Loanees (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 25, 2015

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.

Terry Gibson's perm · Oct 25, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
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.

Sky Blue Harry H · Oct 25, 2015

Also - Swindon have a load out crocked - so bound to have an adverse effect

Otis · Oct 25, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
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.

Exactly my stance too, NW. This is why I have always questioned the 2 year plan. It's not a total blank piece of paper next season, but you are to a degree starting from scratch for many positions.

Just cause we have got lucky with Armstrong this season, doesn't mean we will be so lucky next.

Much prefer our own players. When the best players in your team are someone elses, it can cause a problem going forwards.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 25, 2015

Terry Gibson's perm said:
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.

...which is also a problem.

Although giving David Bell of all people a massive long term contract was a little...:facepalm: the general principle of plan ahead, get your assests tied down so a club can build long-term is sound.

SkyBlueScottie · Oct 25, 2015

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.

Otis · Oct 25, 2015

SkyBlueScottie said:
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.

Agree, could just have easily not come off for Armstrong though. Doesn't mean he'd not be up to it, but it's a lot to expect from a young kid and it might have taken him a lot longer to get up to speed and to the rigours of League One football.

Samo · Oct 25, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
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.

While I agree in theory, I think it would be very hard for a manager to stand there in a post-drubbing interview and tell the media and the fans that he picked player A over player B even though he knows player B is the better player.

So I suppose the answer is... don't do loans at all?

Sky Blue Pete · Oct 25, 2015

Yep loans are fine if they are part of the club. It's absolutely the only way we can compete at the top by short contracts and loans

wingy · Oct 25, 2015

TM. did convey In his Interview yesterday that Lameiras has been a little unlucky not to have started lately

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 25, 2015

Samo said:
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.

wingy · Oct 25, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
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.

Your last sentence brings out the point I was going to make and thee has been a huge shift from that I guess that's why Mowbrays talks lasted so long.
To persuade.the owners from the longterm model of generating our own so much and selling a few.
For me we're better this way In terms of results, product and potential for bums on seats.
Don't get me wrong I'd love It to work the other way but our academy needs to attract produce better or let the kids develop further, possibly In someone else's team as the ct's Finch's and Haynes's drag us down as they learn,bit like we're doing with others kids, which Is what you're not advocating. ;-)

stupot07 · Oct 25, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
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 don't have a problem with loans if they are better than you've got, are long term and are going to make an impact. Obviously there are times you might need a short term to cover an injury. I think Murphy being a season long loan and having attributes not previously in the squad was a good move, Armstrong instant impact was great but even he has tailed off somewhat. I also don't have an issue with Kent being here, but he shouldn't be playing (as he's not producing) ahead of our own young talent week in week out. (e.g Lamieres). The Morris deal is the one that really irks me, with Vincelot and fleck always going to be first choice, he was only ever going to come in and play the odd 10-15 mins here and there and start 5-6 league games to cover suspensions - we already have Thomas (not everyone's cup of tea), Lawton (no one could have foresaw his injury) and Finch (again not everyone's cup of tea).

On the flip side, Mowbray had talked about Venus setting up a scouting system and database so we won't have to rely on loans going forward in the next year and beyond.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Oct 25, 2015

I was hoping Morris would be genuinely pushing Fleck and Vincelot for the first 11 but he just hasn't done it.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 25, 2015

CCFC said:
I was hoping Morris would be genuinely pushing Fleck and Vincelot for the first 11 but he just hasn't done it.

tbf any signing is a risk, and it's only this season Fleck is starting to pay off.

At least the advantage of when they're yours, is (like Fleck) if they're going to come good, they will do.

Jack Cork's the best example of a player who's bee fine everywhere apart from us, where he was just a bit meh and then bogged off so someone else could get his form upturn.

Samo · Oct 25, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
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.

Agreed, ideally, loans only when there is no other option or if they are too good to turn down. (Cole)
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.

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 25, 2015

Samo said:
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 debates the 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...

Samo · Oct 25, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
Yup, although that risks the interminable SISU debates the 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?

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 25, 2015

Samo said:
You mean like Ranson suggested?

Not *everything* Ranson did was moronic.

covcity4life · Oct 25, 2015

It's a risk but getting out of league one is priority. Right now it's working so I'm.happy to continue like this

stevefloyd · Oct 25, 2015

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

Samo · Oct 25, 2015

stevefloyd said:
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

It's working well enough for us to be 4th with a game in hand.

Huckerby · Oct 25, 2015

Samo said:
It's working well enough for us to be 4th with a game in hand.

Stop ruining all the moaning

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Gazolba · Oct 25, 2015

stevefloyd said:
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.

Samo · Oct 25, 2015

Gazolba said:
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.

Ah dammit! I see where we've gone wrong now... we should have signed great players like other L1 teams have.

covcity4life · Oct 25, 2015

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

Deleted member 5849 · Oct 25, 2015

covcity4life said:
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.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Oct 25, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
...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.

stupot07 · Oct 25, 2015

CCFC said:
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.

Which begs the question, why bring them in?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

shmmeee · Oct 25, 2015

Deleted member 5849 said:
roll the dice on a game of roulette.

I hope you stay away from the casino on match day.

shmmeee · Oct 25, 2015

stupot07 said:
Which begs the question, why bring them in?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Depth.

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Oct 25, 2015

stupot07 said:
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.

covcity4life · Oct 25, 2015

Just a different way to go about success. If we get out of this shit league it will have been a master stroke. Nothing is guaranteed in football so u gotta take risks

stupot07 · Oct 25, 2015

CCFC said:
Squad depth, rotation, covering injuries etc.

shmmeee said:
Depth.

I kind of get that, but then you're back to the argument that we're developing other teams youngsters ahead of our own, if all they are doing is adding a bit of depth. Murphy and Armstrong I have no issue with, they are different and better than we have.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

SkyBlue_Bear83 · Oct 25, 2015

If we don't go up we're hardly starting from scratch again as well.

You could make a decent argument that in our strongest 11 with everyone fit, 10 of them would be contracted players.

Swindon's problem wasn't just that they lost there loan players but also lost Foderingham, Byrne, Gladwin, Luongo and Williams who were all sold or expired contracts in the summer.

Loanees (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

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

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Huckerby

Guest

Well-Known Member

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency