TO MANY LOANS

[renegade tootsie 0]

Please lets not turn this into yet another who''s spent what thread.My point on the loans is that we are NOT building a team. They will all go back.  If, as many seem to say on here, that this season is about mid-table and rebuilding, then surely we would be better investing more into non-loan fees?My impression personally is that Glen (who I do trust so far) is hoping a load of raw talent on loan might just click and get us promoted.  The other side of that coin is we dont go up and they all lgo home, leaving us with another round of begging and scraping to get a team for next season.

[quote user="Dictator Smith"]You call what we have spent a transfer kitty , little Bistol and newly promoted Forest spent more on 1 player , Delia should go sit on their Boards for a bit and learn about running a football club .[/quote]

[Match Day Pie 0]

[quote user="Dictator Smith"]You call what we have spent a transfer kitty , little Bistol and newly promoted Forest spent more on 1 player , Delia should go sit on their Boards for a bit and learn about running a football club .
[/quote]

Well we did that ourselves - with Earnshaw. Didn''t work for us, did it?

[Yellow Submarine 0]

All I can say JC is carry on trusting Glenn, because I believe he knows what he is doing! How are we to know at this moment in time if any of the loan players we have in currently are here with the view of signing on a permanent?

[renegade tootsie 0]

We dont know, you are totally right.  But we dont know anything right now and are all speculating.  What we do know is that in pre-season we were not operating as a unit, that we have a lot more loans than a club our size really should need to rely on and that we cant score for toffee![quote user="Yellow Submarine"]

All I can say JC is carry on trusting Glenn, because I believe he knows what he is doing! How are we to know at this moment in time if any of the loan players we have in currently are here with the view of signing on a permanent?

[/quote]

[Yellow Submarine 0]

[quote user="JC"]We dont know, you are totally right.  But we dont know anything right now and are all speculating.  What we do know is that in pre-season we were not operating as a unit, that we have a lot more loans than a club our size really should need to rely on and that we cant score for toffee!

[quote user="Yellow Submarine"]

All I can say JC is carry on trusting Glenn, because I believe he knows what he is doing! How are we to know at this moment in time if any of the loan players we have in currently are here with the view of signing on a permanent?

[/quote][/quote]

I agree, all this is speculation and pie in the sky. I think at the end of the season is the time to have the conversation about to many loans etc etc.

I think we also need to remember that friendlies are no means of judging a team. You don''t form a set team on them, you experiment with what you''ve got! Plus friendlies aren''t played with any real tempo or passion!  

[TheCardinal 0]

How many times has this debate gone on? It''s getting pretty daft now. I simply don''t see what anyone has against either the loan system or Roeder''s extensive use of it.People seem to think we are this big club able to attract and pay decent transfer fees and wages. We''re not - and like it or not, we have to use all the sources available to us to build a squad capable of achieveing progress. We needed a lot of players this close season - thankfully, Roeder has gone out and brought those players in. By utilising the loan system as we have, we''ve not only added a number of undoubtably quality loanees to the squad , but have clearly prevented the budget we did have for permenant additions from being watered down yet further.Turning to the loanees themselves, I''m not entirely sure why anyone would want to argue with the loanees signed. Bertand, Omozusi and Kennedy are quality players. Lupoli and OJ I''ll wait to see more of, but they come highly recommended by two of the Premiership''s best managers and this young lad from Spurs is signing only to cover the Doc. He''ll add further competition, which is something the same people that complain about the loan signings have previously complained we haven''t had for ages.And that''s the crux of it, isn''t it? For the first time, we have competition. Regardless of where they come from or how long they''re here for, I''d rather have competition for places from players that go back at the season''s end than a paper thin squad that we end up playing players out of position due to injuries.  

[Branston Pickle 3,674]

Quite right Marshmallow.  Loans give us access to good young players who we otherwise would not have the money to attract. 

To take it to a different angle, Roeder said that decent quality players were thin on the ground, but that he could easily go out and buy any number of rubbish players tomorrow, and they''d be here like a shot.  That is the alternative to what we have - is it what we really want, merely in order to avoid loans?  No, I don''t think it is. 

IMO we have a sensible position of permanent transfers when we can, and decent loans for the rest; the longer term plan is presumably to reduce the reliance in the future as a decent squad is built up.  I could see a point in the argument against the loans if we had got crappy players off fellow Champs or League 1 sides, but the simple fact is that we haven''t - they are all good players from Premiership sides with excellent references, and are all worthy of a place in the starting XI.  Quite what the problem is, is beyond me. 

[NorwichsNewFinest 0]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMonkey"]How many times has this debate gone on? It''s getting pretty daft now. I simply don''t see what anyone has against either the loan system or Roeder''s extensive use of it.

People seem to think we are this big club able to attract and pay decent transfer fees and wages. We''re not - and like it or not, we have to use all the sources available to us to build a squad capable of achieveing progress. We needed a lot of players this close season - thankfully, Roeder has gone out and brought those players in. By utilising the loan system as we have, we''ve not only added a number of undoubtably quality loanees to the squad , but have clearly prevented the budget we did have for permenant additions from being watered down yet further.

