Our loans

[astro 366]

By my count we now have six players loaned out to championship clubs. Has there ever been so many loaned out to such a high level before? Is this a sign of just how far we have come as a club under the present regime? Or maybe it’s a sign of the struggles most championship clubs have in terms of player development/purchases? 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,183]

I think it's a bit of both. 

[hertfordyellow 460]

7 minutes ago, astro said:

By my count we now have six players loaned out to championship clubs. Has there ever been so many loaned out to such a high level before? Is this a sign of just how far we have come as a club under the present regime? Or maybe it’s a sign of the struggles most championship clubs have in terms of player development/purchases? 

Interesting question. It’s also because of our purchasing strategy. We buy a lot of players and gamble on enough of them to contribute over time. A bit like hedging your bets. We have a lot of players out on loan period because of this.

[Badger 2,412]

I think that it is part of a deliberate strategy to develop players for resale. I suspect that several of the players that we buy are probably only ever "outside bets" for the first team but it is estimated that they will be able to make more than enough from reselling some of them that don't make it to more than pay for those that we have to let go on a free. It is a way of generating revenue from facilities and coaching staff.

Plus of course, a few of the very cheap purchases will actually develop into first team players.

Edited February 4, 2022 by Badger
Added extra comments

[Ulfotto 642]

It’s a sign of the times Chelsea have 21 players out on loan.

[astro 366]

4 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

It’s a sign of the times Chelsea have 21 players out on loan.

With all due respects, we are not loaded like Chelsea, but you do raise an interesting point about it being a sign of the times. But I wonder, how many other clubs of our size have as many players loaned to the championship? 

[Badger 2,412]

3 minutes ago, astro said:

With all due respects, we are not loaded like Chelsea, but you do raise an interesting point about it being a sign of the times. But I wonder, how many other clubs of our size have as many players loaned to the championship? 

Chelsea do it to raise money - it generates a profit. We are trying to do the same, but with generally cheaper players.

[cornish sam 962]

I think part of it is also hedging our bets about not being promoted each time we go down. If we hadn't been promoted last year then it's quite probable that the likes of mumba and onel would have been turning out for us in the champs instead of our on loan...

[king canary 7,664]

50 minutes ago, astro said:

By my count we now have six players loaned out to championship clubs. Has there ever been so many loaned out to such a high level before? Is this a sign of just how far we have come as a club under the present regime? Or maybe it’s a sign of the struggles most championship clubs have in terms of player development/purchases? 

I think its a mix.

Championship clubs have barely any money at the moment so its tough to sell established players for reasonable fees to clubs in that league, so if we want to shift some wages we have to loan them out (ala Onel). 

Someone like McCallum its more about development and I'd expect he'll feature for us next season. 

Sinani was always a punt that may lead to a small profit. 

[Yellow Wal 314]

45 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

It’s a sign of the times Chelsea have 21 players out on loan.

I detest the loan system and especially the way Chelsea use it.

They use it as nothing more than a farm, buying as many players as possible to develop, or to get other people to develop, and then sell on or use if they show they are good enough. Meanwhile other clubs are denied many players that could have a structured future for both the player and the club.

Still their 23 players this season is an improvement on the 37 last season and the 30+ the previous season.

All the system does is make the richest clubs richer and the poorest clubs poorer and keeps them 'in their place' with little chance of sustained success unless they 'do a Newcastle'.

And to think the loan system was brought in to help the poorer clubs in times of need.

[Mengo 825]

26 minutes ago, Yellow Wal said:

I detest the loan system and especially the way Chelsea use it.

They use it as nothing more than a farm, buying as many players as possible to develop, or to get other people to develop, and then sell on or use if they show they are good enough. Meanwhile other clubs are denied many players that could have a structured future for both the player and the club.

Still their 23 players this season is an improvement on the 37 last season and the 30+ the previous season.

All the system does is make the richest clubs richer and the poorest clubs poorer and keeps them 'in their place' with little chance of sustained success unless they 'do a Newcastle'.

And to think the loan system was brought in to help the poorer clubs in times of need.

And we have. Todd Cantwell was the last Norwich City player to make a temporary move elsewhere for the season taking the total number of players out on loan to 18. Playing the same game then surely 🤔

[Yellow and Green 334]

1 hour ago, cornish sam said:

I think part of it is also hedging our bets about not being promoted each time we go down. If we hadn't been promoted last year then it's quite probable that the likes of mumba and onel would have been turning out for us in the champs instead of our on loan...

Our squad is basically full of players who are too good for the Championship, but not quite good enough for the PL.

