Skip to main content

Loanees

Loanees

Liberation

Liberation

Forum Patron
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
42,942
Location
Plungy
I appreciate that we've gained over the years by bringing them in at crucial times and sending them out to gain experience, and so have many other clubs... But ( unless your club can't field a full team ) then on the face of it, I believe it's fundamentally wrong.... I've heard the argument that everyone benefits but that's not true at all. In fact, all I see are wealthier clubs at certain levels being able to afford to improve their ranks short term.. Surely that's not fair on those that can't?...........

I'd be interested to know the views of those that see the overall benefit to football. All I see is a " bought " advantage........ And for those that have/do played/play amateur football.......When was the last time you started alongside a loanee?
 
Liberation said:
I appreciate that we've gained over the years by bringing them in at crucial times and sending them out to gain experience, and so have many other clubs... But ( unless your club can't field a full team ) then on the face of it, I believe it's fundamentally wrong.... I've heard the argument that everyone benefits but that's not true at all. In fact, all I see are wealthier clubs at certain levels being able to afford to improve their ranks short term.. Surely that's not fair on those that can't?...........

I'd be interested to know the views of those that see the overall benefit to football. All I see is a " bought " advantage........ And for those that have/do played/play amateur football.......When was the last time you started alongside a loanee?
Click to expand...

Strange thread.

You seem to have answered your own questions.
 
Last edited:
Liberation said:
I appreciate that we've gained over the years by bringing them in at crucial times and sending them out to gain experience, and so have many other clubs... But ( unless your club can't field a full team ) then on the face of it, I believe it's fundamentally wrong.... I've heard the argument that everyone benefits but that's not true at all. In fact, all I see are wealthier clubs at certain levels being able to afford to improve their ranks short term.. Surely that's not fair on those that can't?...........

I'd be interested to know the views of those that see the overall benefit to football. All I see is a " bought " advantage........ And for those that have/do played/play amateur football.......When was the last time you started alongside a loanee?
Click to expand...

Football isn't fair Libs. It's a massive dog-eat-dog fuckpit full of unscrupulous characters.

The "bought advantage" is king in a 'game' that covets currency so fiercely, and without morality.
 
It won't be long until there's a single, massively twisted figurehead overseeing the whole show...and you get points, not for outscoring the opposition....but for maiming and killing.


600full-the-running-man-screenshot.jpg
 
I'd argue it's the poorer clubs that benefit the most, in so far as they can't afford to have big squads so the loan system allows them to supplement theirs at low cost, low risk and when needed. Young players also benefit as they get to experience big boy competitive football by going out on loan and developing their experience, when perhaps they aren't ready to break in to their parent club's side yet.
 
HeyshamWhite said:
I'd argue it's the poorer clubs that benefit the most, in so far as they can't afford to have big squads so the loan system allows them to supplement theirs at low cost, low risk and when needed. Young players also benefit as they get to experience big boy competitive football by going out on loan and developing their experience, when perhaps they aren't ready to break in to their parent club's side yet.
Click to expand...


Do you not think that all clubs should stand ( or fall) based on their own ability to recruit, train and improve their own signings?....Isn't that what it's supposed to be all about?...Drafting in other clubs players just doesn't add up to me. ... It's almost like getting someone else to take your driving test for you because they are better at it.
 
Liberation said:
Do you not think that all clubs should stand ( or fall) based on their own ability to recruit, train and improve their own signings?....Isn't that what it's supposed to be all about?...Drafting in other clubs players just doesn't add up to me. ... It's almost like getting someone else to take your driving test for you because they are better at it.
Click to expand...

But your initial argument against it was that it benefited the wealthiest. If the finances in footballer were more evenly distributed I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but what your suggesting is a further narrowing of the competition in this country as the bigger, richer clubs dominate even more.
 
HeyshamWhite said:
But your initial argument against it was that it benefited the wealthiest. If the finances in footballer were more evenly distributed I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but what your suggesting is a further narrowing of the competition in this country as the bigger, richer clubs dominate even more.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't... It was that it benefited the wealthiest at certain levels..ie..The wealthiest in the Championship ( get players from the prem), 1st ( get players from the Championship), 2nd ( get players from the 1st) all pro rata......I just believe that it's unfair and every club should stand or fall by it's own attributes and resources.......
 
