D
Swindon are a cautionary tale about relying too much on loanees.
Last season they did, and hey did well. Problem as ever is when they go back to their parent clubs, there are big holes to fill. At least when the likes of Wilson and Clarke moved on, there was a financial compensation.
For us, this is the concern. I see a call for Lameiras to start ahead of Kent and, as the former will be here next season, to me it's a no-brainer that the player owned by the club should be given the chance to progress, if there's no big difference between the two.
Next season, or even after Christmas, we're at risk of having to come up with the blank sheet of paper again.
Swindon are a cautionary tale about relying too much on loanees.
Last season they did, and hey did well. Problem as ever is when they go back to their parent clubs, there are big holes to fill. At least when the likes of Wilson and Clarke moved on, there was a financial compensation.
For us, this is the concern. I see a call for Lameiras to start ahead of Kent and, as the former will be here next season, to me it's a no-brainer that the player owned by the club should be given the chance to progress, if there's no big difference between the two.
Next season, or even after Christmas, we're at risk of having to come up with the blank sheet of paper again.
although I agree in part many of our of full time players are on contracts that end about the same time as the loans or they could even sign pre contract deals elsewhere at Xmas.
Loans are fine as long as they are researched thoroughly. It's pretty clear Murphy, Kent and Armstrong have been scouted, and I would suggest it's down to more than just luck.
Swindon are a cautionary tale about relying too much on loanees.
Last season they did, and hey did well. Problem as ever is when they go back to their parent clubs, there are big holes to fill. At least when the likes of Wilson and Clarke moved on, there was a financial compensation.
For us, this is the concern. I see a call for Lameiras to start ahead of Kent and, as the former will be here next season, to me it's a no-brainer that the player owned by the club should be given the chance to progress, if there's no big difference between the two.
Next season, or even after Christmas, we're at risk of having to come up with the blank sheet of paper again.
So I suppose the answer is... don't do loans at all?
To a degree. Maybe not quite to *that* degree, but to a egree.
There's certainly an argument that find an Armstrong, you have to take him (although a loan until January certainly not ideal. A loan for a whole season maybe so - I guess the logic is that if he *does* go back in January, George Thomas has at least had six months to mature a bit and be ready to take his place), and there's certainly an argument for a Cole, regardless of his performances, that he raises the profile and the mood around the place.
The others? Not so sure. Not sure what improving the likes of Morris does for us, ahead of our own youngsters, even if Morris might be better at this point in time. Ditto Kent. Can't even remember the other Middlesbrough bloke who turned up. Murphy may be worthwhile I suppose as we just don't have a pacy winger.
But... each season there's the chance to point to a team that does well with loans - last season it was Swindon. It's a bit like when Blackpool won promotion to the top flight however - they're the blips that disporve the general, and then everything sinks back to where it was. Sure, lots of clubs at this level have lots of loans, but it's arguable that shows lots of clubs look to the short term, and aren't run for building the club up so it can actually function as a club.
From our own POV, we did better under Pressley when he *didn't* rely on loans. Arguably this season loans disrupt the unity of a squad.
To a degree. Maybe not quite to *that* degree, but to a egree.
There's certainly an argument that find an Armstrong, you have to take him (although a loan until January certainly not ideal. A loan for a whole season maybe so - I guess the logic is that if he *does* go back in January, George Thomas has at least had six months to mature a bit and be ready to take his place), and there's certainly an argument for a Cole, regardless of his performances, that he raises the profile and the mood around the place.
The others? Not so sure. Not sure what improving the likes of Morris does for us, ahead of our own youngsters, even if Morris might be better at this point in time. Ditto Kent. Can't even remember the other Middlesbrough bloke who turned up. Murphy may be worthwhile I suppose as we just don't have a pacy winger.
But... each season there's the chance to point to a team that does well with loans - last season it was Swindon. It's a bit like when Blackpool won promotion to the top flight however - they're the blips that disporve the general, and then everything sinks back to where it was. Sure, lots of clubs at this level have lots of loans, but it's arguable that shows lots of clubs look to the short term, and aren't run for building the club up so it can actually function as a club.
From our own POV, we did better under Pressley when he *didn't* rely on loans. Arguably this season loans disrupt the unity of a squad.
I was hoping Morris would be genuinely pushing Fleck and Vincelot for the first 11 but he just hasn't done it.
To a degree. Maybe not quite to *that* degree, but to a egree.
There's certainly an argument that find an Armstrong, you have to take him (although a loan until January certainly not ideal. A loan for a whole season maybe so - I guess the logic is that if he *does* go back in January, George Thomas has at least had six months to mature a bit and be ready to take his place), and there's certainly an argument for a Cole, regardless of his performances, that he raises the profile and the mood around the place.
The others? Not so sure. Not sure what improving the likes of Morris does for us, ahead of our own youngsters, even if Morris might be better at this point in time. Ditto Kent. Can't even remember the other Middlesbrough bloke who turned up. Murphy may be worthwhile I suppose as we just don't have a pacy winger.
But... each season there's the chance to point to a team that does well with loans - last season it was Swindon. It's a bit like when Blackpool won promotion to the top flight however - they're the blips that disporve the general, and then everything sinks back to where it was. Sure, lots of clubs at this level have lots of loans, but it's arguable that shows lots of clubs look to the short term, and aren't run for building the club up so it can actually function as a club.
From our own POV, we did better under Pressley when he *didn't* rely on loans. Arguably this season loans disrupt the unity of a squad.
I do think though that if you are going to move away from loans you need to free up a bit of cash for fees to give you an edge over other L1 clubs.
Yup, although that risks the interminable SISU debatesthe Charlton under Curbishley model's about the 'ideal' for me. You grow players, sell them, use say two thirds to run the club, and a third of the cash goes into buying 2-3 players to improve the squad.
That way, you end up building a core that improves each season, even if you do lose the stars. I know it's easier said than done, mind you, to guarantee you get the right players and don't just spunk the money away...
You mean like Ranson suggested?
But its not quite working... something or someone is just missing to turn us from a good team to a great team.. we need goals throughout the team and not rely on youngsters
Stop ruining all the moaningIt's working well enough for us to be 4th with a game in hand.
something or someone is just missing to turn us from a good team to a great team..
A great team is made up of great players and we don't have any. We are in the third division. We have a few good players but they don't all play well every game. When more of them play well than not, we sometimes get a good result. That is reality.
If Murphy kent or Armstrong werd on loan at sheff utd we'd all be syaing how great they are and how we need to work loan system like that
...which is exactly the point of this thread.
People said that about Swindon last season and, sure, they did well.
But it was all a bit shit or bust, because come the new season (this one) they've had to build a side from scratch. It ain't going so well.
Personally I'd rather aim for consistency rather than roll the dice on a game of roulette.
The only loan we're really relying on though is Armstrong, any of the others you could take out and we wouldn't be significantly worse team for it.
roll the dice on a game of roulette.
Which begs the question, why bring them in?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Which begs the question, why bring them in?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Squad depth, rotation, covering injuries etc.
Depth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?