Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Yellow Wal said:

Long term who is this going to benefit?

Is there an option to buy?

Or are we in the position of 'He was crap and therefore no benefit to us' or 'he was really good and benefitted greatly by us giving him games, benefitted from our training and coaching, became an intregal part of the team, therefore he's going back to Villa.'

Loans without an option to buy are nothing but detrimental to Norwich City.

Bit of a one dimensional look at it, if he helps us get promoted and allows one of our youngsters to go out and get 30+ games under their belt there are definite benefits to us.

Presumably he’s deemed better than what we have and it’s far cheaper than buying another player meaning increased funds to allocate elsewhere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is are we getting anyone else in a bit creative other than basically a youth team player on loan

Edited by KiwiScot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Bit of a one dimensional look at it, if he helps us get promoted and allows one of our youngsters to go out and get 30+ games under their belt there are definite benefits to us.

Presumably he’s deemed better than what we have and it’s far cheaper than buying another player meaning increased funds to allocate elsewhere.

Skipp certainly helped get us promoted and the fact he did not play for us the next season was one of the major factors in getting us relegated.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Bit of a one dimensional look at it, if he helps us get promoted and allows one of our youngsters to go out and get 30+ games under their belt there are definite benefits to us.

Presumably he’s deemed better than what we have and it’s far cheaper than buying another player meaning increased funds to allocate elsewhere.

well it goes to show what Smith and co thought of our whole Midfield including Mclean he has replace the lot this window 

every player we have signed so far would expect to be 1st teamers so maybe Kenny and someone else is leaving 

Aston villa would not loan us a player to play 10 times he is here to play no doubt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yellow Wal said:

Skipp certainly helped get us promoted and the fact he did not play for us the next season was one of the major factors in getting us relegated.

I’d argue the fact we failed to replace him to any degree was. 

Would you rather we hadn’t been promoted just because he went back to his parent club?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clubs lost its way!    In no universe will we ever be signing this lad, so every time he’s on the park is less opportunity and less development for one of our own, meanwhile we develop some other clubs player….  What message does this now send to our U23s?    
Our players can’t develop without opportunity but so often when we’ve given opportunity, our youngsters have taken it!  

Is Ramsey really going to make such a difference to a promotion push and if he does, it’ll be yet another position to fill with peanuts to spend!    

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I saw stats that bad was when we signed sargent from Bremen , and look how that turned out 🤔

Edited by Canary dwarf
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really simple, he's deemed better than what we already have, and 'our youngsters' get to go on loan themselves and play games. 

They must think he is going to help us get promoted otherwise he wouldn't be here. Basic stuff.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, norfolkngood said:

well it goes to show what Smith and co thought of our whole Midfield including Mclean he has replace the lot this window 

every player we have signed so far would expect to be 1st teamers so maybe Kenny and someone else is leaving 

Aston villa would not loan us a player to play 10 times he is here to play no doubt 

I agree, our midfield was so poor last season and obviously Smith agrees as it’s being fairly thoroughly rebuilt thankfully.

I don’t think he’s leaving, at least I hope not. He’s a great squad option, but him becoming an option and not essential is what we need to overall progress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yellow Wal said:

Skipp certainly helped get us promoted and the fact he did not play for us the next season was one of the major factors in getting us relegated.

No the fact we failed to replace him was one of the major factors in our relegation. 

Loan signings aren't the problem. Succession planning was clearly the problem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Skipp most certainly wasn't detrimental...

No but Skipp was a one off .😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I’d argue the fact we failed to replace him to any degree was. 

Would you rather we hadn’t been promoted just because he went back to his parent club?

For that reason primarily as we don’t have the finances to replace them that loans hold us back!    If we get promoted this year we will need a virtual new team otherwise we may as well not bother. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a squad player to me but still a fair bit of time in the window. Better to sign good players now than get desperate later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

It's really simple, he's deemed better than what we already have, and 'our youngsters' get to go on loan themselves and play games. 

They must think he is going to help us get promoted otherwise he wouldn't be here. Basic stuff.

How **** must we be then 1 goal and I assist for Cheltenham town , yet still deemed an upgrade on what we have lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

For that reason primarily as we don’t have the finances to replace them that loans hold us back!    If we get promoted this year we will need a virtual new team otherwise we may as well not bother. 

