To take on loan or not.....This is the question [Archive]

Slimbloke'H'

08-08-2000, 11:34 AM

James Verrinder said, in the Clinton to Derby thread,

Also, why all this talk of loan signings on other threads? It doesn’t do us any favours in the long run.

I started a reply, and then decided that his comment might, in itself, be worth a thread of its’ own.

James, I’m not sure that I agree with you any more. I have to say that the more I consider loan signings, the happier I am with them. I don’t think anyone would disagree with me when I say that we need at least two or three more new players to complete the squad (with a left-sided defender probably highest on the priority list). I am quite sure that Stevie knew this, and by now Smithy must too. In terms of finding fresh blood, we are in a position now where we are playing catch-up big time. The (potentially) better players who became available as a result of contracts ending etc., have all been snapped up. Of those who are left, well can anybody name me one who would genuinely be worth having at Selhurst Park?

So, that really leaves us playing the open market, putting bids in for guys who may not be available etc., and if we are going to go about this properly, and get the right players, it will unfortunately take time. So, what do we do meantime? If a player becomes available under loan conditions (ala Ashley Cole, Mikael etc.), then does it not make good sense to take advantage of them in the short term?

It strikes me that there are several Premiership teams with squads rammed full with young players who are only just on the fringe of the first team, who could be persuaded that they (the players) would learn more by getting regular first team action (nothing revolutionary there), to which end I can only see that we would benefit.

Am I out on my own on this one?

Grim Reaper

08-08-2000, 11:44 AM

As I've said in the past, loan deals are good in that in nearly all cases all three parties benefit. The player involved gets first team football, the `giving' club has their player gaining experience in a first team environment and do not have to pay the wages for that period, while the `receiving' club gets a player to boost their squad.

The loan system served us well last year with Forsell, Phelan and Cole all making a big impression.

If Smithy can pick up a bargain or two during the eseason via the loan system then I'm all for it.

James Simmo

08-08-2000, 12:30 PM

Loan signing are good to get you out of a tight fixture squeeze or injury crisis but are not good to build on or use for the whole season. Whats the betting that at the end of the season we will be begging to buy Forrsell but Chelsea wont let him go. Also I think 1 big reason he came here was because of SC so will he stay for the whole season?

Slimbloke'H'

08-08-2000, 01:16 PM

James,

The point I’m trying to get over is that if loan players are used simply as a commodity, a means to an end, then it might be an avenue we could use to some advantage. I agree, obviously you cannot build a team around a players on loan, but that is not what I’m suggesting.

As for Mikael, well I’m not sure that buying him was ever in the equation. Chelsea are fully aware of his potential (as are we), but he is simply not good enough yet to push for a first team place there. So, what do you do?, put him out on an extended loan deal, and chart his progress. As I mentioned above, there is no substitute for first team football, both in terms of fitness and gaining experience. The bottom line is, I believe, that if he has a great season (which personally I think he will), it would put his value and wage expectations beyond our means. If he has a pants season, would we want to buy him? I don’t think so.

Stevie must have known this (it wouldn’t surprise me if the deal was done on the strict understanding that he is not for sale), and, therefore must have done the deal almost as a business arrangement between the two clubs. We get a very good young prospect to bolster a depleted squad at relatively little outlay,
giving us a bit of breathing space to sort out player/s to buy, Chelsea get to put said player on an experience fast-track if you like. As Del Boy Trotter would say, everyone’s a winner!!

exiled in Wales

08-08-2000, 05:10 PM

At present I think we would all agree that we don't have a squad that will be pushing for promotion, in fact I feel we have a long hard season ahead and personally feel mid table is the best we can hope for.

Therefore we are looking at gradually building a squad for promotion the season after this. SJ doesn't have the money of Jack Walker so we are looking to increase revenues to produce profits which can be ploughed back into player purchases next season.

Therefore for this season SJ has said there is £3 million now to spend - £1m gone on Arsenal boys, + some on Ruddock (I beleive) so we only have £1 left. Chelsea would not sell Forsell for anything like £1, we would not get anyone of any quality for £1. Therefore if we can get some long term loan signings which will at least keep us in the first division then hopefully the club can generate enough money to plough back into the team over the season and next summer to create a squad capable of pushing for promotion.

In conclusion if we get quality players on loan, whose transfer fees we could not presently afford, then of course it is a good thing because the more successful we are the more money the club will generate then we will be able to afford the transfer fees of better and better players.

Surely no fan with a memory longer than 5 seconds would want us spending money we don't have on players we can't afford !!

James Verrinder

08-08-2000, 07:58 PM

The way I look at loan signings is that they are very good for a short-term thing,like Forrsel and Cole at the end of last season. This year however,we are supposed to be looking at starting to build a squad that will get us back in the Premiership in a couple of years. already we have a key position in the starting 11 filled by someone who will not be here next year and now theres talk of a keeper coming in on loan aswell.Imagine we have a reasonably good season because Forrsel scores 20+ goals.Come May,he's gone and we have to look for someone else to fill the void. I'm all for Mikkeal being here but I would prefer to see him as a sub while Clinton and someone else (preferably new permanant signing) are given the chance to build a partnership up. Also, look at the players available on loan,last season was a fitness exersise for Forsell,who despite being a nice bloke and potentially great player,isnt a full Palace player.

