GR Loan Arranger Again?

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

I have no problem with loan players but I am a little perplexed by the statement from GR that he would be happy with "3,4 or 5 loan players. I am perplexed becuase I do not see how you can have a "three year plan" that is based on a fair proportion of your squad disappearing at the end of a season, meaning you potentially have to start the next season with a different set of players. I am also perplexed because whilst loans can be a good thing (Beretrand, Gibbs, Evans and Pearce are examples of this), at the end of the day they are not our players, the loan club benefits from an increased fee if they play well, and rival (and more wealthy clubs) get to see what a player can do at our expense. I would prefer we purchased some decent young players (I accept the finacial reality that we will not be able to purchase all of our players and that loans will supplement the squad...note the word "supplement"), I totally understand they may see us as a "stepping stone" but at least we would have an asset to sell which in turn generates revenue for the next signing, at the moment we do not have a lot to sell do we.......

[Lincs CR 0]

I understand fully the point, however its going to be tough to sign young players with the quality and ability of Evans,Bertrand etc without having to cough up big money which we unfortunately cannot boast.

I get the feeling that in the last little meeting between Glenn and the Board that there isn''t much money available hence his reaction being a possible 5 loan players.

I really, REALLY hope that for once this board gives Roeder the strongest sum of money possible so we can bypass this loan system, however unfortunately, as always , myself and most canary fans cant see that happening!

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

I was going to suggest to you the idea of loaning a brand new shiny seat to replace your faded jaded one (which I know bothers you quite alot) but, based on what you''ve said about loaning players, you probably wouldn''t be too happy about giving back the seat at the end of the season for someone else to loan or buy, would you?

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

Carrow Roeder - I agree, the board need to back their man and his judgement with hard cash, we really have to start owning our own players and wean ourselves on what I see as an over reliance on laon players. I am not suggesting for one second we do no loan any players, the harsh reality is that we will always have to loan players in. I personally have no problem with a player that see us as a "stepping stone", if he is good and he moves on at a profit then we benefit all ways.

 

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

PMY - I would sit on the oldest most jaded seat in the world if it freed up cash to bu players, in fact I would be happy to stand but that is a different arguement all together....

[First Wizard 0]

Why are you so surprised? some of us knew this would happen, its so predictable.[:S]

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Why are you so surprised? some of us knew this would happen, its so predictable.[:S][/quote]

Not really predictable though is it? GR has been saying for ages that he would be looking to get some more loans in for the season ahead, not predictable but common knowledge. Still, don''t let that stop you implying a negative slant.

[Cottaging Canary 0]

Loans are part and parcel of football these days, even the big clubs have them. Get used to it. And if someone comes in who is going to improve the squad, I don''t care if it''s a loan or signing.

[James Kent 0]

We were never going be able to replace all the players that have left without loan players.  I know most of the players are youngsters, but with have lost the loan players as well and we need the numbers.

[Robert N. LiM 4,475]

I personally think the loan system should be abolished, but you can''t blame GR for making full use of it.The sit-yoo-ay-shun is pretty straightforward.1. We need a decent number of permanent signings. And we will get them.2. We can''t afford to buy all the quality players we would need to get promotion. No Championship side can without a sugar daddy.3. Therefore we will need to supplement the permanent signings with additional loans.

I really can''t understand why anyone has a problem with the loan players, when we have had Evans, Taylor and Bertrand (all absolutely outstanding) and Pearce, Bates, Camara, Pattison, (who all played a really valuable part in getting us to safety). Bates and Rigters'' spells were cut short by injury and Gibbs got better and better. Only Henry was rubbish, and we sent him back as soon as we could.In the current climate, clubs like us will often be faced with the choice of mediocre permanent signing, or outstanding young prospect. Chris Brown or Ched Evans, in other words.

[ZLF 274]

Is he saying anything more than using them to boost the squad that he knows he has to purchase first?

Loans are an integral part of any squad nowadays - but the key has to always be the core squad being strong enough.

[Temp the Revelator 0]

[quote user="Greenwich Canary"]

Loans are part and parcel of football these days, even the big clubs have them. Get used to it. And if someone comes in who is going to improve the squad, I don''t care if it''s a loan or signing.

[/quote]

Absolutely spot on.  Even the 5th best club in the country had at least 3 players in on loan last season - Gravesen, Gardner and Pienaar.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

Thanks for the responses, I am not against loan players and I accept that our financial situation dictates that we need to loan players in. But to the point of the post, do you think we should also be looking to own players (with the potential to selling them on at a profit, which generates cash for replacements thus reducing our reliance on the loan system) and how do you see a squad with say 5 loan players fitting in with a three year plan?.

[ricky knight 0]

[quote user="Temp the Revelator"][quote user="Greenwich Canary"]

Loans are part and parcel of football these days, even the big clubs have them. Get used to it. And if someone comes in who is going to improve the squad, I don''t care if it''s a loan or signing.

[/quote]

Absolutely spot on.  Even the 5th best club in the country had at least 3 players in on loan last season - Gravesen, Gardner and Pienaar.

[/quote]

With respect, they are class pros, not some other teams kids, big difference i would suggest. i would take them on loan right now.

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

Thanks for the responses, I am not against loan players and I accept that our financial situation dictates that we need to loan players in. But to the point of the post, do you think we should also be looking to own players (with the potential to selling them on at a profit, which generates cash for replacements thus reducing our reliance on the loan system) and how do you see a squad with say 5 loan players fitting in with a three year plan?.