So just to be clear, you are arguing it’s better to not be promoted?

Edited by Monty13
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

No the fact we failed to replace him was one of the major factors in our relegation. 

Loan signings aren't the problem. Succession planning was clearly the problem. 

How ever much do you think it would have cost to replace Olly Skipp, like for like. And what player as good as Skipp had become would consider joining Norwich in what would be a relegation fight?

We had no chance of replacing Skipp and the hole he left would never have been filled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

And that's why he gets paid , a lot , to manage , and you get sweet FA for your pathetic attempts at being edgy....wooooh.  

How completely internet stereotypical can you get, Man drinks tea, cretin doesn't like it. Starts own little hate campaign. Won't let anyone forget that a man drinks tea. 

Its not what you drink, it's what you drink it from

Footballers with Tits | Craig Shakespeare with Tits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, AJ said:

Interesting signing. Does that mean we don't Fancy Cantwell there? Means we have Dowell and Ramsey to choose from

More than that IMHO.

Cantwell has been deployed in a midfield three so far. It could be that he is looking for something else in those three forward positions.

Could be that he is going to go 4-2-3-1... 

It's going to be interesting when he has players back fit and all available to see how he plays it. I suspect they are seeing Sargent as a striker, not a wide AM.

Not sure where this puts Sinani either as he is said to be more of a No.10 than a winger. Seems like there is a lot to play for still for some of these players. Smith said outs as well as ins. We may have to keep guessing on that aspect for a while yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

So just to be clear, you are arguing it’s better to not be promoted?

It astonishes me how ignorant Norwich fans are when it comes to loans and how important the use of the loan system is to all sides who operate in this division. I genuinely think some of them believe they would rather not have a player at all, and hamstrung ourselves out of a key tool managers have at this level, than accept that loanees have benefitted not just us, but the majority of sides promoted out of this league for some years. 

Last season, Forest won promotion with an absolute tonne of loanees. Bournemouth, 2nd of course, did so with their own cadre of loanees including, of course, Todd Cantwell. Fulham, who won the league at a canter, had Neco Williams for much of the second half playing at right back.

The season before, we did so with Skipp. No more discussion needed. Also up with us were Brentford - who had two loans in their side - and Watford who had James Garner and Glenn Murray.

The season before that, Leeds won promotion with Nkietah, Ben White, Ilan Meslier, Jack Clarke, Heldar Costa and Ian Poveda on loan. 

The season before that, we won promotion with Jordan Rhodes in the team. 

Teams that win promotion from this league tend to have used the loan system wisely. It's a key tool available to managers at this level irrespective of their aims, budgets and intentions. 

I haven't a clue about this lad. I'd have said that going from mid-table L1 to top end Champ is a big step, but he comes in with little to prove, a fresh face who hasn't been affected by the taint of last season, someone else who can push Todd back to his best and another who offers a bit more creativity and goal threat in a side which doesn't have much of that. If it works, great, if it doesn't, no big loss. 

Edited by Terminally Yellow
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Yellow Wal said:

Loans without an option to buy are nothing but detrimental to Norwich City.

Im afraid I have to agree. A team with our ambitions should not be developing other club's players. It is short term team building at best. If Smith feels at all under pressure you cannot blame him for a short term move, but the club moving forwards it doesnt help us.

Take Skipp as a good example. Successful loan, large contribution to our promotion. But then, without an option we are left with a huge hole in our team when he returns to his parent club, which we didnt fill. That, combined with the failure to replace Emi was the main contribution to our dire performance last season.

I dont want kids from other clubs no matter how good they are if they are never going to be our player.

We had options on Normann, Kabak, Gibson and Giannoulis. In terms of team building that allows us to progress if they are successful.

We didnt have an option on Gilmour or Williams, meaning their contribution was temporary. They werent playing for any kind of future.

Loans are what you should do to access talent you couldnt ordinarily acquire -  dont think Ramsey falls into this category at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

For that reason primarily as we don’t have the finances to replace them that loans hold us back!    If we get promoted this year we will need a virtual new team otherwise we may as well not bother. 

