Mowen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Alright, I was pretty fecked off (bitter) about Manucho scoring that late winner last night, but it got me thinking - should the loan system be allowed? Is it morally right? Under which circumstances is it and isn't is acceptable? Discuss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Alright, I was pretty fecked off (bitter) about Manucho scoring that late winner last night, but it got me thinking - should the loan system be allowed? Is it morally right? Under which circumstances is it and isn't is acceptable? Discuss. The loan system works well as it does now and have for ages. Nowt wrong with it. End of discussion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The loan system is fantastic. Beneficial for the loaner and the loanee. Also, it usually means regular football for the player which is important. The only thing that is questionable is whether or not it should be allowed between teams in the same division /league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Morally right? A player get to do his work another place for a period. No problems with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Alright, I was pretty fecked off (bitter) about Manucho scoring that late winner last night, but it got me thinking - should the loan system be allowed? Is it morally right? Under which circumstances is it and isn't is acceptable? Discuss. The loan system works well as it does now and have for ages. Nowt wrong with it. End of discussion. You must be a ball to hang out with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The loan system is fantastic. Beneficial for the loaner and the loanee. Also, it usually means regular football for the player which is important. The only thing that is questionable is whether or not it should be allowed between teams in the same division /league. Surely it means it's increasingly hard for smaller clubs to pick up talented young players? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 LuaLua costing us 2 points at Fratton Park Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 It should end ASAP. It is one of the main things that helps big clubs hold onto players the sooner it scrapped the spread of players will improve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 It should end ASAP. It is one of the main things that helps big clubs hold onto players the sooner it scrapped the spread of players will improve. That's more like it.....see my above post. If top clubs know they can loan out anyone they get, meaning they'll be getting first team football even if they're never going to be good enough for the team that own them they might as well just snap anyone and everyone up. Spread the wealth or the rich get richer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 It should end ASAP. It is one of the main things that helps big clubs hold onto players the sooner it scrapped the spread of players will improve. Unless the money is more evenly spread, then there is no real reason for the players to want to go to smaller clubs. There is no problem with the loan system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Don't see the problem with it, wish we would loan players out a little more often. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Alright, I was pretty fecked off (bitter) about Manucho scoring that late winner last night, but it got me thinking - should the loan system be allowed? Is it morally right? Under which circumstances is it and isn't is acceptable? Discuss. The loan system works well as it does now and have for ages. Nowt wrong with it. End of discussion. You must be a ball to hang out with. Aye, my balls are fun to hang out with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 It should end ASAP. It is one of the main things that helps big clubs hold onto players the sooner it scrapped the spread of players will improve. Unless the money is more evenly spread, then there is no real reason for the players to want to go to smaller clubs. There is no problem with the loan system. They'd go there to play regular football and to develop as a player if there was no loan system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Course the loan system works. For all we know Manucho's replacement could have scored. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Course the loan system works. For all we know Manucho's replacement could have scored. Why? What do you think about my points re: it being impossible for smaller clubs to attract promising youngsters? edit: and as for the second part, why do you think they loaned Manucho then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Course the loan system works. For all we know Manucho's replacement could have scored. Why? What do you think about my points re: it being impossible for smaller clubs to attract promising youngsters? edit: and as for the second part, why do you think they signed Manucho then? Man U signed Manucho for the same reason they sigged Dong Fangzhou or whatever the hell his name was. To create a foothold among African supporters and such. The man is nearly 26, he will never develop into a Man U level player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Course the loan system works. For all we know Manucho's replacement could have scored. Why? What do you think about my points re: it being impossible for smaller clubs to attract promising youngsters? edit: and as for the second part, why do you think they signed Manucho then? Man U signed Manucho for the same reason they sigged Dong Fangzhou or whatever the hell his name was. To create a foothold among African supporters and such. The man is nearly 26, he will never develop into a Man U level player. Yeah, I figured, sorry was replying to Nixon asking why Hull signed Manucho if the replacement was as likely to score. I'll edit for clarity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 What happened to Dong Fangzhou? He was shite by all accounts, is he still at Man U? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistle17 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Personally I dont have a problem with it. I think its beneficial for both club and player most of the time and, although we havnt brought in many players on loan in our more recent history, I think its a good way to test the water with a player and let some of the younger players stretch their legs a little. So for me I dont think we should change it, I think the real issues lie within the permanent deals for players... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Personally I dont have a problem with it. I think its beneficial for both club and player most of the time and, although we havnt brought in many players on loan in our more recent history, I think its a good way to test the water with a player and let some of the younger players stretch their legs a little. So for me I dont think we should change it, I think the real issues lie within the permanent deals for players... If I understand you right, that's what I don't like about it. If you sign someone they should be yours. You're preventing any other club from having rights to them / owning them so you should be responsible for them. It encourages the bigger clubs to do what they want and the rich get richer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 One side of the argument is that these lower clubs have no chance to sign these youngsters because they are getting snapped up by the bigger clubs but on the other side some of these smaller clubs get a quality young player for a season or two that they wouldn't really have had a chance of getting at all if it wasn't on loan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Besides Rossi, Gooooch and Nacho. Have we signed anyone else the last couple of years, on loan? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 One side of the argument is that these lower clubs have no chance to sign these youngsters because they are getting snapped up by the bigger clubs but on the other side some of these smaller clubs get a quality young player for a season or two that they wouldn't really have had a chance of getting at all if it wasn't on loan. The really class young players would be in most teams starting 11s by the age of 18. It would encourage more equality imo as the level below that would have to join smaller clubs to get first team football and develop as a player. Just a thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 One side of the argument is that these lower clubs have no chance to sign these youngsters because they are getting snapped up by the bigger clubs but on the other side some of these smaller clubs get a quality young player for a season or two that they wouldn't really have had a chance of getting at all if it wasn't on loan. The really class young players would be in most teams starting 11s by the age of 18. It would encourage more equality imo as the level below that would have to join smaller clubs to get first team football and develop as a player. Just a thought. Depends how far you go, fair enough young players going to lower premiership clubs may have accepted starting at that level permanently but then some of the championship clubs are getting players they would have no chance of attracting on a full time basis as the players would still have better options. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Man Utd have nearly a full team out loan (8) if they were all back at MUFC thes players or others in the Man Utd system would be playing elsewhere. Arsenal have 13 out loan & are still running all there other teams. Liverpool have a whopping 15 out on loan. It is shite, just like the CL money has killed most of the leagues in Europe, like African/South American youngsters being left stranded after failing in trials with clubs in Europe, Brazil top clubs having to borrow the best youngsters in Brazil from lower league or amateur clubs these players will never play for. The whole lot needs fucking cleaned up & the only hope is Blatter & a Frenchman FFS!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now