• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Britt Assombalonga

I dfont mean to be disparaging toward anyone, but all this talk about SUFC getting compensation for aiding his developement to my way of thinking is Bulldust,we should be happy that every once in a while we get a player of his calibre on loan here at SUFC ,and just sit back and enjoy it while it lasts.Just a pity that at present Shaq is not living up to his potential, but the season is long and im hopeful it will turn around for him and SUFC, and perhaps at seasons end we can say how good he is also.
 
Thats certainly a very good way of doing it as it means you are making money.

However you are also having to invest a lot of moneny into doing so with a fairly low chance of success. Not only do you need to produce a player worth a decent figure you have to then hope he doesnt leave on a free post the bosman rules.

You just have to look at some of the loans we have had the past few seasons, Britt, Egan, Sokolik, MKandawire. None of them we would have been able to play without the loan system.

Needs to have a balanced approach which with the amount of youngsters we have pushing for places now, plus one long term loan we seem to be doing pretty well.

I know what you are saying but I think its a bit more complicated than that . Spurs for example have a policy of buy players that they no not think will make their first team, but think that there will be a profit in them. The only way to make that profit is to develop them and then put them in the shop window. That shop window is the loan system. If the loan system did not exist then personally I think that the bigger clubs would cut back on the players they take on. This would filter through the leagues and would mean that smaller clubs would be able to pick up talent that today they can not do.

There is so little risk for big clubs at the moment as they know that they can loan out players who improve and go up in value (not in every case obviously but enough to make the business a success). As we are all very aware a player could 'fail' at Liverpool and be brilliant for a team like us, but we will never get the chance to get first dabs on them as a yongster while the big clubs stock pile young players.
 
Can you give us more details on this policy that Spurs have? Examples? I'm genuinely curious.

They definitely look for players with high potential at 17/18, etc, but they'll typically have to pay fees for these. John Bostock being an example that comes to mind.

Do you not think that these players benefit more from training and coaching at bigger clubs than they ever would slumming it in the lower leagues with minimal investment and second-rate facilities?
 
Personally I don't think we should get a penny for successful loan deals. It works both ways as people have already said. We get a player that would otherwise be out of reach and the parent club gets experience for their young player. Take Egan and Sokolik for example, they were both at Sunderland and Liverpool for 5 years before coming to us. If both players were sold for £1m after their loan spell with us, then Sunderland and Liverpool are entitled to that money seeing as their financial outlay for those two players over the years would considerably exceed ours. They get their money for the development of their player over 5 years and we got two centre backs who nearly played an integral part of getting us promoted. If we were the parent club more often than the receiving club then I don't think certain people would have such an issue with it!
 
Spurs for example have a policy of buy players that they no not think will make their first team, but think that there will be a profit in them.

Do they? I can't remember a single player that Spurs have signed who has been loaned out straight away and sold. I think you mean Chelsea, who have signed players and loaned they out straight away to clubs they are linked with (e.g. Vitesse).

If the loan system did not exist then personally I think that the bigger clubs would cut back on the players they take on. This would filter through the leagues and would mean that smaller clubs would be able to pick up talent that today they can not do.

That would be the ideal situation, but that wouldn't happen in reality. The academies will still be the same size, with the same amount of players. Maybe the development sides will get stronger and the under 21 leagues will increase in standard, but if they don't then there will be minimal improvement.

The loan system is there to benefit the player by exposing them to regular first team football at a decent standard which in turn helps the club who owns the player, and helping the club loaning the player in by allowing them to not have to carry a huge squad.

There is so little risk for big clubs at the moment as they know that they can loan out players who improve and go up in value (not in every case obviously but enough to make the business a success). As we are all very aware a player could 'fail' at Liverpool and be brilliant for a team like us, but we will never get the chance to get first dabs on them as a yongster while the big clubs stock pile young players.

While the risk might be small, I can't see much difference in what would happen if there was no loan system. Actually, it could be harder for players to find new clubs if they weren't exposed to first team football from being loaned out. With only a tiny percentage of players actually progressing to the first team from the youth set up, those who don't make the grade will be released or sold.

This has happened so many times. A player comes through the youth system and at around the age of 20/21 they will either be deemed potential first team players or they will be discarded. Just like Sokolik and Egan were this summer and many before them.

What will happen to those deemed potential first team players? They will be given 2-3 years until the age of around 23 to make a claim for being a regular first team player and if they don't show they are good enough then they too will be sold. If the clubs can afford to keep them while they loan them out, then surely they can afford to keep them while they warm the bench or sit in the stands.
 
I didn't realise he'd been at Arsenal before. That's a valid point.

In fairness to us he left Arsenal when he was about 16. He spent 2 years with us before he made the first team. It's not as if he didn't progress in that time.

