Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Alone on loans 08:33 - May 3 with 1804 viewswkj

I appreciate this might be a far out opinion, thought it is one I think every time I see the loan argument pop up. In modern football as terrible as things have become, it seems that the big clubs like to gobble up as much talent and potential talent as they can leaving a limited selection of players with superstar potential for the rest of the leagues.

My main point here is that given the change in outlay as above, are loans really these throw away 'pointless' signings which guts the continuity of the club, or are they simply just season long transfers - where by the destination of the players is well known in advance.

The Tom Lawrence Player's Player of the Year award certainly suggests the players see the lad as much as a true blue as they would anyone else, so on that note I personally don't see loans as gap fillers under the new loan rules.

That said I think the loan system is massively flawed. I believe there should be a ban on loan fees, as the benefit of the parent club is the development of one of their potential stars via competitive footy- something they can not offer the player themselves. I also think there should be a cap based on a league average which a club is expect to contribute toward the players wages.

Given the need to develop grass roots I have always thought that clubs should compile a short list of players they want getting game time including lowest acceptable competition for the player, and then submit the lists a centralised FA youth panel which then offers the information to the clubs. Once this is done the parent clubs can then see who wants their players and then indicate which destination they prefer for the player.

It may seem a bit extreme, but for all the flaws American sports have, their general excellence of youth development is to be admired, something that the leagues themselves are heavily involved in.

In conclusion I feel loans are not a bad thing at all, but the system needs some big improvements where by the parent clubs should receive no financial profit from any loan dealings.

That is all

Crybaby
Poll: Who do you want to have win the playoffs then?
Blog: The Identity Crisis of Modern Football

2
Jon Stark - football mercenary on 08:46 - May 3 with 1769 viewsHeathlander

This reminded me of a football comic from my youth Scoop. There was a character called Jon Stark. A footballer for hire. He would come in and play a game when needed.

http://www.stuffbypaulbrown.com/jon-stark-footballer-of-the-future/

Maybe that's the way forward.
0
Alone on loans on 08:58 - May 3 with 1722 viewsSteve_M

The short answer is that, with the dominance and wealth of the Premier League clubs, loans are essential for clubs further down the league. It's not possible to secure every player on a multi-year contract without a big financial outlay.

The key as ever is balance, getting some loannees in and then panicking by getting some other loanees in to replace them a la Jewell is likely to be about as successful as it was but two types of loans should work well for us:

1). Young player on full season basis: Colback (first time), Lawrence and Fraser are clear positive examples of this. We've been able to watch all three develop and improve whilst also adding a lot to our team.

2). Short-term squad filler. Players like Chaplow, Varney, Green, Foley etc who come in for a few months to bolster the squad. They aren't exciting signings but add depth when it's needed in the event of injuries.

A lot of the above also goes for players on one year contracts or short-term contracts.

Poll: When are the squad numbers out?
Blog: Cycle of Hurt

0
Alone on loans on 09:40 - May 3 with 1619 viewsbluefunk

Alone on loans on 08:58 - May 3 by Steve_M

The short answer is that, with the dominance and wealth of the Premier League clubs, loans are essential for clubs further down the league. It's not possible to secure every player on a multi-year contract without a big financial outlay.

The key as ever is balance, getting some loannees in and then panicking by getting some other loanees in to replace them a la Jewell is likely to be about as successful as it was but two types of loans should work well for us:

1). Young player on full season basis: Colback (first time), Lawrence and Fraser are clear positive examples of this. We've been able to watch all three develop and improve whilst also adding a lot to our team.

2). Short-term squad filler. Players like Chaplow, Varney, Green, Foley etc who come in for a few months to bolster the squad. They aren't exciting signings but add depth when it's needed in the event of injuries.

A lot of the above also goes for players on one year contracts or short-term contracts.


The change to the loan system this season has had a huge negative effect on ITFC. In seasons past we had used the system as you describe to maintain a small squad, bolstered when injuries became a problem. This season, we were decimated with injuries at some points, with no way to bolster the squad short term
0
Alone on loans on 09:40 - May 3 with 1622 viewsitfcjoe

I personally think there needs to be a limit on squad sizes at all levels, what clubs then do with those players is their business and using the loan system would be just one option.

If clubs were allowed 25 players in professional squad, 18 'young pros' across first team and in U23 squad that would give them 43 full time professionals. There would then be a bigger stake in their development for the clubs, and bigger decisions would have to be made - and the option wouldn't be just farming them out on loan as they'd still count towards main squad numbers.

If Chelsea had to make a decision between given Didier Drogba another year or keeping Romelu Lukaku then it would be tougher than just given Drogba another year and sending out Lukaku for probably £10m to WBA on loan for the year.

This is similar (without the loan system) that happens in the NFL, you have a roster and a practice squad - any team can take players from practice squad to put them on a roster - when you sign players you have to get rid of someone - if you want to develop someone you have to keep them on your roster counting against the maximum to ensure they are kept - it makes a lot of sense to me.

Would focus the mind on development if the competition levels increase and then there would be a proper trickle down of footballers finding their own level and getting more opportunities

Poll: Club vs country? What would you choose
Blog: What is Going on With the Academy at Ipswich Town?

0
Alone on loans on 11:06 - May 3 with 1545 viewsBlueRaider

I think it shows a serious problem, as you alluded to the big clubs are basically hoovering up players and the loaning large numbers of them out.

For instance Chelsea have 38 players out on loan 4 of them to lower half premier league clubs.

For me this can start to call into question the integrity of the competition as these players can play against Chelsea's rivals, but not Chelsea.

Modern football is pretty rubbish in so many ways in my view

Blog: Yellow Cards and Why They Bug Me

0
Alone on loans on 14:15 - May 3 with 1441 viewstcblue

If I may tender my solution to this problem: wind up Chelsea football club. Everyone remotely connected with football wins.

We can then roll out that model to other clubs, such as West Ham and Norwich
1
Alone on loans on 06:39 - May 5 with 1282 viewsWednesdayJon

Alone on loans on 14:15 - May 3 by tcblue

If I may tender my solution to this problem: wind up Chelsea football club. Everyone remotely connected with football wins.

We can then roll out that model to other clubs, such as West Ham and Norwich


And, say, Sheffield United
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024