Juggling the Loan Books

[Silencer]

Someone mentioned on here that Tilly recently advised that no more loanees would be coming in as we are skint...even with O'Donovan going back.

Firstly To me.....I would rather send back M'Voto who is out for 6 weeks (May take longer to get match fit - say 8 weeks in total) and get someone in on loan who can play now.

We cant go with Grant as a defender for this time.

Secondly, if Sawyer is causing trouble...can we not return him and get a player in as a replacement who Tilly may actually want to use!

Make Sense?

 

[DTS]

Not sure its that simple to just return players on six month loans?

If it is then who would want to send there players to us with a winding up order in place? Also you only get a limited number of loans each year so it might be prudent to keep some back.

 

[Silencer]

I did wonder with the rulings...

Just seen a few instances lateley where Loanees get injured and instantly return to their parent clubs. Think A Colchester player (Forward IIRC) did it this week for Gillingham, injured after 40 minutes so retuned to Col Ewe!

 

[Jai]

This all assumes that we are not in fact under a transfer embargo and the announcement of Friend's signing in September wasn't cleverly held back until the day after the supposed embargo came in. Paperwork problem for his renewal is interesting.

I'm (largely) speculating of course although my original source for the embargo was fairly watertight - at the time I was happy to be corrected by Friend's signing but now, with a squad of 14 and not even a loan signing to replace outgoing loans like O'Donovan - I'm starting to wonder. Don't a lot of Prem clubs pay their loanee's wages when sending them out? Or am I imagining it?

*Puts tin hat on and hides under the table*

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

But didn't we bring in O'Donovan after Friend ??

 

[Jai]

No O'Donovan came in the day before - the day when at 5pm there was supposed to be an embargo.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

A transfer embargo means you can't bring players in without the league's permission. It doesn't necessarily preclude any transfers, although if there was a transfer (such as a loan, or a signing of an unattached player) it would presumably take longer to clear than a transfer normally would.

 

[united we stand]

A transfer embargo means you can't bring players in without the league's permission. It doesn't necessarily preclude any transfers, although if there was a transfer (such as a loan, or a signing of an unattached player) it would presumably take longer to clear than a transfer normally would.

Are you sure Yorshire?
I spoke to the league directly on this a while back and that was not the answer I got- unless I misunderstood , which is entirely possible.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Are you sure Yorshire?
I spoke to the league directly on this a while back and that was not the answer I got- unless I misunderstood , which is entirely possible.

Not entirely sure, but it is my reading of the situation. I haven't seen the exact rules and regulations but what I've read second-hand seems to leave open this possibility.

It would make sense because it would otherwise preclude teams from the fiscally responsible measure of off-loading their highly paid players and replacing them with on-loan youngsters. The delay in the Friend approval would also seem to suggest this.

Who was it you spoke to at the League? Was it someone in the legal department or some flunkie/intern in the PR department?