Loans,loans and more loans

[rabidbee]

They also enable a club to bring in skills to fill a shortcoming in the current squad, without necessarilly having to commit to two or three year's worth of wages. We, and clearly many other teams, are opting for limitting our risk rather than committing to long-term crippling costs.

Because PL clubs like to secure as many talented young players as possible, there is actually a dearth of quality players at our level (ie. not yet good enough for the PL). As well as giving these players necessary experience (as Sheshnu pointed out), it actually enables clubs at our level access to the kind of players who might have once have been expected to be the star players of 2nd and 3rd tier teams.

We're approaching a kind of half-way house between the old system and an American-style feeder league, where much of the best talent is tied to the big clubs, but loaned out to lower league teams until they're ready to step up. It's also worth reflecting that the more that the bigger teams tie up the best young talent, the less opportuinties there are for a small club to cash in on their most talented players, which used to be the lifeblood of lower league teams. Just how much did Hayes earn over the years from the sale of Les Ferdinand (and where has all of the money gone, hey?).

[Southbank Old Boy]

I don't think that's incompatible with what I wrote. Having a list of targets is a country mile form having a seven-figure transfer deal lined up. You couldn't arrange the latter without good evidence you could follow through.

Isnt that exactly what we did with the likes of campbell-ryce or by the looks of it Harte this time round

[Horsham Royal]

I still haven't seen a good argument FOR loan signings.

Shesnu's plus :

Permanent youngsters learn from the loanee's experience.

Loanee's tend to be wanting to prove a point to their own clubs so may have more appetite than a permie that's just got a nice signing on fee.

Potentially a higher quality player because a loanee will drop a division.

Don't risk (all) your funds till its needed (ie until your loanees have gaot you promoted).

[MmmMonsterMunch]

I find it hard to believe that the club didn't have some kind of idea that 1) Sig was going & 2) what they were getting for Sig.

Do you honestly believe that a club like 1899 spends £7m on a 20 year old without a lot of reserach & planning? Yes I know they're bankrolled but that's big cash for a youngster & they must have had the feelers out months ago.

I just can't help feeling the timing of completion was rather cynical & allowed JM to use the excuse of not having time to bring other faces in.

Sorry bit off topic but there you go.

[Horsham Royal]

Targets may well have been lined up with the release clause in mind.
Hammond excels and gets double, the targets turn us down (for whatever reason) and all of a sudden McD has double the money to spend but hasn't researched the higher price range.
So it's all Hammond's fault for doing such a sterling job.

(Not that I believe any of that)

[MmmMonsterMunch]

No I don't believe any of that either

[BR2]

I still haven't seen a good argument FOR loan signings.

Shesnu's plus :

Permanent youngsters learn from the loanee's experience.

Loanee's tend to be wanting to prove a point to their own clubs so may have more appetite than a permie that's just got a nice signing on fee.

Potentially a higher quality player because a loanee will drop a division.

Don't risk (all) your funds till its needed (ie until your loanees have gaot you promoted).

In your scenario the loanees get us promoted and we have to buy like mad because they won't sign for us so not only do we have to get in some better players because of promotion but also replacements for the loanees that got us there because they still want to play for their parent club,Chelsea or Arsenal.
I still think you build a team and not settle for quick fixes.

[sheshnu]

I still think you build a team and not settle for quick fixes.

in an ideal world of course everybody would be doing that. These days though even(!) Premier League teams need to loan in players from the bigger clubs due to financial constraints.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

I think the Loan system should be scrapped or very restricted.

There are cases where it works, emergceny goalkeepers for example and short terms loans for young players to gain some experience. Apart from that its just a nonsense. Take the Bellamy case for example. Man City are effectively donating a few million quid to Cardiff. How can that be allowed?

Season Long Loans just dont make any sense to the parent club. Take Bertrand for example. How can sending a player to another club, year after year, be good for that players development? Norwich, Reading and now Forest are looking for an instant return at minimal cost. How can that be good for the player when the loan club has no interest in the players performances beyond the loan period? There seems to be a lot of players like him who have huge potential, but fail to fulfill this, in my opinion because they are loaned out and not looked after properly.

There is an alternative system used on the continent called joint ownership. Its a bit complicated, but IMO its a far better way to develop players and fulfilling their potential.

[Stranded]

I've mentioned it elsewhere but the loan system should only be for u21 players and those in the last year of a contract.

Scrapping the loan system will have no effect though as all you would see is Club A sell player to Club B. Club A has clause inserted in the deal that they can buy player back for the same fee (or a slight increase) at any time during the period of the players contract (or extension) - it's a loan in all but name.

[sheshnu]

A temporary transfer, if you will.

[Stranded]

Precisely - a loan by any other name is still a loan.

[Mad Dog's Ghost]

One possible hitch if we're planning on raiding this pool of premiership talent about to become available: Plenty of championship and possibly league 1 clubs will have the same idea. This will mean competitive wage deals will be harder to broker with the lending clubs ... therefore only those clubs willing to shell out higher wages will get in the players they want (and decent strikers will probably be the most in demand and command highest premium).

Expect a few WCBAP scenarios.

[Stranded]

Maybe but with the new rules some clubs may be happy to pay all the wages and choose the right club for their player not the best financial deal.

Anyway, is there a list of players who are available, or is it not actually as extensive as first thought?

[sheshnu]

Think it's basically just Luke Moore.

[Mad Dog's Ghost]

And Woodgate.

[Dickie's Spear]

I don't like loans, as per several reasons posted already in this thread. it has also downgraded the reserve football system, as affluent clubs can hedge their bets by holding onto promising players knowing other clubs will offset some of their holding costs as loanees. So as a result it keeps the stronger clubs strong, and the weak, weaker, as they can't replace these loanees. Example Bertrand.

[Archie's penalty]

I have no problems with the Gylfi sale. It's a shame but can't be helped. As to our transfer policy, I think loans are fine. If they do well you can always purchase them later. I don't see what the issue is. Kish was essential we have him, can we not be happy with that? If we got someone like Fryatt in we, along with Harte and Henrie it's fine. It's time for Kara and Church to step into the breach. We still have two of the best wingers in the division in Kebe and Mcanuff remember. Gylfi won't be that badly missed.

[westendgirl]

.
I still haven't seen a good argument FOR loan signings.

Do you disapprove of our youngsters going out on loan too? Can you not see the advantage of our fringe players getting first team football and then coming back ready to play in our first team. Its the other side of the same coin.

[Duke the Dog]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the loan system per se. It's how it's used which can lead to problems. The Hereford example is the extreme, build a team of loans and s/t contracts, get promotion, then watch them all f*ck off at the end of the season. Result: you have to start again.

BUT, covering for injured/suspended players or adding that one/two pieces of the team with players you couldn't afford at the time is great (eg Defoe at Bournemouth, Bertrand here, or Glen Johnson whereever it was), usually younger higher calibre players just starting. There is also the "loan before you buy" option. If we'd loaned most of Burns signings we'd have been laughing!

It does probably benefit more the clubs loaning out the players rather than bringing them in.