Here's the thing, that's how loans work. When we signed Skipp, we loaned a young inexperienced player who had potential, no one quite knew whether that potential could be realised but Spurs felt he needed to go out on loan to "cut his teeth" as they say, and prove that their believe in his potential is realised.

Now. If Skipp was already known to be 100% the player he was last season for Spurs, they wouldn't have been loaning him out to a championship side. A promoted side would have wanted him as we did Gilmour last season, if Spurs felt he should be loaned out at all.

So he came to us. Regular games and competitive first team action developed him from a slightly raw, keen youngster at the start of the season, who was clearly still finding his way around a bit, to a player who could go back to Spurs and legitimately stake a claim for a first team squad position and start games for them.

It could have gone many ways. It went superbly well. The pro is that we had a player intrinsic to our promotion back to the premier league, the con is that we lost what became a top 6 premier league player. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Take Skipp as a good example. Successful loan, large contribution to our promotion. But then, without an option we are left with a huge hole in our team when he returns to his parent club, which we didnt fill. That, combined with the failure to replace Emi was the main contribution to our dire performance last season.

Obvious caveat to this is, if we couldn't afford to sign a Skipp like player in the Championship, or, perhaps financially keeping, say, Buendia was more important that permanently signing a DM, loaning Skipp makes great sense for two reasons.

Promotion gives us more money AND will attract a better quality of player. We didn't know we wouldn't be able to buy Skipp. If he hadn't performed quite as well as he did, but still good enough, the outcome of the loan could have been different, another season on loan or perhaps a permanent move? 

Either way, in theory, after Skipp left, we were in a far better position financially to replace the hole he filled, albeit temporarily, and in a league that attracts a better quality of player. Again, the main criticism is that we didn't really do that either, despite Normann being a loan with an option to buy... which didn't work out for us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

It astonishes me how ignorant Norwich fans are when it comes to loans and how important the use of the loan system is to all sides who operate in this division. 

Last season, Forest won promotion with an absolute tonne of loanees. Bournemouth, 2nd of course, did so with their own cadre of loanees including, of course, Todd Cantwell. Fulham, who won the league at a canter, had Neco Williams for much of the second half playing at right back.

The season before, we did so with Skipp. No more discussion needed. Also up with us were Brentford - who had two loans in their side - and Watford who had James Garner and Glenn Murray.

The season before that, Leeds won promotion with Nkietah, Ben White, Ilan Meslier, Jack Clarke, Heldar Costa and Ian Poveda on loan. 

The season before that, we won promotion with Jordan Rhodes in the team. 

Teams that win promotion from this league tend to have used the loan system wisely. It's a key tool available to managers at this level irrespective of their aims, budgets and intentions. 

I haven't a clue about this lad. I'd have said that going from mid-table L1 to top end Champ is a big step, but he comes in with little to prove, a fresh face who hasn't been affected by the taint of last season, someone else who can push Todd back to his best and another who offers a bit more creativity and goal threat in a side which doesn't have much of that. If it works, great, if it doesn't, no big loss. 

Most of those clubs come back down though. The issue with the loans is the short term/short-sighted nature of them. Promotion or not, you have a hole in your side for next season.

We've been at promotion and staying up twice now and failed partially because come summer we have big holes to fill. Last season you could argue the loans to try and fill our previous holes didnt really pay off, so you need to keep spinning the wheel each time you do this. Gilmour contributed practically nothing and ultimately we would have been better with our own player in that position

Edited by The Great Mass Debater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Canary dwarf said:

Last time I saw stats that bad was when we signed sargent from Bremen , and look how that turned out 🤔

Webber has it all in hand he buys a young player for a shed load of money last season and loans him out to FC Twente 

and then signs a Aston villa under 23 player who played at Cheltenham last season in Lg1 last season for promotion push 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has a whiff of desperation about it

”can’t you fix up old Deano with a loan Villa. I’ll dance for ya? Can’t ya see me dancin’? You gotta help out old Deano. Remember the good times?”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went through 2 different Ramsey's before realising who he was! 🙂

Hopefully the lad does well here, good to see Smith developing a team even though I have far more questions than answers at this point! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...