Midfield needs Changes For Me The Targets Are

[BurwellCanary 216]

19 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

So what you're saying is is that we can have loans as long as they are unsuccessful, because the successful ones go back to their club after becoming irreplaceable? 

I mean it's a strange argument and it's just not true, but ok. 

I think @Monty13  has it 100% - loan deals come with option to make permanent. I would like to see added - at the current loan transfer value. That means that improvement and development that is down to us is retained by us.

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

9 minutes ago, BurwellCanary said:

I think @Monty13  has it 100% - loan deals come with option to make permanent. I would like to see added - at the current loan transfer value. That means that improvement and development that is down to us is retained by us.

So you're saying if Olly Skipp is available on loan next season and for some reason fancies another go in the Championship, you'd not sign him just because we can't have him permanently at the end of it?

It's madness. You want to build the best squad available - and sometimes that means getting a player in on loan.

As I've said above, the key is not to avoid taking loans, it's to better plan how to move forward afterwards, as should happen with every position in the squad. 

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

13 minutes ago, Yellow Wal said:

No much easier than that. Don't have loans.

Just an absolutely daft position. 

[Yellow Wal 314]

38 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Just an absolutely daft position. 

No doubt you will tell me why?

[OnDaBall 137]

The trouble with the whole loan to buy thing is, yes we can get the likes of Gibson and Giannoulis who are good enough in the championship, but when we go up and are contractually obliged to sign them, we end up blowing a sizeable chunk of our transfer budget on players who aren't good enough for the prem, the only loanee from last year who is good enough was Skipp, who we didn't have a loan to buy deal with. Better to develop our own players, at least if they prove themselves and move on, we get a few million to replace them. That is after all our business model, apparently.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

16 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

Don't disagree, but it always leaves us in lumber when promoted as we then lose key players who we don't or can't replace, I'd rather spend a couple of seasons developing our own, unless the loan is guaranteed to become a permanent signing, as half your examples were.

We can't keep this ever decreasing circle. 

I don’t mind a loan player or two to supplement the squad but I agree in relation to this pivotal position. Certainly don’t want a loan signing we have no ability to sign permanently anyway. 

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

1 hour ago, Yellow Wal said:

No doubt you will tell me why?

Look at the post above.

[Move Klose 303]

1 hour ago, OnDaBall said:

The trouble with the whole loan to buy thing is, yes we can get the likes of Gibson and Giannoulis who are good enough in the championship, but when we go up and are contractually obliged to sign them, we end up blowing a sizeable chunk of our transfer budget on players who aren't good enough for the prem, the only loanee from last year who is good enough was Skipp, who we didn't have a loan to buy deal with. Better to develop our own players, at least if they prove themselves and move on, we get a few million to replace them. That is after all our business model, apparently.

I would kind of agree to that. The only issue is the reason they signed these players on loan with the obligation to make it permanent if we get promoted is because they thought they were good enough for the prem.

I think getting a full season under Smith & Shakespeares coaching will not only benefit Giannoulis & Gibson but the whole squad. Whether they will ever be regarded as good enough for the prem at Norwich is up for debate.

[BurwellCanary 216]

21 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

So you're saying if Olly Skipp is available on loan next season and for some reason fancies another go in the Championship, you'd not sign him just because we can't have him permanently at the end of it?

It's madness. You want to build the best squad available - and sometimes that means getting a player in on loan.

As I've said above, the key is not to avoid taking loans, it's to better plan how to move forward afterwards, as should happen with every position in the squad. 

I take your point - of course we want the best squad. However, I would argue the best squad is the one that we invest it for the future not the short term. I cant see the benefit in producing a team that arent in it for the longer term even it that means a period of bringing on the younger players and building in the Champs for a couple of years

[yellowrider120 782]

On 19/04/2022 at 19:36, Move Klose said:

The core of the squad will probably look like this, with 4-5 new players coming in.

Personally can see alot of players getting loan moves. The likes of Mumba, Mcallum, Martin, Rowe etc

You really want to keep Placheta???

[Legend Iwan 30]

John Swift would be a great addition. I'm also hoping Webber and Norwich are making every effort to sign Scott Twine. Explain the style we want to play, how he'd be the central focus for us, and get Russell Martin to put in a good word.