Slimbloke'H'

08-08-2000, 08:43 PM

James V said,

.......but I would prefer to see him as a sub while Clinton and someone else (preferably new permanent signing) are given the chance to build a partnership up.

Absolutely mate, but at the moment, we don’t have what we need in terms of new signings, and surely taking players on loan eases the ‘must buy now’ pressure that inevitably will lead to players being bought just to ‘fill a gap’, rather than anything else.

James Verrinder

08-08-2000, 08:47 PM

I agree with you Slimbloke H but the main point I am trying to make is that we cant build for the future without owning players. basically,by the start of next season,when Forrsel and whatever other loan signings go back, we'll be in exactly the same position we are in now.

Laurie

08-08-2000, 08:50 PM

The only posistion I,m really against a loan signing is goalkeeper. This is such a vital posistion, and it often takes a keeper, however good, quite a time to settle.I feel if we are signing a new keeper, then make it one on a permenant basis

Viking

08-08-2000, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by James Verrinder on 08-08-2000 03:58 PM
Also, look at the players available on loan,last season was a fitness exersise for Forsell,who despite being a nice bloke and potentially great player,isnt a full Palace player.

Loan players don´t bring the same feeling with them. If the loan then comes from some gloryhunting big club you just can´t wrangle with anybody supporting that team and thats a shame. It´s trouly a great feeling when your team makes a thrilling new signing. Give me more of that.

Small number

09-08-2000, 04:32 AM

I don't particulary like loan signings especially when we have the money to buy players, as the team never will settle down.

------------------

'The wise will one day rise'

http://pub20.ezboard.com/bcpfcchat

James Verrinder

09-08-2000, 05:24 PM

I think this sums it up, from Teamtalk

Mikael Forssell admits that he is using the Eagles as the stepping stone to becoming a first-team regular at Stamford Bridge.
Forssell will spend the whole of next season on loan at the club after a three-month stay at the end of the last campaign.
The flying Finn will then have two years left on his Chelsea contract when he returns to the West London club in May.
Forssell points out that he was glad to get an extended stay at Selhurst Park to gain valuable first team experience, saying:
"Playing here will give me the experience I need to cement a place in Gianluca Vialli's starting line-up when I return next season.
"After a season with Palace I will still have two years left on my Chelsea deal. It is my aim to star for them. Chelsea are a great club and I am pleased they have allowed me to go across London on loan again to continue my learning experience.
"I would have played only a small part for Chelsea. I am too young to be sat on the bench. If I was in my mid-30s perhaps I could do it, but I'm going to learn much more by playing for Crystal Palace."

Doesnt do much for us after next May does it?

Sandy of Cornwall

09-08-2000, 05:37 PM

Loan players are an excellent idea for capturing the services of up and coming players without paying the earth and then finding out they're not so good after all.

I can't blame Forsell for what he is doing. If his spell with us helps us achieve something creditable, then obviously he would want to go back to try for Chelsea's first team. The same can be said if we had actually bought him; he could have still stayed with us for a year and if he proved to be brilliant, he would have still wanted a move to a big premier club.

RUSSELL

09-08-2000, 05:42 PM

How many loan signings can you make in a season...I thought it was 3 so if thats the case we've allready made 2!

Baloo

09-08-2000, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Sandy of Cornwall on 08-09-2000 01:37 PM
The same can be said if we had actually bought him; he could have still stayed with us for a year and if he proved to be brilliant, he would have still wanted a move to a big premier club.

Except that we profit financially (albeit not in football terms) from buying the up and coming players and then selling them a year later at an increased price.

Sandy of Cornwall

09-08-2000, 05:49 PM

Oh yeah and when have Palace actually made any decent money on a player? We only sell decent players at bargain basement prices.

Harry Holmesdale

09-08-2000, 05:55 PM

Chris Armstrong

James Verrinder

09-08-2000, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Slimbloke'H' on 08-08-2000 09:16 AM
James,

The point I’m trying to get over is that if loan players are used simply as a commodity, a means to an end, then it might be an avenue we could use to some advantage.

Absoloutely but now we have what would seem to be first choice goalkeeper and a regular centre forward as part of the team. These are vital positions and I cant see why we are building a team on loan players. i agree completely with what you say about commodities, Forrsell would be an excellent option to have on the bench and bring on for 30 minutes to liven things up, but a loan keeper who is only 19 as first choice?

Glaws Eagle

11-08-2000, 02:31 PM

As I've said in an earlier thread, after all the trauma's of last season, we need to take one step at a time.

Lets beat Blackburn, then have a look at the QPR game.

