Loans - let’s not bother (3 Viewers)

[JimmyHillsbeard]

I’m increasingly of the opinion that loaning players from clubs in higher leagues is a waste of time - unless they are actually good enough to make the difference in getting promotion (or preventing relegation), they are counterproductive.

Take last season and our recruitment of Sterling on loan from Chelsea. Every single game that Sterling was fit for he played in (which I suspect was a condition of his loan, or Chelsea continuing to pay his wages). His form at the start of the campaign would certainly have put his place in the starting XI under pressure without such a precondition. This sidelined Grimmer, which may have been a decent call in football terms but Sterling (and Thomas and Bright) wasn’t sufficient to get us into the play-offs or out of the league and all three have moved on to the higher league without us.

Meanwhile Grimmer was moved on and we wasted an entire season of his and our time wondering whether he could do it in league one. He now has the chance to prove he can hack it in this division with Wycombe while we had to recruit two new full backs to compete for his old slot.

In summary our loan players might have been our best players last season but 1) they weren’t good enough to get us up which was our only hope of keeping them 2) they weren’t our players - all we really did was increase the market value of a Chelsea youth, a Derby fringe player and a Wolves maverick.

We are about to head into some frenzied speculation about loaning young Liverpool starlets (facing opposition from Pompey) and maybe a West Ham player or the like but to be honest unless there’s a genuine reason that I can’t see, I think we are better off trying to develop our own players rather than borrowing others.

 

---

[Ricketts]

Finally.

Common sense.

They shouldn't be allowed anyway. They distort the game.

 

[Nick]

The other option is if we do, just use them as cover rather then relying on them.

 

[AStonesThrow]

Absolutely agree with this. Theres a reason our club invests in the youth, and the training of our current squad. Neither of the players we've been linked to loan are going to fill a gap, or bring anything much different to what we've got. There's been many permanent signings made, I think we should focus on giving them game time and developing what we have in our future.

As you say, the only real beneficial loan signing(s) would be if they added something we didn't have and that we needed to challenge

 

[Ricketts]

But very often part of the deal is they have to be played.

 

[AStonesThrow]

Yeah I can't see any premier league teams allowing a player to go out without guaranteed minutes

 

[lord_garrincha]

As regards Grimmer, Robins may have thought that (whether rightly or wrongly) he would not be up to L1 level, hence the early move for Sterling.

 

[Robccfc87]

I’m increasingly of the opinion that loaning players from clubs in higher leagues is a waste of time - unless they are actually good enough to make the difference in getting promotion (or preventing relegation), they are counterproductive.

But how are you supposed to know they are worthwhile until you actually have them?
You can't sign a player and then ask for your money back if it doesn't work out.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

The other option is if we do, just use them as cover rather then relying on them.

Clubs won't let them out if that's the case, though.

 

[Ricketts]

But how are you supposed to know they are worthwhile until you actually have them?
You can't sign a player and then ask for your money back if it doesn't work out.

Loan with a view to signing is a seperate issue.

These are upcoming starlets that we would never have a hope of signing.

 

[JimmyHillsbeard]

But how are you supposed to know they are worthwhile until you actually have them?
You can't sign a player and then ask for your money back if it doesn't work out.

Of course you’re right which is why on balance I wouldn’t bother and would rely on players with a stake in the future of our club rather than someone else’s.

 

[ajsccfc]

Not sure I agree with this. I don't think there's too much more to Sterling playing the season than him just being a better player, which I would factor into team selection before anything else. I get that loan players are temporary and if they excel with us we've got the problem of having to plan ahead without them, but we're a third division club so you could say the same about nearly any of our players. I don't think anyone below the Championship can pick a team based on potential longevity, go with what you can do for me right now.

 

[Robccfc87]

Of course you’re right which is why on balance I wouldn’t bother and would rely on players with a stake in the future of our club rather than someone else’s.

Blimey that's be risky in our case especially in recent years, we'd be like Bolton every week! That said I do like that we have a team of "our" players up to this point, still think if a loan player comes in from prem then it's low risk. The "they have to play" clause is a joke though.

 

[lord_garrincha]

If they weren't beneficial to all parties then they would cease to exist.

