willie wallace Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 With all the talk about loan deals regarding Kyle and Gow i still don't understand how they are allowed to take place between teams in the same league.Surely there is a major conflict of interest involved here.Imagine Kyle playing for Hearts v Falkirk in the last game of the season and he misses a penalty or a great chance that sends Killie down. I think it should only be transfer deals within your own league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazhearts Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Kyle plays for Kilmarnock and not Falkirk. Gow is owned by Plymouth. I think you are correct however and if loan deals are allowed between clubs in the same league then a clause would be inserted preventing them from playing against their owners. If Kyle moves I think it will be a permanent deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilnunb Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 I noticed yesterday that Brian Easton is back on loan at Hamilton, 6months after joining Burnley. I think this is a bit weird. So Hamilton pocket the cash from the transfer yet still manage to get the guy back on loan therefore a double benefit to them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Kyle plays for Kilmarnock and not Falkirk. Gow is owned by Plymouth. I think you are correct however and if loan deals are allowed between clubs in the same league then a clause would be inserted preventing them from playing against their owners. If Kyle moves I think it will be a permanent deal. He knows Kyle plays for Kilmarnock, a bit patronising imo. You should read his post more carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neave Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 I don't see it. If a club is willing to let one of their players go on loan to a competitor, they should be willing to accept the consequences of doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 I don't see it. If a club is willing to let one of their players go on loan to a competitor, they should be willing to accept the consequences of doing so. Exactly, no one is forcing the clubs hand by offering money or otherwise, it is purely voluntary and it will come with a certain risk attached. It puts a player in an awkward position. As the OP says, Kyle could thereotically send his contracted club down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerd Muller Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 you saying we are going to be bottom 6? falkirk last game of season!! I hope its Rangers, Celtic, Hibs, DUFC! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Lithuania Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Kyle plays for Kilmarnock and not Falkirk. Gow is owned by Plymouth. I think you are correct however and if loan deals are allowed between clubs in the same league then a clause would be inserted preventing them from playing against their owners. If Kyle moves I think it will be a permanent deal. Andy Webster wasn't allowed to play against Rangers earlier in the season for that very reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.