SPFL Integrity-

[Robroysboy]

20 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

What planet do you live on?

You don't half post drivel. 

 

 

Planet earth, perfectly reasonable thread.

Celtic already have a massive financial resource over other teams. This loaning out of players to other teams within their is in my opinion an unfair advantage. 

[deecie]

1 hour ago, Robroysboy said:

 

Planet earth, perfectly reasonable thread.

Celtic already have a massive financial resource over other teams. This loaning out of players to other teams within their is in my opinion an unfair advantage. 

Tell that to the teams that take their players then.

[Angus_Young]

3 minutes ago, deecie said:

Tell that to the teams that take their players then.

Indeed. I'm failing to understand why its the SFA's fault that Partick agreed to take a player on loan, under mutually agreed terms, with Celtic. 

 

[stocky]

it is unfair IMO

 

If you lend a player , then that team should decide who they play against if not it gives an unfair advantage to the lending team.

 

If Celtic bought ( great player)  and loaned him out to Partick then his skills would benefit Partick and result in all of Celtics competitors being disadvantaged as they have to play against a better player. So 10 teams would have to play against ( great Player)  and Celtic wouldnt. As he wouldnt be allowed to play against Celtic , celtic would then be the beneficiary of this.

What if a loaned goalkeeper was the main reason a team made the cup final, he had penalty saves, great games etc etc and because of him a wee er team made the final and they met the Loaning team in the final and he wasnt allowed to play and a second choice goalie had to play , that would be un fair.

 

So to answer the original poster, a player should not be allowed to play in the same competition as the team he is loaned from.

 

 

[ibelieve!!!]

3 hours ago, Kirk said:

 

Its a club agreement i think. It was Courtouis against chealsea,Mourinhio basically said that he was at Atletico and was therefore their player and he wasnt going to stop him playing against chelsea.

Nope, it's a UEFA thing.

http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2088774.html

[ibelieve!!!]

16 minutes ago, stocky said:

it is unfair IMO

 

If you lend a player , then that team should decide who they play against if not it gives an unfair advantage to the lending team.

 

If Celtic bought ( great player)  and loaned him out to Partick then his skills would benefit Partick and result in all of Celtics competitors being disadvantaged as they have to play against a better player. So 10 teams would have to play against ( great Player)  and Celtic wouldnt. As he wouldnt be allowed to play against Celtic , celtic would then be the beneficiary of this.

What if a loaned goalkeeper was the main reason a team made the cup final, he had penalty saves, great games etc etc and because of him a wee er team made the final and they met the Loaning team in the final and he wasnt allowed to play and a second choice goalie had to play , that would be un fair.

 

So to answer the original poster, a player should not be allowed to play in the same competition as the team he is loaned from.

 

 

So no loans within Scotland then? Or do cup competitions not count?

[Angus_Young]

11 minutes ago, stocky said:

it is unfair IMO

 

If you lend a player , then that team should decide who they play against if not it gives an unfair advantage to the lending team.

 

If Celtic bought ( great player)  and loaned him out to Partick then his skills would benefit Partick and result in all of Celtics competitors being disadvantaged as they have to play against a better player. So 10 teams would have to play against ( great Player)  and Celtic wouldnt. As he wouldnt be allowed to play against Celtic , celtic would then be the beneficiary of this.

What if a loaned goalkeeper was the main reason a team made the cup final, he had penalty saves, great games etc etc and because of him a wee er team made the final and they met the Loaning team in the final and he wasnt allowed to play and a second choice goalie had to play , that would be un fair.

 

So to answer the original poster, a player should not be allowed to play in the same competition as the team he is loaned from.

 

 

Not as simple as that imo. Celtic will likely be paying the lads wages, or at least part of them. So they are effectively getting this 'talent' at a price they otherwise couldn't afford. 

Don't forget if he was to get injured he would head back to them to be treated too so there is less risk for Partick. 

To me its mutually beneficially move, so In that respect I think it's quite reasonable for the Loaning club to also have a say. 

To say it's 'unfair' is ludicrous. No one is forcing anyone to enter these agreements. 

[Dalgety Bay TA]

38 minutes ago, stocky said:

it is unfair IMO

 

If you lend a player , then that team should decide who they play against if not it gives an unfair advantage to the lending team.

