Crazy number of loans

[Massimo Giovanni]

The loan system is being used like a "first aid" kit to treat a serious injury: it might do some good for a short period/time but the long term effects don't treat the underlying problems.
It is a "safety" blanket which is being relied upon in a way which must affect the way managers/finance influences assembling a settled/signed up squad and youth/development set up long term and ready/before each season.
I normally try to see the positives about matters but struggle to see long term benefits in short term loans other than GK emergencies.

 

[Clinton Baptiste]

Indeed, we relied far too much on it last season. Look at the top 3, yes they had the odd loan here and thee but the bulk of their team was permanent players. Britt and Tam apart, none of the other loanees really had much of an impact.

 

[mrsblue]

Loan players are only playing in the shop window for themselves and they also may have strict clauses in their loan deal which will annoy contracted players,Would rather the club looked at young non league players and give them a contract on low money than continue going into the loan market.

 

[chapperzUK]

The loan system is a short term fix for a short term problem, but if the problem is only short term then what is the point in making a long term signing as all you will get is another chunk of wages being taken for a player that will most likely just sit on the bench when the injured player returns.

Although, if used correctly, can become a tool for a long term problem. Look at the players we got on loan and then signed permanently for a few seasons, if we didn't sign them on loan we wouldn't have been able to assess them at all.

We got Donnolly on loan, and I firmly believe we did so that we could judge him before a potential move and to cover the midfield during the busy winter period.

Simple fact is that the majority of clubs below the Premier League can not afford to have 24 players on their books that are all capable of stepping up and playing in the first team, so loans are needed to plug the gaps.

 

[mrsblue]

The loan system is a short term fix for a short term problem, but if the problem is only short term then what is the point in making a long term signing as all you will get is another chunk of wages being taken for a player that will most likely just sit on the bench when the injured player returns.

Although, if used correctly, can become a tool for a long term problem. Look at the players we got on loan and then signed permanently for a few seasons, if we didn't sign them on loan we wouldn't have been able to assess them at all.

We got Donnolly on loan, and I firmly believe we did so that we could judge him before a potential move and to cover the midfield during the busy winter period.

Simple fact is that the majority of clubs below the Premier League can not afford to have 24 players on their books that are all capable of stepping up and playing in the first team, so loans are needed to plug the gaps.

Loan players have on most occasions stupid clauses in their deals which if they are playing well in every game it's ok but the manager cannot drop them even if they are toilet for fear of facing heavy penalty clauses from the parent club.

One guy I know was loaned to a conference club from league 2 and his loan demands were mind boggling,He could never be dropped or subbed unless injured and the club had to pay 900 per week for half his salary.

 

[chapperzUK]

Loan players have on most occasions stupid clauses in their deals which if they are playing well in every game it's ok but the manager cannot drop them even if they are toilet for fear of facing heavy penalty clauses from the parent club.

One guy I know was loaned to a conference club from league 2 and his loan demands were mind boggling,He could never be dropped or subbed unless injured and the club had to pay 900 per week for half his salary.

That does sound strange, but you can see it from the point of view of the club loaning the player out as they want him to get first team football and get a chunk of wages paid for.

Saying that, I think loanees should be treated like every other player as if they get to play week in week out no matter how poor they play or how bad they are in matches then they may not progress as well as they would if they have to compete for their place. Either way it comes down to the attitude of the player.

The only way I can see the club agreeing to those loan demands would be if they believe he had quality that they couldn't get permanently and, therefore, he would consider him a certain starter.

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

I have ranted about the loan system on here on numerous occasions - but even I can see that there are some advantages to the system although I do not agree with some of the points made in various comments above.

I want to get back to a time and place when footballers with potential started in their home area or in the lower divisions and progressed by doing well - not by jumping in at a Division 1 or 2 club hundreds of miles away - and then spending the next couple of years being farmed out to discover if the potential can be developed into a professional player.

My main example would be Andy Townsend - playing non-league before moving up to Division 1 and then playing at the world cup and (I think) being captain.

For me, the scale of the loan market is too large - adding extra restrictions and considering the end of the "transfer window" would be a move in the right direction.

