Should 'loan clubs' get a fee?

[TonyParrsDodgyMic]

I've been thinking about this one and over the years we have brought through some really good players thanks to loan spells with us - they've used our coaches, had playing time, used our facilities etc etc - I wonder if there should be a deal in place that if the parent club goes on to sell that player within say 12 months that the club they were on loan to should benefit financially?

 

[foggy]

I think it would skewer the market pretty significantly. Presumably the fee would have to be dependent on negotiations and teams who want good young players would just undercut each other and likely many would say we don't need a fee at all in the hopes they get picked as the destination.

 

[voyeur]

It's just a deal between two clubs with mutual benefit. The split of wages will depend on where the most benefit lies. Sometimes the player's club will pay all the wages and just take the benefit of match time. Sometimes the club loaning the player will pay all the wages to get the benefit of the player to their team. Often wages are split but in different proportions. Negotiated innit? Sometimes the club borrowing the player pays a fee as well as wages. As is being discussed with Lukaku to Roma. The club that owns the player holds the strongest cards usually. Unless its Nile Ranger or similar!

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

It's just a deal between two clubs with mutual benefit. The split of wages will depend on where the most benefit lies. Sometimes the player's club will pay all the wages and just take the benefit of match time. Sometimes the club loaning the player will pay all the wages to get the benefit of the player to their team. Often wages are split but in different proportions. Negotiated innit? Sometimes the club borrowing the player pays a fee as well as wages. As is being discussed with Lukaku to Roma. The club that owns the player holds the strongest cards usually. Unless its Nile Ranger or similar!

Roma are reportedly paying €5m plus his wages of ~€7m
It's quite a gamble as he will be leaving in June 2024, however Chelsea reportedly initially had asked for a ~€10m loan fee
Lukaku was also offered for sale by Chelsea at ~€30m according to press in Italy
EPL old boys at Roma include Patricio, Smalling, Mourinio, Abraham, Lorente and now Lukaku.
Matic has just left for Portugal.

 

[Macseasider]

Loads of fees paid for loan players. Usually in the upper echelons of the game but it's common practice.

 

[LA1 Seasider]

Can’t see it. If you’ve a player in demand from other clubs you’re not going to give them the benefit of the player AND a fininacial bonus too ? Surely you’d only loan the player out to the one club who don’t want the money.
Wouldn’t be great for smaller club’s youth systems either as they’d just try develop other players from bigger clubs instead of their own in the hope of a windfall.

There *should* however be a transfer tax. 2% of all fees spent/received in the top 2 divisions should be taken and distributed to the lower levels / grassroots.

£2 billion this summer - there or thereabouts. Potentially £40 million quid that wouldn’t go missing at the top and could guarantee the existence of community clubs forever more.

Some of that money could be distributed as a ‘development’ payment to low level clubs who’ve played a part in the development of those transferred players. £x per month the player was on the books of the club with the ‘x’ dependent on the level the club is at.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Can’t see it. If you’ve a player in demand from other clubs you’re not going to give them the benefit of the player AND a fininacial bonus too ? Surely you’d only loan the player out to the one club who don’t want the money.
Wouldn’t be great for smaller club’s youth systems either as they’d just try develop other players from bigger clubs instead of their own in the hope of a windfall.

There *should* however be a transfer tax. 2% of all fees spent/received in the top 2 divisions should be taken and distributed to the lower levels / grassroots.

£2 billion this summer - there or thereabouts. Potentially £40 million quid that wouldn’t go missing at the top and could guarantee the existence of community clubs forever more.

Some of that money could be distributed as a ‘development’ payment to low level clubs who’ve played a part in the development of those transferred players. £x per month the player was on the books of the club with the ‘x’ dependent on the level the club is at.

I have often thought that the government should apply some sort of windfall tax on the EPL and spread the cash around grassroots football - it's not like the EPL couldn't afford it, we would just be taking money from agents and already fabulously wealthy players.
In Holland, I believe that almost every community has a 3G pitch, decent changing facilities and employs a professional soccer coach.
We could do that sort of thing here, it would get kids off the streets and improve communities at a neutral cost to the government / tax payer. I am sure the EPL would squeal but they could afford it.

 

[BigHandsOliverKahn]

What we have learned over the years is that most academy players from the top clubs, despite the hype, struggle to make an impact in the men's game of the EFL. That should reflect in the amount PL clubs can charge for loan fees. With the amount of stockpiling going on and the lack of suitability to the men's game of players manufactured in academies, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing tips on its head and PL clubs end up having to pay EFL clubs to take their young players on loan.