Armando Broja Loan

Todds_right_hook

Signs for Fulham on loan from Chelsea with a loan fee of £4m.  Fine, but the less he plays, the less Fulham play!!

Is that the wrong way round? Surely, the more he plays, the less Fulham pay.  What am I missing?

Gribbo

Todds_right_hook said:

Signs for Fulham on loan from Chelsea with a loan fee of £4m.  Fine, but the less he plays, the less Fulham play!!

Is that the wrong way round? Surely, the more he plays, the less Fulham pay.  What am I missing?

Pro rata payment.

Seems quite straight forward, unless I'm missing something (which is more than likely)

MrOneLung

surely that is right way around

if he plays loads for them, they pay Chelsea a higher fee

If he is crap and barely plays, then they pay Chelsea less

FishCostaFortune

Yeah, seems like a very normal thing in loans. I remember always reading it in football manager when I send someone out. 

Callumcafc

Todds_right_hook said:

Signs for Fulham on loan from Chelsea with a loan fee of £4m.  Fine, but the less he plays, the less Fulham play!!

Is that the wrong way round? Surely, the more he plays, the less Fulham pay.  What am I missing?

Depends on Chelsea's motivation for the loan. You'd think if they cared about him gaining experience, it'd be the opposite.

But at this point, he's 22 and made almost 60 PL appearances so it's a bit different. Chelsea are probably more concerned about finishing above Fulham in the table than the playing time of a lad they're probably selling in the summer anyway. If he plays more for Fulham and they do well, they've at least made some extra cash out of it.

ShootersHillGuru

£4 million loan fee. I’ll retire to Bedlam

mendonca

Fine, but the less he plays, the less Fulham play!!

Crikes, never seen the Premier League rules re-written due to a loan signing! Hopefully the reach 38 games this season.

Briston_Addick

Callumcafc said:

Todds_right_hook said:

Signs for Fulham on loan from Chelsea with a loan fee of £4m.  Fine, but the less he plays, the less Fulham play!!

Is that the wrong way round? Surely, the more he plays, the less Fulham pay.  What am I missing?

Depends on Chelsea's motivation for the loan. You'd think if they cared about him gaining experience, it'd be the opposite.

But at this point, he's 22 and made almost 60 PL appearances so it's a bit different. Chelsea are probably more concerned about finishing above Fulham in the table than the playing time of a lad they're probably selling in the summer anyway. If he plays more for Fulham and they do well, they've at least made some extra cash out of it.

I can't imagine Chelsea really give a stuff about him gaining experience; for them it's all about a revenue stream.

Think about the likes of Chelsea and Man City as being an employment agency with plenty of young people waiting to be called up for short-term work placements.