I don't agree with 'loan fees'. I think loans can be beneficial for the development of young players however, so I'm definitely not against them altogether. It is definitely an issue when money starts being the primary driver of the loan market rather than development.
 
Liberation said:
I appreciate that we've gained over the years by bringing them in at crucial times and sending them out to gain experience, and so have many other clubs... But ( unless your club can't field a full team ) then on the face of it, I believe it's fundamentally wrong.... I've heard the argument that everyone benefits but that's not true at all. In fact, all I see are wealthier clubs at certain levels being able to afford to improve their ranks short term.. Surely that's not fair on those that can't?...........

I'd be interested to know the views of those that see the overall benefit to football. All I see is a " bought " advantage........ And for those that have/do played/play amateur football.......When was the last time you started alongside a loanee?
Click to expand...

You been talking to yerself again Libs ?
 
Liberation said:
No it wasn't... It was that it benefited the wealthiest at certain levels..ie..The wealthiest in the Championship ( get players from the prem), 1st ( get players from the Championship), 2nd ( get players from the 1st) all pro rata......I just believe that it's unfair and every club should stand or fall by it's own attributes and resources.......
Click to expand...

Not having loans benefits the biggest and wealthiest in every division though, for those reasons I mentioned earlier. Take McGeady for example - with the loan system, one of the poorest and smallest clubs in the division, i.e. us, could afford to have him for a year helping us. When it came down to a straight transfer, we weren't near to signing him with his fee and full wages, but he still went to a club in our division (granted they're nailed on for relegation but you get the point!).

The smaller clubs in any league will always be able to be more competitive if they can bring in better quality loan players as it's a cheaper short term option to strengthen than giving out permanent contracts with the wages, transfer fees and signing on fees that involves. I doubt Blackpool would have made it to the Premiership if they'd had to rely on players they actually owned because they wouldn't hav ebeen able to afford a good enough squad that way.
 
HeyshamWhite said:
Not having loans benefits the biggest and wealthiest in every division though, for those reasons I mentioned earlier. Take McGeady for example - with the loan system, one of the poorest and smallest clubs in the division, i.e. us, could afford to have him for a year helping us. When it came down to a straight transfer, we weren't near to signing him with his fee and full wages, but he still went to a club in our division (granted they're nailed on for relegation but you get the point!).

The smaller clubs in any league will always be able to be more competitive if they can bring in better quality loan players as it's a cheaper short term option to strengthen than giving out permanent contracts with the wages, transfer fees and signing on fees that involves. I doubt Blackpool would have made it to the Premiership if they'd had to rely on players they actually owned because they wouldn't hav ebeen able to afford a good enough squad that way.
Click to expand...



Someone elses player shouldn't be allowed to play for anyone else...It's that simple...Not exactly a level playing field but it would at least be a start.
 
Liberation said:
Someone elses player shouldn't be allowed to play for anyone else...It's that simple...Not exactly a level playing field but it would at least be a start.
Click to expand...

You make as usual, some interest points---However a loan can help some young players in their development---Would Davies be as good as he is now without his loan deal? He didn’t look the genuine item before he went out, and here in the Championship (at that time) he would probably have not got much game time---Also with Clubs who have little money (or Owners too tight) a loan is a chance to ‘see the goods before you buy’---Although I have to admit that as not always gone down well here-- I.e.: Doyle and Pringle to name but two
 
Liberation said:
Someone elses player shouldn't be allowed to play for anyone else...It's that simple...Not exactly a level playing field but it would at least be a start.
Click to expand...

You're still contradicting yourself though. If you're argument is purely that a player should only be allowed to play for his the club that holds his contract, then fair enough. But you also appear to be arguing for a "more level playing field", which banning loans wouldn't create, or even be start for, it would a move it the completely opposite direction.
 
Personally I think the best way sort the loan market out would be to ban loan fees for U23 players and put a cap on wage contributions for them i.e. £1000 per week. It's ridiculous that there are youth players who have no league experience earning £20k + a week. Ultimately a loan move benefits both clubs and the player so their should be fair restrictions put in place to level the playing field.
 
HeyshamWhite said:
You're still contradicting yourself though. If you're argument is purely that a player should only be allowed to play for his the club that holds his contract, then fair enough. But you also appear to be arguing for a "more level playing field", which banning loans wouldn't create, or even be start for, it would a move it the completely opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Think I agree with this as loans are sometimes the only way of trying to level things up.
 
Back
Top