I'd be interested in us going after either Michal Helik or Mads Andersen to bolster the defence if Barnsley are relegated too.

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

3 hours ago, BurwellCanary said:

I take your point - of course we want the best squad. However, I would argue the best squad is the one that we invest it for the future not the short term. I cant see the benefit in producing a team that arent in it for the longer term even it that means a period of bringing on the younger players and building in the Champs for a couple of years

Christ on a bike.

Ignoring short term to achieve a long term goal is absolutely crazy.

Our long term goal is to establish ourselves in the Premier League. You don't do that without winning promotion to the Premier League. 

This isn't rocket science. Our goal isn't to develop the best player possible - it's to be in the Premier League.

[Move Klose 303]

4 hours ago, yellowrider120 said:

You really want to keep Placheta???

I don't, but I think Smith likes him and will use him.

[BurwellCanary 216]

57 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Christ on a bike.

Ignoring short term to achieve a long term goal is absolutely crazy.

Our long term goal is to establish ourselves in the Premier League. You don't do that without winning promotion to the Premier League. 

This isn't rocket science. Our goal isn't to develop the best player possible - it's to be in the Premier League.

And you dont do it with loan palyers who then disappear because you then dont have a team. Which is why I would suggest a loan with option to make permanent would be better

[If wed kept Howie.. 209]

i got my eyes on Hugh Jarce

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

2 hours ago, BurwellCanary said:

And you dont do it with loan palyers who then disappear because you then dont have a team. Which is why I would suggest a loan with option to make permanent would be better

Of course you do that with loan players. You do that with however you can recruit the best squad possible.

Join the real world, people.

[Mason 47 1,395]

I agree in principle that having an option to buy a loan player at the end of the season will always be the best case.

However, if say a Hamza Choudhury was available on loan next year with little to no chance of him returning the following year, you'd be absolutely bonkers to turn it down. 

[BigFish 1,988]

8 hours ago, BurwellCanary said:

I take your point - of course we want the best squad. However, I would argue the best squad is the one that we invest it for the future not the short term. I cant see the benefit in producing a team that arent in it for the longer term even it that means a period of bringing on the younger players and building in the Champs for a couple of years

This ignores the reality of modern football. Since Bosman, there really is no long term. Each close season clubs (if they are fortunate enough) build the best possible squad they can, and outside the big six or seven that tends to include loan players. The Buendia situation shows that even after a successful season that players will move upwards, the Cantwell situation shows the reverse. The only long term players clubs like Norwich have are those good enough to play at our level (top end Chumps/bottom end EPL) but not good enough to step up to even mid-table EPL. And before anyone posts it, this is not a factor of lack of ambition or committment it is the law of the jungle.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Will someone tell me please where all the current players on loan would play their football if there were no loans?

They certainly would not all be with the rich clubs they are presently with, as this would cause those clubs to have massive wage bills and most of the players would have little, or no, chance of progressing their careers as they would be playing little, or no, football.

Surely many of the present loanees would have to look at joining other clubs and by doing so, strengthen those clubs.

A redistribution of talent would also  allow lesser clubs the opportunity of picking up talented youngsters who are presently being farmed by the richest clubs. If those youngsters moved on later in their careers the smaller clubs would be suitably compensated by way of the transfer fees and the money would be kept in football.

At the moment the largest, richest clubs are abusing the loan system and using the lesser clubs for their own benefit. The more the smaller clubs allow this to happen the stronger and bigger the richest clubs will become. The small clubs will have little or no future and we will continue to see every competition contested between five or six of the richest clubs.

It is a tragedy for modern football that so many talented players do not have the opportunity to play regular football and a tragedy that the paying public do not have the chance to see that talent.

[ged in the onion bag 856]

On 20/04/2022 at 09:42, Yellow Wal said:

But this is the problem with loans. We were always going to have to replace Skipp if he was successful. On the other hand we will not find it difficult to replace Gilmour.

And there you have it, if a loan player is successful we lose out because we lose the player back to the parent club after improving him, giving him experience and massively increasing his value.

And if that player is not successful we lose out because we have had to play him (apparently). Whilst giving him the experience that was not too beneficial to us we have had to pay for the privilege. In both cases it costs us quite a bit of cash and we have nothing to show for it.

