What's Wrong With Loan Players?

[Hornblower]

I can see what's right with them:

• Keeps The Wage Bill Down
• Strengthens The Side With Players That We Otherwise Probably Couldn't Afford
• Avoids The Demoralising Situation Where We Sign A Player From Overseas For 2 Million And Then We Have To Sell Him
  • Wins Games
  
  #just saying

 

[Rogero]

Plus if they are injured they go back to their own club.
A downside could be if the parent club want you them to play in every game.Can they expect that.?

 

[beorhthelm]

who's saying there is anything wrong?

 

[sparkie]

Season loans are just like 1 year contracts.

Impossible to recall them except in the January window.

I'm all for them.

 

[Rich Suvner]

If they play well, your chances of signing the player permanently decreases as their value will increase. Therefore if you've built something successful you immediately increase the chances you'll need to rebuild an element of your team.

 

[Hornblower]

If they play well, your chances of signing the player permanently decreases as their value will increase. Therefore if you've built something successful you immediately increase the chances you'll need to rebuild an element of your team.

I get that but I'm coming round to the reality that our club does not have limitless funds and/or the devious means/ brass neck to defy FFP. So, seeing as the most important thing is to stay in the Championship I'm ready to accept this as 'our' way.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

who's saying there is anything wrong?

A fair few. The industry has changed. People need to get to grips with that.

 

[Rugrat]

Nothing wrong at all. It's the way football outside the Prem will go except those with some parachute money to spare or those with sugar daddies prepared to circumvent FFP.

Next stop feeder clubs and then B teams

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Billy Barn door

 

[Billy the Fish]

Depends why and how you're doing it. Too many short term loans can kill a side, but this usually only happens if you're totally skint. I'm sure Micky Adams mk2 had loads of loans and they were crap and didn't care.

A couple of season long loans for promising youngsters is another story.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Depends why and how you're doing it. Too many short term loans can kill a side, but this usually only happens if you're totally skint. I'm sure Micky Adams mk2 had loads of loans and they were crap and didn't care.

A couple of season long loans for promising youngsters is another story.

Season longs or for injury or maybe for a scenario at the end of the season,just a case of balance really..

 

[BensGrandad]

I have always believed that you should only be permitted to loan players with a view to purchase. The transfer fee should be agreed and set prior to the loan and at the end of it the borrowing club either buy the player at the pre agreed fee or pay 1/3rd of his sale value as a loaning fee.

 

[Rich Suvner]

I get that but I'm coming round to the reality that our club does not have limitless funds and/or the devious means/ brass neck to defy FFP. So, seeing as the most important thing is to stay in the Championship I'm ready to accept this as 'our' way.

I agree. But it does mean if we just miss out, the rebuilding for the following season will be greater, as certain key members of the squad (I'm already assuming Bennett and Teixeria will prove key players) will most likely need to be replaced. Similar to us needing to replace Upson and Ward this year. But yes it also has the advantages of keeping us financially trim and nimble.

 

[Rich Suvner]

I have always believed that you should only be permitted to loan players with a view to purchase. The transfer fee should be agreed and set prior to the loan and at the end of it the borrowing club either buy the player at the pre agreed fee or pay 1/3rd of his sale value as a loaning fee.

don't agree. top clubs will always have some prospects they need to benefit from game time. lower league clubs will always want to inject talent into their squad at minimal expense and risk. it's win-win.

however, there needs to be limits (ala Watford) and frankly I think short term loans should be exceptions, with season long loans the standard, enabling lower league clubs some semblance of stability.

 

[Notters]

Micky Adams Mark II is what's wrong, but that's only if you have 24 short term loanees in a season.

 

[pottert]

I don't have a problem with loan players if they are there to supplement your squad rather than be your squad.

We have sold £15m worth of players this year & have spent about 10% of that replacing them.
For a club that is losing 8m a year that could be seen as good business but what happens the following season when we have no players to sell because we did not replace the players we sold with resellable players.We relied on loan players & seasoned players on short term contracts with no resellable value.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

I have always believed that you should only be permitted to loan players with a view to purchase. The transfer fee should be agreed and set prior to the loan and at the end of it the borrowing club either buy the player at the pre agreed fee or pay 1/3rd of his sale value as a loaning fee.

So you shouldn't be allowed to loan out young players to get experience or players who've just come back from injury to get match fitness unless there's a transfer fee agreed? Lower league clubs would struggle massively without loan deals being allowed.

As for the original question, too many short team loans are an issue but I think two or three season long loans are fine and short term ones to cover injured players are necessary at times.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

It's good, you can get some great players on loan, but the downside is,
say you get promoted to the Premier League with 4/5 exceptionally good loan players in your side.
What happens then ?
They go back to their parent clubs and your stuck with having to replace them with 4/5 very good players your almost certainly going to have to spend millions on.
I know there is a limit to how many etc you can have ,use but
like I said great to be able to have then but you shouldn't rely on too many.
Great for younger players in the fringe of first teams to get experience at lower level first team football.

 

[Acker79]

-Might show lsack of commitment to the course since you're no 'their team'
-Might upset the apple cart, so to speak, coming in on massively higher wages, superstar attitude because they're a big club player slumming it
-Might create a feeling of lack of opportunities, leading to us losing a player who we perhaps were hoping to step up in the future, or setting back his development (there were reports of Walton perhaps moving on in the summer if he felt he wouldn't have an opportunity to progress here, might chicksen be starting to question what sort of future he has with us?)
-Just delays the need to fill the spot with a permanent player, doesn't solve the problem

Loan signings are like any signing, it depends on the player and their attitude and how well they fit with the club. They can go wrong (Obika, Paynter, Razak) or they can be great (Bridge, Ward, LuaLua).

 

[bn1&bn3 Albion]

Short term loan deals that end before the season does I'm not a fan of. Long term or at least until the end of the season loans I don't see a problem with.