I forget who it was against, but played our second team in a cup game last season and everyone noted how it would probably do quite well, if they played week in, week out in the Championship.

Therefore our fringe players are basically good enough for a starting place in a mid-lower Championship team.

[AJ 1,224]

9 minutes ago, Yellow and Green said:

Our squad is basically full of players who are too good for the Championship, but not quite good enough for the PL.

I forget who it was against, but played our second team in a cup game last season and everyone noted how it would probably do quite well, if they played week in, week out in the Championship.

Therefore our fringe players are basically good enough for a starting place in a mid-lower Championship team.

Wasn't it the home game against Bournemouth in the cup where our second string tore them a new one winning 6-0? Bournemouth are currently 3rd in the Championship. Yes it wasn't their full first team but it's a valid point and shows the gulf of money required to bridge the gap between us and PL regularity. Such a shame we didn't stay up under Hughton as that was our real chance to become PL regulars 

[king canary 7,664]

37 minutes ago, Mengo said:

And we have. Todd Cantwell was the last Norwich City player to make a temporary move elsewhere for the season taking the total number of players out on loan to 18. Playing the same game then surely 🤔

Not even remotely. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,792]

Is it not a good sign in a way? Showing that we have so many talented youngsters and players out? Much as I will say that I feel like some should still be playing for us right now with our poor injury rates we need the backup and all

 

But the fact we have produced so many players who are able to get regular 1st team action does show how we are developing as a club, even more so given most our players our are youngsters from the academy who cost us nothing or players that cost us hardly anything

 

And this club is about making money from our players we develop and all

[chicken 2,642]

1 hour ago, Yellow Wal said:

I detest the loan system and especially the way Chelsea use it.

They use it as nothing more than a farm, buying as many players as possible to develop, or to get other people to develop, and then sell on or use if they show they are good enough. Meanwhile other clubs are denied many players that could have a structured future for both the player and the club.

Still their 23 players this season is an improvement on the 37 last season and the 30+ the previous season.

All the system does is make the richest clubs richer and the poorest clubs poorer and keeps them 'in their place' with little chance of sustained success unless they 'do a Newcastle'.

And to think the loan system was brought in to help the poorer clubs in times of need.

I agree with elements of this.

I have said elsewhere how many of the rules that have been put in place to 'level the playing field' have actually had the opposite effect and simply pushed the problem elsewhere.

Homegrown is a great example. The reason Chelsea have so many players out on loan etc is because they can't all play in their U23's regularly, especially if they no longer qualify. Like a lot of the other top 6 clubs and beyond, even we have done, when the Homegrown rules came in, rather than encourage more English/Welsh players to come through to be regular first teamers, it's simply pushed clubs to purchase more youngsters from abroad - especially whilst we were in the EU and work permits etc weren't needed.

Signing them at 15/16 even 17, to ensure that they would qualify as home grown later on down the line. They sort of do similar on the continent, only that's more so they can qualify to be classed as permanent residents I believe. What it then does is push more English/Welsh players out. So it literally has the opposite impact to it's intent.

The U23's is the same. From what I can see, our U23's is regularly made up of players that are felt not ready to go on loan, players not far off being involved with the first team and a number from the other, lower age groups to make up the numbers. To the point we sometimes hear that an U23's fixture has pretty much been played by the next lowest age group.

Using the loan system as a way of generating additional income is absolutely nothing new. Man Utd have been doing it for 20+ years. Many of the class of '92 were loaned out first. We have had many of their academy products on our books at one time or another, either directly for them or when we have signed them from the club Man Utd sold them to. Mulryne, Notman, Chadwick, Robbie Brady are just some examples.

With FFP, all of those loan fees and sales fees help, not to mention if the majority if not all the player wages are also covered, you don't have to count that towards your outgoings and your profit looks better too. 

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, Yellow Wal said:

All the system does is make the richest clubs richer and the poorest clubs poorer and keeps them 'in their place' with little chance of sustained success unless they 'do a Newcastle'.

Not really sure this is a true reflection? It is true that player farming provides a profit, but that is a by-product for clubs that are already rich, not a way to get rich. As a system it works for all concerned. Big clubs get a wider pool of players to develop from. Young players get better coaching and the kudos of being "on the books" of a big club. Small clubs get low risk, low committment better players than they would normally be able to afford. Agents make money.

