People of a certain age will no doubt recall the sage advice of their parents, which was to always live within your means. In other words if you couldn’t afford to buy something wait until you could.
That school of thought changed as banks and Governments encouraged people to borrow money in order to buy what they wanted to stimulate economies. Suddenly more people had a mortgage, there was a proliferation of credit cards, shops had their own credit systems, and hire purchase or ‘buy now pay later’ schemes became the norm.
Is it therefore any wonder that a similar system crept into the world of sport? Where sometimes the “keeping up with the Jones” way of life became precarious, and put many long standing sporting clubs in financial danger and forced some to close their doors.
Of course it is very hard to keep up with the spending of other clubs if you do not have the funds, and the banks will not give you credit. The majority of Football club owners around the world have bought a club to fuel their own ego. Others use the club to open doors into the world of big business, while others use their involvement to move money around, often illegally.
So those club owners who are not as flush with cash as some of their counterparts are always going to struggle when it comes to the transfer window and buying players. So what they have opted to do, is rather than buy players permanently they sign them ‘on loan’ for a season or half a season.
This in itself is a risk. Many a Premier League player loaned out to a lower division club does not see the move as an opportunity, but more as a snub. They have arrived at these clubs feeling that the move is beneath them, they are after all a contracted Premier League player! They do not perform, bring with them a bad attitude, cause unrest, and then leave. Many however do see it it as the opportunity it is to put themselves in the shop window, a chance to showcase their game.
Another problem as one side found following a season that saw them win promotion, was at the end of the season all of their loan players returned to their parent club, meaning the club had to rebuild a squad for the coming season in a new division. There was no season of consolidation with the nucleus of the side that won promotion, and not surprisingly relegation beckoned.
One of the problems with modern day football is that the loan system is no longer being used the way it was intended. In fact for the future of the game there are many who are calling for it to end.
The loaning of players is not a new phenomenon. One of the first records of a player being loaned occurred in the very first FA Cup final, played between Wanderers and Royal Engineers in March 1872.
Listed amongst the Wanderers team was an unfamiliar name, that of AH Chequer. This was in fact a false name taken on by Morton Betts, who usually played for Harrow Chequers, who had pulled out of the tournament in the first round. His fake name reflecting the club he had played for ‘A Harrow Chequer.’ As per the script he scored the only goal of the game to give Wanderers the FA Cup.
This practice became the norm, and it is interesting to read the negative responses to clubs signing up “guest” players. The feeling understandably was that it gave those teams that could afford to carry out such practices an unfair advantage. The Athletic News newspaper claimed that it created “unhealthy competition” for the services of the best players, increasing the “evil of professionalism.” The game in those days being to all intents and purposes amateur.
After the Football League was formed and they set up the Second and Third Divisions which were split into North and South for travel reasons, the problem became even worse. So in 1898 the loaning of players was banned.
During the Second World War, when the Football League competition was suspended it was replaced by a regional Wartime League. As many footballers had joined the armed forces it made it difficult for some clubs to field teams, so the loan system returned. This allowed clubs to loan players to another club on a match-by-match basis. After the War the system was once again stopped.
That is how it stayed for the next 20 years until in 1966 the Football League proposed to allow clubs to carry out the “temporary transfer of players.” There were however certain restrictions; which may be wise to go back to in the modern era. Each club could make only two loan transfers per season, and transfer fees could not be paid. The loans had to last for a period of at least three months, and importantly the loans could only be made between clubs in different divisions.
The restriction on loans only being allowed between clubs in different divisions was foolishly lifted in 2003. In 1980 loans were stopped completely with only goalkeepers exempted. That however only lasted one season.
The loan system used to be a system where a player out of favour at a club, or returning from injury could be loaned out to another club, usually in a lower division. There the player would find some form so be match ready when he returned to his parent club, or would have been seen by other clubs while playing, and attract a higher transfer fee than if they had stayed playing in the reserves. In many cases the clubs that signed the player on loan would find the money to purchase the player.
Nothing has changed essentially, apart from the attitude of the loaning club, which now has enough players to field three teams, so simply cannot accommodate all of the players on their books. They know that the clubs in the lower divisions are crying out for quality players, so are more than happy to offload a player and roll the dice. Now they are hoping that the player returns a better player that they can either play or sell on for more money, with “X” League appearances under their belt. Or having had a chance to see them in League action, with out risk to their own club, they can opt to discard them.
There has long been a school of thought that the clubs that perennially sign players on loan from the top clubs are lazy when it comes to player development. With the loan system they suddenly have a player that has invariably already been developed by the bigger club, so is close to the finished article. What is more they only have to pay a small percentage of their wages.
It would appear to be a win/win situation. They have little financial risk, and they can play the player and then when he is no longer required he will return to his parent club.
