Loans - let’s not bother (1 Viewer)

Sky Blue Harry H · Aug 13, 2019

Haven't read all the thread, but if loans weren't allowed (as at present), one benefit for lower league teams is that some players (e.g. Herbie Kane, Dujon Sterling may be more reluctant to sign for,, or resign contracts for PL clubs, as they are never going to kick a ball in a proper game. Their path to the top will be to drop down a division or two, perform really well, and then get snapped up. Lower league teams benefit from getting the players and through selling them upwards if they are good enough.

Robccfc87 · Aug 13, 2019

chiefdave said:
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.

Do you know if the new FIFA ruling for loan players takes effect next year still? I read about certain restrictions they planned to introduce by 2020 but I don't know the actual details without researching them.

Robccfc87 · Aug 13, 2019

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

Yes, can't remember exactly but sure you can have 8 but only play 5.

Nick · Aug 13, 2019

Sky Blue Harry H said:
Haven't read all the thread, but if loans weren't allowed (as at present), one benefit for lower league teams is that some players (e.g. Herbie Kane, Dujon Sterling may be more reluctant to sign for,, or resign contracts for PL clubs, as they are never going to kick a ball in a proper game. Their path to the top will be to drop down a division or two, perform really well, and then get snapped up. Lower league teams benefit from getting the players and through selling them upwards if they are good enough.

They would still sign for them and just take the big money then when they are released (not through their choice) they drop down.

oldskyblue58 · Aug 13, 2019

The policy is coming in but they havent set the limit on the number of loans that a club can allow to go out i dont think

How Fifa's clampdown on loan deals may affect Premier League clubs

covcity4life · Aug 13, 2019

JimmyHillsbeard said:
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.

Replacing 3 players not end of world and looks like we have conpetitve squad again

We could be in championship right now. Worth the risk

fernandopartridge · Aug 13, 2019

oldskyblue58 said:
The policy is coming in but they havent set the limit on the number of loans that a club can allow to go out i dont think

How Fifa's clampdown on loan deals may affect Premier League clubs

Yet another example of the football governing bodies dealing with symptoms of a bigger problem rather than the problem itself.

Robccfc87 · Aug 13, 2019

oldskyblue58 said:
The policy is coming in but they havent set the limit on the number of loans that a club can allow to go out i dont think

How Fifa's clampdown on loan deals may affect Premier League clubs

That's the one, I read back in December that they are aiming for 8 maximum, sure that was guesswork at the time though.

Gibbo · Aug 13, 2019

JimmyHillsbeard said:
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.

Utter bollox
Thomas Stirling Bright Armstrong Murphy........I'd even forgive Maguire-Drew because he was the one who, in his first game, got a corner onto Davies's head to set up Willis against Stoke. Worth the loan just for that
Two or three good loans are compulsory for a promotion push. You can be sure our rivals will have them. They are just part of the mix - some old pro's, some seasoned professionals, some home grown youth and some loans. You need the mix. It is as near as a no brainer as I can think of. As we currently have only one player in the first team who played on the first day 2017 (Kelly), it means the team has been completely turned over in 24 months. In which case a 12 month loan is just the same as the average for a player's time in a club, so positively medium term. The manager is always working with a high % of new players, rarely a settled team. The "settled team" is largely a myth, and anyway we as fans would hate it - we want people in and out.

oldskyblue58 · Aug 13, 2019

the only other thing more current i could find that just dealt with new FIFA rules was this

FIFA Transfer Reforms | Brabners LLP

better days · Aug 13, 2019

mark82 said:
Not sure Meyler held anyone back on the basis he hardly played.

He broke his arm shortly after he signed for us
Apparently he was a positive influence in the dressing room and I think if he'd not been injured he'd have been an asset in seeing out games

clint van damme · Aug 13, 2019

better days said:
He broke his arm shortly after he signed for us
Apparently he was a positive influence in the dressing room and I think if he'd not been injured he'd have been an asset in seeing out games

Positive influence for Sunderland in our dressing room by the sound of it!

