PDA

View Full Version : Loan Signings are crucial


Diamondeagle
17-06-2010, 04:58 PM
Much has been talked about keeping as many players as we can and then bringing our academy players through to the first team however IMHO the most important thing George Burley needs to do as soon as possible is secure 2/3 class season long loan signings.
It always amazes me that with our London capture area of Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs and West Ham you see very good youngsters going on loan to teams elsewhere in the country.
I have to think Jordan was a big part of the problem in clubs not wanting to loan players to us but I hope that the consortium and Burley change that.
Every club promoted recently has used the loan system well and that is the way forward together with a core squad and good academy.

woz1974
17-06-2010, 05:06 PM
Yes some loan players but not as many as Sheff utd Qpr did last season.

vasso
17-06-2010, 05:12 PM
As long as it is only 2 or 3
rather see Palace boys than help Arsenal bring on their youngsters

rhynoeagle
17-06-2010, 05:14 PM
If you dont Get anywhere with Loan Signings we are just helping other clubs out by giving them experiance and getting them off the wage bill.

Though i do want Sinclair back :D (He's rubbish in the Playoffs though)

pauldrulez
17-06-2010, 05:19 PM
If Burley really does like width in the team, then Sinclair would be my first shout, but his wages must be high. Stick him opposite Scannell.

A wing back needs to be high on the priority list.

And a striker of some sort.

Mong!
17-06-2010, 05:20 PM
Clubs nowadays charge for loans so it might not be useful as people think. Wasn't Sears 300k?

Diamondeagle
17-06-2010, 05:42 PM
Clubs do charge for loan signings but as Parrish is saying there could be some money for wages is it better spending on a strong loan signing to add to our aquad than a permnanent signing that may not work out and then we are stuck with?

etu
17-06-2010, 09:26 PM
If the right player is only available on loan, bring him in.

But I don't see the point in signing loan players just because they come from big clubs. We've had a number of loan players over the years, some good and some poor.

Crucial? I don't think so at all. Good signings are crucial. How they're made, not so much.

chatham_eagle
17-06-2010, 09:41 PM
If the right player is only available on loan, bring him in.

But I don't see the point in signing loan players just because they come from big clubs. We've had a number of loan players over the years, some good and some poor.

Crucial? I don't think so at all. Good signings are crucial. How they're made, not so much.
^

cartwheel
17-06-2010, 09:47 PM
As long as it is only 2 or 3
rather see Palace boys than help Arsenal bring on their youngsters
Yeah that Ashley Cole fella we got off them 10 years ago was pants!

macstar
17-06-2010, 09:49 PM
looking forward to some decent free transfers too.

Diamondeagle
18-06-2010, 07:04 AM
The challenge we will have for decent signings is the strength of the championship. Are you more likely to join Middlesborough, Forest, Leeds, Hull or even QPR than Palace ( where the palyers did not even get paid). For a little while we have reputation problem that will make decent players think twice about joining us and we will need to plug that gap with loan signings until we have some stability and credibilty that we are a long term prospect.

stinky
18-06-2010, 07:45 AM
No, loan signings are not CRUCIAL.

We should be attempting to blood youngsters through the academy first, and pick a couple of free transfers here and there. If there is a position that's crying out for someone, and we don't have enough quality in that area, then by all means go down the loan route.

But I don't think they are crucial. QPR, Watford, and Sheff Utd hardly set the league alight with all their 'big name' loanees did they? It is just not a good thing to do (bringing a lot in). 1 or 2 tops.

Beanie
18-06-2010, 07:46 AM
Clubs do charge for loan signings but as Parrish is saying there could be some money for wages is it better spending on a strong loan signing to add to our aquad than a permnanent signing that may not work out and then we are stuck with?
On these terms it's easy - a permenant signing, at least if they don't work out they still have some sort of sale value. A loan is just as likely to not work out and when he leaves it's all dead money. Also, if it's a season long loan we might find we can't even return them, at least a permanent signing might be gone in January.

David of Kent
18-06-2010, 08:37 AM
A left back could be better to get on loan than to sign given that Lee Hills will be missing for most of the season

Jimbo ?
18-06-2010, 08:40 AM
as long as we get some goal scorers in the squad - i dont mind if they are on loan or permenant. last year you just never knew where a goal was coming from if it wasnt the midfield

TONBRIDGE EAGLE
18-06-2010, 09:35 AM
A team called Blackpool had lots of loan signings last season!

andy m
18-06-2010, 09:57 AM
On these terms it's easy - a permenant signing, at least if they don't work out they still have some sort of sale value. A loan is just as likely to not work out and when he leaves it's all dead money. Also, if it's a season long loan we might find we can't even return them, at least a permanent signing might be gone in January.

Or more likely you're stuck with a carthorse that nobody wants to buy and who you still have to pay. Look how difficult it was to find a buyer for the very best player our Academy has produced in recent seasons just a few months ago. Imagine trying to shift someone who hasn't worked out.

