The "loan" system.

[madras]

I don't like it and think it has been abused and needs changing.

 

isn't it farcical that a club can buy a player,loan him out straight away for a full season(i'm sure the system was brought in so clubs could have a good look at a player,shouldn't take a season),then again so the player plays more games for others than he does for the club that owns him.if they don't want him sell him.

 

I understand that it is good for youngsters to get experience therefore i would keep the loan system for under 21's if they are loaned  "down" the leagues.

 

 

thoughts ?

[Gallowgate Toon]

its good for the youngsters, but i suppose older players it is stupid. just an insurance policy???

[Martin Lol]

I know Spurs often buy a player then loan him out with a view to see if he is better than they have already got.  If he's not, he can be sold maybe with a small profit, and the player has been getting experience in the meantime.  Davenport wasn't better than Dawson and went, Routledge isn't better than Lennon and will be gone in the summer.

 

I'm not necessarily saying it's the right and proper thing to do but they are youngish and are getting experience.  I think the principle would be wrong if we were talking about older players.

[Guest NIToon]

I think it's good for club and player no matter what the age of the player.  player gets regular football and club generally will get the loaning club to contribute towards wages.

 

All you have to do is look at Butt, had we just let him rot in the reserves rather than loan him to the Brummies he wouldn't be at the club now yet he has been one of our best players in what has admittedly look a pretty dismal bunch at times.

[Guest]

I know Spurs often buy a player then loan him out with a view to see if he is better than they have already got.  If he's not, he can be sold maybe with a small profit, and the player has been getting experience in the meantime.  Davenport wasn't better than Dawson and went, Routledge isn't better than Lennon and will be gone in the summer.

 

I'm not necessarily saying it's the right and proper thing to do but they are youngish and are getting experience.  I think the principle would be wrong if we were talking about older players.

 

So you agree that loaning the likes of Klinsmann & Berti to keep you in the division is a c*ntish thing to do.

[Guest]

So is that a yes then.

[Guest Stephen927]

It's good for youngsters in the way that it gives them valuable experience and can toughen them up playing in the lower leagues and maybe prepare them for next season when they might be given a chance.

 

 

[Martin Lol]

I know Spurs often buy a player then loan him out with a view to see if he is better than they have already got.  If he's not, he can be sold maybe with a small profit, and the player has been getting experience in the meantime.  Davenport wasn't better than Dawson and went, Routledge isn't better than Lennon and will be gone in the summer.

 

I'm not necessarily saying it's the right and proper thing to do but they are youngish and are getting experience.  I think the principle would be wrong if we were talking about older players.

 

So you agree that loaning the likes of Klinsmann & Berti to keep you in the division is a c*ntish thing to do.

 

They cancelled each other out tbh, Klinsmann scoring goals to keep us up and Berti doing his damnedest to get us down!!

 

Klinsmann backed out of the agreement for him to stay 2 years the first time he signed for Spurs.  If it had been down to me, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to come back a second time.  Tottenham legend?  Not in my eyes.  Supremely talented but a mercenary all the same.