Why would you not play an excellent player you have on loan for the last few games you have him even if you thought he was going back? Madness.
(I'm hopeful he will stay...it's defenders Bolton are short of and I'm not sure on that showing last night that he would get a kick with those tactics...)
I think it's more from the Morley's point of view. Not in anyway doubting his professionalism, but it would be a very odd situation to be playing for a team one week, knowing you'll be going back to your promotion rival and parent club the next week. It's not the most motivating of situations for him.
Pretty sure Blooms will have asked him if he wants to stay (assuming that Bolton have been in touch one way or the other, which Evatt's comments indicated they had). If he wants to stay, then I'm sure we'll be trying to get a deal done and he'll play in the meantime. If however he's happy to go back, or Bolton are giving him no choice, then there's not really much to be gained in him playing a couple more games either from his or the club's perspective. We'd be better off giving his spot to a player who's here for the duration, particularly if Scowen is due to return from injury anyway.
I would certainly play him while we have him. He will be up for showing us all what we will be missing and it is obvious he has enjoyed is time with us so let him play.
I'm not convinced that Evatt's comments confirm that they will be recalling Morley. The comments are within the context of an article suggesting they need to spend money in January, so could he be saying they should sell to fund that spending? Either way, I'm fairly certain we'll know one way or another in early Jan rather than late Jan.
No way will Morley be coming back to the Reebok to play because he wouldn’t fit into Evatt’s system any more now than he did before so he’s either going permanently to yourselves or someone else to help fund Evatt’s 2 or 3 changes. He’s stated that signings will be to “move the dial” not just fit into the squad and bringing Aaron back doesn’t fit that so I’m sure if you’re prepared to agree a fee he’s yours because the lad himself seems happy there. Personally it saddens me because I see a quality player in him and at 23 still lots of time to mature and improve as a player so I’m hoping any deal includes a sell on fee?
A ‘theory’ shared with me last night from an ‘interested’ source: Sharon hasn’t fired Evett because immediate funds aren’t available to settle his lucrative contract, yet. So, Morley will be sold by Sharon (to us or whom ever) to fund the settlement on Evetts release. Again I have zero factual evidence to back up this opinion.
This feels like quite the stretch... An interesting fact I heard on the latest NTT20 podcast was that Evatt has shares in the company who owns the club. That's surely a fairly unusual scenario?
I completely agree, trying to read between the lines of Evatt's comments I didn't really see anything to suggest they're going to recall him. Morley seems to be very happy here and recalling a player who is unlikely to make their starting XI and is therefore likely to be very unhappy doesn't seem like a clever option from a Bolton point of view. I'm rather hoping that Evatt saying he knows what will happen with Morley suggests that discussions are already underway regarding a deal.
My point was more to do with the hopefully unlikely scenario that Bolton are set to recall at the start of January, and Morley is aware of this in which case from an entirely personal perspective I'd rather see us fielding our own players.
I spoke to the PNE manager and he said he was at our game because they were staying locally as they are at QPR today. He might well have had other reasons of course but that’s what he said.
I don’t that’s the case Brownie. He can’t go anywhere else on loan in January you’re right but he can move permanently to another club so we’re free to sell him to anyone.
As for Evatt holding shares, he holds what are effectively B Shares which like any company shares must be sold back to the club/company if you leave so that wouldn’t be an issue. Whether we can afford to sack him is a valid point and may be one reason why Sharon has backed him but there is always the gardening leave option until he finds another job which I suspect he’d do fairly quickly.
The point about Morley is correct - you can’t represent three clubs in one season and he’s played for Bolton (league cup) and Wycombe this year, so if you sold him to someone else, he’d be sitting on his thumbs until August. At least, I think that’s the rule…
This is correct. Bolton could certainly sell Morley to whoever they want to in January, but he is unable to play for anyone other than Bolton or Wycombe between now and the end of this season, as per EFL rules.
"Players may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play official matches for two clubs." (there are exemptions for players moving due to their season being played at different times, eg American, Swedish leagues).
Thanks for that. I stand corrected. I’ve had a read of the FIFA regulations and I can now see how much red tape is involved. No wonder deals don’t get done in time on the last day of the transfer window. Fair play to whoever does this for us.
What an absolutely stupid rule. So someone like Morley who has played for Bolton this season, could have come to Wycombe, not got in the side and hated it.