One last thought .......... if the loan system had been in place, Roy McDonough would possibly have spent most of his career in the top 2 divisions! :omg:

 

[onceknownasrab]

The loan system is a vital lifeline to many clubs, Southend included. However it is in my opinion abused. A number of our own players were deemed 'unfit for purpose' even though PS signed them and barley gave them a look in. A player may well under perform on four or five occasions but that does not mean either a) He is unable to perform at the level believed when he was signed or b) That the club should immediately delve into the transfer market.

Spicer and Eastwood are just two examples. PS put players above them in the pecking order but who knows what they may have done had they been given more than a fleeting chance by him?

We saw this the whole time PS was at the club. I know some of you will say Spicer was useless and you may be right but he was not given sufficient opportunities to prove otherwise. Eastwood, when finally played, proved he had the desire to perform.

As for clauses, which I do not even know exist, if a player cannot be dropped then how does he learn his trade? The loaning club may well want their man to get game time but its also about improving the player and being dropped can be a timely and necessary kick to the backside and dispel complacency. Having your name guaranteed on the teamsheet is hardly motivational.

 

[danburyshrimper]

I think what Phil Brown needs is a relatively small squad but with a few more that are "mr. versatile" -- thinking of players like we had in the past like Anthony Grant,Lewis Hunt , Glenn Pennyfather who could play well in so many positions so the squad feels like we have 24 players whereas in fact its only 18 !!! .....so that instead of having 7 strikers and no central midfielders + no central defenders like we found at times this season, everywhere is covered. Keep the numbers small as in the Tilson era when the team spirit was excellent , giving youth a taste of action from the bench -- the youngsters raw enthusiasm + energy rubs off on the older players + likewise the older players will take more responsibility on the pitch in looking after the youngsters by communicating more ... all essential ingrediants for a successful team.

Having a squad of almost 30 players squabbling + unhappy they are not playing ,costing the club salaries is exactly what we dont want.

 

[Shrimper2thecore]

I can't really understand those of you not happy with the loan system.

Without it, our football club would be screwed (even more).

By all means be unhappy with the way we used it this season, but not the system itself!

 

[Norwichshrimper]

Loan players have on most occasions stupid clauses in their deals which if they are playing well in every game it's ok but the manager cannot drop them even if they are toilet for fear of facing heavy penalty clauses from the parent club.

One guy I know was loaned to a conference club from league 2 and his loan demands were mind boggling,He could never be dropped or subbed unless injured and the club had to pay 900 per week for half his salary.

Surely the club wouldn't have loaned him though, if they couldn't afford it?

The loaning club obviously thought the deal worked for them - so they can't complain about the terms attached to the loan?

 

[mrsblue]

Surely the club wouldn't have loaned him though, if they couldn't afford it?

The loaning club obviously thought the deal worked for them - so they can't complain about the terms attached to the loan?

It worked for both clubs and the player because during his loan spell he played well,My point was if the player had been performing under par the loan agreement meant he was selected no matter .

 

[RobB11]

Loan players have on most occasions stupid clauses in their deals which if they are playing well in every game it's ok but the manager cannot drop them even if they are toilet for fear of facing heavy penalty clauses from the parent club.

One guy I know was loaned to a conference club from league 2 and his loan demands were mind boggling,He could never be dropped or subbed unless injured and the club had to pay 900 per week for half his salary.

Richard Brodie?

 

[Norwichshrimper]

It worked for both clubs and the player because during his loan spell he played well,My point was if the player had been performing under par the loan agreement meant he was selected no matter .

Indeed - but equally you can see it from the loaning club's point of view as well. No point sending a player out on loan of he's not going to play - so if they can get that in the T&C's then fair play to them. It's a gamble for the loaning club - but then I guess you wouldn't commit to £900 per week on a player unless you were pretty sure you'd want to play him every game

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

There are many very well put thoughts about the loan system on this thread; and I agree with just about all of them including Chappers and Rattus; this is despite them being contrary to my stated dislike of the current arrangements.
As has been put it is the "abuse" of the system and the detriment to contracted players who have committed to the club that I am against.
While the system can be "adjusted" it will be and IMO any short term gain is too often at the expense of long term problems being solved.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The loan system is being used like a "first aid" kit to treat a serious injury: it might do some good for a short period/time but the long term effects don't treat the underlying problems.
It is a "safety" blanket which is being relied upon in a way which must affect the way managers/finance influences assembling a settled/signed up squad and youth/development set up long term and ready/before each season.
I normally try to see the positives about matters but struggle to see long term benefits in short term loans other than GK emergencies.