Even going back 20 years or so, there have been young stars going down on loan... Beckham to Preston, Terry to Forest & Defoe to Bournemouth come to mind... in those cases the player and the clubs all prospered.

However, the constant loans are an issue... examples include Richard Duffy, Ryan Kent & anyone under 25 who plays for Chelsea.

 

[covcity4life]

Silly. You dont want a team full of loans sure but look at tammy abraham st villa. Helped get then oromoted now gone bsck to chelsea. Villa use windfall to revamp team

Win win

Always worth a go

Last yesr we could have been promoted with likes of sterling and luke thomas lets not forget. Fine margins

 

[chiefdave]

The problem is not loans themselves its that as with everything else in football the PL clubs have manipulated the system to end up with something that is far more beneficial to them than anyone else.

With the changes they forced through to make it cheaper for them to pick up younger players from lower divisions teams they sign up huge numbers of players with no intention of them ever playing. Its a money making exercise where clubs like us pay agents fees, pay loan fess, pay wages and pay for coaching to develop the players. If they're any good we get, at best, 12 months out of them. Although to be fair with how quickly players that have come through our own academy move on once they have broken into the first team its not much different.

Pretty easy to start to fix. Ban loan fees and agent fees on all loans; make the parent club pay 100% of the wages; ban agreements that require loan players to play no matter what. I would also limit the number of players each club can have signed at each age ground and the number of players they can loan out. Its ridiculous that clubs can have 100 players out on loan. There's no way they're monitoring them all.

 

[Ricketts]

Whilst I don't like the loan system, I must admit watching Luke Thomas was one of the exciting things last season. Ditto Murphy and Armstrong.

 

[Robccfc87]

The problem is not loans themselves its that as with everything else in football the PL clubs have manipulated the system to end up with something that is far more beneficial to them than anyone else.

With the changes they forced through to make it cheaper for them to pick up younger players from lower divisions teams they sign up huge numbers of players with no intention of them ever playing. Its a money making exercise where clubs like us pay agents fees, pay loan fess, pay wages and pay for coaching to develop the players. If they're any good we get, at best, 12 months out of them. Although to be fair with how quickly players that have come through our own academy move on once they have broken into the first team its not much different.

Pretty easy to start to fix. Ban loan fees and agent fees on all loans; make the parent club pay 100% of the wages; ban agreements that require loan players to play no matter what. I would also limit the number of players each club can have signed at each age ground and the number of players they can loan out. Its ridiculous that clubs can have 100 players out on loan. There's no way they're monitoring them all.

Absolutely spot on, would the PL sanction it though?

 

[JimmyHillsbeard]

Silly. You dont want a team full of loans sure but look at tammy abraham st villa. Helped get then oromoted now gone bsck to chelsea. Villa use windfall to revamp team

Win win

Always worth a go

Last yesr we could have been promoted with likes of sterling and luke thomas lets not forget. Fine margins

Yep they got promoted. It’s a gamble. Our three best players were the loanees last year but all have moved on without us. As the gamble didn’t pay off we were not even at square one but in a worse position recruitment wise. We had to replace both them and the squad players they replaced in the close season.

 

[Robccfc87]

Yep they got promoted. It’s a gamble. Our three best players were the loanees last year but all have moved on without us. As the gamble didn’t pay off we were not even at square one but in a worse position recruitment wise. We had to replace both them and the squad players they replaced in the close season.

Luckily we have a good academy to fill the blanks.

 

[chiefdave]

Absolutely spot on, would the PL sanction it though?

Of course not, thats the problem. The PL clubs have all the power and would have to vote to approve it. The FL clubs aren't in a positon to change anything. Just look at when they changed the terms for signing up young players, the PL threatened to take away revenue sharing payments if the FL clubs didn't agree to their demands. FIFA / UEFA / FA are all too incompetent, or don't care enough, to do anything about it.

 

[ajsccfc]

Yep they got promoted. It’s a gamble. Our three best players were the loanees last year but all have moved on without us. As the gamble didn’t pay off we were not even at square one but in a worse position recruitment wise. We had to replace both them and the squad players they replaced in the close season.