GreatGonzo
18-06-2010, 10:02 AM
On the 1 hand people say we cannot afford a 1m signing but on the other people say bring in 3/4 loans. The difference being when you pay 1m you know what you are getting it should be someone who has prved something. All you ever buy witha loanee is some promise of potential, as we saw with Sears. He worked out as in the top 4/5 earners last season and what did we get?

David of Kent
18-06-2010, 10:02 AM
A team called Blackpool had lots of loan signings last season!

Maybe it's more of a worry for us doing it this way since, unlike Blackpool, we have a thriving Academy, so it's important for us to not block young players progress here since they are our lifeblood and future revenue too.

Beanie
18-06-2010, 10:05 AM
Or more likely you're stuck with a carthorse that nobody wants to buy and who you still have to pay. Look how difficult it was to find a buyer for the very best player our Academy has produced in recent seasons just a few months ago. Imagine trying to shift someone who hasn't worked out.
You have to trust the manager to some extent and hope he doesn't pick a carthorse, but if he'd sign one permenantly he'd be just as likely to sign one on loan. As for a buyer for Moses - that wasn't the problem, it was finding a buyer would wouldn't rob us blind. Could have sold him pretty much any time for 500k or even 1m.

Beanie
18-06-2010, 10:07 AM
A team called Blackpool had lots of loan signings last season!
Indeed - and this year they are struggling to sign players to cover those loanees, the majority of whom will go back to their real clubs.

Axie
18-06-2010, 10:12 AM
Indeed - and this year they are struggling to sign players to cover those loanees, the majority of whom will go back to their real clubs.

But even if they do come straight back down again, the fact that these loanees got them up should mean they will be in a better position esp. with the new outrageous parachute payments.

NateEagle
18-06-2010, 10:19 AM
On the 1 hand people say we cannot afford a 1m signing but on the other people say bring in 3/4 loans. The difference being when you pay 1m you know what you are getting it should be someone who has prved something. All you ever buy witha loanee is some promise of potential, as we saw with Sears. He worked out as in the top 4/5 earners last season and what did we get?

I'm not disagreeing with you but we paid 1mill for Carle...didnt exactly work out.

I think its just a matter of balance, decent signings that are not a gamble for low cost, i.e. 500-750k, free signings on low wages, youth academy players and 1/2 loanees who you know will perform, i.e. not Sears who had previously only scored 1 goal i think.

I agree that we shouldnt use loanees in place of our own youth but this isnt so black and white...we cant expect our youth players to just step up to the first team if they are not ready as we will suffer in the league if we do. THis is when proven loanees will be required and unfortunately to get the success that that could bring we have to accept that we are helping to develop other teams young players ala Cole and Sinclair.

selsdoneagle
18-06-2010, 10:30 AM
I think we need to bring the youth forward this season but we do need to get a striker that can bang goals in as that is what we have not been getting over the last couple of season's

selsdoneagle
18-06-2010, 10:31 AM
I think we need to bring the youth forward this season but we do need to get a striker that can bang goals in as that is what we have not been getting over the last couple of season's


:lux: :lux: :lux:

stinky
18-06-2010, 10:37 AM
Clapping your own post.

Bawdy

GreatGonzo
18-06-2010, 10:48 AM
I'm not disagreeing with you but we paid 1mill for Carle...didnt exactly work out.

I think its just a matter of balance, decent signings that are not a gamble for low cost, i.e. 500-750k, free signings on low wages, youth academy players and 1/2 loanees who you know will perform, i.e. not Sears who had previously only scored 1 goal i think.

I agree that we shouldnt use loanees in place of our own youth but this isnt so black and white...we cant expect our youth players to just step up to the first team if they are not ready as we will suffer in the league if we do. THis is when proven loanees will be required and unfortunately to get the success that that could bring we have to accept that we are helping to develop other teams young players ala Cole and Sinclair.


Nick Carle was probably over-priced, his main problem was he didn't fit the way NW played the game. I wonder how he would have looked this coming season with far more passing style under GB? Might and it is a big MIGHT have proved better value for money.

In terms of loan signings in the past 4 season, since we came back down from the Prem we have had the following players on loan. (We had no loans the year after we came down)

Freddie Sears NO
Craig Beattie YES
Rui Fonte NO
Claude Davis NO
Anthony Stokes NO
Jose Fonte YES
Paul Dickov NO
Besian Idrizaj NO
Frank Songo'o NO
Clint Hill YES
Shaun Derry YES
John Halls NO
Scott Sinclair YES
Kyel Reid NO
Nathan Ashton NO
Iain Turner YES

16 players, say the average fee was 250k that is 4m in 4 years on loan players. Only 6 of them were any good, of which we signed 3 and one of the others. Pretty much all the youngsters we got in from other clubs proved to be not worth it, only Sinclair proved any real good.

That money is a 1m fee and a four year contract on 14.5k a week.
A 1.5m fee and contract of 12k a week
Or 2 players @ 500k and contracts of 7k a week.

Which would have been more worthwhile, financially longer term, especially given possibly future sell on value.

Loans should only every be used (as many of these were) when you have no other option.