Edited February 4, 2022 by BigFish

[Ulfotto 642]

I don’t mind the loan system as much as young players being bought very young by big teams. The Liverpool guy was it Gordon who played against us in the cup which the pundits were gushing over I didn’t realise at the time that he is actually nothing to do with Liverpool and was bought by them from Derby aged 15. Likewise our own Gilmour was bought by Chelsea aged 16 from Rangers. Angus Gunn was taken from us aged 16. This practice is wrong and should stop.

On the flip side it is a good way to tell if you have hit prospects in your academy system.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Can somebody please tell me why the old system of having a Reserve team, playing in a competitive competition, stopped.

In those days young players were trained, coached and developed by their own clubs, If they did not make the grade they were transferred to other, quite often lower placed, clubs to continue their careers. Permanent moves only.

We signed John Ruddy from Everton, where he made one appearance, after nine loan moves. Presumably every club he went to had slightly different training and coaching methods. How many young players have to have numerous loans, in various parts of the country before finding their club?

One of the reasons young players are so expensive nowadays is because so many of them are at the top clubs, giving the lesser clubs no chance to sign players who have promise. The big clubs will not sell the youngsters to smaller clubs in case they develop into top players. This is what has happened to Conor Gallagher who is now with Palace, his fourth loan club. Palace will not be able to buy him, just imagine the hole he will make in their team next season, almost as much as Olly Skipp did with us this season.

Where has the level playing field gone?

 

[BigFish 1,988]

4 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

I don’t mind the loan system as much as young players being bought very young by big teams. The Liverpool guy was it Gordon who played against us in the cup which the pundits were gushing over I didn’t realise at the time that he is actually nothing to do with Liverpool and was bought by them from Derby aged 15. Likewise our own Gilmour was bought by Chelsea aged 16 from Rangers. Angus Gunn was taken from us aged 16. This practice is wrong and should stop.

On the flip side it is a good way to tell if you have hit prospects in your academy system.

Why should the process stop, the alternative is that once a kid joins a club he can never leave?

[Ulfotto 642]

3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Why should the process stop, the alternative is that once a kid joins a club he can never leave?

I just think 18 should be a minimum age for transfers. Particularly from overseas. It will remove the more predatory agents from the game and allow clubs first teams to actually benefit from the players they develop. Take Gilmour he could have played over 100 games in Rangers first team by now and they could have sold him for much more than the peanuts they got from Chelsea.

[chicken 2,642]

42 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Agents make money.

I do agree with this as well.

I don't think it's a case of clubs being to blame. There is a system, they use it or don't. Agents have to be one of the biggest issues out there at the moment. I mean, look what Rio Ferdinand does, signs up players for his agency, uses his position as a pundit to essentially boost their profile and then orchestrates moves for them. How much money do they generate for themselves in their role of middle men?

It needs to be better regulated IMHO. There are a number of relatively high profile players who moves essentially prevented them from having a decent career, great money wise perhaps. Jack Rodwell is one I keep thinking of. Broke through at Everton, got a relatively big money move to Man City who essentially wanted him to be part of their homegrown quota and didn't play a lot. Over inflated price saw him then move to Sunderland for £10m+ and again, never lived up to the promise shown at Everton. At one point he was seen as one of a new generation of England players with a bright future ahead of him.

At the end of the day though, having academies is a good thing, not all clubs have them, or are able to have them to a great standard and many lower league teams are made up of youngsters who were unable to break through after graduating their academy. I think the worst aspect of this is clubs perhaps hanging on to players for the U23 team when in the past they may have been released and been able to build a career from a lower level. Prime examples of this would be Jamie Vardy, who was released at 16 by Sheffield Wednesday. In some ways, Aarons is also a good example, released by Luton, we saw something in him and took him on. If they had kept him until he was 22/23 to play in their U23's, would we have even looked at him? 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by chicken

[king canary 7,664]

51 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Not really sure this is a true reflection? It is true that player farming provides a profit, but that is a by-product for clubs that are already rich, not a way to get rich. As a system it works for all concerned. Big clubs get a wider pool of players to develop from. Young players get better coaching and the kudos of being "on the books" of a big club. Small clubs get low risk, low committment better players than they would normally be able to afford. Agents make money.

It really doesn't. 

[BigFish 1,988]

31 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

I just think 18 should be a minimum age for transfers. Particularly from overseas. It will remove the more predatory agents from the game and allow clubs first teams to actually benefit from the players they develop. Take Gilmour he could have played over 100 games in Rangers first team by now and they could have sold him for much more than the peanuts they got from Chelsea.

