EPL May Just Have Killed Off Loan Deals
In the jet stream of the recent furore surrounding the proposed thirty-ninth game, the English Premier League may well have set in motion a train of events more harmful to the game than any money can inflict.
The same Board meeting that proposed the ill-conceived additional game to be added to the domestic season, it was accepted that seven substitutes will be allowed on the bench with effect from the 2008-09 season. On the face of it, the proposal allows more flexibility for managers to utilise the strengths within their squads. The scope for tactical switches is widened with the potential for each bench to be filled with two defenders, midfielders and attackers. The variety available allows the managers to react more aggressively to the situations that each match poses.
From the players’ point of view, it enhances the likelihood of them participating in more matches. A fundamental reason for seeking a transfer at any point has always been the lack of opportunities; additional places on the bench suggest that more playing time may ensue.
There is a downside to this that has yet to be fully considered, the implications of which are seriously harmful for the lower division clubs. Recovering slowly from the ashes of the ITV Digital debacle, the clubs have been less active in the permanent transfer market; the volume of money transacting may be increasing but the number of players moving for fees is decreasing. To compensate for this, Football League clubs have been utilising the loan system with more frequency than before. Increasing the number of substitutes reduces the number of players available for loan by a minimum of two per Premier League club, forty less players to be precise.
By having more bench space available, the Premier League clubs have to draw on their existing resources even more. This means that they have ensure that the cover available within their squads increases in addition to the two extra spaces on the bench. With more and more wear and tear injuries being suffered, managers who are already under pressure to achieve more than before with limited resources, will be reluctant to allow players to move on loan with as much frequency as is currently enjoyed.
Take Arsenal as an example. In the January window, two players, Mark Randall and Kieran Gibbs moved to Burnley and Norwich City on loan. Around the same time, the squad found itself depleted by injuries and international duty. Unquestionably, Arsene Wenger would not have sent the two players on loan had the requirement for seven players on the bench been in place; quite simply there were times when he did not have that number of players to choose from.
The players lose out as much as the clubs. Youngsters such as Randall and Gibbs only hope of first team football would be in dire emergency or the Carling Cup. It is not a total football education that Wenger wants them to have or the one that they are getting by gaining experience on loan at lower division clubs. The standard of play may be lower but in understanding the rigours of regular first team action, loan spells are invaluable.
Expecting the Premier League Board to understand the negative impact they will have is beyond hope, as is expecting them to care.
Arsene is a big believer in the 39th game , as are a huge following all over the world .
Arsene stated during his time in japan’s league he was faced with 20% of all games played at a neutral grounds to raise awareness for the league . It is a good thing for the EPL , it is already globalisized and residents of the UK obviously are oblivious to it !!ITS ALREADY HAPPENING !!!! Friendly matches are pointless and you often dont even see the stars on the pitch when they are organized in other countries, lateral thinkers are to be applauded to try and bring game to usa - australia and asia , it helps ALL clubs involved and there bank roles . And if you take into account the extra money these clubs will eventually make in extra revenue and publicity, im sure most of the clubs can easily get 3 or 4 more players to compensate for the shedule being microscopically bigger by 1 WHOLE GAME !. Also if your worried about sending people out on loan , always put in a recall feature into the loan agreement . Im sure arsene does this automatically.
Also you dont HAVE TO have 7 subs.. smaller teams can still sport 5 or less ! and even if they do have 7 subs it can only be good for our top youth talent to get involved with the 1st team earlier ..
I don’t see your argument, YW.
Surely it is just an option to have 7 players on the bench, rather than an obligation.
The players, likely to be considered as loanees, would be unlikely to get anything other than a few minutes here or there, when a game was considered safe.
I have not seen any direct quote, from AW, suggesting that he is necessarily in favour of the 39th game. What he has said is that he would support playing some form of meaningful games abroad, rather than friendlies.
