Julian YP

An interesting revelation about Miller and Clarke, too.

 

I've missed the word deficit

 

Interesting, but alarming to read of the clause in Millers loan deal from Middlesbrough. Fortunately his move to Barnsley overrides that now.

Bad negotiation on Rahic's part, or is it normal practice for loan deals?

 

One thing about Rhodes, I feel so much at ease about our club when he is running the show. I hope he stays beyond this season

 

Not always, Idle, but the key thing here is JR is brilliant at this sort of thing. He reads deals and contracts until he has almost stripped the print off the page and the outcome of the Miller deal, especially the removal of the extra payment clause from the Barnsley loan is just what I would expect of JR.

 

Yes it is, it's not uncommon for a parent club to stipulate that a player needs to start X games or make X appearances as part of a loan deal.

A different example is some clubs state that if their player makes appearances in 20 games, then they are owed a fee, so in some instances the player will play 19 games and then be left out to avoid paying the additional fee.

Same happens on permanent deals with extra clauses for appearances made, goals scored etc.

 

This is pretty standard for most loan deals.

I know Liverpool make you pay something like 80% of their players wages if they don't play a certain number of games and when some of their players are on £10-£20k a week that shows you one of the major problems in football today

 

Not disputing what you say but did not Archie Christie head of football development discover thousands of pounds of unpaid fees due to the club in contracts for former players etc sold that the club had not realised due?

 

Not to my knowledge Trevor and I was a member of the Board at the time. Indeed, Archie was hardly with the Club long enough for that although in the reverse of what you're suggesting Archie landed us with a hefty bill for Mark Stewart as a result of not reading/understanding similar legal conditions. Julian and, to be fair, Mark also, always knew detail but as I have said JR was and is a master of deals and detail.

 

You can see their argument. Klopp explained it well when talking about Woodburn. He can get the experience of training and being part of a football club by staying here. They are sent out on loan to gain experience of playing. If they don't then they will pay or we will have them back (something like that).

If you are still paying someones wages for them to gain experience I would expect them to gain experience. However if the loaning club pay a loan fee then they are their player to do what you want with. Seems fair enough to me. You pay a higher contribution to give you flexibility. If you contribute hardly anything I would expect them to play every game??

 

From a club point of view I can see where Klopp is coming from. I just think it sends out the wrong message to the young player who regardless of ability to cope, form, attitude he knows come 3pm Saturday he's going to play as he knows the club he's at can't afford to pay him. Don't get me wrong I doubt this is the case for the majority as in terms of quality they're usually fairly good, certainly when they're being loaned to Championship clubs.

However what if they can't cope mentally and physically with the game yet they keep getting played due to it being cost effective? That can't be good for the players development or the future of the club he's on loan to.

I think whatever is agreed at the start is what the cost should be regardless of whether they play or not. They then get treated exactly they same as their team mates.

 

I agree. Its a tricky balance. Bearing in mind there may be a number of clubs after that loan signing and they can't get a loan recall for 6 months, you essentially want that player playing. Do you want this to be done contractually? I think this is overkill as you say. Maybe its the job of the club loaning him out to make sure he is going somewhere where you think is his level ish so he gets games. However could be fault of the loaning club for not doing their research correctly on the player. whats my conclusion? there isn't one arrrggghhh

 

For me part of a players development is seeing how they can come through testing times.. If he's only playing games because clubs will have a financial burden to pick up then what good is that? what does the player or his parent club learn about him? This is one of the reasons you very rarely see these loan players make it these days.. They just get sent round the houses to the highest bidder.. The parent club don't really care about his development, it's all about how long can we keep making money on this player.

 

Anyone else felt that article sort of just ended just as you were getting into the nitty gritty.

 

Glad some else though that. I even scrolled down hoping it would continue below the links to other 'interestingly' articles. Maybe one day we will hear the whole truth, but for now, probably best to just focus on the hear and now. Onwards and upwards.

 

I was scrolling down too but all there was was clickbait!

It looks like Sutcliffe is saving the rest for another article once we release the details of the new ST deal?

 

Yeah ............ It was more like defecate under Edin ...........

 

As did I