The squad in July

[Linden Jones' Tash]

And do we have 100% proof that Reading had loan agreements where the loan players had to play if fit or is it just random dribblings trying to make sense of why Paul Ince kept picking certain players? Can I remind you all that the manager at the time the teams were selected was Paul Ince, someone who, while not statistically the worst ever Reading manager, certainly felt like he was at the time.

I'd say circumstancial evidence suggests its a thing.

1. One of the charges against the club was around not paying Loan fees - some online chatter being a disagreement regarding being 'fit to play'
2. Hendrick played despite form dipping
3. Cesare played from the get go, ( I know he was good, but Ince rarely gave youngsters a chance otherwise).

So not being in the business or ITK, but of all the wild stuff bandied about regarding football, this is one of the more believable.

makes sense for the loaning club, especially if they have power, to insist on game time for their player.

Doesn't mean it's right

[WestYorksRoyal]

And do we have 100% proof that Reading had loan agreements where the loan players had to play if fit or is it just random dribblings trying to make sense of why Paul Ince kept picking certain players? Can I remind you all that the manager at the time the teams were selected was Paul Ince, someone who, while not statistically the worst ever Reading manager, certainly felt like he was at the time.

I'd say circumstancial evidence suggests its a thing.

1. One of the charges against the club was around not paying Loan fees - some online chatter being a disagreement regarding being 'fit to play'
2. Hendrick played despite form dipping
3. Cesare played from the get go, ( I know he was good, but Ince rarely gave youngsters a chance otherwise).

So not being in the business or ITK, but of all the wild stuff bandied about regarding football, this is one of the more believable.

makes sense for the loaning club, especially if they have power, to insist on game time for their player.

Doesn't mean it's right

We also know we paid our staff and HMRC late, and that we have now settled the loan wages. It could have just been cash flow issues for an amount we otherwise agreed upon.

We had minimal options in CM. I agree we could have played Fornah more, but that's about it. Perhaps Hendrick was just Ince’s preferred option.

And Casadei didn't play at first; Ince said he wasn't ready. He was arguably our best player in an abysmal run of form when he got in, so rightfully kept his place.

Our evidence for the theory is circumstantial.

[Linden Jones' Tash]

And do we have 100% proof that Reading had loan agreements where the loan players had to play if fit or is it just random dribblings trying to make sense of why Paul Ince kept picking certain players? Can I remind you all that the manager at the time the teams were selected was Paul Ince, someone who, while not statistically the worst ever Reading manager, certainly felt like he was at the time.

I'd say circumstancial evidence suggests its a thing.

1. One of the charges against the club was around not paying Loan fees - some online chatter being a disagreement regarding being 'fit to play'
2. Hendrick played despite form dipping
3. Cesare played from the get go, ( I know he was good, but Ince rarely gave youngsters a chance otherwise).

So not being in the business or ITK, but of all the wild stuff bandied about regarding football, this is one of the more believable.

makes sense for the loaning club, especially if they have power, to insist on game time for their player.

Doesn't mean it's right

We also know we paid our staff and HMRC late, and that we have now settled the loan wages. It could have just been cash flow issues for an amount we otherwise agreed upon.

We had minimal options in CM. I agree we could have played Fornah more, but that's about it. Perhaps Hendrick was just Ince’s preferred option.

And Casadei didn't play at first; Ince said he wasn't ready. He was arguably our best player in an abysmal run of form when he got in, so rightfully kept his place.

Our evidence for the theory is circumstantial.

Agreed - it's quite a murky world so nothing would surprise me.

Would be pleasantly surprised if these clauses didn't exist.

I recall being gobsmacked on being told that some Hollywood action stars have caveats in their film contracts regarding how many times they would take a face punch in a scene and always having the last punch...

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Loan agreements to play people 100% of the time if fit are for mugs. The manager picks the team, not some prick in Chelsea's contract team.

Loan agreements to play people who were bang average the season before 100% of the time if fit are for absolute dribbling morons.

Then the obvious solution is don't agree to play players 100% of the time, not that we know that happened anyway...

Although, I can understand from the parent clubs' perspective why they'd want their players playing a certain amount of games. Again, if we don't agree with it, someone else will.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Loan agreements to play people 100% of the time if fit are for mugs. The manager picks the team, not some prick in Chelsea's contract team.

Loan agreements to play people who were bang average the season before 100% of the time if fit are for absolute dribbling morons.

Then the obvious solution is don't agree to play players 100% of the time, not that we know that happened anyway...

Although, I can understand from the parent clubs' perspective why they'd want their players playing a certain amount of games. Again, if we don't agree with it, someone else will.

Surely players need to learn to fight for their place? If there's a 20 year old Chelsea product who can't nail down a place in the team at L1 Reading, they're either clearly not good enough or it's an important learning experience.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Loan agreements to play people 100% of the time if fit are for mugs. The manager picks the team, not some prick in Chelsea's contract team.

Loan agreements to play people who were bang average the season before 100% of the time if fit are for absolute dribbling morons.

Then the obvious solution is don't agree to play players 100% of the time, not that we know that happened anyway...