Moreover, why did Arsenal recommend he join us? They're not likely to have said, "You're not good enough for us, but go to Southend where you can really ruin your career", are they? More likely they recommended us because we have a good set up and could help him progress.
 
Yeah you have to be under 21 at the start of the 2 year European U21 championship campaign. Britt is eligible up until next year's championship in the Czech Republic, and then after that championship he'll be too old.

There's an U21's match (big game against Croatia) in October. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't get a call up because he's still eligible for the Congo and so The FA might want to tie him down. Berahino and Harry Kane are probably going to the main picks , and Danny Ings is currently playing for Burnley in the prem - but Britt is much better than Woodrow who is the current fourth choice striker (and even he hasn't done much wrong IMO).

It's Britts all around game which is attractive. He's bring and strong, very quick, a good dribbler, great in the air, good at holding the ball up and can finish (and take a pen). He's got the complete package and I bet Gareth Southgate has his eye on him. The Under 21's is a very strong squad to be honest, but Britt definitely deserves to be seriously considered.

I don't think playing an U21 match ties you to a country for life. I'm pretty sure you change after that.
 
I don't think playing an U21 match ties you to a country for life. I'm pretty sure you change after that.

Yeah that may well be true. Perhaps the FA would like an indication from Britt that he wants to play for England however.
 
I thought Britt would have been in the last U21 squad. An U21 cap doesn't tie him to England but it would be a strong statement of intent. Reading various interviews with him it seems apparent that he considers himself English and would like to play for England but that his dad (who used to play for Congo) wants him to play for his homeland.

I think he was named on a very early provisional squad for the ANC qualifying campaign so if England want him then they need to move quick.
 
What's been so impressive about Britt is that he's scored goals for so many different teams - for Braintree, for Peterborough, for Forest, for us.

Now it should be pointed out that pretty much all those teams were fairly free-scoring but to adapt to so many different teams and still be successful - his spell with us was his least successful by some margin - suggests an ability to adapt and not just landing in a team that suits him.
 
What's been so impressive about Britt is that he's scored goals for so many different teams - for Braintree, for Peterborough, for Forest, for us.

Now it should be pointed out that pretty much all those teams were fairly free-scoring but to adapt to so many different teams and still be successful - his spell with us was his least successful by some margin - suggests an ability to adapt and not just landing in a team that suits him.

Absolutely. sounds like the ideal attitude and quality needed for an international team.
 
It is the way that he has consistently stepped up that impresses me. Every year he has moved up a level and every year he has scored more than the previous year. He looks like he thrives alongside better players and has a real appetite to rise to challenges and make the most of his ability.

His goal at the weekend against Derby was pure class.
 
Absolutely love his shoulders and lack of neck. He's like a lego man

130309-assombalongasouthend-4x3286-708565_478x359.jpg
 
What's been so impressive about Britt is that he's scored goals for so many different teams - for Braintree, for Peterborough, for Forest, for us.

Now it should be pointed out that pretty much all those teams were fairly free-scoring but to adapt to so many different teams and still be successful - his spell with us was his least successful by some margin - suggests an ability to adapt and not just landing in a team that suits him.

So we are saying that Britt was able to adapt to different styles of play as defined by the manager of each team he has played at.In that case, why is it so hard for Barnard to adapt to a different style of play, which is what many are saying is his problem
 
So we are saying that Britt was able to adapt to different styles of play as defined by the manager of each team he has played at.In that case, why is it so hard for Barnard to adapt to a different style of play, which is what many are saying is his problem

Give it a rest ffs
 
Not at all relevant to this thread which so far has been one of the best threads on SZ for weeks. You're welcome to discuss Barney in a thread about him (or strikers in general).

Britt is a fantastic player and will do very well. What makes him able to adapt to different styles of play. No need to get on your high horse about things, I was only trying to work out what makes Britt stand out as being able to adapt and , for instance, that Barney can't
 
So we are saying that Britt was able to adapt to different styles of play as defined by the manager of each team he has played at.In that case, why is it so hard for Barnard to adapt to a different style of play, which is what many are saying is his problem

Are you really asking why one player can adapt better than another player?
 
Britt is a fantastic player and will do very well. What makes him able to adapt to different styles of play. No need to get on your high horse about things, I was only trying to work out what makes Britt stand out as being able to adapt and , for instance, that Barney can't

That's not how your original post was worded.

I'm not sure how he's able to do it. However his attitude was always on the money for us and he seems like a genuinely nice guy and he's likely to be well advised. His moves have all worked for him. He keeps himself in good shape and is able to hit the ground running. He's got absolutely bags of talent and so far he's stayed injury free and is making the most of his time on the pitch.
 
Back
Top