My missus and me were wandering around a garden centre (yup, it’s come to that) on a really warm early September day and in the shop they were stacking the shelves with reindeers, Santa’s and all the other clobber. The poor women doing the stacking were sweating cobs.
Two of our garden centres have had all their Christmas stuff out since mid September, even the huge automaton stuff. Kids must wonder what’s going on when they’re told it’s 90odd sleeps until Santa.
I read a report that Jarod Bowen is seeing Dani Dyer, god help the poor fella going over for Sunday lunch and having to listen to her Dad's East end stories, probably mostly made up.
A great comment from Daniel Farke, taken from BBC Gossip “Chelsea may have to reverse their decision to send Scotland midfielder Billy Gilmour, 20, out on loan to Norwich after Canaries manager Daniel Farke said "we are not here to develop players for other clubs". (Sunday Express)”
I have never understood why clubs do this. Fine with an option to buy, but otherwise …
It’s my big problem with the loan system. At Premier League and Championship, they will mostly just treat the player as backup unless they’re proven already or exceptionally talented. They view it as a risk because there’s too much at stake. Diangana was a rare example of a successful loan spell above League 1. Better to send them to Germany.
I have never understood why clubs do this. Fine with an option to buy, but otherwise …
The host club develops the player, but also gets the player's services which for a season which, presumably, they want because it is a cost-effective way (what they can afford?).
I can't see a problem if both sides are happy - parent club usually pays (part of?) wages throughout the loan for example. Host club gets a player they need. What I don't understand is loans where the host club borrows a player to sit on the bench.
I suppose the situation differs according to whether the loanee is a youth player, or a player with genuine pedigree.
The issue I have is when rich clubs, in this case Chelsea, have players that are loaned out supposedly as part of their development. They appear to own the player simply to keep them out of the hands of (potential) competitors.
For example, if we were looking at a striker in January to strengthen and he suddenly was bought by Chelsea, then loaned out straight away - we would lose out, and the player may lose out on first team experience in the premiership. At the same time Chelsea may have weakened a competitor.
Comments
The poor women doing the stacking were sweating cobs.
Kids must wonder what’s going on when they’re told it’s 90odd sleeps until Santa.
David Brooks of Bournemouth diagnosed with the dreaded “C”….
Value you’re health….
A fine young player, here’s to a speedy, full recovery….🤞❤️
“Chelsea may have to reverse their decision to send Scotland midfielder Billy Gilmour, 20, out on loan to Norwich after Canaries manager Daniel Farke said "we are not here to develop players for other clubs". (Sunday Express)”
I have never understood why clubs do this. Fine with an option to buy, but otherwise …
I can't see a problem if both sides are happy - parent club usually pays (part of?) wages throughout the loan for example. Host club gets a player they need. What I don't understand is loans where the host club borrows a player to sit on the bench.
I suppose the situation differs according to whether the loanee is a youth player, or a player with genuine pedigree.
For example, if we were looking at a striker in January to strengthen and he suddenly was bought by Chelsea, then loaned out straight away - we would lose out, and the player may lose out on first team experience in the premiership. At the same time Chelsea may have weakened a competitor.