Although, I can understand from the parent clubs' perspective why they'd want their players playing a certain amount of games. Again, if we don't agree with it, someone else will.

Surely players need to learn to fight for their place? If there's a 20 year old Chelsea product who can't nail down a place in the team at L1 Reading, they're either clearly not good enough or it's an important learning experience.

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time I wouldn't want my player going out on loan and not playing games and I'd want to know that they were getting a minimum amount of games. The argument would be that the loaning club are getting a player good enough for their first team.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Then the obvious solution is don't agree to play players 100% of the time, not that we know that happened anyway...

Although, I can understand from the parent clubs' perspective why they'd want their players playing a certain amount of games. Again, if we don't agree with it, someone else will.

Surely players need to learn to fight for their place? If there's a 20 year old Chelsea product who can't nail down a place in the team at L1 Reading, they're either clearly not good enough or it's an important learning experience.

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time I wouldn't want my player going out on loan and not playing games and I'd want to know that they were getting a minimum amount of games. The argument would be that the loaning club are getting a player good enough for their first team.

But it's common for a player to tear up U23 leagues and struggle with the step up to men's football. And from Chelsea's perspective, L1 is a good place to test whether they're ready. It doesn't mean we're getting a "1st team player" if they have no senior experience.

[Snowflake Royal]

Loan agreements to play people 100% of the time if fit are for mugs. The manager picks the team, not some prick in Chelsea's contract team.

Loan agreements to play people who were bang average the season before 100% of the time if fit are for absolute dribbling morons.

Then the obvious solution is don't agree to play players 100% of the time, not that we know that happened anyway...

Although, I can understand from the parent clubs' perspective why they'd want their players playing a certain amount of games. Again, if we don't agree with it, someone else will.

More fool them.

[Snowflake Royal]

Then the obvious solution is don't agree to play players 100% of the time, not that we know that happened anyway...

Although, I can understand from the parent clubs' perspective why they'd want their players playing a certain amount of games. Again, if we don't agree with it, someone else will.

Surely players need to learn to fight for their place? If there's a 20 year old Chelsea product who can't nail down a place in the team at L1 Reading, they're either clearly not good enough or it's an important learning experience.

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time I wouldn't want my player going out on loan and not playing games and I'd want to know that they were getting a minimum amount of games. The argument would be that the loaning club are getting a player good enough for their first team.

Loan them out to the right club and level then. Or train them better.


Or in Cheat$kis case stop buying up endless players you have no intention of making your first team you bunch of uberpcunts

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Surely players need to learn to fight for their place? If there's a 20 year old Chelsea product who can't nail down a place in the team at L1 Reading, they're either clearly not good enough or it's an important learning experience.

I don't necessarily disagree, but at the same time I wouldn't want my player going out on loan and not playing games and I'd want to know that they were getting a minimum amount of games. The argument would be that the loaning club are getting a player good enough for their first team.

But it's common for a player to tear up U23 leagues and struggle with the step up to men's football. And from Chelsea's perspective, L1 is a good place to test whether they're ready. It doesn't mean we're getting a "1st team player" if they have no senior experience.

You're right, it doesn't. But obviously that's what they would say. That's down to us to make that decision on whether we think they are/aren't good enough and then once the agreement is set, Chelsea (or whoever) won't really be that bothered providing they are playing. They'll want to see them develop of course, but they'd want to know we are fulfilling agreements. If we don't, it just strains relationships.

We can moan about Chelsea all we want, but half of their young players that drop out of their academy would do a job for us (or some of the older brigade we've had like Rahman and Miazga). For the Rahman's and Pizaon's we've had, we have also had your Ake's, Swift's, Baker's, Miazga's etc who have been more successful.

[Sanguine]

Surely the solution on loan agreements is to ban a stipulation that a loan player always plays if fit, but at the same time given the loaning club power of recall if that player isn't involved (say) 50% of the time that he is.

[Snowflake Royal]

Surely the solution on loan agreements is to ban a stipulation that a loan player always plays if fit, but at the same time given the loaning club power of recall if that player isn't involved (say) 50% of the time that he is.

Absolutely.

[Whore Jackie]

And do we have 100% proof that Reading had loan agreements where the loan players had to play if fit or is it just random dribblings trying to make sense of why Paul Ince kept picking certain players? Can I remind you all that the manager at the time the teams were selected was Paul Ince, someone who, while not statistically the worst ever Reading manager, certainly felt like he was at the time.

I'd say circumstancial evidence suggests its a thing.

1. One of the charges against the club was around not paying Loan fees - some online chatter being a disagreement regarding being 'fit to play'
2. Hendrick played despite form dipping
3. Cesare played from the get go, ( I know he was good, but Ince rarely gave youngsters a chance otherwise).

So not being in the business or ITK, but of all the wild stuff bandied about regarding football, this is one of the more believable.

makes sense for the loaning club, especially if they have power, to insist on game time for their player.

Doesn't mean it's right

We also know we paid our staff and HMRC late, and that we have now settled the loan wages. It could have just been cash flow issues for an amount we otherwise agreed upon.

We had minimal options in CM. I agree we could have played Fornah more, but that's about it. Perhaps Hendrick was just Ince’s preferred option.