Turning to the loanees themselves, I''m not entirely sure why anyone would want to argue with the loanees signed. Bertand, Omozusi and Kennedy are quality players. Lupoli and OJ I''ll wait to see more of, but they come highly recommended by two of the Premiership''s best managers and this young lad from Spurs is signing only to cover the Doc. He''ll add further competition, which is something the same people that complain about the loan signings have previously complained we haven''t had for ages.

And that''s the crux of it, isn''t it? For the first time, we have competition. Regardless of where they come from or how long they''re here for, I''d rather have competition for places from players that go back at the season''s end than a paper thin squad that we end up playing players out of position due to injuries.  
[/quote]

Well put Marshmallow. Hopefully that''ll draw the line under this debate. Whether you like the loan system or not, it''s here & I''m gonna guess it ain''t going anywhere.

OTBC! Roll on Saturday!

[7rew 0]

[quote user="JC"]Thanks for the considered responses.

I dont expect us to have gelled - my point was that because we have been forced into a position of not having a gelled team due to the number of players coming in.  We should never have gotten into this position at all.

The fact we are having to have a discussion about ''being realistic'' (read - we aint getting near a play off place this year) only makes the point more firmly that as a club we should never have gotten into the position we are in.

A decent striker will help, but again its a player thrown in who could take months to get fit and gell and start to score. 

[/quote]

I afraid this smacks a bit of the Irish directions joke:

Traveller: "Excuse me, how do I get to Dublin".

Old Man "Well, I wouldn''t start from here".

The problem is that we are in this situation and then to find a way out - I don''t want to argue about why we are here, its been done before.

 

The real similarity to Stoke is not the football or just the one season - Stoke have had a decent number of loans each season for the last few years, the season before they had atleast Hendrie from Villa and Griffin from Portsmouth.

as an aside: Griffin was actually quite a bad piece of business - he cost 300k from Derby, who got him on a free last summer, and he is a local boy.  He certainly isn''t going to do well for them in the prem, he failed with both Pompy and Derby im the last two years at that level.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="NorwichsNewFinest"]

Well put Marshmallow. Hopefully that''ll draw the line under this debate. Whether you like the loan system or not, it''s here & I''m gonna guess it ain''t going anywhere.

[/quote]

We''re not talking about the loan system as such but excessive use of it.

As far as "drawing a line" is concerned, that won''t happen until we see how the season pans out.

 

[O.T.B.C 0]

Loans are good and valuable to any club, let alone a Champ club. These loans will allow us to get some real quality and to bolster the squad in areas that we need. Yes, there can be too many and we do need to limit it to 5-6 and we must not get drawn into the trap of us having to pay them because the club said so. I appreciate the GR factor and he gets some good players in.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]Loans are good and valuable to any club, let alone a Champ club. These loans will allow us to get some real quality and to bolster the squad in areas that we need. Yes, there can be too many and we do need to limit it to 5-6 and we must not get drawn into the trap of us having to pay them because the club said so. I appreciate the GR factor and he gets some good players in.[/quote]

Personally I feel three long term loanees is plenty, as it allows for emergency loans to cover for injuries without exceeding the limit of fielding five.  Even with all the loanees we have brought in we barely have two players for some positions, so could easily need emergency cover at some point.

 

[Stevie Wonder 0]

Wow, a decent debate that hasn''t descended into total mud slinging! Well done all.

Personally, I have concerns regarding too many loan players. We saw the trouble this can cause last year when Roeder kept changing the team to accomodate Gibbs, Pearce, Camara, Bates or Henry to fit in with Ched and Bertrand who always played and ensure that all the loan plyers got games - didn''t work too well as Henry was recalled by Reading due to his lack of games (thankfully!!). I suppose the difference this year is that 4 of the 6 players are on season long loans and I suspect that Bertrand''s will end up being all season too which means over the course of a whole season they are likely to play a decent number of games and we are less likely to come under any pressure from the "parent" clubs. I can see the sense in signing Archibald-Henville too as Doc is out long term and Kennedy is coming back from effectively 3 years out.

I suspect we will go to 7 loan signings too with the arrival of Gibbs in due course - surely he is the utility midfielder Roeder has referred to!

With regards to the commitment issue this wasn''t a problem with the likes of Evans, Bertrand, Pearce, Camara & Taylor last year. The majority of our loanee''s are young lads looking to make their wayin the game and are being loaned out by their clubs to get much needed first team experience in one of the toughest and most physical leagues around. If nothing else it raises a players profile and allows the prem club to sell the player for a lot more money i.e Larson and Muamba to Birmingham and Shawcross to Stoke - would any of these players moved on for £1M plus without being showcased first? There are also plenty of examples where being loaned out has done wonders for a young players career (Crouch coming here is a great example) - the likes of Beckham, Terry & Ferdinand have all been loaned out when youngsters.

In general, there is little loyalty in football now so even if we had signed 10 permanent players this summer then there is no guarantee that they would all have stayed if we aren''t promoted at the year end. Are the likes of Marshall & Hoolahan going to hang around if we finish 14th this year?

You also have to factor in that not every signing you make is a success. At least with loan players if it doesn''t work out you don''t have a player here earning decent money and playing fr the reserves - look at the likes of Thorne who earnt shed loads of cash for very little game time during his 2 years here.

Like it or not, loans are a fact of life now and we will have to get used to a third of our match day squad being loanee''s for the forseeable future!