RR Roker Roundup: Sunderland Head of Recruitment Tony Coton speaks on transfers - loans incoming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Its almost as if the clubs involved cannot speak to each other directly in their own respective neighbourhoods at any time.
 


ivanthereasonable said:
Yes i get the wages bit. But is that in return for a minimum number of games ?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I've read previously that requiring a certain number of games, or saying a player has to play when fit isn't allowed. Something about it counting as a third party influencing matches. I'm sure you'd have discussions about whether you think they'll regularly play mind, and if you subsequently didn't bother picking them often I imagine the parent club would be unlikely to loan you anyone ever again, but don't think they can set a quota on the number of games they have to play
 
viccarlton said:
I seem to remember when we had Shay Given on loan it was on the condition that he played if fit, I know that’s a long time ago but would imagine similar clauses are often included when players are loaned.
Click to expand...

Not sure about when we had Given but it definitely doesn't seem to be allowed now. I think this is the article I read previously Football League clubs balk at loan deals that have too many strings | Paul MacInnes

In it, it states "parent clubs ... are unable to insist contractually that their players get game time (this would be seen as undue influence over another club).

It goes on to mention, however, that they do seem to be allowed to put sanctions in place if the player doesn't play. A couple of examples are given, namely where a player is loaned but if he doesn't play, the receiving club has to pay a higher percentage of his wages (apparently Palace offered players to go on loan for free but if the player doesn't play there would be a wage contribution to make).

That's likely why sometimes it seems like a player keeps getting picked even when not performing, some clubs probably hope the player is good enough and would need him to be really, really poor before it's worth dropping him and taking the financial hit that comes with it (especially if they don't have much cover in that position, which they probably don't if they've loaned someone)
 
Guinness Guzzler said:
Not sure about when we had Given but it definitely doesn't seem to be allowed now. I think this is the article I read previously Football League clubs balk at loan deals that have too many strings | Paul MacInnes

In it, it states "parent clubs ... are unable to insist contractually that their players get game time (this would be seen as undue influence over another club).

It goes on to mention, however, that they do seem to be allowed to put sanctions in place if the player doesn't play. A couple of examples are given, namely where a player is loaned but if he doesn't play, the receiving club has to pay a higher percentage of his wages (apparently Palace offered players to go on loan for free but if the player doesn't play there would be a wage contribution to make).

That's likely why sometimes it seems like a player keeps getting picked even when not performing, some clubs probably hope the player is good enough and would need him to be really, really poor before it's worth dropping him and taking the financial hit that comes with it (especially if they don't have much cover in that position, which they probably don't if they've loaned someone)
Click to expand...
Fairy Nuff
 
There’s no harm in going I suppose. However this sort of unthinking, knowledge free, find a warm body approach to recruitment hardly convinces me that Coton is the man we need moving forward. Recruiting based on who’s available rather than what we need is not the right way to go. That’s how we ended up with Sterling after all.
 
The Cabbage said:
There’s no harm in going I suppose. However this sort of unthinking, knowledge free, find a warm body approach to recruitment hardly convinces me that Coton is the man we need moving forward. Recruiting based on who’s available rather than what we need is not the right way to go. That’s how we ended up with Sterling after all.
Click to expand...

Spot on, we should have firm targets in place, we should have had our shortlist agreed months ago, so we could hit the ground running. This sort of thing does not fill me with confidence, it all seems a little desperate. I'd love to know if we actually got any results from attending.
 
gipetto said:
Spot on, we should have firm targets in place, we should have had our shortlist agreed months ago, so we could hit the ground running. This sort of thing does not fill me with confidence, it all seems a little desperate. I'd love to know if we actually got any results from attending.
Click to expand...
I’d be happy to build a longer term relationship with the likes of City and Chelsea. Loans from them each season could well help us develop and be a factor up to and including the PL. Going down there and asking a host of PL clubs to lend us some squad filler like a fat bloke picking up girls at ten to two is fairly dumb and lacking in thought though.
 