[b]And Casadei didn't play at first; Ince said he wasn't ready. He was arguably our best player in an abysmal run of form when he got in, so rightfully kept his place.[/b]

Our evidence for the theory is circumstantial.

Casadei joined end of January and started the very first game he could: Watford at home on the 4th Feb. Played about an hour from memory, and looked a bit lost. Didn't start another game until the 4th March. Nothing wrong with that, midfield's arguably the hardest area to make an impact. Leigertwood had a shocker on his first start. Do think that month away helped Casadei settle, he definitely got stronger as the season finished. One of the very few young players that Ince actually seemed to trust.

[Hound]

Casadei, whilst clearly a good player, didn’t really help us much though did he? One goal and no assists in 15 games. I’m guessing we didn’t win any of those either.

Didn’t help us control games, didn’t help us be more creative, midfield was still weak with him in it

None of that means he won’t end up being a top player but his impact was very minimal

[Whore Jackie]

Completely agree. Think the loan spell helped him far more than us. Very much doubt he'd have had such an impactful U20 WC without the run in the team Ince gave him.

Midfield's been a hugely problematic area for us for a fair few years now. It's the one area where Sellés really did need to prioritise, irrespective of the positive signings already made further up the pitch.

[The Royal Forester]

Surely the solution on loan agreements is to ban a stipulation that a loan player always plays if fit, but at the same time given the loaning club power of recall if that player isn't involved (say) 50% of the time that he is.

Would the PL and the EFL be able to come to an agreement though? One would want their player to play all the time, whilst the other only wants him to play only when their own player(s) is not up to scratch, or injured. The recall may help to lessen that problem a bit. Their would have to be a set number of games to make it count, otherwise if a player if a does not start in the first two games the parent club could in theory recall the loaned player. Would the two parties, either the clubs or the PL/EFL be able to agree?

[Sanguine]

Surely the solution on loan agreements is to ban a stipulation that a loan player always plays if fit, but at the same time given the loaning club power of recall if that player isn't involved (say) 50% of the time that he is.

Would the PL and the EFL be able to come to an agreement though? One would want their player to play all the time, whilst the other only wants him to play only when their own player(s) is not up to scratch, or injured. The recall may help to lessen that problem a bit. Their would have to be a set number of games to make it count, otherwise if a player if a does not start in the first two games the parent club could in theory recall the loaned player. Would the two parties, either the clubs or the PL/EFL be able to agree?

I mean a) I don't think the EFL would do this, but b) I think it would be up to the EFL to determine the framework. I'd suggest something like, if at the mid-point of a loan agreement, the player hasn't been involved in 50% of games when fit, the loaning club should have right of recall at any subsequent point in the agreement. 'If fit' is the subjective part of the equation though, as we've seen with RFC.

But we absolutely shouldn't be taking on loan players that we have to play every week, if indeed that has been the case.

[Dirk Gently]

Surely the solution on loan agreements is to ban a stipulation that a loan player always plays if fit, but at the same time given the loaning club power of recall if that player isn't involved (say) 50% of the time that he is.

Would the PL and the EFL be able to come to an agreement though? One would want their player to play all the time, whilst the other only wants him to play only when their own player(s) is not up to scratch, or injured. The recall may help to lessen that problem a bit. Their would have to be a set number of games to make it count, otherwise if a player if a does not start in the first two games the parent club could in theory recall the loaned player. Would the two parties, either the clubs or the PL/EFL be able to agree?

I mean a) I don't think the EFL would do this, but b) I think it would be up to the EFL to determine the framework. I'd suggest something like, if at the mid-point of a loan agreement, the player hasn't been involved in 50% of games when fit, the loaning club should have right of recall at any subsequent point in the agreement. 'If fit' is the subjective part of the equation though, as we've seen with RFC.

But we absolutely shouldn't be taking on loan players that we have to play every week, if indeed that has been the case.

Define "involved" - does bring a player on as an 89th minute sub qualify as "involved"? Not trying to be clever, just pointing out how difficult it is to codify things like this - someone will always be looking for a loophole.

I remember when we have Matty Upson on loan and while he was not playing League games for a couple of weeks the club was getting lots of stick from Arsenal.

But this puts a different perspective on it : https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/matthew-upson-recalls-reading-fc-22493054

Pards obviously did the right thing for us, Arsenal and Upson, but it probably didn't look like that at the time to Arsenal, and would perhaps have failed some kind of hard and fast rule.

[Snowflake Royal]

Casadei, whilst clearly a good player, didn’t really help us much though did he? One goal and no assists in 15 games. I’m guessing we didn’t win any of those either.

Didn’t help us control games, didn’t help us be more creative, midfield was still weak with him in it

None of that means he won’t end up being a top player but his impact was very minimal

He contributed more than Jeff tbf.

[Hound]

Casadei, whilst clearly a good player, didn’t really help us much though did he? One goal and no assists in 15 games. I’m guessing we didn’t win any of those either.

Didn’t help us control games, didn’t help us be more creative, midfield was still weak with him in it

None of that means he won’t end up being a top player but his impact was very minimal

He contributed more than Jeff tbf.

Talk about low bar…