A player starts a season on the fringes of the first team at his parent club, makes an appearance or two early on but drops out of favour, goes on loan for a month to try to get first team football, comes back but still can't get into first team with his parent club, so come January wants to go on loan again somewhere or move permanently in order to play......
That's surely a fairly common scenario these days......but under the two-club rule the player wouldn't be able to leave unless it was to the same club he had already been on loan to. He could sign for a third club, but wouldn't be able to play for them (as with Walker).
Who benefits from that? Not the parent club, not any other club wanting to sign the player in Jan and certainly not the player himself.
Last Edit: Jan 10, 2019 14:12:19 GMT 1 by Vodka Vic
What might have been is an abstraction Remaining a perpetual possibility Only in a world of speculation. What might have been and what has been Points to one end, which is always present.
Post by northwestman on Jan 10, 2019 16:05:08 GMT 1
It seems a bit strange to me that a player who is presumably valued so highly by Ricketts that he has to sign him now even though he can't play for us until next season is then only given what is effectively a one year contract, the other 6 months being spent on loan to Wrexham. He was out of contract with Crewe at the end of this season.