LOANS, LOANS, LOANS!

[Yellow Wal 314]

When is the whole question of loan players going to be looked at by the people who run the game?

Surely when loans first came in it was to help some of the smaller, poorer clubs who had mounting injury problems and a lack of players of their own. Now it is being used by the biggest clubs, and even lower Premiership clubs, to either a) give fringe players the chance to play first team football so that they can put themselves in the shop window so that the parent club CAN MAKE MORE MONEY or b) to give youngsters the chance of playing in a first team so that they can gain experience so that they can attain the standard their parent club wants or so they can be sold and CAN MAKE MORE MONEY or c) off load players they don''t really want so that somebody else will pick up the wage bill until they become free agents so that they CAN MAKE MORE MONEY or d) buy numerous young foreign players, loan them back to the clubs they buy them from just in case they reach their top potential and become world class players and then they CAN MAKE MORE MONEY! Think of people like Scott Carson and David Bentley to name but two off the top of my head!

The big four have had a monopoly of top players and they could easily name second teams that would hold their own in the top of the Premiership. Who would be the better team, Bolton or a Manchester United second string?  

Loaning players is no longer there to help the smaller clubs it is there to help the rich get richer and to keep the poorer clubs (like us) where we are. Gone are the days when fringe, backup or reserve team players from top clubs can be integrated into other teams. Remember Mr. Gunn at Aberdeen or Mr Crook at Spurs!

The loan system either needs to be scrapped altogether or at least drastically reviewed.

[BCanary 0]

I agree. If the football had been back then like it is now there''s no way we''d have ever signed players like Ian Crook - we''d have ended up with him on loan for half a season and then one of the "bigger" clubs would have bought him for silly money. I don''t think there can be too many people who like having a team full of loan players, either.

[Yellow Wal 314]

With Fotheringham and Eagles now leaving our squad of players is going to be very thin.

Does this mean we will have to loan even more players next season because we cannot afford to buy any? On top of that very few clubs outside the Premiership have the opportunity to buy players with talent as the top clubs are quite happy to sign up promising players just in case they come good. The top clubs know their players will get competitive games to improve and develop them because there are idiots like us who will loan them and play them.

For a moment just think ..... if poorer and lower clubs, like us, loaned nobody the top clubs would have 50, 60, 70? professional players on their books many of whom were getting little or no competitive matches. They would be responsible for their full wage bill, instead of us paying it, they would somehow have to develop their players, instead of us doing it, they would somehow have to justify large valuations of players who had not played at any meaningful level and thus other clubs could, possibly, pick up a bargain or two.

Picking up the bargains was how the lower clubs survived and prospered in days gone by before the loan system became distorted. Remember, the system was started to help lower clubs in times of trouble when they needed help to field a team because of illness and injuries. Now it is a way for the rich to become richer and leaving the poor (Norwich City etc.) where they feel they belong!

 

[whoareyou? 0]

We can only have 5 loans in a squad anyway and we already have that at every game so if we offload some of our own players they will have to be replaced!

I would like to see the rules revised to make it only 2 or 3 loans in a matchday squad! That would solve the problem instantly!

[Barclay_Boy 0]

agreed Bertrand being a particular example. Played for us, and presumably had his wages paid by us for two seasons now, yet still a Chelsea player. Years ago, someone would have decided that he wasn''t going to make it at Chelsea, and he would have been permanenly transferred to another club.Seems crazy to call him a Chelsea player, when he hasn''t played for them for two years.

[Red..Red..Robin 0]

Exactly the same at Charlton, the loanees for the most part have been key in our rapid downfall. A couple of them have looked like they care but far too many have shown little interest or desire and they have kept out many of our developing youngsters who couldn''t have done any worse than where we ended up and would have gained valuable experience for our adventure in Div 3 next season. Sorry to bring it up but one game where we didn''t play any loanees was the replay at your place and with a team of inexperienced players we won our first game in something like 18, still next game back they all came.

[we8wba 0]

i remember saying this 2/3 way through 07/08 season, saying all your loans will go back and you''ll have no squad, to get past this last summer you loaned even more players

ridiclous ploy of tactics in my opinion

loans should only come in if their going to have an impact on the first team or generally covering a position your short on such as goalkeeper at short notice