[Bullseye]

Re: 2018 Bradford Bulls : Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:48 am  

There are no definite one year loans. AFAIK all loans are one month and then are weekly after that unless another one month deal is signed. Players can be recalled after each one month period if the parent club wishes. Larroyer was on a year long loan and look how that turned out. A parent club may say that the deal is "season long" but once they hit Easter or an injury crisis we all know what will happen.

I really don't like having to rely on loan players at all since as we saw last year they often do not train fully with the core squad. If they're only getting the odd game then that's just about ok but if these lads are playing a regular part it's not good. Loan players are not going to be as committed as fully signed up players.

Re: 2018 Bradford Bulls : Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:56 am  

Bullseye wrote:

There are no definite one year loans. AFAIK all loans are one month and then are weekly after that unless another one month deal is signed. Players can be recalled after each one month period if the parent club wishes. Larroyer was on a year long loan and look how that turned out. A parent club may say that the deal is "season long" but once they hit Easter or an injury crisis we all know what will happen.

I really don't like having to rely on loan players at all since as we saw last year they often do not train fully with the core squad. If they're only getting the odd game then that's just about ok but if these lads are playing a regular part it's not good. Loan players are not going to be as committed as fully signed up players.

Are you sure? I thought season long loans were possible and even preferred in some cases because they have salary cap implications. Hull KR's loan players last year spring to mind.

Re: 2018 Bradford Bulls : Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:10 am  

http://www.rugby-league.com/operational-rules/#p=84 section C1:2:18 covers this. Its not strictly true that its RFL rules that say any loan can be cancelled after 28 days. What it says is that any loan an be cancelled after 28 days if EITHER both clubs and the player mutually agree to this OR a clause allowing this was put in the original loan agreement betwen the clubs. Its the latter case which is more likely and Id suspect is pretty much standard practise to put a recall clause in these days. The minimum 28 days BEFORE recall is possible is the RFL clause that the clubs have no control over.

http://www.rugby-league.com/operational-rules/#p=84 section C1:2:18 covers this. Its not strictly true that its RFL rules that say any loan can be cancelled after 28 days. What it says is that any loan an be cancelled after 28 days if EITHER both clubs and the player mutually agree to this OR a clause allowing this was put in the original loan agreement betwen the clubs. Its the latter case which is more likely and Id suspect is pretty much standard practise to put a recall clause in these days. The minimum 28 days BEFORE recall is possible is the RFL clause that the clubs have no control over.

[Bullseye]

Re: 2018 Bradford Bulls : Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:40 am  

mat wrote: http://www.rugby-league.com/operational-rules/#p=84 section C1:2:18 covers this. Its not strictly true that its RFL rules that say any loan can be cancelled after 28 days. What it says is that any loan an be cancelled after 28 days if EITHER both clubs and the player mutually agree to this OR a clause allowing this was put in the original loan agreement betwen the clubs. Its the latter case which is more likely and Id suspect is pretty much standard practise to put a recall clause in these days. The minimum 28 days BEFORE recall is possible is the RFL clause that the clubs have no control over. Cheers Mat. Thanks for clarifying. So it's up to the clubs. If a parent club decide they want to recall any of their loan players after 28 days they can. We have no comebacks.

mat wrote: http://www.rugby-league.com/operational-rules/#p=84 section C1:2:18 covers this. Its not strictly true that its RFL rules that say any loan can be cancelled after 28 days. What it says is that any loan an be cancelled after 28 days if EITHER both clubs and the player mutually agree to this OR a clause allowing this was put in the original loan agreement betwen the clubs. Its the latter case which is more likely and Id suspect is pretty much standard practise to put a recall clause in these days. The minimum 28 days BEFORE recall is possible is the RFL clause that the clubs have no control over. Cheers Mat. Thanks for clarifying. So it's up to the clubs. If a parent club decide they want to recall any of their loan players after 28 days they can. We have no comebacks.

Re: 2018 Bradford Bulls : Thu Nov 30, 2017 11:56 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Cheers Mat. Thanks for clarifying. So it's up to the clubs. If a parent club decide they want to recall any of their loan players after 28 days they can. We have no comebacks.

Only if the clause is in there. That Hudds player we got (I've forgotten his name) seems to have the clause in his deal because Huddersfield explicitly mentioned the recall option. Not sure if that is standard practice across the board or not, but I suspect it probably is.

Re: 2018 Bradford Bulls : Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:24 pm  

Nothus wrote:

Only if the clause is in there. That Hudds player we got (I've forgotten his name) seems to have the clause in his deal because Huddersfield explicitly mentioned the recall option. Not sure if that is standard practice across the board or not, but I suspect it probably is.

It was mentioned in the Mikey Wood article that Huddersfield released.

I suspect it is standard practice, the only time the clause tends to not be included is in the cases where a player is clearly no longer welcome at their parent club. Zak Hardaker for example, he couldn't be recalled. Partially because Cas had paid a fee for the loan deal (I think), partially because Leeds wanted rid of him, they just wouldn't release him without a transfer fee.

I suspect Rangi's loan to Widnes will have been the case. Cas will have had no intention of recalling him, so they make sure the loan deal has no recall and they can't be lumbered with his wages later in the season.

Thinking about it, as has been said already, the salary cap is likely to be a deciding factor. Say for example Hudds were at the top of their salary cap last year and suddenly for one reason or another, Hull KR decide they don't want Jamie Ellis any more, don't want to pay him, so send him back. Suddenly Hudds are having to pay his wages too and are up a certain creek with the RFL. (This is pure example by the way). In that case, if the parent club didn't want to risk getting the player back because of the cap, they would only loan him if the loan could not be terminated part way through.

[Bullseye]

Re: 2018 Bradford Bulls : Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:17 pm  

Well hopefully some more signings are around the corner so we're not too reliant.

Re: 2018 Bradford Bulls : Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:27 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Well hopefully some more signings are around the corner so we're not too reliant.

Re: 2018 Bradford Bulls : Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:53 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

It was mentioned in the Mikey Wood article that Huddersfield released.

I suspect it is standard practice, the only time the clause tends to not be included is in the cases where a player is clearly no longer welcome at their parent club. Zak Hardaker for example, he couldn't be recalled. Partially because Cas had paid a fee for the loan deal (I think), partially because Leeds wanted rid of him, they just wouldn't release him without a transfer fee.

I suspect Rangi's loan to Widnes will have been the case. Cas will have had no intention of recalling him, so they make sure the loan deal has no recall and they can't be lumbered with his wages later in the season.

Thinking about it, as has been said already, the salary cap is likely to be a deciding factor. Say for example Hudds were at the top of their salary cap last year and suddenly for one reason or another, Hull KR decide they don't want Jamie Ellis any more, don't want to pay him, so send him back. Suddenly Hudds are having to pay his wages too and are up a certain creek with the RFL. (This is pure example by the way). In that case, if the parent club didn't want to risk getting the player back because of the cap, they would only loan him if the loan could not be terminated part way through.

I suspect the recall clauses are can only be activated by Parent clubs and not by club receiving the loan. eg they can recall player if they have an injury crisis but we can't send them back if we decide they arent needed.

Re: 2018 Bradford Bulls : Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:34 pm  

mat wrote:

I suspect the recall clauses are can only be activated by Parent clubs and not by club receiving the loan. eg they can recall player if they have an injury crisis but we can't send them back if we decide they arent needed.

That would explain why we were lumbered with Cameron Smith for far too long last season...

Seriously, I think recall clauses are purely just one of those things the clubs agree on as part of the loan deal. It can be any combination of who can or can't recall that they want, they just agree it when they arrange the deal.