Esoterica · Aug 13, 2019

Gibbo said:
Utter bollox
Thomas Stirling Bright Armstrong Murphy........I'd even forgive Maguire-Drew because he was the one who, in his first game, got a corner onto Davies's head to set up Willis against Stoke. Worth the loan just for that
Two or three good loans are compulsory for a promotion push. You can be sure our rivals will have them. They are just part of the mix - some old pro's, some seasoned professionals, some home grown youth and some loans. You need the mix. It is as near as a no brainer as I can think of. As we currently have only one player in the first team who played on the first day 2017 (Kelly), it means the team has been completely turned over in 24 months. In which case a 12 month loan is just the same as the average for a player's time in a club, so positively medium term. The manager is always working with a high % of new players, rarely a settled team. The "settled team" is largely a myth, and anyway we as fans would hate it - we want people in and out.

It's a little bit self-perpetuating though isn't it? Two or 3 good loans are compulsory for a promotion push because of the hoovering up of talent by the bigger clubs in the first place. The good players get snapped up, mostly to develop in U23 teams, we in turn are forced to cast our net wider for potential - a gamble on the likes of Westbrooke, Mason etc who have barely played a professional game by 22 or an Allassani, Jones who have shown good potential in non league, or bring through our own youth. Restricting loans is just a sticking plaster - the underlying cause to all of that is the money at the top of the game and the unrestricted youth squad sizes that teams are allowed to keep. That won't stop until the wealth in the game is either removed or more evenly distributed. Settled teams were not such a myth before the premier league started but I don't remember loans being so prevalent.

mark82 · Aug 13, 2019

clint van damme said:
Positive influence for Sunderland in our dressing room by the sound of it!

I love this little conspiracy.

SkyBlueDom26 · Aug 13, 2019

Lets bother and lets get at least 2 in, they will give us another option if needed

clint van damme · Aug 13, 2019

mark82 said:
I love this little conspiracy.

To be fair, I can believe Meyler was a good influence in our dressing room.

Think it was Rochdale away where he hadn't played but went to the game and sat on the bench and was on the pitch at the end going around congratulating all the players. Thought that showed good team spirit on his behalf.

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 13, 2019

I could crack a few jokes, arrange a few nights out, and day trips for team boinding, while being about as much use in central midfield as Meyler.

clint van damme · Aug 13, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
I could crack a few jokes, arrange a few nights out, and day trips for team boinding, while being about as much use in central midfield as Meyler.

Yeah, his on pitch contribution wasn't up to much!

I can't remember who his first appearance at the Ricoh was against but I'm.sure he was limping when he came on!

Gazolba · Aug 13, 2019

You need the best 11 players on the pitch no matter where they come from or under what terms they come.
The players and all the conditions they come with should be evaluated before they are signed, which I am sure the club will be doing anyway.
Loan signings should be looked at carefully, but I don't think they should be ruled out entirely.
Whether you develop a player, sign a player or loan a player, it's a crap shoot as to whether they will turn out to be any good.

Legia Sky Blue · Aug 13, 2019

Ricketts said:
Finally.

Common sense.

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

In an ideal world this would be the case, although I'm not too against the principle of season long loans. However, as things are at the moment we have to be in the market for loan players, so as to not lose a competitive edge on our rivals.

Hobo · Aug 13, 2019

covcity4life said:
Replacing 3 players not end of world and looks like we have conpetitve squad again

We could be in championship right now. Worth the risk

It can be if you lose two of your own top players because 5 is nearly half the first team.

If you got promoted that damage is worse.

pipkin73 · Aug 13, 2019

Hobo said:
It can be if you lose two of your own top players because 5 is nearly half the first team.

If you got promoted that damage is worse.

But at least you will have got promoted and have an increased budget to help replace them. Also by being promoted more chance of getting them again for another season.

CanadianCCFC · Aug 13, 2019

In an ideal world you don’t let the big clubs hoard youth players and loans don’t exist.

