Fraser Forster will become semi-permanent?

[BroadstairsR 0]

The latest reports suggest that things might be positive for NCFC with regards to getting Forster back next season. Very good news

It does, however, beg questions about the loan system.

In my books, two years (hopefully) playing as no.1 goalkeeper, and with one hundred appearances under his belt, would make him a NCFC player. Many "permanent" signings stay for shorter periods. Yet he remains on Newcastle''s books, and they now seem to have other options. 

This does not seem quite right and introduces a new concept to the professional game, whereby a player is registered with one club, yet really plays for another. Theoretically, it could last the whole of the player''s career. We are talking a whole new ball game here.

There are other considerations:

Do Newcastle really see Forster as their Premiership goalkeeper in the future, or are they waiting for a pay-day once he has been developed at Carrow Road?

Alternatively, do NCFC want to maintain a situation whereby they are likely to lose their No.1 goalkeeper at shortish notice and on a regular basis?

As a Norwich supporter, I suppose I have many reasons not to be over-fond of the loan system but, as an unbiased opinion, it does seem to be a bit of an unregulated, "headless chicken" sort of system which is not controlled enough. Surely there should be a limit placed on the time a player is loaned out amongst other things?  

[ncfc_1902 0]

To answer one point about losing the No1 at short notice........it is possible to stipulate that he can''t be recalled by Newcastle for the duration of the loan (i.e. a season) and he would only go back permanently if he got injured and the loan contract was terminated. Therefore it is very little different to having our own keeper.

[Old Shuck 183]

Good points. The same has happened with other players-Ryan Bertrand a good example, "parent" club was Chelsea, yet he had loan periods at quite a few other sides, including us before eventually moving on-was he ever going to be a Chelsea first team player, or were they permanently keeping him in the shop window, waiting for him to attract a bid? After all, they would get more for him if he was playing elsewhere, than if he was stuck in their reserves.

Scott Sinclair is another example.

This does look as if it is going to become the "norm" for the bigger clubs, they may have no intention at all of making some of their younger players 1st teamers, or know they are not good enough, but, by hawking them around clubs who will take them on loan, the players are "seen" and attract interest and, in the end, a transfer value.

I''m sure its a tactic more and more will take on-get the players in, bring them through their system and sell them on, without them ever being their ''own'' player in respect of the parent clubs intention for them.

Not sure with Forster. Newcastle have him and Krul, they can''t have both on the bench, so they loan one out. if Krul turns out to be a class act and Harper stays at the club, economics dictates they will need to sell Forster-much as we did with Lewis-but they will get a lot more now than if he had been playing in their youth team/reserves for a few years. On the other hand, if Krul doesn''t live up to his billing, then they have a ready made and match fit keeper to call on with FF. Benefits them both ways.

Long ago, Forest had Chris Woods, he was going to be a great keeper, everyone could see it at the time-the loan system, however, was not what it is now then, so they either played him and sold Shilton, or kept Shilton and made some money on Woods. QPR signed him and he went from there to us, England and Rangers.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

I think with the finances in football being as there is the loan system will become more and more important, and can benefit both the owner of the player and the club taking the player.

If we get Forster back next season I would hope it is a season long deal with no-recall, meaning we cannot lose him at short notice. From Newcastle''s point of view I guess they want to keep hold of a promising talent for the future but it is also vital he gains experience. Steve Harper is only going to last so long and although Tim Krul looks like he will be the next number one up there they will want another keeper pushing him for his place.

I don''t think the length a player can be on loan should be limited as it is just restrictive for clubs both at the top and bottom of the leagues. The new 25 man squad ruling for next years Premier League will mean that they will stop hoarding players like they have been and hopefully reduce transfer fees a little.

[BroadstairsR 0]

[quote user="lmc"]To answer one point about losing the No1 at short notice........it is possible to stipulate that he can''t be recalled by Newcastle for the duration of the loan (i.e. a season) and he would only go back permanently if he got injured and the loan contract was terminated. Therefore it is very little different to having our own keeper.[/quote]

 

Yes, but we are the more "desperate" ones in this deal so consequently Newcastle can dictate the terms.

On the Bertram situation. What was said seems to be the case, and you have to feel sorry for the player. Eventually he will need to settle down in his professional and personal life.He seems to be one of a growing band of itinerant players who have no fixed abode. This situation only suits youngsters without commitments and Chelsea are taking advantage of this.

[Bill 1,788]

"Theoretically, it could last the whole of the player''s career"

Though not realistically as it would be dependant upon that player re-signing every three years or so. Given that most loaning clubs have to continue paying some part of the loanees wages it is doubtful that they would keep that arrangement up for ''the whole of the player''s career''.

".. do NCFC want to maintain a situation whereby they are likely to lose their No.1 goalkeeper at shortish notice "

As with Marshalls A and D. We do have other keepers in the ''pipeline'' so it is not an unthought out strategy.

" once he has been developed at Carrow Road? "

Or suffer a long term injury that he wouldn''t suffer sat on the bench at St James. He also helped us to ''develop'' into a Championship club. It works both ways.

[BroadstairsR 0]

[quote user="City1st"]"Theoretically, it could last the whole of the player''s career" Though not realistically as it would be dependant upon that player re-signing every three years or so. Given that most loaning clubs have to continue paying some part of the loanees wages it is doubtful that they would keep that arrangement up for ''the whole of the player''s career''. ".. do NCFC want to maintain a situation whereby they are likely to lose their No.1 goalkeeper at shortish notice " As with Marshalls A and D. We do have other keepers in the ''pipeline'' so it is not an unthought out strategy. " once he has been developed at Carrow Road? " Or suffer a long term injury that he wouldn''t suffer sat on the bench at St James. He also helped us to ''develop'' into a Championship club. It works both ways.[/quote]

All correct of course. I am not being critical of  the strategy of either Newcastle or Norwich here, just contemplating the fact that the loan system, if not more regulated, can be powerful enough to completely change the balance of the game as we have come to know it. Neither is it certain anymore that the loaning club pays any wages. The rules are lax all-round.

As an aside, and probably irrelevant, perhaps Roeder was ahead of his time in his thinking with regards  to building a side based as much upon loanees as upon signed players.

[Dr. Ink 0]

If he does stay for another season, perhaps we can claim a kind of "squatter''s rights" to keep him here longer.

[BroadstairsR 0]

[quote user="Dr. Ink"]If he does stay for another season, perhaps we can claim a kind of "squatter''s rights" to keep him here longer.[/quote]

As he is our goalkeeper, I hope he does just have to squat, assuming the rest of them run around.

[Crafty Canary 495]

Another season long loan would be beneficial to both clubs. Nearly 2 seasons here would be as good as a permanent transfer and we probably couldn''t afford him unless we were in the Premiership. We have 2 fine young ''keepers coming through and with more experience for them they can the assume the reigns beteween the posts. An example of a good use of the loan system.