What's the difference between an emergency loan for a GK and an emergency loan for when, say, Timlin breaks his leg?

Using it as a first aid kit is how the loan system should be used. It means smaller clubs don't have to carry a 30 man squad. It means that reserves get to play more meaningful football. Imagine if you'd been Timlin's understudy. He was the first name on the team-sheet, never subbed and we don't even have a reserve team for his understudy to be playing in.

Using it to try before you buy is also a positive step.

Where the loan system is deeply flawed is when teams use it to strengthen on a temporary basis. Makandawire comes in for two months and does great then goes back again leaving us with the same hole.

I think what Phil Brown needs is a relatively small squad but with a few more that are "mr. versatile" -- thinking of players like we had in the past like Anthony Grant,Lewis Hunt , Glenn Pennyfather who could play well in so many positions so the squad feels like we have 24 players whereas in fact its only 18 !!! .....so that instead of having 7 strikers and no central midfielders + no central defenders like we found at times this season, everywhere is covered. Keep the numbers small as in the Tilson era when the team spirit was excellent , giving youth a taste of action from the bench -- the youngsters raw enthusiasm + energy rubs off on the older players + likewise the older players will take more responsibility on the pitch in looking after the youngsters by communicating more ... all essential ingrediants for a successful team.

Having a squad of almost 30 players squabbling + unhappy they are not playing ,costing the club salaries is exactly what we dont want.

Far more important than versatility in a small squad are durable players. None of Phillips, Corr, Harris and Eastwood could be described as durable. Players like Leonard and Assombalonga have yet to prove they can play a full season of professional football either. I think the likes of Cresswell and Tomlin have had dodgy injury records in the past as well. If you have a team of Clohessys you can get by with a very small squad.

There are many very well put thoughts about the loan system on this thread; and I agree with just about all of them including Chappers and Rattus; this is despite them being contrary to my stated dislike of the current arrangements.
As has been put it is the "abuse" of the system and the detriment to contracted players who have committed to the club that I am against.
While the system can be "adjusted" it will be and IMO any short term gain is too often at the expense of long term problems being solved.

The biggest problem with the loan systems are the ridiculous FIFA/UEFA(?) imposed transfer windows.

 

[Kevin Hogg]

The problem with lots of loanees is that you lose the "club" element.
With several loan players in a team it begins to resemble a Representative X1 rather than a clubs' own contracted squad. Supporting your club with maybe four players that do not belong to your club starting a game...begins to make it a less "us" experience.

A Southend United X1 2 (Reeves, Assombalonga) Morecambe 0.

 

[OldBlueLady]

I think what Phil Brown needs is a relatively small squad but with a few more that are "mr. versatile" -- thinking of players like we had in the past like Anthony Grant,Lewis Hunt , Glenn Pennyfather who could play well in so many positions so the squad feels like we have 24 players whereas in fact its only 18 !!! .....so that instead of having 7 strikers and no central midfielders + no central defenders like we found at times this season, everywhere is covered. Keep the numbers small as in the Tilson era when the team spirit was excellent , giving youth a taste of action from the bench -- the youngsters raw enthusiasm + energy rubs off on the older players + likewise the older players will take more responsibility on the pitch in looking after the youngsters by communicating more ... all essential ingrediants for a successful team.

We already have this in Ryan Leonard, and we certainly had it in Mohsni. Still got loads of loans in. Personally, I think we've overdone the loans lots in recent years. I'm sure our best times have come with a fairly settled squad with loanees coming in for one or two positions, not practically everywhere bar defence as it was this season.

 

[turkishm]

Lonees are not ideal, but how does clubs like Southend get by without them. Going back in time, we seem to pay money for most of our players, not now. Brown, maybe will say bring in 8 to 10 players next season, imo out of say ten half will be lonees, not good, but we could not sign ten players, and pay them wages, i dont think.

 

[mrsblue]

The time has come to pay players sensible wages for the likes of this size club,60k max and with a squad of 22 the ticket sales would hopefully cover the entire wage bill.Paying guys 100k plus is stark raving mad.