This now becoming more common, sides are prepared to sell their younger player but this gives them some protection, in case the player becomes excellent. Imagine Man Utd put a buy back clause in pogba deal, it would of saved them a lot of money.

Fully agree. City and Chelsea are prime examples of disgusting behavior in that respect. Any season there are about a dozen players here in the Dutch league on loan and the aim of that is not at all to prepare them for first team football at the parent club but to make financial profit. Van Ginkel even publicly stated Chelsea forced him to extend his contract before agreeing to another loan at PSV and he fully realizes he will never ever play for them again.

In the situation described, the parent club makes a profit, the player benefits from first team football and the club he plays for gets the use of a good player.

There is nothing wrong with a club making a profit but the current situation needs looking at. The difference now is that the massive football clubs but the clubs a little further down the food chain can't.

For instance if we decided that one of our young players needed first team football to progress and we couldn't do that. We have 2 options either to loan out or sell with a sell on clause. We did later with a couple of youngsters last year effectively free but if sold on we get a hefty percentage. Problem then is if they get released the clause goes with them. This has advantage for all both clubs and player. A young player who may not be good enough for EPL football gets at worst a career at a lower level, lower league club gets a "prospect" with ability to sell on and selling club gets a possibility of return on academy costs.

The difference with a buy back clause is that selling club gets a good price to start with and a guarantee that they can get the player back if sucessful for below market value. Thus the big club gets all the benefits and none of the risks. If it is correct that Arsenal want a buy back clause for Chambers. They want a figure in excess of £20 million, this is not peanuts so to want a buy back clause at slightly above this,is wrong in my view.

I think the FA should look at this as it the big clubs using there economic muscle against the slightly smaller. I have nothing against a player being sold with first refusal on any future sale being given to selling club however this should be at market value. The Loan system is also being manipulated by the big clubs eg Van Ginkel and Chelsea insisting he signs a new contract before yet another loan. If a player is loaned out during contract, the club gets a loan fee and receiving club pay his salary so what is risk for loaning club? He gets injured and they make a loss on any initial transfer fee? Insurance cover this.I think that FA should look at introducing rules that players who have been loaned out for more than 50% of contract or have not played more than 25 first team games can not be forced to sign a new contract. They should be allowed to find a new club if they want with fee being decided by tribunal if not agreed by clubs

Really? If you support a big club you mean.

The whole thing is being manipulated by big clubs and their greed.