Heads they win, tails we lose.

That is exactly the case!   

[ged in the onion bag 856]

9 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Christ on a bike.

Ignoring short term to achieve a long term goal is absolutely crazy.

Our long term goal is to establish ourselves in the Premier League. You don't do that without winning promotion to the Premier League. 

This isn't rocket science. Our goal isn't to develop the best player possible - it's to be in the Premier League.

Did you really write ‘Christ on a bike’?   Love it!    Absolutely 100% disagree though!

[ged in the onion bag 856]

2 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

Will someone tell me please where all the current players on loan would play their football if there were no loans?

They certainly would not all be with the rich clubs they are presently with, as this would cause those clubs to have massive wage bills and most of the players would have little, or no, chance of progressing their careers as they would be playing little, or no, football.

Surely many of the present loanees would have to look at joining other clubs and by doing so, strengthen those clubs.

A redistribution of talent would also  allow lesser clubs the opportunity of picking up talented youngsters who are presently being farmed by the richest clubs. If those youngsters moved on later in their careers the smaller clubs would be suitably compensated by way of the transfer fees and the money would be kept in football.

At the moment the largest, richest clubs are abusing the loan system and using the lesser clubs for their own benefit. The more the smaller clubs allow this to happen the stronger and bigger the richest clubs will become. The small clubs will have little or no future and we will continue to see every competition contested between five or six of the richest clubs.

It is a tragedy for modern football that so many talented players do not have the opportunity to play regular football and a tragedy that the paying public do not have the chance to see that talent.

You’re writing some good stuff here!    Have to agree with you.
 

We are one of those clubs using the loan system supposedly for our benefit, although I do wonder with the amount of our lads sitting on subs benches not getting a look in, that the loans aren’t particularly good ones!    Sending young forwards to struggling teams is not what those teams need and not ideal for our lads either.
 

Something we should look at…

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

13 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

You’re writing some good stuff here!    Have to agree with you.
 

We are one of those clubs using the loan system supposedly for our benefit, although I do wonder with the amount of our lads sitting on subs benches not getting a look in, that the loans aren’t particularly good ones!    Sending young forwards to struggling teams is not what those teams need and not ideal for our lads either.
 

Something we should look at…

A loan isn't just beneficial for the game time though, is it? You send these players to struggling teams so you can test their work ethic, their personality in the face of adversity, how they react when they're placed away from home, often for the first time. Then there's being in training with a squad of men rather than lads their own age. 

A loan can often be beneficial irrespective of whether they play or not. 

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

32 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Did you really write ‘Christ on a bike’?   Love it!    Absolutely 100% disagree though!

That's hardly a surprise. What you seem to know about football could likely be written by Christ while riding his bike on a trip to his local chippy. 

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

2 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

Will someone tell me please where all the current players on loan would play their football if there were no loans?

They certainly would not all be with the rich clubs they are presently with, as this would cause those clubs to have massive wage bills and most of the players would have little, or no, chance of progressing their careers as they would be playing little, or no, football.

Surely many of the present loanees would have to look at joining other clubs and by doing so, strengthen those clubs.

A redistribution of talent would also  allow lesser clubs the opportunity of picking up talented youngsters who are presently being farmed by the richest clubs. If those youngsters moved on later in their careers the smaller clubs would be suitably compensated by way of the transfer fees and the money would be kept in football.

At the moment the largest, richest clubs are abusing the loan system and using the lesser clubs for their own benefit. The more the smaller clubs allow this to happen the stronger and bigger the richest clubs will become. The small clubs will have little or no future and we will continue to see every competition contested between five or six of the richest clubs.

It is a tragedy for modern football that so many talented players do not have the opportunity to play regular football and a tragedy that the paying public do not have the chance to see that talent.

Wrong. They would play in their parents club massive engorged U23 systems, which would become multiple teams who have to play against other sides B, C and D U23 teams if they couldn't get a spot in their A side. Why? Because they'd be on massive contracts that they simply wouldn't and couldn't find lower league teams capable of matching. Believing their would be a "redistribution of talent" following some abolishment of the loan system is naive to say the least.  