 

If Celtic bought ( great player)  and loaned him out to Partick then his skills would benefit Partick and result in all of Celtics competitors being disadvantaged as they have to play against a better player. So 10 teams would have to play against ( great Player)  and Celtic wouldnt. As he wouldnt be allowed to play against Celtic , celtic would then be the beneficiary of this.

What if a loaned goalkeeper was the main reason a team made the cup final, he had penalty saves, great games etc etc and because of him a wee er team made the final and they met the Loaning team in the final and he wasnt allowed to play and a second choice goalie had to play , that would be un fair.

 

So to answer the original poster, a player should not be allowed to play in the same competition as the team he is loaned from.

 

 

If Celtic bought (great player) he would be going straight in the first team as there aren't many of players of that name in the current Celtic line up. 

 

The most likely benefit of this scenario in the SPL are young players who, if we are being realistic, will not be good enough to make the impact that some are suggesting makes the loan market unfair. 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Dalgety Bay TA

[stocky]

31 minutes ago, Angus_Young said:

Not as simple as that imo. Celtic will likely be paying the lads wages, or at least part of them. So they are effectively getting this 'talent' at a price they otherwise couldn't afford. 

Don't forget if he was to get injured he would head back to them to be treated too so there is less risk for Partick. 

To me its mutually beneficially move, so In that respect I think it's quite reasonable for the Loaning club to also have a say. 

To say it's 'unfair' is ludicrous. No one is forcing anyone to enter these agreements. 

it is unfair to the teams who have not been loaned a player, Celtic have made 1 team stronger to make life more difficult for their competitors but make it easier on them selves.    All 10 teams play against a team that has a  better  player, than the usual players at that team  Celtic play that team and it is weaker.

so loaning a player strengthens Celtics advantage and makes it more difficult for all other teams to play against Partick.

Of course it is unfair. 

14 minutes ago, Dalgety Bay TA said:

If Celtic bought (great player) he would be going straight in the first team as there aren't many of players of that name in the current Celtic line up. 

 

The most likely benefit of this scenario in the SPL are young players who, if we are being realistic, will not be good enough to make the impact that some are suggesting makes the loan market unfair. 

 

Yes I realise if Celtic bought a great player he would be in the Celtic team.,

But the point of the argument does not weaken because of that. 

If Partick take a player, they must think he is better than the player they currently have 

so when Celtic play Partick they have to play a weaker player. 

So therefore Celtic get an advantage that the other teams dont. 

 

The loan system is fine, but the player has to play against the loaner club. 

 

.

 

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by stocky
This is not anti Celtic, i am just making a point.

[wembley67lisbon]

Are Celtic the only club that loan out players ffs?

 

 

[Kirk]

54 minutes ago, ibelieve!!! said:

Nope, it's a UEFA thing.

http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2088774.html

Fair enough, i do remember Mourinho saying he wouldnt hsve stopped him playing anywah.

[The Giant]

21 minutes ago, wembley67lisbon said:

Are Celtic the only club that loan out players ffs?

 

 

No. Glad I could clear that up for you.

[kumnio]

This topic is comical.

Nothing wrong with the loan system, nor the rule that players cant play against their parent clubs. Imagine the uproar if a loan player conceded a penalty, got sent off, scored an own goal, misplaced a key pass etc against their parent club, the paranoia and conspiracy theories would be ridiculous.

 

[Angus_Young]

42 minutes ago, stocky said:

it is unfair to the teams who have not been loaned a player, Celtic have made 1 team stronger to make life more difficult for their competitors but make it easier on them selves.    All 10 teams play against a team that has a  better  player, than the usual players at that team  Celtic play that team and it is weaker.

so loaning a player strengthens Celtics advantage and makes it more difficult for all other teams to play against Partick.

Of course it is unfair. 

 

Yes I realise if Celtic bought a great player he would be in the Celtic team.,

But the point of the argument does not weaken because of that. 

If Partick take a player, they must think he is better than the player they currently have 

so when Celtic play Partick they have to play a weaker player. 

So therefore Celtic get an advantage that the other teams dont. 

 

The loan system is fine, but the player has to play against the loaner club. 

 

.

 

 

You do realise these 'other' clubs are also allowed to get in loan players too if they wish? 

The fact you are basing this argument on player ability makes it even more ridiculous. Anyway ill bite, what if they had loaned them Efe Ambrose? Or would that be unfair to Celtic?

 

 

[stocky]

2 minutes ago, Angus_Young said:

You do realise these 'other' clubs are also allowed to get in loan players too if they wish? 