If that means taking on a couple of loan players, then so be it.

At least with a steady ship we will be in a better position to actually buy players,the players we really do need.

La Bombonera

11-08-2000, 02:42 PM

In the case of Forsell, it's probably a good thing that we've got the option to take him on loan. For one I'm not convinced that he will become the great player that Chelsea (and Ol' Big Mouth Santa look-a-like) claim he is ...and will be.

Granted, he's got good control and and a sharp turn of speed over the first (and all important) five yards, but he's not dominant enough in the air. He's approx 6ft 1" tall and can only reach 6ft 2" when he jumps. I've heard enough of people saying " But he's only 19", if he's not doing it now he probably never will.

A season's loan will give us a better chance to have a good look a him over the course of a season, rather than just plonking a nice juicy fat contract in his lap, and lining Ol' Big Mouth Santa's pocket.

SE25 exile

11-08-2000, 03:02 PM

Loan players under the current circumstances are OK, but for me, it is just a reflection on the pressure that Alan Smith must be under from SJ for early success. He is not being allowed any time to sit back and assess the market for permanent players. Perhaps SJ is trying too quickly to justify his parting with Stevey.

Slimbloke'H'

11-08-2000, 06:21 PM

James V’

I don’t believe that Smithy IS building a team around the loan players, I feel sure that he has simply looked at what he’s got to work with, decided that it needs improving in certain areas, and because he most definitely does not appear to have a bottomless pit of cash to work with has opted for the loan deals as an immediate answer to the problem, and no more.

It strikes me that purely from a business point of view, it makes very good sense to use your loan ‘quota’ to the full, especially when the transfer kitty is not as large as perhaps we might like it to be. I feel that it is something we will need to get used to, as I’m sure that there will be several more comings and goings in the loan dept. this season.

La Bombonera,

I am entirely unsure that Mikkael will be up for grabs at the end of the season (as I suggested in my second post in this thread). The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that it is just a business arrangement between the two clubs.

James Verrinder

11-08-2000, 06:47 PM

Sorry to bring this up again Slimbloke, but for the first game of the season we are going to have three player in the starting 11 that arnt 'Palace ' players. One of those is a kid without any experience playing in perhaps the most important position in the team (Taylor), the other is on the road to fitness after almost dying (Harrison). I agree completely with what you say about loan players being good business and useful while we try and find someone more permanent or the money comes along. I'm sure Taylor and Harrison are great players and I will back them all the way but what good is having one player here for a month another for two months? Its fine if they are there just to strengthen the squad a bit but key positions are being taken here which is going to make it extremely diffuicult to get any sort of consistency going.

Slimbloke'H'

12-08-2000, 01:05 PM

Hey James, is this a five minute argument or the full half hour http://cpfc.org/ubb/smile.gif

I hear (read) what you are saying, but would it not be right to assume that Smithy will only play these guys if he feels that they are the best options he has available to him?

I understand that the No.1 shirt is a difficult one to fill, especially in respect of the understanding a ‘keeper needs to have with his back4/5, but personally I would prefer to have the most capable guy available between the sticks, regardless, and if this lad Taylor proves to be just this, then I’m happy.

We should also consider that there is every likelihood that he will have two defenders in front of him who are new to the club anyway, so even if Smithy went with Digby or Greig, you are still looking at a pretty unproven selection.

James Verrinder

12-08-2000, 05:00 PM

I'm sure that we would be able to keep this up for quite a while Slimbloke http://cpfc.org/ubb/wink.gif but as the real stuff starts today lets worry about more important things for a while!

As for the Harison loan thing, I've heard quotes from him and Boro saying that its not going to be a permanent deakl but could be extended for another month

Slimbloke'H'

12-08-2000, 05:37 PM

James,

How about we put this one on the back-burner for a few of weeks, and then drag it up again and see if opinions have changed much?!!!!!!!

James Verrinder

12-08-2000, 09:48 PM

Deal.I think we were beginning to bore everyone else anyway!!!

Laurie

13-08-2000, 04:46 AM

[b]Originally posted by James Verrinder on 08-11-2000 02:47 PM[/ I'm sure Taylor and Harrison are great players and I will back them all the way but what good is having one player here for a month another for two months?.

I thougght I read somewhere that if Harrison proves himself, then we have the option to sign him permentely. Have I got this right?

John 24

13-08-2000, 06:43 AM

Certain loan deals like Harrison and Taylor are good deals. We needed a decent keeper before the season started. I'm pretty sure that a new keeper is being looked for at the moment. But it has to be better to bring in a good loan keeper to start the season until we buy someone than to start with a poor keeper until we buy someone. With regards Harrison, deals like this are good IF we have an option to buy him. However I don't agree with loaning players on long term like Forssell. We need to built for the future and while a temporary stop gap is okay a key player for a full season is not. We still need a new centre forward and the fact that we have Forssell for a season should not hide this fact.

------------------
The absent are like children, helpless to defend themselves.