There is also the view that suggests by loaning a player out the parent club is in fact hedging its bets. There is clearly no place in their first team for the said player, so why not sell them rather than loan them out? Are they giving that player false hope that they may keep them once they return? It would be interesting to know the statistics on how many loan players are subsequently sold once they return from their loan spell. What would also be interesting is whether their value has gone up post their loan period.
One of the biggest problems with the current system is that the big clubs are signing up all of the young talent in the hope that some may go on and make it into their first team. Players that would have previously started their careers in the lower divisions and climbed up the League ladder as they developed and matured as players, are now going straight to the EPL academies. How many of the big name players of yesteryear started at smaller clubs?
Should this still be allowed if it is undermining the integrity of the League and in truth failing to develop players?
If one looks at the financials from the EPL clubs in season 2017/18 that were published last year, of the 20 clubs in the competition seven made losses on that season before tax. The biggest being Crystal Palace who lost UKL32M and the smallest being Swansea who lost UKL3M. However if you look at the net debt of every club only two were not in debt and one club did not make those figures available. Of those in debt 10 of the remaining 17 clubs had debts of over UKL50M!
Currently clubs can have as many loan players as they want, the only restriction is that they can only play five in a match. This season has seen the club I support suffer due to having players on loan from the same division. Swindon Town signed on loan for the season Irishman Eoin Doyle from fellow Division Two side Bradford City. Doyle scored 23 goals for Swindon as they sat top of the league at the start of the new year. Despite the loan originally being for the season Bradford recalled the player, as obviously his form was hampering their promotion hopes.
It makes the old rule of not loaning a player to a club in the same division look as if it was a wise one. It also shows the fragility of clubs taking players on loan. What is sad for the player is that he was in the best form of his career, at one point the highest scorer in any league in Europe. Since returning to Bradford he is yet to score a goal in three games. Doyle had the chance to write his name in the record books, not just at Swindon Town but also in the league, if his form had continued. As he was on loan, and as Swindon could not stump up the money to buy him, the 31 year old will forever ponder on what might have been. He was in the form of his life scoring at more than a goal a game, the best he had managed before was 32 goals in 69 appearances for Chesterfield.
To add to Swindon’s woes another of their strikers has been recalled by Championship side Rotherham. Jerry Yates was also signed on a season’s loan, but the 23 year old who scored 12 goals in 27 games is needed to provide cover for the injured Kyle Vassell. Rotherham, currently sit top of League One and understandably need an in form striker.
At the end of the day Swindon only have themselves to blame signing players on loan rather than purchasing them, but maybe the owners are trying to act responsibly by not spending beyond their means? The club has had financial woes in the past that have almost seen it close its doors. Maybe the owners are being prudent.
Fans are asking how, if a player is on loan for a season, can the parent club take them back mid season? The answer is simple, the player still essentially belongs to the parent club, and they are usually paying a percentage of that players wage, so yes.
Ultimately it is the fans who feel they are being ripped off. Many feel as if they have been dumped at the alter. Sitting top of the league and with a striker who clearly felt at home at the club, and who had been taken to their hearts, they were in heaven. Then in a second he was gone, and some fear so too will be promotion; although being an ever optimistic fan the dream remains alive until it is mathematically impossible!
Doyle was loved by the fans not only because he scored goals and lifted the team to the top of Division Two, but because he performed. Swindon who have been a club reliant on loan players have in recent years witnessed many who came with the wrong attitude, and although they came from pedigree clubs failed to perform. They are not alone in that regard.
Which begs the question whether the loan system needs overhauling? Should the no loan from clubs in the same division be re-instated? With Premier League clubs so massively in debt should they still be allowed to stockpile young talent, or should that talent come through at the lower division clubs as in the past?
Certainly the system is not what it used to be. Especially when clubs with owners linked to other International clubs can parachute players in from those clubs on loan.
One of the great things about sport is being a part of a club. Learning what it means to be a part of something that is bigger than you, and what it means to those who have come before you. Loan players in the main miss out on that, and miss out on an important lesson in life, being part of a community, and being part of something that stands for something.
Maybe History was trying to tell us that the loan system was a flawed idea right from the start. The first player recorded as going out on loan was John Docker who was with Coventry City. In 1967, the then 19 year old found himself at Torquay United. It was a dream debut for Docker. He scored twice in a 3-0 win over local rivals Exeter City. That promised to be the launchpad for a bright future, but unfortunately it was not to be. He played three more games during his loan and never played at all for Coventry. How many players who have gone out on loan from Premier League clubs would have similar careers?
Maybe the football world needs to take heed of the words advice that William Shakespeare had Polonius give his son Laertes in his famous play Hamlet:
“Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.”
