[Albion] 'Marko Grujic: [On Loan] Liverpool Midfielder Must Play 14 Games At Cardiff City'

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

... otherwise be 'financially punished by Liverpool'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42744447

Can't help but think we had a very similar arrangement with Chelsea over Izzy Brown. Would explain CH's insistence on giving him a game despite him adding nothing whatsoever to the side.

 

[Weststander]

He's a very good midfielder.

Interesting to see if he shines in the Championship.

 

[Beanstalk]

... otherwise be 'financially punished by Liverpool'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42744447

Can't help but think we had a very similar arrangement with Chelsea over Izzy Brown. Would explain CH's insistence on giving him a game despite him adding nothing whatsoever to the side.

I highly doubt we had a similar arrangement regarding Izzy. If you take the Atletico Madrid game and the Man City starting line-ups, paired with his comments on Brown after the Palarse game, it is pretty clear without the injuries CH saw him as a first XI player.

I honestly don't know why there is an opinion on here that he is awful. He got injured, fairly seriously, twice in the brief time he spent with us.

 

[spence]

I highly doubt we had a similar arrangement regarding Izzy. If you take the Atletico Madrid game and the Man City starting line-ups, paired with his comments on Brown after the Palarse game, it is pretty clear without the injuries CH saw him as a first XI player.

I honestly don't know why there is an opinion on here that he is awful. He got injured, fairly seriously, twice in the brief time he spent with us.

Because every time he has started or come on as sub he looks uninterested and lazy

 

[Stat Brother]

... otherwise be 'financially punished by Liverpool'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42744447

Can't help but think we had a very similar arrangement with Chelsea over Izzy Brown. Would explain CH's insistence on giving him a game despite him adding nothing whatsoever to the side.

You are aware that not only is that now all over and done with but nobody on here knows the answer, don't you?

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Because every time he has started or come on as sub he looks uninterested and lazy

That simply isn’t true. And if you think it is, then you probably weren’t really watching him.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Because every time he has started or come on as sub he looks uninterested and lazy

I was at Huddersfield. Twice he stopped at the edge of the pitch to jerk off one of their fans. And then they all joined in as he left the pitch after 70 staggeringly invisible minutes. He couldn't have given less of a sh1t about the Albion if he'd tried.

 

[dolphins]

I have a feeling that most loan deals are on the proviso that the player gets X amount of game time - otherwise (apart from having some of the wage covered) they might as well warm the bench of their own club. That could explain why James Wilson had to play despite chucking up in front of the TV cameras for example!

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Paul Barber categorically denied we had ever taken a loan player and guaranteed appearances and never would. And I for one believe him, despite what some people on here might think.

It doesn't make sense anyway.

 

[dazzer6666]

That simply isn’t true. And if you think it is, then you probably weren’t really watching him.

He looked decent against Liverpool when he came on.

 

[lizard]

Wilson?

 

[RM-Taylor]

Paul Barber categorically denied we had ever taken a loan player and guaranteed appearances and never would. And I for one believe him, despite what some people on here might think.

It doesn't make sense anyway.

Maybe not in Barber’s time here but Mikel Anderson had to play as part of his loan deal

 

[AZ Gull]

Paul Barber categorically denied we had ever taken a loan player and guaranteed appearances and never would.

There is a difference between an agreement that "guaranteed appearances" and the deal that the OP has linked to. In fact, from memory, Barber has himself spoken of agreements that may have a similar financial incentive to play the loanee.

 

[clapham_gull]

... otherwise be 'financially punished by Liverpool'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42744447

Can't help but think we had a very similar arrangement with Chelsea over Izzy Brown. Would explain CH's insistence on giving him a game despite him adding nothing whatsoever to the side.

We didn't.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

He looked decent against Liverpool when he came on.

He started against Liverpool. In fact, he’s only started 4 games for us since his arrival with 9 sub appearances. Of those sub appearances, only 2 were over 10 minutes long and he got injured in his first start for us against Man City and only played 24 minutes. How anyone can judge him as a footballer with that limited amount of evidence is beyond me.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I highly doubt we had a similar arrangement regarding Izzy. If you take the Atletico Madrid game and the Man City starting line-ups, paired with his comments on Brown after the Palarse game, it is pretty clear without the injuries CH saw him as a first XI player.

I honestly don't know why there is an opinion on here that he is awful. He got injured, fairly seriously, twice in the brief time he spent with us.

Could be from a number of his performances. Huddersfield stands out though as a shocker.

 

[dazzer6666]

He started against Liverpool. In fact, he’s only started 4 games for us since his arrival with 9 sub appearances. Of those sub appearances, only 2 were over 10 minutes long and he got injured in his first start for us against Man City and only played 24 minutes. How anyone can judge him as a footballer with that limited amount of evidence is beyond me.

So he did..........simply never had a decent chance to prove himself really over a sustained period. It's easier to lob bricks at a loanee I guess, but given a fair crack of the whip I wonder what he would have done.

 

[Buzzer]

That simply isn’t true. And if you think it is, then you probably weren’t really watching him.

He was completely disinterested when I watched him play. The nadir being the Huddersfield game where he showed the most enthusiasm in clapping the Huddersfield fans when he came off the pitch.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Paul Barber categorically denied we had ever taken a loan player and guaranteed appearances and never would. And I for one believe him, despite what some people on here might think.

It doesn't make sense anyway.

There is a difference between an agreement that "guaranteed appearances" and the deal that the OP has linked to. In fact, from memory, Barber has himself spoken of agreements that may have a similar financial incentive to play the loanee.

Via a third party, I asked this very specific question of PB - whether we had ever taken a loanee, with a contractual obligation to play them.

He answered that we had not, but that we did have arrangements whereby the % of their wages picked up by the parent club were dependent on them getting game time. Don't play them at all, and WE pick up their full wage bill.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

He was completely disinterested when I watched him play. The nadir being the Huddersfield game where he showed the most enthusiasm in clapping the Huddersfield fans when he came off the pitch.

I confess, the only away game I’ve been to is WBA, but I’ve seen all of our home games and he has looked interested in every performance. But he’s barely been used, so to reiterate my last point, how can we really judge him as a player?