Money talks , it can sing and it can walk
Harries played in friendly as a trialist, there is no issue with that. Clubs have players train with them from lower teams quite often and we've done it ourselves.
If you can loan a player who is under contract why can't you have them on trial. I think the only restriction would be you can't use them in the first team.
The Football League would support this for the simple reason they have a duty of care for the players. Trials help players potentially develop their careers or prolong their careers.
The Football League would support this for the simple reason they have a duty of care for the players. Trials help players potentially develop their careers or prolong their careers.
How do they help develop or prolong careers? If they want to see Harries play come and watch him play for us. If they want him to play for them put a bid in.
Where do you draw the line. Are you OK with us missing young players from first team games because they've gone to another club for a trial?
New environment, new opportunity, your own coaches, your own set up and tactics, playing with your squad....
Development of staff and personnel isn't your thing is it?
So if you look at our players who have left at a similar stage of their career such as Thomas and Bigi how did their moves improve their careers? The only ones who have succeeded are the ones who stuck around for a while and got some games in before moving. Going to another, bigger, club ready to challenge for a place. Not be one of a hundred U23 players getting farmed out on loan if anyone will have them.
They still have careers so still can develop. The only people who can really say if or how it enhanced their career is the players themselves when they finally retire.
Just because you are offered a trial or even a contract doesn't mean you are good enough. But it is an opportunity to progress. I think it is fans who build up expectation. Connor Thomas was a better player than given credit here.
But Thomas should have moved on elsewhere his career would probably have been more lucrative playing elsewhere with better players... same as Maddison and potentially Stevenson although Maddison not playing with better players atm
We wanted to see what Stokes was like against better than non league players. So we took him on trial. If a club above us wants to look at one of our players against better than Division 3 players they would have to take them on trial. They can also get to know the player and fitness level.
Or how do you get to see a player not presently in the 1st team?
Yes. But all down to interpretation I suppose.
Would you say on loan with a view to making it permanent as on trial? Normally a player on loan comes from the same level or above. But won't disagree if you say loan full stop
Yes. But all down to interpretation I suppose.
Would you say on loan with a view to making it permanent as on trial? Normally a player on loan comes from the same level or above. But won't disagree if you say loan full stop
Can clubs charge for a trial?
When Liverpool wanted to look at Thomas they took him on loan and gave us a million quid for our trouble. What's changed?
I'll wait to see what Nick says we are allowed to call a trial before I answer
A trial is a trial, a loan is a loan.
Trial could be a few training sessions and a reserve game, loan is fully eligible for full games and registered.