Aaron may have then wanted to return to Bolton and been sat on his hands for ages without another chance to go out on loan again, even if it was beneficial to club and player.
What an absolute load of FIFA rubbish, they are ruining our game.
Aaron Morley and Bolton have made a commitment for him to play at Wycombe until May. They have a break clause. I don’t think there is anything wrong with a FIFA rule that says he can’t play for multiple clubs in the same season.
The whole system of inter-club transfers, whereby players can only move to another club in the January or Summer transfer windows, is a load of complete nonsense, and potentially a breach of the Human Rights Act.
In any other walk of life, an employee can work for as many different employers as he wants, subject to said employers wanting to take him on.
Someone with deep pockets (not me) needs to launch a Judicial Review in the High Court against FIFA / EFL / PL, to get this declared an unlawful restraint of trade.
The rule regarding restrictions on the number of clubs a player can represent in one season has been in place for quite some time (possibly introduced in 70s or 80s, I really can't remember). I believe there maybe variations on the rule depending on the level of football (players loaned to non league clubs), but I may be wrong on that.
It isn't that much different to the current rule regarding cup competitions, where a player can only represent one club in a season. Overall, I haven't noticed it ruining the game.
When considering the situation regarding Morley, I had forgotten number of clubs point. It makes me feel a bit easier regarding the situation. Unless Bolton plan on recalling and playing him, it makes no sense for them to take him back and pay him to sit on his backside. Particularly if they don't have loads of spare cash.
Comments
Don't think that'd give us any insight either way. While we have him we play him, simple as that. Would be daft not to.
Why would you not play an excellent player you have on loan for the last few games you have him even if you thought he was going back? Madness.
(I'm hopeful he will stay...it's defenders Bolton are short of and I'm not sure on that showing last night that he would get a kick with those tactics...)
I think it's more from the Morley's point of view. Not in anyway doubting his professionalism, but it would be a very odd situation to be playing for a team one week, knowing you'll be going back to your promotion rival and parent club the next week. It's not the most motivating of situations for him.
Pretty sure Blooms will have asked him if he wants to stay (assuming that Bolton have been in touch one way or the other, which Evatt's comments indicated they had). If he wants to stay, then I'm sure we'll be trying to get a deal done and he'll play in the meantime. If however he's happy to go back, or Bolton are giving him no choice, then there's not really much to be gained in him playing a couple more games either from his or the club's perspective. We'd be better off giving his spot to a player who's here for the duration, particularly if Scowen is due to return from injury anyway.
I would certainly play him while we have him. He will be up for showing us all what we will be missing and it is obvious he has enjoyed is time with us so let him play.
We're paying his wages (or a proportion) so why would we leave him out?
I'm not convinced that Evatt's comments confirm that they will be recalling Morley. The comments are within the context of an article suggesting they need to spend money in January, so could he be saying they should sell to fund that spending? Either way, I'm fairly certain we'll know one way or another in early Jan rather than late Jan.
https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/24808638.bolton-wanderers-eye-significant-signings-january-window/
No way will Morley be coming back to the Reebok to play because he wouldn’t fit into Evatt’s system any more now than he did before so he’s either going permanently to yourselves or someone else to help fund Evatt’s 2 or 3 changes. He’s stated that signings will be to “move the dial” not just fit into the squad and bringing Aaron back doesn’t fit that so I’m sure if you’re prepared to agree a fee he’s yours because the lad himself seems happy there. Personally it saddens me because I see a quality player in him and at 23 still lots of time to mature and improve as a player so I’m hoping any deal includes a sell on fee?
Morley can't play for any club other than Bolton or Wycombe until next season, so he won't be going permanently to anyone else!
A ‘theory’ shared with me last night from an ‘interested’ source: Sharon hasn’t fired Evett because immediate funds aren’t available to settle his lucrative contract, yet. So, Morley will be sold by Sharon (to us or whom ever) to fund the settlement on Evetts release. Again I have zero factual evidence to back up this opinion.
This feels like quite the stretch... An interesting fact I heard on the latest NTT20 podcast was that Evatt has shares in the company who owns the club. That's surely a fairly unusual scenario?
Oh yeah, their chairman is the teeth brothers' mum
I completely agree, trying to read between the lines of Evatt's comments I didn't really see anything to suggest they're going to recall him. Morley seems to be very happy here and recalling a player who is unlikely to make their starting XI and is therefore likely to be very unhappy doesn't seem like a clever option from a Bolton point of view. I'm rather hoping that Evatt saying he knows what will happen with Morley suggests that discussions are already underway regarding a deal.
