Swans defend Sancho loan failure

[Tallman]

Swans defend Sancho loan failure
BBC Sport

Kenny Jackett has defended Swansea over their part in the collapsed loan move for Gillingham defender Brent Sancho.

The manager says Swansea were not told they would have to re-apply for the Trinidad & Tobago player's work permit.

With the Gills also then insisting that Sancho could not play against them on 25 March, the defender was likely to sit out Swansea's next four matches.

"That can change the whole situation and I have to look after my club's interests," Jackett told BBC Wales.

"We didn't know we had to re-apply for somebody who already had a work permit.

"What Gillingham said also was that Brent wasn't allowed to play against them.

"That's a potential four games out of 12 he could have missed and when I told (Gills chairman Paul) Mr Scally that he wasn't best pleased, but nor was I."

Scally said he was furious with Swansea for "reneging" on the proposed two-month deal, adding: "We will not get caught out again in any further dealings with them."

With any move for Sancho now dead in the water, Jackett has shifted his attention to taking Wolves' promising young defender Keith Lowe on loan.

[dcs]

"What  said also was that Brent wasn't allowed to play against them.

Dat is a ridiculous term.
Whappen....they fraid Brent? They not even givig him a run in the first team and they fraid for him to play against them?

Gillingham management are a bunch of jokers.
Swansea would probably have still taken him despite the work permit but 4 games is a hell of a lot when is a short term loan.
steupse

[Jahyouth]

"What  said also was that Brent wasn't allowed to play against them.

Dat is a ridiculous term.
Whappen....they fraid Brent? They not even givig him a run in the first team and they fraid for him to play against them?

Gillingham management are a bunch of jokers.
Swansea would probably have still taken him despite the work permit but 4 games is a hell of a lot when is a short term loan.
steupse

That is a very common term for on-loan players.  Very common.  Nobody wants to get burned by a player they let leave the club temporarily.

[dcs]

That is a very common term for on-loan players.  Very common.  Nobody wants to get burned by a player they let leave the club temporarily.

Ok.
Just seem strange since he not even in their first team.   

[JayTheWrecker]

"What  said also was that Brent wasn't allowed to play against them.

Dat is a ridiculous term.
Whappen....they fraid Brent? They not even givig him a run in the first team and they fraid for him to play against them?

Gillingham management are a bunch of jokers.
Swansea would probably have still taken him despite the work permit but 4 games is a hell of a lot when is a short term loan.
steupse

That is a very common term for on-loan players.  Very common.  Nobody wants to get burned by a player they let leave the club temporarily.

you are correct in that it's a very common arrangement for English clubs. Funny enough in the rest of Europe, clubs usually don't impose such restrictions. It's very common for players to play against the clubs who hold their registration. I remember when Morientes was on loan to Monaco from Real Madrid, and he played against Real in a Champions League match no less, and knocked them out of the competition with a headed goal!!

[spideybuff]

The rule was actually first put in place to assist the club the player is loaned to. For example, if Gills and Swansea meet in a playoff to see who being promoted, Sancho could be tempted to help the Gills win if he know he going back there next year. (Well, not Sancho, but a young player being loaned out for experience and playing time but hoping to break into the first team at his club in the following season)

[Ponnoxx]

 I guess no World Cup for Brent Sancho