Thespence Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Realistically we are the worst team in the North east for loaning kids out. Teams like Boro and even Sunderland loan their young lads out to lower league sides. Whihc not only helps the 2 clubs involved but it helps the player even if he doesn't make it at the top, because he comes away with league experience. You can't just loan players though you need to send players to the right club really. Carroll to Preston for example. Richard Money came out not so long & go said you just dont go loaning players out, clubs have to be interested in wanting your players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Have we actually loaned anyone in recent years that has turned out to be alright for us? Helder & Distin probably the only two. Was Cordone on loan or did we actually sign him? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 loans should be for a 4 game maximum.for players under 23 and not to teams in the same division. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 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. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. Pure greed innit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 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. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. I'm sure a few of the 15+ kids currently out on loan would leave if we couldn't loan them out. Hardly a big deal. That's exactly my point. Stop the bigger clubs hoovering up all the talent. If it's no big deal to lose them, don't sign them in the first place. I can't see how the loan system could possibly encourage the development of young players. (that's a generalisation btw, I realise it will help some but I'm looking bigger picture, or at least trying to) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. Pure greed innit. How is it greed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Gooch wasn't dreadful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Realistically we are the worst team in the North east for loaning kids out. Teams like Boro and even Sunderland loan their young lads out to lower league sides. Whihc not only helps the 2 clubs involved but it helps the player even if he doesn't make it at the top, because he comes away with league experience. You can't just loan players though you need to send players to the right club really. Carroll to Preston for example. Richard Money came out not so long & go said you just dont go loaning players out, clubs have to be interested in wanting your players. So is that a case of the talent not being good enough then? Why not look at making feeder club links with sides lower down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thespence Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Realistically we are the worst team in the North east for loaning kids out. Teams like Boro and even Sunderland loan their young lads out to lower league sides. Whihc not only helps the 2 clubs involved but it helps the player even if he doesn't make it at the top, because he comes away with league experience. You can't just loan players though you need to send players to the right club really. Carroll to Preston for example. Richard Money came out not so long & go said you just dont go loaning players out, clubs have to be interested in wanting your players. So is that a case of the talent not being good enough the I think that is what he was meaning. It is shame his Face to Face with John Gibson never did make to the net as it was a really good read. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 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. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. I'm sure a few of the 15+ kids currently out on loan would leave if we couldn't loan them out. Hardly a big deal. That's exactly my point. Stop the bigger clubs hoovering up all the talent. If it's no big deal to lose them, don't sign them in the first place. I can't see how the loan system could possibly encourage the development of young players. (that's a generalisation btw, I realise it will help some but I'm looking bigger picture, or at least trying to) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. Pure greed innit. How is it greed? Are you joking? Loan system means players have nothing to lose by all joining manu...so they can greedily hoard them all. Not too tricky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 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. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. I'm sure a few of the 15+ kids currently out on loan would leave if we couldn't loan them out. Hardly a big deal. That's exactly my point. Stop the bigger clubs hoovering up all the talent. If it's no big deal to lose them, don't sign them in the first place. I can't see how the loan system could possibly encourage the development of young players. (that's a generalisation btw, I realise it will help some but I'm looking bigger picture, or at least trying to) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. Pure greed innit. How is it greed? Are you joking? Loan system means players have nothing to lose by all joining manu...so they can greedily hoard them all. Not too tricky. On the other hand, Fergie wouldn't be doing his job properly if he didn't try to grab as many quality kids as possible, cheaply. He'd be daft not to given the massive premium on English players. Under the current system, the majority just leave later rather than sooner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). Its not reasonable if its used in the way I suggested. In your example, presumably the other relegation-threatened clubs C and D could also have tried to sign the player on loan. The specific team loaning the player isn't the issue though, its the strategic use of the loan system by the team sending the player out that I'm questioning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 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. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. I'm sure a few of the 15+ kids currently out on loan would leave if we couldn't loan them out. Hardly a big deal. That's exactly my point. Stop the bigger clubs hoovering up all the talent. If it's no big deal to lose them, don't sign them in the first place. I can't see how the loan system could possibly encourage the development of young players. (that's a generalisation btw, I realise it will help some but I'm looking bigger picture, or at least trying to) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. Pure greed innit. How is it greed? Are you joking? Loan system means players have nothing to lose by all joining manu...so they can greedily hoard them all. Not too tricky. i think you're talking complete shite like. if there was no loan system in place it would do more harm than good imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 In fairness I'm not absolutely against the idea of the loan system, it just needs to be changed. Certainly plays far too much into the hands of the bigger clubs as it stands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 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. