Loans v Permanents

[fbm]

Interesting question this... yes, I know we suffered last year due to the lack of loan players availability at certain times. But, just for interest, consider this...

Obviously Tilson wants to bring in players permanently who are better than what we have. Every signing he has made (with the exception of Harrold, who was always earmarked as one for the future) has been with that in mind. Sadly, they haven't all turned out to be an improvement (Paynter and Foran spring to mind) but in fairness, Tilly didn't know that at the time. He brought them in thinking they would add something to the side.

I don't think there's anyone who would disagree that Sawyer, Federici, HRK, JFC, Robinson, Stanislas and Dervite were ALL improvements. But it's not a given - Milsom and Feeney for instance - but when a loanee doesn't work out it doesn't cost us much and we can send him back.

Sadly only JFC has signed permanently. Sawyer's name gets banded about as still a possible but Dervite et al look unlikely.

But if we fulfilled everyone's wishes and signed players permanently, then we wouldn't have the scope or the wages to bring anyone in and we'd be stuck with them.

As it is, with the right loanees, we came within a whisker of the play offs last year.

If we had permanent players, they would almost certainly not have been the same quality and we may have ended up near the bottom.

Perhaps watching good quality loanees aren't as terrible as some make out.

So what would we rather? Good loanees or hit and miss permanents.

Thoughts?

 

[palexander]

Stoke got promoted to the Prem on the back of making a tonne of loan signings, so I dont think its that bad of a problem.

Where it is a problem - as you highlight - is when they rules state they have to go back and we have to field a weakened team because of it.

The second problem is cases like Theo. We get players on loan, 'blood' them and then if the player performs well, we go from having a decent player we could have got for say £50k and at the end of a successful loan spell, we are priced out of any deal as other clubs are alerted.

Same could be said with Sawyer...

 

[maninasuitcase]

Loan players are always a good idea if they are better than the ones we have already got. I remember a period under Newman when he brought in a lot of loanees that were clearly worse than the incumbant staff.

The trick is getting the balance right so that when they go back it doesn't disrupt the squad too much, as we found leading up to christmas last season.

Re: The view that we are taking players on loan that just get snatched from us by another club. Well that's life and every club will be affected by that.

 

[DTS]

No issues with loans but be good if we could build in a price agreement into the loan. Lets be honest if we had had that for Theo & maybe to a lesser degree Sawyer they might now be Southend players.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

It seems self-evident to me that loan players are again going to play an important role in our side next season. I would cite the following reasons:-

1) The tight financial restraints will deny us buying the quality of players we
seek.
2) The contacts that Tilly has built over the last few years with sides like
Spurs, Chelsea, Reading, Portsmouth and Ipswich etc., will be used
again.
3) The extremely high quality of loan players Tilly is starting to attract.

I have stated over and over again that probably the most exciting thing this summer will be the loanees that are brought in. The real argument on here should really be about how we can maintain the consistency and continuity in the side, that was lacking last year............and probably certainly cost us our place in the play-offs....................at the least.

 

[mattytheshrimper]

no problem with getting a few loanee's in but when we've signed barely anyone on a perminant basis for over one and half / two seasons people get frustrated. you see teams who are much smaller than us getting decent players in and even just signing a couple yet we havn't made any signings in a very long time and i can't see that changing. clearly whatever we do to raise cash does not get put back into the team. again stadium seems the most important thing at the moment unfortunately.

we could play brazil and still not see a penny of it go towards buying 1 player. people are bound to get annoyed with this. you will get the poeple will be saying lalalalalalala we've done great in past seasons. but past seasons don't keep you up especially with the teams in our league this season.

so much for signing players earlier rather than later. i can't help but think the os site is the clubs worse enermy. simple because they say they are likely to sign a player then never do.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Our problem remains that it's difficult to get people in because we're not the most attractive proposition on the table in most cases. Therefore, we have to rely on loans until we are in a position to at least stand a good chance of attracting some decent permanents - by which I mean back in the Championship.

