Leason Learned - don’t loan “Big Club” cast off’s

[The Real Buh 3,480]

We need our own players, we lost our way and our identity again. We bring through our own players we end up with Max Aarons, we rely on the “charity” of “big clubs” we end up with Billy “under 8 physique” Gilmour

[Ken Hairy 3,781]

To be fair Williams has been OK, but then his attitude doesn't stink like wee Billy Krankies. 

[The Real Buh 3,480]

Just now, Ken Hairy said:

To be fair Williams has been OK, but then his attitude doesn't stink like wee Billy Krankies. 

It muddies the waters and messes up chances for our academy prospects who are amazing!

[Danke bitte 967]

Agreed with this 💯. I was having a chat with another poster on here the other day, even the loan signing of Skipp has come to haunt us. We need to use the players we buy or develop rather than rely on developing big club players - we can’t afford to replace them if we get promoted and they ultimately block the development of our own, which I thought this whole self sustaining model was about…

[cambridgeshire canary 6,801]

All loan players ever do (and more so for big club players) is look to impress and improve for their parent club. They don't give two ****s about the club they are loaned to, all we are doing is improving players for other clubs and not ourselves.. No more loan players, time to develop our own.

Edited December 29, 2021 by cambridgeshire canary

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

I’m not sure the loaning of Skipp “came back to haunt us” - he was directly involved with our promotion. 
 

What has come back to haunt us is signing inadequate players because we don’t have enough money to attract prem quality players because we are “learning the lessons of Naismith” .  
 

And whilst our finances are so fragile that they  can be derailed by signing one player (Naismith) (or by the way completely saved by selling one player - Maddison) we will never be able to compete in the Premier League. We will continually live on this apparent knife edge . 
 

 

. 

[lake district canary 4,545]

We lost two key players this season, Buendia and Skipp.  Skipp, a loan of course, we might have done ok last season without (we'll never know) and Sorensen would have had plenty of game time and be better placed for this season.  For Buendia, we have a loanee (not a direct replacement, but supposed to be a very good player) and Gilmour is not really making much difference - and again, we could be developing someone already at the club, or bought someone else in to develop for future seasons.  Gilmour will be gone at the end of the season anyway and really, he's probably good, but not effective enough to make a difference for us, so doesn't seem much point in keeping him. 

If we are to get loans they HAVE to be good enough to make a difference. Roberts wasn't and was sent back. Gilmour isn't - and Farke recognised that and dropped him, a thing that probably didn't go down well with people at the club, but if they are not good enough, no point in having them.

[Jimmy Raggatip 61]

perhaps we should be negotiating to add future fee clauses. How good might this season have looked if we'd wangled to say put in a fee for Skipp for 15-20m which we could opt out of if he turned out to be poor?

[Danke bitte 967]

5 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

I’m not sure the loaning of Skipp “came back to haunt us” - he was directly involved with our promotion. 
 

What has come back to haunt us is signing inadequate players because we don’t have enough money to attract prem quality players because we are “learning the lessons of Naismith” .  
 

And whilst our finances are so fragile that they  can be derailed by signing one player (Naismith) (or by the way completely saved by selling one player - Maddison) we will never be able to compete in the Premier League. We will continually live on this apparent knife edge . 
 

 

. 

Skipp’s loan came back to haunt us because there was no way we could ever afford to replace him and a re-loan fell through. The insistence of promotion also meant he was played constantly allowing no one else to develop whether that’s players we bought or through the academy effectively causing a log jam. In some ways you could say this for Pukki and Buendia who effectively stopped us utilising different players. 

[BurwellCanary 216]

I would imagine that given the way we played last season with open passing and link up play, we would have been seen as a good fit for a player like Gilmour and we would help his development. However, now we are playing so poorly I would be very surprised if we were seen as an attractive proposition for any 'development' loanee. At best we would end up with a getting past it type whose club wants to lose the salary until they ship out permanently. 

- 

[Samwam27 532]

Can anyone clarify the position with Gilmour and returning to Chelsea. Just prior to Farke's sacking, all the press and social media seemed to be confirming he'd be returned in Jan, as Farke didn't want to play him.

Since Smith's arrival, all I've heard is there is no option to return him in Jan. I guess much depends whether Smith thinks he can be of value. Haven't seen many in support of keeping him, and I've always said he's a luxury and not what we need

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

34 minutes ago, Danke bitte said:

Agreed with this 💯. I was having a chat with another poster on here the other day, even the loan signing of Skipp has come to haunt us. We need to use the players we buy or develop rather than rely on developing big club players - we can’t afford to replace them if we get promoted and they ultimately block the development of our own, which I thought this whole self sustaining model was about…

I mostly agree with that but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Skipp's loan has come back to haunt us - we knew he was here for a season and he did a fantastic job for us, and as it happens in his case I'm not sure that we really had a young player of our own whose development he blocked - arguably Sorenson I suppose?