For me it is simply not an option to bastardise the EPL, a domestic league that must stay that way. A Premier League Cup, played instead of the Carling Cup, at the end of the season, would provide the opportunity for more games to be played abroad, without adding too many fixtures to the PL clubs’ schedules. It could be played tournament style or across the globe. It would be a new specific competition, so home based fans need not feel that they are being robbed of anything, something that the 39th game would do.
Flint
The change in the rules is to allow seven on the bench. Even if it were optional, the majority of managers will go for it because it helps them with additional personnel to cope with more situations that arise in a match. Also, they will want to match their opponents in this department. After all, why put yourself at more of a disadvantage by having less substitutes. Logically, it means the likelihood of loans reduces with squads being fully used.
YW
I still don’t see why it should affect the loan system.
Loanees go out because they need the experience. If any of them were considered likely to be used for 1st team duty they would not be sent out anyway.
It would be very rare indeed that a PL team would not have 18 players available, outside those that could be loaned out.
The 5 subs normally allows for most eventualities. 7 will allow 2 more players to feel not totally left out.
With a few notable exceptions I am not sure that loan system is not more of a ‘try before you buy’, anyway.
It gives young players a taste of 1st team action, then they come back disatisfied that they cannot break into their main club’s 1st team.
Flint
Has Arsene had 18 fit players in recent weeks!!!?
My own view is that the current five means a goalkeeper and two covering one sector, ie defence, which leaves one for attack & midfield.
Seven gives two midfielders, defenders and attackers plus a goalkeeper. Makes life somehwat more comfortable for a manager.
YW
Arsenal have an extraordinary number of injuries, at the moment, but how likely was it that Gibbs or Randall would have been called off the bench, on Saturday?
This is a first , i agree with flint , it matters little on the subject of loaning, for instance, Theo , if arsene did loan him out it was to get 38 regular games under his belt in the EPL season.. Not let him sit on the bench all season at arsenal . I think the addition of 7 slots is good news for players like sunu,randall,gibbs and maybe even vela .. If that event does arise , for instance like last game when neither striker was effective and one got brutally injured it would allow the likes of vela to be sub’ed in as an option..
It still wouldnt hinder randall or gibbs in the slightest if arsene deems them to go on loan .The birminghams and sunderlands will still what those players for loaning to there respective clubs
they will be doing it for there education as players in a full time capacity to play in the EPL with a club that will play them… All it means is 2 more additional players ( presumably english in most cases) will get a chance at 1st team football .. IT ALL GOOD !
as is the 39 games .. i never saw what the problem was? . still 38 games would be played within the UK , and the 39th game might be pointless or it could be vital .
If the fixtures are drawn up at the start of the season , its all fair ! and players know ahead of time who and where they are playing and how to prepare, the game could be of vital importance but it all depends on how the rest of the season unfolds. Only problem i can see is how many people in asia or usa would watch sunderland Vs reading .. But again im sure the sheer spectical of top flight players would fill any ground in the world !
And too say that playing man u in asia would be unfair to them would just depend on the way the season unfolds..
Very similar to us(arsenal) having to go to Ac Milan’s home ground and win (or draw).. this problem was created by past games which lead us to this point ..
but at the start of the season we where not aware of the importance of this fixture..
same can be said for the 39th game . Its a wild card that will make overseas revenues
increase from all clubs in the EPL ,including the sunderlands etc.. However the top 4 will benefit the most .. so thats why im in favor of it ..
and flint
NOT LIKELY AT ALL !
I am a sorry but I cannot agree that the 39th game will do anything other than ruin the basic tradition of league football.
Everyone plays each other, once at home, once away, full stop. Anything else is a gimmick that may earn money in the short term but will destroy the integrity of the competition, thus reducing its stature in the same way as the FA Cup, which instead of being played to traditionally the highest attendances , now attracts the fewest numbers to the ground.
A full PL tournament would be a different matter. That would provide more games overseas for supporters to go to and give more relevance to the games between lesser known clubs.