 

[haveaguiness]

no problem with getting a few loanee's in but when we've signed barely anyone on a perminant basis for over one and half / two seasons people get frustrated. you see teams who are much smaller than us getting decent players in and even just signing a couple yet we havn't made any signings in a very long time and i can't see that changing. clearly whatever we do to raise cash does not get put back into the team. again stadium seems the most important thing at the moment unfortunately.

we could play brazil and still not see a penny of it go towards buying 1 player. people are bound to get annoyed with this. you will get the poeple will be saying lalalalalalala we've done great in past seasons. but past seasons don't keep you up especially with the teams in our league this season.

so much for signing players earlier rather than later. i can't help but think the os site is the clubs worse enermy. simple because they say they are likely to sign a player then never do.

And exactly how many of these smaller teams that spent money on signing new players finished above us in the league last year? or the year before that?

The loan system is perfect, so long as tilly has learnt his lesson and will get players on season long loan deals, for clubs like us. Strapped for cash because of a new stadium on the way. Unattractive prospect compared to the likes of Leeds, Charlton, Southampton, Norwich, MK Dons to name a few, which are the clubs we will be competeing against for the best players.

If we can use tillys contacts with the premier league clubs, ie spurs, chelsea, man u, west ham, then i am all up for getting another, Dervitte,Sawyer, Robinson or stanislas in rather than signing a player for £100,00 that turns out to be poor and sit on the bench for most of the season.and then we all moan at tilly for signinghim.

We do need permanent transfers coming in, but we also need that extra bit of premiership.championship class that we simplely can not afford coming in on loan.

 

[turkishm]

As far as im concerned the signing of lone players has been a life saver for Southend. Fredric, Dervitte, Sawer, Stanislas, Robinson, would we have signed any of these, i doubt it, and yet they all played there part in getting us quite close to the playoffs. It is dispointing when we dont sign players,but the quality of the loanees mostly seem to be better.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

And exactly how many of these smaller teams that spent money on signing new players finished above us in the league last year? or the year before that?

The loan system is perfect, so long as tilly has learnt his lesson and will get players on season long loan deals, for clubs like us. Strapped for cash because of a new stadium on the way. Unattractive prospect compared to the likes of Leeds, Charlton, Southampton, Norwich, MK Dons to name a few, which are the clubs we will be competeing against for the best players.

If we can use tillys contacts with the premier league clubs, ie spurs, chelsea, man u, west ham, then i am all up for getting another, Dervitte,Sawyer, Robinson or stanislas in rather than signing a player for £100,00 that turns out to be poor and sit on the bench for most of the season.and then we all moan at tilly for signinghim.

We do need permanent transfers coming in, but we also need that extra bit of premiership.championship class that we simplely can not afford coming in on loan.

I don't necessarily see it as 'Tilly learning his lesson'............more of a normal learning curve. I suppose, with foresight, one could have seen the problems that were going to arrive when the first batch of loanees left last year.........but that's easy to say now. Tilly has got better and better with the quality of loan player that he has brought in and 'duds' last season were rare. Thus I think that, this year, he will have the confidence to bring in at least a couple on a seasons loan. He must already be considering a number of possibilities but of course that will depend on the permenant moves that will happen between now and the end of July. I do feel that there will be at least a couple of deals sorted out by that time, in spite of the money shortage.

 

[fbm]

And exactly how many of these smaller teams that spent money on signing new players finished above us in the league last year? or the year before that?

The loan system is perfect, so long as tilly has learnt his lesson and will get players on season long loan deals, for clubs like us. Strapped for cash because of a new stadium on the way. Unattractive prospect compared to the likes of Leeds, Charlton, Southampton, Norwich, MK Dons to name a few, which are the clubs we will be competeing against for the best players.

If we can use tillys contacts with the premier league clubs, ie spurs, chelsea, man u, west ham, then i am all up for getting another, Dervitte,Sawyer, Robinson or stanislas in rather than signing a player for £100,00 that turns out to be poor and sit on the bench for most of the season.and then we all moan at tilly for signinghim.

We do need permanent transfers coming in, but we also need that extra bit of premiership.championship class that we simplely can not afford coming in on loan.

