Page 1 of 1
posted on 1/9/21
I think Talksport might be overestimating your sale numbers, or doing some funky maths. Transfermarkt seems to think you've near as anything broken even (2.1m profit). Not sure why they'd do that for Chelsea, but they have Villa's number pretty close at 19m profit. Looks like a few others made a bit more too.
Not knocking it by the way, your transfer team are top notch and made some properly good sales. Not many teams spend 100m on a player and break even, it's to be applauded
posted on 1/9/21
Something doesnt add up
13. Liverpool – Net spend of £6.8million
_________________
Konate 36m
...
Georginio Wijnaldum - free
Kamil Grabara £3,000,000
Liam Millar £1,300,000
Taiwo Awoniyi £6,500,000
Marko Grujić £10,500,000
Harry Wilson £12,000,000
Xherdan Shaqiri £9,000,000
Net profit of of 6.3million no?
posted on 1/9/21
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 1 minute ago
I think Talksport might be overestimating your sale numbers, or doing some funky maths. Transfermarkt seems to think you've near as anything broken even (2.1m profit). Not sure why they'd do that for Chelsea, but they have Villa's number pretty close at 19m profit. Looks like a few others made a bit more too.
Not knocking it by the way, your transfer team are top notch and made some properly good sales. Not many teams spend 100m on a player and break even, it's to be applauded
----------------------------------------------------------------------
transfer market gave 23m to chelsea u23s for the sale of a defender to palace was it?
Players Club Transfer sum
Marc Guehi Chelsea FC U23 Chelsea U23 £21.00m
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/crystal-palace/alletransfers/verein/873
posted on 1/9/21
Liverpool apparently spent 36m
Sales for
Wilson 12.6
Awoniyi 5.85m
Shaqiri 5.4m
Grujic 1m loan fee with option to buy
Net spend - 11.25m
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1?saison_id=2021
posted on 1/9/21
Oh
Take those number with a pinch of salt then
posted on 1/9/21
yeah well its wrong
Liverpool midfielder Marko Grujic has today sealed a permanent move to FC Porto.
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/438390-marko-grujic-seals-permanent-transfer-to-fc-porto
transfermarkt is a gd site to give an idea but ultimately its wikipedia edited by random users isnt it? wouldnt trust it as fact.
posted on 1/9/21
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 minute ago
yeah well its wrong
Liverpool midfielder Marko Grujic has today sealed a permanent move to FC Porto.
https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/438390-marko-grujic-seals-permanent-transfer-to-fc-porto
transfermarkt is a gd site to give an idea but ultimately its wikipedia edited by random users isnt it? wouldnt trust it as fact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, no idea! I had assumed that they had some level of actual fact checking involved! Definitely be a bit more wary of that now.
posted on 1/9/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/9/21
Net spend is neither here nor there really. Player sales are just another source of income for a club to add to everything else.
posted on 1/9/21
Chelsea do well buying and selling youth for sure. Papers over the cracks of huge losses on zappacosts bakayoko batshuayi drinkwater etc though. And the fees n wages etc theyre probably having to contribute to whilst on loan.
Can't fault them selling their youth though of which they have squads worth of talent and get a lot of interest in and good money for.
posted on 1/9/21
i mean they have some talent on loan too gallagher at palace? gilmour at norwich, that rb for southampton looks good they only got 5m for him but 25m buyback clause could work out.
if they dont make it with chelsea like mount and james etc you can see them getting good money for them.
posted on 1/9/21
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
posted on 1/9/21
yeah they have 20 out on loan atm, probably increase if the loan windows still open?
posted on 1/9/21
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
posted on 1/9/21
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make loads of money out of it. Even with the older players like Batshuayi or Emerson - they make them sign contracts to protect their transfer value, loan them out for fairly hefty loan fees and get their wages off the books. Good business model.
posted on 1/9/21
comment by Poolmyfinger (U12438)
posted 2 hours, 35 minutes ago
“top of that she has to be the hottest director of football”
She’s the only thing nice about your club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe but you lot dont even have that to fall back, but could be the poster club for sewage waste disposal dump sites
posted on 1/9/21
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make loads of money out of it. Even with the older players like Batshuayi or Emerson - they make them sign contracts to protect their transfer value, loan them out for fairly hefty loan fees and get their wages off the books. Good business model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbh, the loan system needs to be overhauled.