[/quote]

It probably depends if they earn a permenant contract and accept it at the end of their loan spell. If not then no it doesn''t work. If they''re a good player and do decide to stay then yes I suppose it does (as they would become OUR player).

[AndyJR 0]

What I shall really miss over the summer is Canary Call - People calling up Neil on the subject of  ''Loons'', always makes me smile.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

Andy JR - Made me larf that did.

Having read through my post again I would like to make it clear to those that were somewhat "defensive" in their response that I am not criticising the club or GR in respect of "loons".....

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="AndyJR"]What I shall really miss over the summer is Canary Call - People calling up Neil on the subject of  ''Loons'', always makes me smile.
[/quote]

hahah!

Harrrrrlllooooooo Neeeiiil!

jas :)

[nutty nigel 7,598]

You make some really good points SOB. Your post is a testament to how football has changed, your post makes perfect sense to me where as the changes in football don''t. Buying a footballer used to be an investment for the future. Clubs like Norwich would buy players and then sell them at huge profits in order to supplement their income and keep the club running. They would never re-invest all the transfer income on new players and the fans would always moan for a while and then get over it. Kevin Reeves, Steve Bruce, Robert Fleck, Andy Townsend, and Andy Linighan are just a few examples of players we have brought relatively cheaply and sold for millions. But the changes in contracts and the players freedom to move around has I suppose made the difference. So now if the club spent a million on a player then that £1m would be added to the cost of his contract over the three years and at the end of it he would leave for nothing. So with no sell on fee at the end of a contract I guess "loons" can be better value for money because it seems to me transfer fees are now "money down the drain".

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

NN - Interesting point you make about permanent transfers being "money down the drain", I suppose that will only apply to players that sign a short term deal and leave at the end of their contract. Tough times for GR and I will be interested to see how his three year plan pans out.

[Temp the Revelator 0]

[quote user="ricky knight"][quote user="Temp the Revelator"][quote user="Greenwich Canary"]

Loans are part and parcel of football these days, even the big clubs have them. Get used to it. And if someone comes in who is going to improve the squad, I don''t care if it''s a loan or signing.

[/quote]

Absolutely spot on.  Even the 5th best club in the country had at least 3 players in on loan last season - Gravesen, Gardner and Pienaar.

[/quote]

With respect, they are class pros, not some other teams kids, big difference i would suggest. i would take them on loan right now.

[/quote]

Agreed Ricky - that was not my point - I was merely backing up the statement that loans are part and parcel of football.

[mr carra 0]

The other advantage of loans is the flexibility they provide, in that you start each season with a cleaner slate, which makes it easier to adapt your squad to fit the division you are in.

For instance, when we got promoted in 2004 (i.e. the point at which it potentially became possible to attract Prem standard players) the amount of money we had to do so was limited by the amount we were committed to paying players permanently on our payroll but not up to Prem standard, who were more costly than the season before since they doubtless had pay increases and promotion bonuses built into their contracts and yet (in the vast majority of cases) were purely Championship standard players of hardly any use in the Prem.

If you were to get promoted with less permanent players and more loanees you could go into that crucial summer with less Championship quality deadwood clogging up your payroll and therefore more money freed up for the Prem standard players you are then hopefully able to attract.

Presumably it also works in the case of relegation.  A lot of clubs who have got into financial difficulty have done so because on relagation they have found themselves with reduced income and yet committed to paying players wages you can no longer afford.  Obviously relegation pay drop clauses have reduced this effect in recent years but it is still a big problem.

 

[7rew 0]

Going back a bit I have finally worked out how to fit loans into a three year plan (TYP).A TYP is based on getting a really good team in season 3.  so you buy the players you need over the course of 3 years.You still need players in season 1 and 2. this is where loans come in.

[BBFF 0]

With very few loan players staying with a club for a whole season can you build a promotion team with so many players coming and going resulting in no stability?

I personally don''t thing you can and as for Roeder having a 3 year plan, it just means major rebuilding year after year.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

7rew - You may have something here, your model is probably right with the exception that we buy and loan players in Years 1, 2, 3. Something else to consider in respect of the "transient squad" is the clubs negotiating position when it comes to negotiating new contracts, as highlighted by the thread regarding The Doc turning down a new contract.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

You make some really good points SOB. Your post is a testament to how football has changed, your post makes perfect sense to me where as the changes in football don''t. Buying a footballer used to be an investment for the future. Clubs like Norwich would buy players and then sell them at huge profits in order to supplement their income and keep the club running. They would never re-invest all the transfer income on new players and the fans would always moan for a while and then get over it. Kevin Reeves, Steve Bruce, Robert Fleck, Andy Townsend, and Andy Linighan are just a few examples of players we have brought relatively cheaply and sold for millions. But the changes in contracts and the players freedom to move around has I suppose made the difference. So now if the club spent a million on a player then that £1m would be added to the cost of his contract over the three years and at the end of it he would leave for nothing. So with no sell on fee at the end of a contract I guess "loons" can be better value for money because it seems to me transfer fees are now "money down the drain".

 

[/quote]

not really, we got money recently for Etuhu, Earnshaw and Safri, and for youngster Lewis and we got money for flops too, 400K for the awful Brown, 350K for the abysmal Andy Hughes