I don't think he can though... not all the time, anyway. The loan rules are complex and the problem with taking a seaon long loan is that if it had been Dervitte we'd have probably gone up and if had been Feeney we'd have been stuck with him and that may have prevented someone else coming in.

It is a balance that needs to be struck and that balance is amazingly easy to strike with hindsight.

 

[fbm]

no problem with getting a few loanee's in but when we've signed barely anyone on a perminant basis for over one and half / two seasons people get frustrated. you see teams who are much smaller than us getting decent players in and even just signing a couple yet we havn't made any signings in a very long time and i can't see that changing. clearly whatever we do to raise cash does not get put back into the team. again stadium seems the most important thing at the moment unfortunately.

we could play brazil and still not see a penny of it go towards buying 1 player. people are bound to get annoyed with this. you will get the poeple will be saying lalalalalalala we've done great in past seasons. but past seasons don't keep you up especially with the teams in our league this season.

so much for signing players earlier rather than later. i can't help but think the os site is the clubs worse enermy. simple because they say they are likely to sign a player then never do.

But it does get put into the club. We've all seen the accounts. Keep the club afloat and the team will follow. Spend the money on the team and we'll have no club to support.

 

[EastStandBlue]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and state the negatives of us depending so heavily on loans.

When we were promoted twice under Tilson, just behind having quality like Eastwood, the number one weapon at our disposal was the tightly bonded unit that Tilson had formed at the club. Everybody knew what the other was doing, where he would be and they fought for eachother. There were times, especially in League One (Bristol away, Yeovil at home, Brentford at home) when we tore teams to shreds with our slick passing.

This was, by their own admission, done using players of average quality... It's the familiarity that got us so far. This familiarity cannot and will not be replicated with loan signings coming into the club periodically through the season and then going back to their parent club at short notice. This disjointedness is apparent when our passing breaks down, and at times when we're caught short with loan expirations... I'd say the lack of familiarity has just as much to do with poor performances during this period than the difference in class.

The loan system can be used to our definite advantage, however relying on it so heavily as Tilson has done can be damaging and I'd much rather we make permanent signings.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and state the negatives of us depending so heavily on loans.

When we were promoted twice under Tilson, just behind having quality like Eastwood, the number one weapon at our disposal was the tightly bonded unit that Tilson had formed at the club. Everybody knew what the other was doing, where he would be and they fought for eachother. There were times, especially in League One (Bristol away, Yeovil at home, Brentford at home) when we tore teams to shreds with our slick passing.

This was, by their own admission, done using players of average quality... It's the familiarity that got us so far. This familiarity cannot and will not be replicated with loan signings coming into the club periodically through the season and then going back to their parent club at short notice. This disjointedness is apparent when our passing breaks down, and at times when we're caught short with loan expirations... I'd say the lack of familiarity has just as much to do with poor performances during this period than the difference in class.

The loan system can be used to our definite advantage, however relying on it so heavily as Tilson has done can be damaging and I'd much rather we make permanent signings.

I agree with what you say, in fact I think that nearly everyone on here would.................the problem is, in our present financial situation, DO WE HAVE THE CHOICE?
I'm sure Tilly would prefer to build a side with permanent players and have a few loanees to provide extra strength and different options. Sadly,
as may have been the case with Ron's mention of a possible replacement for Clarke, we don't seem to be able to compete very well with other sides, in signing our desired players. Thus, if it comes down to signing our fifth or sixth choice (and risk ending up with a Harrold, Paynter or Foran), or bringing someone in on loan.................I think I know what my preference would be.
As for fbm's point about year long loanees, I think we just have to put our faith in Tilly and hope that his increasing experience will help us end up with a Dervite rather than a Feeney. Anyway, I don't see the difference here between permanent or loanee.........either way we could end up signing a dud.........the difference being, that after a year, we can get rid of the latter, whilst the former we'd be stuck with for two or three years.

 

[Gremlin]

no problem with getting a few loanee's in but when we've signed barely anyone on a perminant basis for over one and half / two seasons people get frustrated.

