Bristol City were fined £200.000 by Liverpool for not giving Kent enough playing time.

Loose change 200 quid

 

a) as if the top clubs don't get enough money from the PL they think it OK to get from from the poorer teams. Yes I know BC probably signed onto the clause in his loan, but are Liverpool that short of money?
b) BC decided not to play Kent the required number of games, thus invoking the clause. Surely they could have played him more like we did the previous year.
c) the article says "good news. BC don't have to pay Liverpool £500K!" - errr no they have to pay £200K

 

If Kent applied himself better then he would have got picked every week, they should fine Kent for being ****

 

who Liverpool or BC? It'll only be a weeks wages anyway .....

 

Both

 

It is fecked up, but I suppose if you sign up to an agreement like that & don't honour the terms the parent club may choose to enforce it.

For me the whole system needs reform. No problem with big clubs having lots of youngsters up to the age of about 20, but if they have not made, say 5 first team appearances the player should have the right to sign for another club for a nominal fee plus 50% future sell on. Would stop big teams hoarding players, which would be highly beneficial to the England set up.

 

What a load of *****, if Liverpool demand to dictate your team then you should tell them to shove it. Can’t do much for team moral knowing some billy big bllcks can come and take a place regardless of form or strategy.

 

Watched him in the Old Firm Derby at the weekend. Ended up being subbed as he didn't add much
to the Rangers attacking threat. Can't understand why any team ( including us) can get/ got sucked in
to having to play him week in week out, when he clearly didn't deserve his place some weeks.

 

Not sure this is the full story.
I thought I’d seen somewhere that this sort of deal is something like - the parent club only agree to the loan where they are picking up all if not most of the ongoing wages of the player as long as the player gets X amount of game time. Otherwise the club borrowing the player would be paying a bigger percentage of the wages - seems fair to me.

 

Bet he has played more for them than Liverpool. In fact he’s played more for Rangers and Barnsley, And was it Coventry more than Liverpool.

 

Loan system needs an overhaul. Clubs should have to specify if players are available for loan, and then there should be an NFL style draft, with clubs able to pick any player who has been made available, with clubs picking in reverse order according to the previous year's league position. All loans should be for the entire season. Premiership clubs then have a choice, loan the kids out to get game time, or sit on a depreciating asset.

 

The big clubs use loans to fund player development while they look for the next home grown star.

Shame chelsea keep getting it wrong

 

What about the player’s choice? London club puts player up for loan. Aberdeen select him. Player unsurprisinly might not want to go.

 

I can understand - even if I don't necessary agree with - Liverpool's position about protecting and developing an asset. However, what incentive is there on the player to impress in training and in matches if they know they are guaranteed a place every week. Part of learning is coping with disappointments and putting that extra effort in to prove you deserve your place. I fear that Kent - because essentially he's being spoon fed a start every week which isn't dependent on performance - will miss out on this and his development as a player will not be fully achieved because of it.

 

Irrelevant really. If the player wants to be a professional sportsman he goes. This is the same across all American sports, you could be drafted to the middle of nowhere, it's that or nothing. Even after you're drafted, there's always the chance you'll be traded 2000 miles away. One player was on the bus to a game and had to get off when he was told he'd been traded.

 

I think you misunderstand the balance of power between elite footballers and elite clubs. Additionally employment law is different in the uK and US.

 

Employment law has nothing to do with it, his employer would not change. And kids not good enough for the first team are hardly "elite footballers".

 

Do you really think Chelsea for example want to piss Tammy Abrahams off? Even if he doesn’t make it with them he’s an asset worth 10-15 million in today’s market. The days of football clubs holding the whip hand are long gone.

 

I’d suggest you brush up on your employment law. Any footballer could refuse relocation if it were unreasonable.

https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.u...2017/can-my-employer-change-my-place-of-work/