But either way this summer Webber knew we had a huge gap in the squad to fill with the departure not just of Skipp but also the legend that is Alex Tettey and yet he managed to spend a very considerable amount of money without addressing that gap including signing goalies that we didn't need (who is definitely blocking the development of one of our own) etc.

I don't see that as a failure of the model but a straightforward c**k up by our Sporting Director.

[Danke bitte 967]

3 minutes ago, Samwam27 said:

Can anyone clarify the position with Gilmour and returning to Chelsea. Just prior to Farke's sacking, all the press and social media seemed to be confirming he'd be returned in Jan, as Farke didn't want to play him.

Since Smith's arrival, all I've heard is there is no option to return him in Jan. I guess much depends whether Smith thinks he can be of value. Haven't seen many in support of keeping him, and I've always said he's a luxury and not what we need

EDP journos said no loan returns this window. And they’re as ‘in the know’ as I know so make of that what you will.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

2 minutes ago, Danke bitte said:

Skipp’s loan came back to haunt us because there was no way we could ever afford to replace him and a re-loan fell through. The insistence of promotion also meant he was played constantly allowing no one else to develop whether that’s players we bought or through the academy effectively causing a log jam. In some ways you could say this for Pukki and Buendia who effectively stopped us utilising different players. 

I don’t entirely disagree Danke, but conversely you seem to be saying that the “insistence of promotion” is a bad thing , and we should play inferior players ? I don’t follow that logic. 
 

Its about what happens when you go up. Villa had Abrahams and Mings on loan . They went up . They signed Mings and spent around £100m (inc Mings) . 
 

We have such a fragile business that we now refuse to look for any method of increasing our spend on players . We are continually reminded that Naismith nearly bought the club down. 
 

The issue is not having enough money , and branding it as a carefully conceived “Model” which it simply is not . 

[Danke bitte 967]

1 minute ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

I don’t entirely disagree Danke, but conversely you seem to be saying that the “insistence of promotion” is a bad thing , and we should play inferior players ? I don’t follow that logic. 
 

Its about what happens when you go up. Villa had Abrahams and Mings on loan . They went up . They signed Mings and spent around £100m (inc Mings) . 
 

We have such a fragile business that we now refuse to look for any method of increasing our spend on players . We are continually reminded that Naismith nearly bought the club down. 
 

The issue is not having enough money , and branding it as a carefully conceived “Model” which it simply is not . 

Well that’s the paradox isn’t it? We bring in quality loan players to get promoted  but this doesn’t help develop our own. 

Then when we are promoted we don’t have those loan players anymore but can’t buy replacements yet the ones we’ve had sitting on the bench the entire Champ season before haven’t had anywhere enough exposure. 

My concern is loaning top end Prem youth into our squad presents a blocker for our talent who we later either rely on or are required to sell on for larger sums which is what the model is based on. 

 

[Nora's Ghost 157]

Skipp was a freak in 'loan' terms and much of our promotion lay at his feet along with Buendia and an on fire Pukki. Like in any job, if your heart isn't in it and it isn't much fun you will just go through the motions.... motions being a very appropriate description of this squad right now.

 

We can all look for reasons and answers but looking back over the many years that this forum has been going there is one common denominator as to why we always end up in such an almighty mess, that being Smith and Jones.

 

Until they go we will remain in a self perpetuating cycle of dashed hopes and false promises.

[hertfordyellow 460]

2 minutes ago, Danke bitte said:

Well that’s the paradox isn’t it? We bring in quality loan players to get promoted  but this doesn’t help develop our own. 

Then when we are promoted we don’t have those loan players anymore but can’t buy replacements yet the ones we’ve had sitting on the bench the entire Champ season before haven’t had anywhere enough exposure. 

My concern is loaning top end Prem youth into our squad presents a blocker for our talent who we later either rely on or are required to sell on for larger sums which is what the model is based on. 

 

The difference is we get paid a huge amount of money to be in the premiership. Even if we can’t replace them, if they get us up it is financially worth it. That said it’s not enjoyable to get beaten most weeks.

[CDMullins 446]

On the flip side,

We shouldn't factor in 'Mandatory purchase, should we be promoted'

We now have £10 Mill CB, who isn't good enough and a £7 Mill LB who starts mostly on the bench.

£17 Mill of talent on the bench is not a liberty we can afford.

 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

35 minutes ago, Danke bitte said:

Well that’s the paradox isn’t it? We bring in quality loan players to get promoted  but this doesn’t help develop our own. 

Then when we are promoted we don’t have those loan players anymore but can’t buy replacements yet the ones we’ve had sitting on the bench the entire Champ season before haven’t had anywhere enough exposure. 

My concern is loaning top end Prem youth into our squad presents a blocker for our talent who we later either rely on or are required to sell on for larger sums which is what the model is based on. 

