I didn't believe it when we first signed Kent, but I thought otherwise after the large period when he was average, at best, but still kept his place in the side.
Liverpool are the worst for it. Don’t think all clubs are doing it yet but it’s only a matter of time. What it will lead to is further hoarding of players.
IIRC the Kent agreement stipulated that he had to feature in 75% of games. 14 games shouldn’t be an issue as Grujic is such a good player but I loathe such stipulations. It reminds me of when Harchester United signed that Chinese player who had to feature in every game. They very much called the way that modern football is going in that respect.
In their defence, if you're loaning out a player, you're hoping that they'll play a decent amount of games, in order to develop as a player. There's no other way to guarantee that a player makes x amount of appearances whilst on loan, but the 'fining' system is all what's wrong with modern day football. How would our other wingers have felt last season, knowing that Kent was almost guaranteed to play more often than not, no matter how sh*t he performed.
That’s the conundrum. What Liverpool are doing is exactly the right approach from their point of view and from the point of view of their players. It cuts out the time wasters who would see a player like Kent and take a punt on him and if it didn’t pay off they’d simply stick him on the bench or in the reserves which certainly doesn’t aid the parent club or the player himself. The obvious intention is for players to be loaned to clubs that perceive the player to be of sufficient quality that he will benefit their first team but the fining system as you’ve stated above adds that additional incentive to select a player beyond said player’s merit that I really don’t like. I can’t see a middle ground, unfortunately.