Should be limited to U21 players and it shouldn't be a fee-paying transaction.
posted on 1/9/21
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make loads of money out of it. Even with the older players like Batshuayi or Emerson - they make them sign contracts to protect their transfer value, loan them out for fairly hefty loan fees and get their wages off the books. Good business model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbh, the loan system needs to be overhauled.
Should be limited to U21 players and it shouldn't be a fee-paying transaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree. It's a business. They are also investing a lot of resources into their academies. Without La Masia, God knows how much worse Barca's plight would be now. The academies produce a lot of good quality players even if they end up playing for other teams.
posted on 1/9/21
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make loads of money out of it. Even with the older players like Batshuayi or Emerson - they make them sign contracts to protect their transfer value, loan them out for fairly hefty loan fees and get their wages off the books. Good business model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbh, the loan system needs to be overhauled.
Should be limited to U21 players and it shouldn't be a fee-paying transaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree. It's a business. They are also investing a lot of resources into their academies. Without La Masia, God knows how much worse Barca's plight would be now. The academies produce a lot of good quality players even if they end up playing for other teams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't stop teams loaning out players from the academy from being loaned out to get experience. Thats what it should be for really.
Not renting out 25/26/27 yr old players year after year. Either a player that age is good enough for the 1st team squad or he isn't. If he's not then he should go permanently or be released.
posted on 1/9/21
I think you also have to look at the loan / youth development and sales system as very positive. Ake, Bertrand, Kalas, Traore, Abraham, Tomori, Ola Aina, Guehi, Lamptey ... to name a few ... came through the Chelsea academy but play for other teams at a top level.
The same for City, just off the top of my head, Sancho, Trippier, Eric Garcia, Schmeichel etc came through and play elsewhere at a high level.
posted on 1/9/21
comment by vavarising (U21731)
posted 2 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by Poolmyfinger (U12438)
posted 2 hours, 35 minutes ago
“top of that she has to be the hottest director of football”
She’s the only thing nice about your club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
maybe but you lot dont even have that to fall back, but could be the poster club for sewage waste disposal dump sites
----------------------------------------------------
I'm sure even Liverpool fans know deep down they're a right cu*ty club. Think they get off on being hated like we do, we're just more honest about it
posted on 2/9/21
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 14 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Eric_Draven (U20260)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by Barf Vader (U15867)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's quite an interesting policy really. Obviously very few youth prospects make it at Chelsea (you can argue that they only have Mount & James because of the transfer ban), but they get them to a decent level in U23s, sell em on for a reasonable price, let someone else do their actual development then can buy them back if they're any good. They also put a shed load of players out on loan, though not sure if it's still the same. Might have been 2 years ago they had like 20 something players out on loan at a decent level
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City and Chelsea do this more than anyone.
Last 10 years City have loaned out 232 players, Chelsea 207.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And they make loads of money out of it. Even with the older players like Batshuayi or Emerson - they make them sign contracts to protect their transfer value, loan them out for fairly hefty loan fees and get their wages off the books. Good business model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
tbh, the loan system needs to be overhauled.
Should be limited to U21 players and it shouldn't be a fee-paying transaction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't agree. It's a business. They are also investing a lot of resources into their academies. Without La Masia, God knows how much worse Barca's plight would be now. The academies produce a lot of good quality players even if they end up playing for other teams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't stop teams loaning out players from the academy from being loaned out to get experience. Thats what it should be for really.
Not renting out 25/26/27 yr old players year after year. Either a player that age is good enough for the 1st team squad or he isn't. If he's not then he should go permanently or be released.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
supply & demand though.....both in abundance...what's not to like...it's not going anywhere
Page 1 of 1