My point was more to do with the hopefully unlikely scenario that Bolton are set to recall at the start of January, and Morley is aware of this in which case from an entirely personal perspective I'd rather see us fielding our own players.
I spoke to the PNE manager and he said he was at our game because they were staying locally as they are at QPR today. He might well have had other reasons of course but that’s what he said.
Thanks AP - is great to have you on here to share this kind of info. Caveat on whether Paul was economic with the truth noted 😊
I don’t that’s the case Brownie. He can’t go anywhere else on loan in January you’re right but he can move permanently to another club so we’re free to sell him to anyone.
As for Evatt holding shares, he holds what are effectively B Shares which like any company shares must be sold back to the club/company if you leave so that wouldn’t be an issue. Whether we can afford to sack him is a valid point and may be one reason why Sharon has backed him but there is always the gardening leave option until he finds another job which I suspect he’d do fairly quickly.
The point about Morley is correct - you can’t represent three clubs in one season and he’s played for Bolton (league cup) and Wycombe this year, so if you sold him to someone else, he’d be sitting on his thumbs until August. At least, I think that’s the rule…
This is correct. Bolton could certainly sell Morley to whoever they want to in January, but he is unable to play for anyone other than Bolton or Wycombe between now and the end of this season, as per EFL rules.
Here is a link to the rules. They are on page 333 to 334. I don’t see any rule about not playing for a third club
https://www.efl.com/documents/efl-handbook.pdf
The only play for 2 clubs in a season rule definitely seems to be what the FA and other sites say.
It feels odd though as it feels like we've all heard of a player being loaned out 2 or 3 times and /or played a few mons for their home club.
But maybe I'm either mistaken or that was an old rule.
It is a rule set by FIFA:
"Players may be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season. During this period, the player is only eligible to play official matches for two clubs." (there are exemptions for players moving due to their season being played at different times, eg American, Swedish leagues).
Thanks for that. I stand corrected. I’ve had a read of the FIFA regulations and I can now see how much red tape is involved. No wonder deals don’t get done in time on the last day of the transfer window. Fair play to whoever does this for us.
Bolton could sell him to a Championship club who could then loan him back to Wycombe for the rest of this season.
What an absolutely stupid rule. So someone like Morley who has played for Bolton this season, could have come to Wycombe, not got in the side and hated it.
Aaron may have then wanted to return to Bolton and been sat on his hands for ages without another chance to go out on loan again, even if it was beneficial to club and player.
What an absolute load of FIFA rubbish, they are ruining our game.
Aaron Morley and Bolton have made a commitment for him to play at Wycombe until May. They have a break clause. I don’t think there is anything wrong with a FIFA rule that says he can’t play for multiple clubs in the same season.
Well, that’s how you view it and that is fair enough.
The whole system of inter-club transfers, whereby players can only move to another club in the January or Summer transfer windows, is a load of complete nonsense, and potentially a breach of the Human Rights Act.
In any other walk of life, an employee can work for as many different employers as he wants, subject to said employers wanting to take him on.
Someone with deep pockets (not me) needs to launch a Judicial Review in the High Court against FIFA / EFL / PL, to get this declared an unlawful restraint of trade.
Agreed. 👍👍
My sincere apologies I was obviously mistaken but the rules seem pretty clear on it. Seems ridiculous but then it is the EFL we’re talking about! 😁
Hopefully it will be irrelevant anyway because you’ll sign him and all 3 parties will be satisfied?
I agree. Didn't we play Eze on 1 Jan at Forest Green a few years back, just before he went back to QPR?
The rule regarding restrictions on the number of clubs a player can represent in one season has been in place for quite some time (possibly introduced in 70s or 80s, I really can't remember). I believe there maybe variations on the rule depending on the level of football (players loaned to non league clubs), but I may be wrong on that.
It isn't that much different to the current rule regarding cup competitions, where a player can only represent one club in a season. Overall, I haven't noticed it ruining the game.
When considering the situation regarding Morley, I had forgotten number of clubs point. It makes me feel a bit easier regarding the situation. Unless Bolton plan on recalling and playing him, it makes no sense for them to take him back and pay him to sit on his backside. Particularly if they don't have loads of spare cash.