But we have. Betsy, Freedman, Grant & Christophe for example.

 

[Gremlin]

The loan system is perfect, so long as tilly has learnt his lesson and will get players on season long loan deals, for clubs like us.

Strongly disagree with that. It's easy to look back and say that having Sawyer thoughout the early part of this calendar year, for example, would have been a help but not all loans work out so well. Milsom or Feeney for the full season? No thanks! Take a short initial period to see how the player gets on and then extend the loan spell later if need be.

 

[Firestorm]

A loanee XI (2 signed perm after the loan)
Federici
Kelly, Hunter, Burrows, Harding
Kanu, Sawyer, McCormack, JCR
Chapman, Clarke

Burridge, Dervite, Butters, Morgan, Harkness, Nolan, Mulgrew

(Not including those signed on loan in order to get round deadline issues ie Eastwood)

It would appear that our loan sucesses have generally been at the back , as the real class acts of that 18 are all defenders

 

[BoyWonder2]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, and state the negatives of us depending so heavily on loans.

When we were promoted twice under Tilson, just behind having quality like Eastwood, the number one weapon at our disposal was the tightly bonded unit that Tilson had formed at the club. Everybody knew what the other was doing, where he would be and they fought for eachother. There were times, especially in League One (Bristol away, Yeovil at home, Brentford at home) when we tore teams to shreds with our slick passing.

This was, by their own admission, done using players of average quality... It's the familiarity that got us so far. This familiarity cannot and will not be replicated with loan signings coming into the club periodically through the season and then going back to their parent club at short notice. This disjointedness is apparent when our passing breaks down, and at times when we're caught short with loan expirations... I'd say the lack of familiarity has just as much to do with poor performances during this period than the difference in class.

The loan system can be used to our definite advantage, however relying on it so heavily as Tilson has done can be damaging and I'd much rather we make permanent signings.

Spot on.

Part of Tilson's early transfer policy was buying in local players who will care about the Club, and be able to settle into the area. We brought in the likes of Mark Bentley from Daggers, Eastwood from Grays, Gray from Wimbledon etc etc. They all formed part of a close knit squad, and they all cared about the Club.

We've seen recent signings of people like Hammell (Going back to Scotland as missus homesick), Mulgrew (Going back to Scotland) not really settling into the area and moving on. We've also had plenty of players turn us down over the years because they haven't wanted to come down South.

Ideally, I'd like us to go back to the old days where we took players from the local areas and London.

As for loans they have both negative and positive effects as shown in the last season. Having a settled team early in the season, and latter in the season helped us but around November time when HRK, JFC and Sawyer went back to their Clubs it knocked us.

Ideally, I'd like us to have a settled starting 11 of contracted players, and loanees being brought in in case of emergency like Mildenhall's injury for example.

 

[CC51DAS]

I agree with what you say, in fact I think that nearly everyone on here would.................the problem is, in our present financial situation, DO WE HAVE THE CHOICE?
I'm sure Tilly would prefer to build a side with permanent players and have a few loanees to provide extra strength and different options. Sadly,
as may have been the case with Ron's mention of a possible replacement for Clarke, we don't seem to be able to compete very well with other sides, in signing our desired players. Thus, if it comes down to signing our fifth or sixth choice (and risk ending up with a Harrold, Paynter or Foran), or bringing someone in on loan.................I think I know what my preference would be.
As for fbm's point about year long loanees, I think we just have to put our faith in Tilly and hope that his increasing experience will help us end up with a Dervite rather than a Feeney. Anyway, I don't see the difference here between permanent or loanee.........either way we could end up signing a dud.........the difference being, that after a year, we can get rid of the latter, whilst the former we'd be stuck with for two or three years.[/quote]

And there is the rub - I fear we have been badly bitten by the sagas involving the likes of Foran, Bailey and even Clarke which have added up to a lot of dosh relative to the club's revenue and now we are shy of a repeat situation. At least with loanees it is relatively cheap to extract ourselves, (which has to be our current number one priority), even if the chances of success ( ie promotion) are perhaps considered to be slimmer.