[ged in the onion bag 856]

19 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

A loan isn't just beneficial for the game time though, is it? You send these players to struggling teams so you can test their work ethic, their personality in the face of adversity, how they react when they're placed away from home, often for the first time. Then there's being in training with a squad of men rather than lads their own age. 

A loan can often be beneficial irrespective of whether they play or not. 

Yes, agreed although having coached lads this age and how impressionable and expectant they are, it can affect their confidence at a vital time.    Be a lot easier if they were playing or in an environment where there was some success!    Loans at relegation threatened sides and not getting a look in must be difficult. 

[Yellow Wal 314]

10 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

A loan isn't just beneficial for the game time though, is it? You send these players to struggling teams so you can test their work ethic, their personality in the face of adversity, how they react when they're placed away from home, often for the first time. Then there's being in training with a squad of men rather than lads their own age. 

A loan can often be beneficial irrespective of whether they play or not. 

Is this what Chelsea did with Gilmour?

Again, for their benefit, not ours.

Once again we, like so many smaller clubs, are being used.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Yellow Wal
Additional text

[shefcanary 2,444]

11 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Wrong. They would play in their parents club massive engorged U23 systems, which would become multiple teams who have to play against other sides B, C and D U23 teams if they couldn't get a spot in their A side. Why? Because they'd be on massive contracts that they simply wouldn't and couldn't find lower league teams capable of matching. Believing their would be a "redistribution of talent" following some abolishment of the loan system is naive to say the least.  

I think the natural consequence of any reduction in the loans available is that the big clubs will find a way of getting a "nursery club" in the lower leagues, or do what the owners of Watford have done; a few clubs have already dabbled with close ties to clubs overseas, if loans were radically reduced in the EPL / EFL then you can see those "connections" becoming more formalised. 

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

1 hour ago, Yellow Wal said:

Is this what Chelsea did with Gilmour?

Again, for their benefit, not ours.

Once again we, like so many smaller clubs, are being used.

Of course we're being used. Why would a club give up a player unless it's to receive money, help develop that player or offer them experience they're not going to get at their parent club?

Chelsea would have been well aware that sending Gilmour here was sending him to a relegation scrap and would have been a great opportunity to see his character. 

They probably thought the same about sending Connor Gallagher to Palace. I expect they are far happier at the outcome of one of those loans than the other.

Chelsea nor any other side owe us no obligation to assist us. They send these players out to help their own cause - just as we do with our own loan exports. In return we get to use the player for his abilities we would not otherwise have in the squad and the player uses us to play regularly at a level he would not have been able to. 

Don't kid yourself that we are being used. This is a system that very much suits all parties.

[Yellow Wal 314]

31 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Of course we're being used. Why would a club give up a player unless it's to receive money, help develop that player or offer them experience they're not going to get at their parent club?

Chelsea would have been well aware that sending Gilmour here was sending him to a relegation scrap and would have been a great opportunity to see his character. 

They probably thought the same about sending Connor Gallagher to Palace. I expect they are far happier at the outcome of one of those loans than the other.

Chelsea nor any other side owe us no obligation to assist us. They send these players out to help their own cause - just as we do with our own loan exports. In return we get to use the player for his abilities we would not otherwise have in the squad and the player uses us to play regularly at a level he would not have been able to. 

Don't kid yourself that we are being used. This is a system that very much suits all parties.

There lies the difference between you and I. 

You seem quite happy for the biggest and richest clubs to use everybody else and monopolise the game.

I am not happy to be used, certainly not without reasonable reward.

The loan system has become a one way arrangement where the main, if not only, benefit is for the richest clubs.

I would like to see a more leveller playing field where there was opportunity for all clubs to benefit from the game, not just a few mega rich owners who have their playthings of football clubs reaping in the rewards.

I used to enjoy seeing the occasional smaller club win a trophy or do well in the league. But I feel that is now something of the past and will continue to be so.

The only way a club can succeed nowadays will be seen next season when oil money will be pumped into Newcastle.

It used to be that clubs, and their supporters,  would look forward to finding a couple of new, exciting players to improve their team. Nowadays it seems clubs and supporters yearn for new owners.

I cannot agree with you that this is a system that very much suits all parties.