GodstoneEagle
18-06-2010, 10:49 AM
Which would be a good analysis if all your figures weren't guesswork.

Crunchie
18-06-2010, 10:57 AM
Not all loan players cost money, especially if they are young.

I know it's over 10 years ago, but would have we got Forsell and Cole on loan whilst in administration if we did?

Sears on loan at 300k was an awful lot of money to keep Moses out of the side, and some loans will cost money, especially if we only pay part of their wages, but they tend to be more experienced players, stuck in the Premiership reserves, still under contract on wages we can't afford.

NateEagle
18-06-2010, 11:01 AM
Which would be a good analysis if all your figures weren't guesswork.

Exactly, analysing it in that manner is largely hypothetical.

Im not saying loans are the answer, but should not be discounted as a viable option as they offer a valuable resource when other options are a short term economic risk or are not available due to inexperience. Lets be honest the goal is to reach the premiership...to win...and build sustainably on the income that that brings and other teams have incorporated loanees successfully, just look at Blackpool.

As i said i think its a matter of balance between the different options for bringing together a squad. Anyway, the most important thing right at this moment is keeping Ambrose and Speroni and Clyne! :p

GreatGonzo
18-06-2010, 11:07 AM
Which would be a good analysis if all your figures weren't guesswork.

It was more the overall point than exact figures, they could well have worked out even more expensive than i suggest as well as cheaper.

Its not like you get more cover, all those loanees, made 154 league appearances (28 of them as sub) over the 4 years. Similar, probably slightly less, than you would expect from a 1st team regular, 38/39 games a season.

GreatGonzo
18-06-2010, 11:09 AM
Not all loan players cost money, especially if they are young.

I know it's over 10 years ago, but would have we got Forsell and Cole on loan whilst in administration if we did?

Sears on loan at 300k was an awful lot of money to keep Moses out of the side, and some loans will cost money, especially if we only pay part of their wages, but they tend to be more experienced players, stuck in the Premiership reserves, still under contract on wages we can't afford.

Don't forget Jordan's falling out with Arsenal was over taking a young Matthew Upson on loan and paying 10k a week for him while he was earning half that in wages. That would have been about half million a year.

Doubt may loans are done now without a fee of some description, as the club still have to pay the wages. When you hear of a club paying half teh wages it means the fee only covers that amount.

Baldy
18-06-2010, 11:21 AM
And a striker of some sort.

A striker of any sort.:p

Nelson Muntz
19-06-2010, 12:34 PM
When he's fit we should try and loan AJ from Fulham.

Seaside Eagle
19-06-2010, 01:30 PM
When he's fit we should try and loan AJ from Fulham.

I'm really hoping that's a joke? :D

He's far, far, far too good for this League. He'd rip it to shreds, even when injured :D

cpfcfan1
19-06-2010, 05:53 PM
Sinclair from Chelsea

Dos Santas on loan from Spurs?

Boyandy
19-06-2010, 06:32 PM
16 players, say the average fee was 250k that is 4m in 4 years on loan players. Only 6 of them were any good, of which we signed 3 and one of the others. Pretty much all the youngsters we got in from other clubs proved to be not worth it, only Sinclair proved any real good.

You can't just take the knowledge that we paid 300k for Sears and work from that. I very much doubt the likes of Halls, Reid and Ashton for example would have commanded anything like that if anything. The fact that only Sears, Sinclair and Turner are still with the clubs we loaned them from shows how much value was pinned onto the rest.

Diamondeagle
21-07-2010, 07:05 AM
I am aware this is debated often but do think it is worth mentioning now we are in a very different position to ever before in building a new squad. We are close to 2 weeks before the start of the season and our squad is woefully short of where it needs to be. We seem to be doing well in getting in defenders and GB is clearly focused on getting a couple of midfield players.
We need to be realistic in that we will not be able to compete with other championship sides for that most valuable commodity of all which is strikers. The only way we will get a striker in that can make in impact will be in the loan system and I am sure GB realises that. Let hope he is close to getting Hines or Emmanuel-Thomas or one of the Chelsea boys.
If we added a premier standard squad player or 2 to what GB has already done on a very tight budget it would be a great achievement.
BTW the only other alternative is sell Speroni and Clyne!

GreatGonzo
21-07-2010, 08:37 AM
How many season long loan deals have so far been arranged in teh Championship?

Prem sides usually wait until the end of pre-season and if not the first couple of weeks of the season to decide who might go out for the whole season.

Plenty of time yet, the 1st game might be in 3 weeks but there are 46 matches so we are far from panic stations.

Niel Smillie
21-07-2010, 08:51 AM
I really don't like the loan system and would much rather have a player who is dedicated to the club. I have seen many loan players going to clubs just to get fit or put in them shop window for other clubs to come along and buy them just when they start to play well. Also I have seen many loan players that pull out of the fifty fifty challenge when it was required as their hearts are not really with the club.On top of this I cannot see the logic in paying loan fees when this money could be used to pay higher wages to players that would be dedicated to playing for our club.