 

Bringing in young loan players from other Premier League clubs rarely works for us in the top league.

Roberts, Gilmour, Bamford, De Laet, Bentley...all players that did little to nothing for us. Not their fault - they just weren't ready/would never be ready.

Only exceptions I can think of are Naughton and probably Williams (jury still out for me).

OTBC

[Ken Hairy 3,781]

2 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

It muddies the waters and messes up chances for our academy prospects who are amazing!

Don't disagree, Jonathan Rowe did more in his 20 minute cameo than wee Billy Krankie has all season. 

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

The issue is not having enough money , and branding it as a carefully conceived “Model” which it simply is not . 

Don't think that is entirely true - two years ago yes we spent very little because we had very little.

This year I think the usually quoted figure for our spending is £60m+ (and I think that is just transfer fees not including additional wages etc) - now that may not be enough for some people but it is certainly not insignificant, and what precisely have we got in return for that £60m??

Very little based on what we've seen so far - that isn't the fault of the model, or the Head Coach(es), it is the fault of the person who spent the money.

[Commonsense 646]

5 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

All loan players ever do (and more so for big club players) is look to impress and improve for their parent club. They don't give two ****s about the club they are loaned to, all we are doing is improving players for other clubs and not ourselves.. No more loan players, time to develop our own.

I don’t see how you can say that given how much we got out of Skipp last season.

[sgncfc 1,258]

I'd qualify this a little - Huckerby was a loan to start with, and ended up a hero. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

4 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Don't think that is entirely true - two years ago yes we spent very little because we had very little.

This year I think the usually quoted figure for our spending is £60m+ (and I think that is just transfer fees not including additional wages etc) - now that may not be enough for some people but it is certainly not insignificant, and what precisely have we got in return for that £60m??

Very little based on what we've seen so far - that isn't the fault of the model, or the Head Coach(es), it is the fault of the person who spent the money.

If you are saying the money was enough ,but badly spent,  we could debate that ad infinitum. Obviously I can’t argue . 

I still contend that financial restraints stop us buying players of the standard required. Such players want 4 year contracts with little or no effect by relegation. We can’t offer any of that . So we get players that aren’t good enough. 

[spencer 1970 207]

Wow! We're really showing how "small club, small ciy" we are of late. Embarrassing. 

 

[Capt. Pants 4,277]

1 hour ago, sgncfc said:

I'd qualify this a little - Huckerby was a loan to start with, and ended up a hero. 

Absolutely and still lives here.

Loans are always a gamble as the player is often under-developed, unproven and sometimes even past their sell by date. 

Billy hasn't worked out for a few reasons but the criticism and insults are well OTT. 

6 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

All loan players ever do (and more so for big club players) is look to impress and improve for their parent club. They don't give two ****s about the club they are loaned to, all we are doing is improving players for other clubs and not ourselves.. No more loan players, time to develop our own.

I don't think you've really thought that comment through CC. We're Norwich City and a proportion of our players will be borrowed, and Skipp turned out to be one of the best DMs we've ever had.

[Ulfotto 644]

Get used to it I believe we will have at least two loan players from the big 6 for the foreseeable future. Some work some don’t. Chelsea have 22 players out on loan. Gilmour is there 7 or 8 choice central midfield player. He would command a fee of at least 20 million.

For me for a loan signing to work the following must be true

1) The loan player is a significant upgrade on the current player who plays that position.

2) Or the the loan player is covering a long term injury or filling a gap in the squad.

If neither of these are true the loan for me is not worth it.

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

6 hours ago, Nora's Ghost said:

Until they go we will remain in a self perpetuating cycle of dashed hopes and false promises.

Most Clubs Fans would say similar  things about their owners,  as most Clubs  aren't as successful as their fans would like. 

[Coneys Knee 989]

7 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

To be fair Williams has been OK, but then his attitude doesn't stink like wee Billy Krankies. 

Billy Gilmour’s performances certainly haven’t lived up to the Chelsea fans and Match of the Day pundits hype (most of which is based on one single performance against England), however accusing him of having a stinking attitude is a bit harsh. There’s no evidence of that is there? Or have I missed something? 

[Don’t be Krul 399]

7 hours ago, Samwam27 said:

Can anyone clarify the position with Gilmour and returning to Chelsea. Just prior to Farke's sacking, all the press and social media seemed to be confirming he'd be returned in Jan, as Farke didn't want to play him.

Since Smith's arrival, all I've heard is there is no option to return him in Jan. I guess much depends whether Smith thinks he can be of value. Haven't seen many in support of keeping him, and I've always said he's a luxury and not what we need

Sure I heard somewhere that he had, since Smith's arrival, now played enough games so Chelsea lost the recall option. Whether that also means we can't send him back I don't know. Here's hoping we can 🤞