The fact you are basing this argument on player ability makes it even more ridiculous. Anyway ill bite, what if they had loaned them Efe Ambrose? Or would that be unfair to Celtic?

 

 

the player and the team are not the point.

Lending a player strengthens the receiving team..

if not why do they want him, he must be better than what they have and therefore must make the team stronger.

The team with the loaned player  is stronger with said loaned player. 

so by logic if this player is not playing the team is weaker. 

so if the team doesnt play the loaned player they are weaker.      

And by that logic it makes it easier for the team that loaned the player to play the team that he is loaned too when that player is not playing. . 

 

 

If that makes sense..  

 

in the hypothetical world,,,,If Griffiths was loaned out to play everyone except Celtic, then this would help Celtic and disadvantage the opposition.

 is the opposite of your Efe point... 

but shows the fact that stopping a player playing against the lending team disadvantages the rest of the teams in that competition.

 

I am not against lending, the O.P asked if it was fair that the lendee didnt play against the lender club, and i agree with that.

 

The Lending system itself is a different discussion.

.

 

 

 

[Angus_Young]

19 minutes ago, stocky said:

the player and the team are not the point.

Lending a player strengthens the receiving team..

if not why do they want him, he must be better than what they have and therefore must make the team stronger.

The team with the loaned player  is stronger with said loaned player. 

so by logic if this player is not playing the team is weaker. 

so if the team doesnt play the loaned player they are weaker.      

And by that logic it makes it easier for the team that loaned the player to play the team that he is loaned too when that player is not playing. . 

 

 

If that makes sense..  

 

in the hypothetical world,,,,If Griffiths was loaned out to play everyone except Celtic, then this would help Celtic and disadvantage the opposition.

 is the opposite of your Efe point... 

but shows the fact that stopping a player playing against the lending team disadvantages the rest of the teams in that competition.

 

I am not against lending, the O.P asked if it was fair that the lendee didnt play against the lender club, and i agree with that.

 

The Lending system itself is a different discussion.

.

 

 

 

If we are talking about 'fairness' then, it is about the loan system. It's the same for every club at the start of the season. If clubs choose not to use it  that's up to them. 

If this was The other way around (Partick player to Celtic) no one would give a shite. Similar if the loanee hadn't been playing regularly, no one would care. 

I can't agree with your reasoning,  as it's based on things that 'might' turn out to be true, and is assuming the loanee is going to be a success.  

To me it's not about fairness,  it's about common sense. Celtic employ him. As Kumnio points out it's an impossible situation and the only way to get round that would be to scrap it. 

[RenfrewBlue]

8 hours ago, stocky said:

the player and the team are not the point.

Lending a player strengthens the receiving team..

if not why do they want him, he must be better than what they have and therefore must make the team stronger.

The team with the loaned player  is stronger with said loaned player. 

so by logic if this player is not playing the team is weaker. 

so if the team doesnt play the loaned player they are weaker.      

And by that logic it makes it easier for the team that loaned the player to play the team that he is loaned too when that player is not playing. . 

 

 

If that makes sense..  

 

in the hypothetical world,,,,If Griffiths was loaned out to play everyone except Celtic, then this would help Celtic and disadvantage the opposition.

 is the opposite of your Efe point... 

but shows the fact that stopping a player playing against the lending team disadvantages the rest of the teams in that competition.

 

I am not against lending, the O.P asked if it was fair that the lendee didnt play against the lender club, and i agree with that.

 

The Lending system itself is a different discussion.

.

 

 

 

Two words destroy your argument that the receiving team are strengthened.

Anthony Stokes.

 

[Barney Rubble]

10 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Two words destroy your argument that the receiving team are strengthened.

Anthony Stokes.

 

You can add Richard Foster to that list.

[RenfrewBlue]

3 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

You can add Richard Foster to that list.

He wasn't that bad when we loaned him the first time.

Not great, but not the worst player in the team either. 

[wembley67lisbon]

On 15 March 2016 at 6:56 AM, RenfrewBlue said:

Two words destroy your argument that the receiving team are strengthened.

Anthony Stokes.

 

Ict 0-2 stokes

[RenfrewBlue]

3 hours ago, wembley67lisbon said:

Ict 0-2 stokes

One swallow doesn't make a Summer.

All Championship final? I wonder what the odds on that Are?

[Barney Rubble]

The lad that scored Bayern's fourth last night is on loan from.....................Juventus.