In the real world, league 1 clubs like us need loans.

chiefdave · Aug 13, 2019

oldskyblue58 said:
The policy is coming in but they havent set the limit on the number of loans that a club can allow to go out i dont think

How Fifa's clampdown on loan deals may affect Premier League clubs

Something tells me it won't be much of a problem for the PL clubs
Manchester City fined but avoid transfer ban for breaching Fifa rules on under-18 signings

Hobo · Aug 13, 2019

pipkin73 said:
But at least you will have got promoted and have an increased budget to help replace them. Also by being promoted more chance of getting them again for another season.

If you get promoted and when does the increased budget kick in? And you are replacing them on higher wages? The two of our own we lost were on lower wages.

But team building and gelling starts again.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Aug 13, 2019

ajsccfc said:
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.

Difference is we can plan ahead without our own players with the knowledge we'll quite likely have got a fee of some description and possibly future payments to help. With a loan we've got nothing tangible to put towards their replacement.

Bigger clubs can take on youngsters showing promise from the lower leagues for paltry development fees. They can then send them on loan to further develop and increase their value to either bring into their team or sell on. It's far more beneficial to the big clubs than the temporary improvements those lower down get.

pipkin73 · Aug 13, 2019

Hobo said:
If you get promoted and when does the increased budget kick in? And you are replacing them on higher wages? The two of our own we lost were on lower wages.

But team building and gelling starts again.

But at least we would have got promoted and got a higher budget to play with. Even if we come straight back down we SHOULD have a stronger squad.

ccfc1234 · Aug 13, 2019

Some good debate in this thread. To complicate matters. I would also put forward the difference between short and long term loans.
If we can be assured a player will be with us for a season it is something we can plan around. Short term loans where they parent club can call their asset back at shirt notice is much more disruptive.

ajsccfc · Aug 13, 2019

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Difference is we can plan ahead without our own players with the knowledge we'll quite likely have got a fee of some description and possibly future payments to help. With a loan we've got nothing tangible to put towards their replacement.

Bigger clubs can take on youngsters showing promise from the lower leagues for paltry development fees. They can then send them on loan to further develop and increase their value to either bring into their team or sell on. It's far more beneficial to the big clubs than the temporary improvements those lower down get.

I think that's the sacrifice you make as part of the gamble. Say the season we had Jacob Murphy and Adam Armstrong, I really think we should have gone up which would have left us in a better position thanks to players we'd otherwise have no access to. Even though it didn't quite work out I see both as being good moves, same with Sterling last year. The rapid fire short term loans that go absolutely nowhere throw my case under the bus a little, but the way we seem to have moved away from that recently towards a handful of player complementing the team is why I'm more in favour.

shmmeee · Aug 13, 2019

One thing not mentioned here is that we make use of loaning our young players as well. A stint in men’s football a few levels down the pyramid is part of development for a young player.

There’s definitely too many young players concentrated at the top, but that’s solved by restricting squad sizes, not limiting their playing opportunities even further.

I’d reduce the amount of loans allowed, tighten up poaching rules, and limit youth squad sizes before I outright banned loans.

capel & collindridge · Aug 14, 2019

Barnsley got promoted without any loan players. They have none now. Their policy has been to produce their own youth talent. And, as we have seen, once they have got promotion, they have bought successful young players (like Thomas) or promising young players from L1 teams who didn't quite make the play-offs (like Chaplin). The difference is not that they are better than us in producing youth talent; they are not.

But they are a club that retains their own match-day revenue streams and a local council that values them and sees that having a successful football club benefits everyone in the Barnsley area. And without those two requirements, we are where we are.

Homeless and in hock to an alien rugby club, that, without the support of CCC, would probably already have gone bust or, at least, left the Coventry area for good.

Certainly for our good.

Sky Blue Pete · Aug 14, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
I could crack a few jokes, arrange a few nights out, and day trips for team boinding, while being about as much use in central midfield as Meyler.

Really?? Lol

Loans - let’s not bother (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CCFC Finance Director

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency