Loan system debate: Martin Samuel responds

Martin Samuel argued in his debate that the case of Jermain Defoe and his ineligibility to play for Portsmouth against Tottenham Hotspur showed up the folly of the loan system. Not only did Martin say that Portsmouth were right to feel aggrieved, but also that loans should be scrapped altogeter. As ever, many of you posted impassioned responses. Martin has replied to a selection of them:

Premier League clubs are snapping up youngsters from such a young age and who is going to stay at Rochdale if there is interest from Manchester United? Without the loan system a player could rot in the reserves for seven years, not get within sniffing distance of the first team, until his release at 21 with no experience. Hed.

MS: Alternatively, the player would have to stay at the smaller club, who would then bring him through and sell him for real money at a later stage so that he moves up the career ladder, and everybody benefits. The loan system rewards stockpiling; it is just another way for the big clubs to exert power. Here’s Tom:

If the loan system was scrapped the big sides would be less likely to be able to hoard players, with the result that some quality footballers would filter back to the smaller teams, improving the level of football. At Manchester United, Darren Fletcher is never going to be one of the top players but could certainly emulate what Jonathan Greening has been doing at West Bromwich Albion. At the very least loaned players should only play for sides outside of their own division, which would protect the integrity of the deals and spread the wealth around the lower leagues. Tomred.

MS: Admit it, Tom, with fine socialist principles like that, you’re an FC United man, aren’t you?

The very fact that Liverpool loan Scott Carson, a goalkeeper, to Aston Villa shows how uncompetitive our league has become. They clearly see Villa as no threat to them; the same applies to Manchester United and Everton reaching agreement over Tim Howard last season. If Villa and Liverpool were involved in a scrap for fourth place does that not create a huge conflict of interest? Nick.

MS: Of course it does, Nick, even more so if there was a third team involved in the battle because Liverpool would effectively de-select Villa’s first-choice goalkeeper for that meeting, while ensuring he plays against their rivals; which is what United were able to do with Howard last season.

All the interference from UEFA and FIFA has done a lot to ruin our game. Transfer windows, loans and soon there will be seven substitutes allowed. Mike.

MS: Which will in turn require bigger squads – and a cheap way of getting the necessary players in is to make the signings temporary, a particularly attractive proposition for a newly-promoted team that is unsure its stay in the Premier League will be a long one. And here we go again.

I fail to understand the song and dance made about the Tim Howard affair last season. In essence, Manchester United were doing Everton a favour. Everton were eager to sign Howard before the summer, when they knew other clubs would be competing for his signature and United agreed to sell, provided Howard didn’t play, as per the terms of the original loan agreement. If Everton hadn’t agreed, United would have waited until the summer and Howard wouldn’t have been able to play anyway. So all parties got what they wanted. As for Chelsea, Howard played against them in the match at Goodison Park and they won 3-2. Jake Gittes.

MS: Not quite the whole story that 3-2 defeat is it, Jake, considering that it is the only game in which Howard played that Everton lost to the top four? He also featured in a 1-1 draw with Chelsea, a 3-0 win and 0-0 draw against Liverpool and a 1-1 draw and a 1-0 win over Arsenal. Yet, because he was under loan arrangements and then subject to a gentlemen’s agreement, he could not play against Manchester United and was replaced in a key game by a poor understudy who had a calamitous afternoon in a match that ended in a 4-2 defeat. United’s other league game against Everton was a 3-0 win. It is true that had the gentlemen’s agreement not been in place the move would have stayed a loan and Howard would not have played anyway: the point is that the whole process is wrong, not just that aspect of it.

For Harry Redknapp, two words: Manny Omoyinmi. Just a case of history repeating itself. Keith Gregory.

MS: Ah, the gentleman who came on for West Ham United in the Worthington Cup having already played in the competition for Gillingham, necessitating the replay of a tie with Aston Villa which ended in defeat. Keith, are you suggesting perhaps that administration is not Harry’s strongpoint. You cheeky and completely accurate scamp, you.

Comments

[Bob Wiltshire]

My feeling is that any deal be it temporary or permanent should not include any terms that influence team selection. Clearly therefore loans between teams competing in the same league cannot be completed without a potential conflict of interest. As such loans within leagues should be discontinued. Similarly loaned players should not be able to play in any of the major cup competitions due to the potential conflict of interest or biased influence on team selection.