Willis, Burge and Bayliss were among them in the most featured players, we have to surely accept we're in a position where we won't keep our first team intact from season to season and this will happen regularly

 

[mark82]

I don't mind a couple of loan players to supplement what we have. It was a problem in the Mowbray days, not so much now.

Who is to say the 3 loan signings last year didn't make that big of a difference? Would you rather have had Sterling, Thomas & Bright or Grimmer, Dexter Walters/Reise Allassani/Charlie Wakefield and Tony Andreu. For me those 3 gave us a significant points boost. We finished 15 points above relegation, and whilst it may not have been enough of a difference to be relegated it may have got uncomfortable. Let's not forget the turnaround in form after Bright arrived, we were in free-fall, and he was a big part of the recovery (Robins may not be here now without it). None of the 3 we signed were in the team on anything other than merit.

 

[Robccfc87]

Of course not, thats the problem. The PL clubs have all the power and would have to vote to approve it. The FL clubs aren't in a positon to change anything. Just look at when they changed the terms for signing up young players, the PL threatened to take away revenue sharing payments if the FL clubs didn't agree to their demands. FIFA / UEFA / FA are all too incompetent, or don't care enough, to do anything about it.

Monopoly completed!!

 

[JimmyHillsbeard]

I don't mind a couple of loan players to supplement what we have. It was a problem in the Mowbray days, not so much now.

Who is to say the 3 loan signings last year didn't make that big of a difference? Would you rather have had Sterling, Thomas & Bright or Grimmer, Dexter Walters/Reise Allassani/Charlie Wakefield and Tony Andreu. For me those 3 gave us a significant points boost. We finished 15 points above relegation, and whilst it may not have been enough of a difference to be relegated it may have got uncomfortable. Let's not forget the turnaround in form after Bright arrived, we were in free-fall, and he was a big part of the recovery (Robins may not be here now without it). None of the 3 we signed were in the team on anything other than merit.

I do see this and agree about the merit of all three but IMO there’s no way that Sterling would have survived that traumatic start to the season without an understanding that he was a guaranteed starter despite his early form.

 

[Deity]

I couldn’t disagree more.

Bright, Thomas and Sterling were a key reason why we got close to the play offs.

The loan system is no different to permanent transfers.... it comes down to the quality of your scouting and a little bit of luck as to how they settle.

Get it right and loan players can give you that touch of class that helps separate you from the crowd, get it wrong and you stop your own talent coming through.

I’d take 3 more quality loans tomorrow if it improved our chances of promotion and made us more enjoyable to watch.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Yep they got promoted. It’s a gamble. Our three best players were the loanees last year but all have moved on without us. As the gamble didn’t pay off we were not even at square one but in a worse position recruitment wise. We had to replace both them and the squad players they replaced in the close season.

tbf to Thomas, I always thought he was cover while Jones got up to speed and, having done so well for us along with Jones having a setback, ended up staying for the season.

Also tbf to Bright we were struggling badly and needed some kind of spark (beyond Thomas!) at that point. Without it we could have dived, gates dipped, and who knows what would have happened.

I'm with you on Sterling, mainly because it seemed he had to play if fit. I think that's the bit I dislike most, the automatic right to a first team place. At least this season if Dabo grows into the role, we'll either be able to sell him, or we'll have our first choice right back for another couple of seasons.

There's also the likes of Meyler, who seemed to be cheap patching that failed dismally and served no point other than to hold back a player we owned.

In short... depends on the circumstance

 

[JimmyHillsbeard]

I couldn’t disagree more

Get it right and loan players can give you that touch of class that helps separate you from the crowd, get it wrong and you stop your own talent coming through.

I’d take 3 more quality loans tomorrow if it improved our chances of promotion and made us more enjoyable to watch.

I think you’re in agreement with me. We had to start all over again because last year’s loan gambles didn’t quite get us near to promotion.
If and only if.... it’s a judgment call, given last year, I’m not bothered about gambling on Kane thingy or Connor Cov or anyone else now.

 

[clint van damme]

Some good points in the OP though I'm still in favour of loans personally.

However, If a guaranteed start is a condition of the loan as perhaps was the case with Sterling then we shouldn't accept it

 

[Deity]

I think you’re in agreement with me. We had to start all over again because last year’s loan gambles didn’t quite get us near to promotion.
If and only if.... it’s a judgment call, given last year, I’m not bothered about gambling on Kane thingy or Connor Cov or anyone else now.