I appreciate where you are coming from but it worth reflecting on why we are here, how we got here and then whether there is an alternative. The Elite Player Performance Plan was designed to raise the standards in the English game and particularly the national team.  The increase in technical ability amongst English players is an indicator of the success of the system, and on the improvement on the system we had before. It provides for fixed level of compensation for the clubs who lose players, but perhaps not the mega windfall that would encourage investment in academies outside the Elite. It does create a hierarchy that we are more than happy to take advantage of via our Cat 1 status when it suits, but as you point out less so when a bigger club does it to us. It is now inconceivable that any player might develop to the highest level without spending all, or at least some, of that time in the system.

Edited February 4, 2022 by BigFish

[shefcanary 2,446]

A typical tale of EPL farming?

My daughter's schoolmate Alex Kiwomya was "farmed" by Chelsea at 15 (albeit his dad and uncle being ex-professionals may have had a part to play in it), taken down to London and became part of their academy.  He played against Norwich in the FA Youth Cup final we won, I think had a couple of sub appearances for the first team in friendlies, but then spent most of the next 6 years being loaned out to clubs in the north, starting at Barnsley in League 1 then Crewe, Fleetwood before eventually being released and signed by Doncaster before they in turn loaned him to National League Chesterfield. He was released by Doncaster, had a trial in Turkey before signing permanently for Chesterfield.  It was while here he discovered he had a very serious medical issue which took a while to diagnose, he was thus released by Chesterfield.  He next signed for Kings Lynn, in 2020, and although doing well, because of Covid Lynn could not afford to pay him so he was released again during last season.  He is currently playing in the Gibraltar National League for Bruno's Magpies (the mind boggles).   

I would imagine the fees Chelsea earned from his loans to League 1 clubs probably did not recompense them for the cost of having him in their academy in the first place after paying for private education and his digs, plus his salary.  So not a great success from either Chelsea's or Alex's point of view.  Would he have been better to finish his schooling in Sheffield and try and make it through the local leagues and clubs?  Who is to say?  

Edited February 4, 2022 by shefcanary

[Ulfotto 642]

A good illustration of my point he would have been served staying at Rotherham and playing some first team games.

Having said this this is an example of Norwich acting like a big club which is rare I mean we took Gibbs off Ipswich and Clarke off Peterborough so if you can’t beat them then join them.

[BigFish 1,988]

30 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

A good illustration of my point he would have been served staying at Rotherham and playing some first team games.

Having said this this is an example of Norwich acting like a big club which is rare I mean we took Gibbs off Ipswich and Clarke off Peterborough so if you can’t beat them then join them.

Probably illustrates a different point, that the vast majority of boys in the system don't make it, even really gifted ones. Most are just making up the numbers. It may have been better for Kiwomya's mental health if he had stayed in Sheffield but his football career needed him to give it a go and when he did it turned out that he wasn't good enough.

[Badger 2,412]

5 hours ago, Ulfotto said:

I don’t mind the loan system as much as young players being bought very young by big teams. The Liverpool guy was it Gordon who played against us in the cup which the pundits were gushing over I didn’t realise at the time that he is actually nothing to do with Liverpool and was bought by them from Derby aged 15. Likewise our own Gilmour was bought by Chelsea aged 16 from Rangers. Angus Gunn was taken from us aged 16. This practice is wrong and should stop.

On the flip side it is a good way to tell if you have hit prospects in your academy system.

TBF, I think that we do it too?

I don't know all the details but isn't it what we did with the Ipswich and the Peterborough players we bought last summer?  (Gibbs and Clarke?) Plus others in the past.

[Badger 2,412]

3 hours ago, Ulfotto said:

Having said this this is an example of Norwich acting like a big club which is rare I mean we took Gibbs off Ipswich and Clarke off Peterborough so if you can’t beat them then join them.

Sorry ignore my point above - I read from the top downwards and missed your later post. 😳

[BigFish 1,988]

On 04/02/2022 at 19:07, Badger said:

TBF, I think that we do it too?

I don't know all the details but isn't it what we did with the Ipswich and the Peterborough players we bought last summer?  (Gibbs and Clarke?) Plus others in the past.

 

On 04/02/2022 at 19:09, Badger said:

Sorry ignore my point above - I read from the top downwards and missed your later post. 😳

 

On 04/02/2022 at 15:25, Ulfotto said:

Having said this this is an example of Norwich acting like a big club which is rare I mean we took Gibbs off Ipswich and Clarke off Peterborough so if you can’t beat them then join them.

We do indeed, which rather cements our academy's place in the food chain as well. It is unlikely that if we discovered a Messi or a Ronaldo that we would keep them long enough to actually play for the First Team.