[h again]

frearsghost, on Jan 27 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

Absolutely spot on. Sheridan is building for the THIRD time with another set of loan players. Each time he begins it's a lottery; are they as good as the last lot? Can they maintain the team standard? Frankly I'm getting sick to death of this loan merry-go-round. All we are doing is providing development practice for the players of other clubs. Are we not turning into a nursery to be used by other clubs?

I also believe that the majority of loan players signed are no more than padding and the club has no intention, whatsoever, of signing them permanently and that this is way is it now for clubs like ours.

It's not working for us as this round of loanees demonstrates and the feeling I get is that Sheridan is struggling to get players of the required quality; so much for the man with all the contacts! This is not the way to build a promotion outfit!

I'm not sure of how much more I can take of turning up week after week to learn another set of names before they disappear to be replaced by another set. I want to see the club build from the beginning of August with the vast majority of players in place not having to rebuild three or four times during the season ending up with the team, as it is now, in disarray.

Exactly right. The whole business is turning into a farce.

[Bonnyman]

frearsghost, on Jan 27 2010, 04:23 PM, said:

Absolutely spot on. Sheridan is building for the THIRD time with another set of loan players. Each time he begins it's a lottery; are they as good as the last lot? Can they maintain the team standard? Frankly I'm getting sick to death of this loan merry-go-round. All we are doing is providing development practice for the players of other clubs. Are we not turning into a nursery to be used by other clubs?

I also believe that the majority of loan players signed are no more than padding and the club has no intention, whatsoever, of signing them permanently and that this is way is it now for clubs like ours.

It's not working for us as this round of loanees demonstrates and the feeling I get is that Sheridan is struggling to get players of the required quality; so much for the man with all the contacts! This is not the way to build a promotion outfit!

I'm not sure of how much more I can take of turning up week after week to learn another set of names before they disappear to be replaced by another set. I want to see the club build from the beginning of August with the vast majority of players in place not having to rebuild three or four times during the season ending up with the team, as it is now, in disarray.

absolutely correct.it is starting to become painful having players flit in and out of the club,whats the point of having loan players if we have no intention of buying them at the end of the term ,2 players have gone back to their parent clubs that on reflection with the current players i would sign and that is djilali and perkins but of course it wont happen....the fans are not mugs and come the last game of the season if we are stuck in midtable i certainly wont give 2 hoots about seeing saltergate for one last time,i will have had my fill.

[Rick Payne]

Sammy Spireite, on Jan 27 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

Rick, Surely the reason they were brought in was because the squad was not good enough or had been disrupted by injuries/suspensions etc.

Had the sheridan thought our current squad was good enough to compete, he wouldn't have brought in McDermott (who i beleive was his first loan signing for us?)

Also, you say we have paid for their development, which i do not argue, but for the same outlay, what else could we have got? Another Journeyman to warm the bench? A percentage of the wages paid to a 'big name' lower league player who never made an impact?

Sheridans objectives are clear, get us up asap, preferrably this season, if that means 30 players come and go and we use the full limit of both long and short term loans, then i'd happily take that, and i'm sure the club would too.

The squad will need rebuilding in the summer whether we go up or not.

This is the problem with the current system loan system, it tempts managers to go for 'quick fixes', but in my opinion, this can lead to longer term problems i.e. unsettled team, constant re-building, inconsistent results. Ok, it was great to see McD, but now we are paying the price as he made such an impact, it was always going to be difficult to find an adequate replacement, meaning more re-building. Would it not be better to build a more 'workmanlike', stable team with the ability to grind out results over a longer period, rather than a few good results short-term?

If the current system was revised to allow for just emergencies, it would mean the manager and players working more together to get the absolute best out of each.

Again, regarding these Premiership 'starlets', it could be said that they are gaining their 1st team experience at the expense of the typical Div3, Div 4 bread-and-butter type of player - reducing their playing time and possible earnings too - imagine in our jobs, if some 'hot shot' was brought in temporarily, in the belief they could do a better job than you and at the same time reducing your income - I'd be a bit drunk off.

I'm coming around to thinking that loans should be used for either just emergencies or with an 'intention to buy', other than that, loans are in my opinion the cause of distruption, de-motiovation of others, unsettled sides leading to inconsistant results; for which the management, club and fans all have to suffer, the winners being the loanees who return to their clubs, probably en route to bigger and better things.

Time for a change of thinking. The current system is causing more problems than it was designed to solve. If you believe in long-term planning, the current system of applying 'quick fixes' is never going to work.

[Blueprint]

totally agree.

We've spent money to pay Currie up as he wasn't getting first team action and was one of the big earners, we've ended up with a kid playing who is no better than the youth team players that we release as they don't make the step up. In Currie's last game for us he was very good, one of his best games in a town shirt, we may have freed up more money eventually but we're worse off for it on the field, i call that going backwards. Also in defence, we've had Little at right back who was no genius at defending and even managed to get himself sent off, is he that much better than Dan Gray, Little has pace but as for defending we were conceding more goals with him in the side. There was also much talk a few weeks back about bringing a keeper in on loan, how was that going to benefit us, Tommy Lee's had his spell on the bench, he's not playing that bad, Crossley may also be able to do a good job in our current defence, we also have Malak on the books as back up, what good would bringing in a 4th keeper do?

Also in Central midfield we have Harsley and Kerry who can't get anywhere near the first team, Harsley has made a few mistakes like at don valley, kerry hasn't had any opportunity at all, if we sign a loan player and he makes a mistake he still plays the next game. We keep signing central midfielders on loan who are here one month and gone not long after, with Perkins and Allott in midfield we were too small (which is a reason Harsley couldn't get games last season alongside Kerry), Niven barely completes 90 minutes at CM no matter how good he's played - in the second half of last season he was one of our better players, Artus may turn into a good player but he needs some muscle on him and a few first team games under his belt - by which time he'll probably be on his way back to city. If we had Kerry or Harsley or Niven playing regularly in CM this season we may have a more settled unit, it's not like we've been short on options but some haven't had the chance to prove themselves.