We are a selling club and footballers are transient. Yes the 3 moved on but so did Willis, Burge, Bayliss who all came through the ranks. So did Chaplin and Davies who were signings.

All players move. Teams in our position no longer build squads over several years. It’s a short term hit. In that world you do what you can to hit as hard as you can.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

We are a selling club and footballers are transient. Yes the 3 moved on but so did Willis, Burge, Bayliss who all came through the ranks. So did Chaplin and Davies who were signings.

All players move. Teams in our position no longer build squads over several years. It’s a short term hit. In that world you do what you can to hit as hard as you can.

If we'd have just loaned Chaplin and Bayliss we'd have got no cash for them to fund our squad for this season.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Think MR agrees to hence the early recruitment of players this season

On last years loans

Thomas, Sterling and Enobakhare were all first team players who made a significant difference in the way you’ve explained

Where they weren’t helpful was that they left and needed to be replaced

I think Herbie Kane would be an excellent addition to the first team squad for instance but only on a season long loan

 

[oldskyblue58]

Our depth of squad last year without Bright, Thomas and Sterling (then factor in the long term injuries) would have probably seen us struggling at the wrong end of the table. I can not see many fans would have been happy with that. The U23's U18's etc were not ready to be thrown in to the first team, some still are not. Even worse would have been to throw them in to a struggling first team. The loans played a part in providing impetus in to this season, buying time for our own youngsters to come through and build their value both in terms £'s and performance. Yes it did also improve the value of someone elses player too - but probably not at full cost to CCFC (get a similar player on contract then CCFC pay all the wages)

Sterling, Bright & Thomas were amongst our better players last season. Not sure there were alternatives in that squad that would have been better. Grimmer had looked on the slow side in L2 not sure his inclusion in front of Sterling would have improved the team if anything over the season i reckon quite the opposite. Dont get me wrong i think Grimmer had a tough deal last season and his "loyalty" wasnt repaid i have some sympathy for him. I think the problem is in the number of loan players a club can have, not that they can have them. I would reduce the number of loans in a season to say 3 in total. If a player goes back in the season for whatever reason then thats one loan for the whole season used.

If they scrapped the loan system entirely however then that would stop the big clubs stock piling players to create sales revenue. Not a bad thing. It might force them to concentrate on British players (but thats not certain) The players would have to play for their own club or move on. That might depress some of the silly prices paid for young players who have done very little in reality. That might take some of the heat from the transfer market outside the premier league

But it would also stop our own U23's U18's Academy doing the same kind of loans - which is going to affect our own clubs progression and finances (finances upon which we rely). Yes we have made a couple of good sales of ex academy players but a lot more academy players dont actually make it but gain experience by going on loan and can have value. Even so the academy has to be financed for all not a couple. Stopping our own players getting experience lower down the pyramid would affect our academy and development structure/finances and ultimately the cash available for the first team.

Ideally clubs should "grow" their own stars and team. It is happening more than it used to i think simply because teams lower down the pyramid can not afford the transfer fees but also because those teams need it as a valuable source of revenue. The loan system can actually help develop those players to improve sale value or allow earlier entry in to the first team. Its not all one sided. On balance i would not scrap it

 

[mark82]

tbf to Thomas, I always thought he was cover while Jones got up to speed and, having done so well for us along with Jones having a setback, ended up staying for the season.

Also tbf to Bright we were struggling badly and needed some kind of spark (beyond Thomas!) at that point. Without it we could have dived, gates dipped, and who knows what would have happened.

I'm with you on Sterling, mainly because it seemed he had to play if fit. I think that's the bit I dislike most, the automatic right to a first team place. At least this season if Dabo grows into the role, we'll either be able to sell him, or we'll have our first choice right back for another couple of seasons.

There's also the likes of Meyler, who seemed to be cheap patching that failed dismally and served no point other than to hold back a player we owned.

In short... depends on the circumstance

Not sure Meyler held anyone back on the basis he hardly played.

 

[ccfcway]

Is there a limit to the amount of Loan signings you can make / play ?