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. I'm sure a few of the 15+ kids currently out on loan would leave if we couldn't loan them out. Hardly a big deal. That's exactly my point. Stop the bigger clubs hoovering up all the talent. If it's no big deal to lose them, don't sign them in the first place. I can't see how the loan system could possibly encourage the development of young players. (that's a generalisation btw, I realise it will help some but I'm looking bigger picture, or at least trying to) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. Pure greed innit. How is it greed? Are you joking? Loan system means players have nothing to lose by all joining manu...so they can greedily hoard them all. Not too tricky. On the other hand, Fergie wouldn't be doing his job properly if he didn't try to grab as many quality kids as possible, cheaply. He'd be daft not to given the massive premium on English players. Under the current system, the majority just leave later rather than sooner. I think you're missing the poing I'm making. Absolutely Fergie wants to sign as many quality kids as possible. I'm saying that the current loaning system makes it far easier for him to do this, as they know they won't even be at the disadvantage of not getting regular first team football as and when they need it. It gives kids little to no reason not to join ManU (or Liverpool, Chelsea etc.), giving them yet another advantage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 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. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. I'm sure a few of the 15+ kids currently out on loan would leave if we couldn't loan them out. Hardly a big deal. That's exactly my point. Stop the bigger clubs hoovering up all the talent. If it's no big deal to lose them, don't sign them in the first place. I can't see how the loan system could possibly encourage the development of young players. (that's a generalisation btw, I realise it will help some but I'm looking bigger picture, or at least trying to) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. Pure greed innit. How is it greed? Are you joking? Loan system means players have nothing to lose by all joining manu...so they can greedily hoard them all. Not too tricky. i think you're talking complete shite like. if there was no loan system in place it would do more harm than good imo. think mowen makes a good point like, was a big thing in italy if i recall - first sign of some kid doing well he gets bought up by one of the big boys and immediately loaned out somewhere else loan system is good but it should be reformed, i.e. if you sign a player and want to loan him within (say) 2 years of that then he can only go back to his original club or something, not saying that's the answer but allowing clubs with the most money to sign the highest rated bairns and loan them off bites imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 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. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. I'm sure a few of the 15+ kids currently out on loan would leave if we couldn't loan them out. Hardly a big deal. That's exactly my point. Stop the bigger clubs hoovering up all the talent. If it's no big deal to lose them, don't sign them in the first place. I can't see how the loan system could possibly encourage the development of young players. (that's a generalisation btw, I realise it will help some but I'm looking bigger picture, or at least trying to) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. Pure greed innit. How is it greed? Are you joking? Loan system means players have nothing to lose by all joining manu...so they can greedily hoard them all. Not too tricky. On the other hand, Fergie wouldn't be doing his job properly if he didn't try to grab as many quality kids as possible, cheaply. He'd be daft not to given the massive premium on English players. Under the current system, the majority just leave later rather than sooner. I think you're missing the poing I'm making. Absolutely Fergie wants to sign as many quality kids as possible. I'm saying that the current loaning system makes it far easier for him to do this, as they know they won't even be at the disadvantage of not getting regular first team football as and when they need it. It gives kids little to no reason not to join ManU (or Liverpool, Chelsea etc.), giving them yet another advantage. I understand your point, but I think there are better ways of making that difference rather than restricting player movement. They could start by spreading the money around a bit more evenly. 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. Ok hypothetical situation. Club A is in a relegation battle and have a good player who's unsettled. They loan him to Club B who are also near the bottom of the league and he improves their team. Club B then has a better chance of beating other teams, including the other teams in that relegation battle. Apart from club A because he can't play against them as part of the loan agreement. Do you see that as fair. I don't see the problem with loan agreements barring the player from playing against his own club. It's a reasonable restriction that might otherwise prevent clubs from loaning out players (or selling in the case of Howard's move to Everton). No shit your club would lose a stack of players if it could not send a team of players & some elsewhere. I'm sure a few of the 15+ kids currently out on loan would leave if we couldn't loan them out. Hardly a big deal. That's exactly my point. Stop the bigger clubs hoovering up all the talent. If it's no big deal to lose them, don't sign them in the first place. I can't see how the loan system could possibly encourage the development of young players. (that's a generalisation btw, I realise it will help some but I'm looking bigger picture, or at least trying to) It encourages their development because they're playing competitive football, not in the reserves or youth sides. I understand the sentiment about big clubs hoarding all the talent. It will only get worse now with the 6+5 rule. Pure greed innit. How is it greed? Are you joking? Loan system means players have nothing to lose by all joining manu...so they can greedily hoard them all. Not too tricky. i think you're talking complete shite like. if there was no loan system in place it would do more harm than good imo. think mowen makes a good point like, was a big thing in italy if i recall - first sign of some kid doing well he gets bought up by one of the big boys and immediately loaned out somewhere else loan system is good but it should be reformed, i.e. if you sign a player and want to loan him within (say) 2 years of that then he can only go back to his original club or something, not saying that's the answer but allowing clubs with the most money to sign the highest rated bairns and loan them off bites imo Selling clubs can have that written in the contract of sale if they want. Why the need to require it? I think most players have a better chance of joining a club with regular CL football by NOT moving to a big club as a youngster. Not many regulars in the Chelsea, Liverpool or Man Utd sides who were snaffled up and loaned out as kids. Arsenal probably has a couple. It might even be more useful as a source of income. Buy a 17-year-old for a few hundred thousand. Polish him up a bit, give him a couple of games in Europe, and if he's not good enough, sell him for up to 5 or 6 million. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 The system is flawed when a team in say League 2 gets promoted with a load of youngsters from the Premiership, then once promoted they don't stay permanently and the club is left with a team in a higher division full of sub-standard players. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 The system is flawed when a team in say League 2 gets promoted with a load of youngsters from the Premiership, then once promoted they don't stay permanently and the club is left with a team in a higher division full of sub-standard players. What's the solution, then? Restrict loan deals to maximum two players from one club to another? Or just one? Setting aside the iffy aspects of the deal, Tevez's contribution alone saved West Ham from the drop, so even a single player can make that difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The system is flawed when a team in say League 2 gets promoted with a load of youngsters from the Premiership, then once promoted they don't stay permanently and the club is left with a team in a higher division full of sub-standard players. What's the solution, then? Restrict loan deals to maximum two players from one club to another? Or just one? Setting aside the iffy aspects of the deal, Tevez's contribution alone saved West Ham from the drop, so even a single player can make that difference. maximum 4 game loan period,only for under 23's and not to clubs in the same division. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The system is flawed when a team in say League 2 gets promoted with a load of youngsters from the Premiership, then once promoted they don't stay permanently and the club is left with a team in a higher division full of sub-standard players. What's the solution, then? Restrict loan deals to maximum two players from one club to another? Or just one? Setting aside the iffy aspects of the deal, Tevez's contribution alone saved West Ham from the drop, so even a single player can make that difference. maximum 4 game loan period,only for under 23's and not to clubs in the same division. Each player only to go out once a season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The system is flawed when a team in say League 2 gets promoted with a load of youngsters from the Premiership, then once promoted they don't stay permanently and the club is left with a team in a higher division full of sub-standard players. What's the solution, then? Restrict loan deals to maximum two players from one club to another? Or just one? Setting aside the iffy aspects of the deal, Tevez's contribution alone saved West Ham from the drop, so even a single player can make that difference. maximum 4 game loan period,only for under 23's and not to clubs in the same division. Each player only to go out once a season. Hmmmm... don't know about that if the club taking him is actually looking for a purchase it seems only fair they should get a look at him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The system is flawed when a team in say League 2 gets promoted with a load of youngsters from the Premiership, then once promoted they don't stay permanently and the club is left with a team in a higher division full of sub-standard players. What's the solution, then? Restrict loan deals to maximum two players from one club to another? Or just one? Setting aside the iffy aspects of the deal, Tevez's contribution alone saved West Ham from the drop, so even a single player can make that difference. maximum 4 game loan period,only for under 23's and not to clubs in the same division. Each player only to go out once a season. Hmmmm... don't know about that if the club taking him is actually looking for a purchase it seems only fair they should get a look at him. Maybe, but surely if you didn't include that factor there would be a shambolic situation whereby youngsters in need of first team football were constantly moving from team to team? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The system is flawed when a team in say League 2 gets promoted with a load of youngsters from the Premiership, then once promoted they don't stay permanently and the club is left with a team in a higher division full of sub-standard players. What's the solution, then? Restrict loan deals to maximum two players from one club to another? Or just one? Setting aside the iffy aspects of the deal, Tevez's contribution alone saved West Ham from the drop, so even a single player can make that difference. maximum 4 game loan period,only for under 23's and not to clubs in the same division. Each player only to go out once a season. Hmmmm... don't know about that if the club taking him is actually looking for a purchase it seems only fair they should get a look at him. Maybe, but surely if you didn't include that factor there would be a shambolic situation whereby youngsters in need of first team football were constantly moving from team to team? not if teams were limited to how many loaness they could have (currently 5 a season i think). if the maximum was a 4 game spell (or 30 days) then they may be more selective on who they take on loan. oh and 1 loanee per match day squad except for excepional injury times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wacko Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 With a four-game limit, what's the benefit of a loan for either the player or the borrowing club? The player will have barely started getting used to his teammates before the loan is over. Might as well scrap the system altogether. If selling clubs didn't demand such ridiculous fees for English players, there probably wouldn't be this situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 With a four-game limit, what's the benefit of a loan for either the player or the borrowing club? The player will have barely started getting used to his teammates before the loan is over. Might as well scrap the system altogether. If selling clubs didn't demand such ridiculous fees for English players, there probably wouldn't be this situation. You're starting to catch on... 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