The Cabbage said:
There’s no harm in going I suppose. However this sort of unthinking, knowledge free, find a warm body approach to recruitment hardly convinces me that Coton is the man we need moving forward. Recruiting based on who’s available rather than what we need is not the right way to go. That’s how we ended up with Sterling after all.
Click to expand...

What I didn't get was this bit:

Coton said: "If you can progress talks with the two clubs then you’re in a stronger position than an agent trying to broker deals, getting in this, getting that.
“Here I will hear it from the horse’s mouth now, exactly how much the player’s earning at that club and I can say, ‘Yes we can go to that,’ or ‘No we can’t go to that,’ without the agent getting involved, because invariably the agent will inflate what he’s on to try and increase his wages and for a loan I don’t think that’s right.”

If the issue is that talking to the agent gives an inflated wage etc, surely that can be avoided by, you know, just lifting the phone to other clubs and speaking to them that way if that's how you want to work. Nothing against him going to it, but it's hardly revolutionary, could just ring every PL club and ask who they might be prepared to let go/ send on loan and what kind of wages they're on, in fact I'd have thought that would be an obvious thing to be doing anyway. Hell, even if an agent comes to you and mentions a player and their wage there can't be anything wrong with phoning the club to check! It's obviously allowed or else he wouldn't be able to go to this event.
 
The Cabbage said:
I’d be happy to build a longer term relationship with the likes of City and Chelsea. Loans from them each season could well help us develop and be a factor up to and including the PL. Going down there and asking a host of PL clubs to lend us some squad filler like a fat bloke picking up girls at ten to two is fairly dumb and lacking in thought though.
Click to expand...

:lol:
Guinness Guzzler said:
What I didn't get was this bit:

Coton said: "If you can progress talks with the two clubs then you’re in a stronger position than an agent trying to broker deals, getting in this, getting that.
“Here I will hear it from the horse’s mouth now, exactly how much the player’s earning at that club and I can say, ‘Yes we can go to that,’ or ‘No we can’t go to that,’ without the agent getting involved, because invariably the agent will inflate what he’s on to try and increase his wages and for a loan I don’t think that’s right.”

If the issue is that talking to the agent gives an inflated wage etc, surely that can be avoided by, you know, just lifting the phone to other clubs and speaking to them that way if that's how you want to work. Nothing against him going to it, but it's hardly revolutionary, could just ring every PL club and ask who they might be prepared to let go/ send on loan and what kind of wages they're on, in fact I'd have thought that would be an obvious thing to be doing anyway. Hell, even if an agent comes to you and mentions a player and their wage there can't be anything wrong with phoning the club to check! It's obviously allowed or else he wouldn't be able to go to this event.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Unless there's some sort of secrecy agreement. I suppose a potential employer wouldn't pickup the phone to you current employer and ask how mcuh you're being paid.
 
Last edited:
gipetto said:
:lol:


Spot on. Unless there's some sort of secrecy agreement. I suppose a potential employer wouldn't pickup the phone to you current employer and ask how mcuh you're being paid.
Click to expand...
Data protection. An employer would breach confidentiality and therefore be liable
 
gipetto said:
:lol:


Spot on. Unless there's some sort of secrecy agreement. I suppose a potential employer wouldn't pickup the phone to you current employer and ask how mcuh you're being paid.
Click to expand...

If theres a secrecy agreement he wouldn't be allowed to go to this event and discuss wages "from the horses mouth" as he says, so I'm guessing it's allowed
 
The Cabbage said:
There’s no harm in going I suppose. However this sort of unthinking, knowledge free, find a warm body approach to recruitment hardly convinces me that Coton is the man we need moving forward. Recruiting based on who’s available rather than what we need is not the right way to go. That’s how we ended up with Sterling after all.
Click to expand...
well its hard to recruit players who arent available.
many clubs were there..are they all doing it wrong?
he didnt go there simpy to find out who he could get, but to find out about them..
how is it knowlegde free? if you read the thing it shows he is going there with prior knowledge..this isnt the first step, its a subsequent step, in the recruitment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top