[Rick Payne]

Is the current loan system ruining football?

I think it is and it is definitely impacting upon our results, especially based on last night, what must Harsley & Terell Lewis be thinking if Artus and Green are being selected in front of them?

Out of all the loan signings we have had there is only one who stands out and he has left a big gap to fill. The others, Little, Perkins, DJ, Somma, the list goes on, have flattered to deceive and have then left holes to fill when they have returned to their respective clubs. Plus we shouldn’t underestimate the unsettling influence they might have on the existing players.

Using loan players also begs the question; Are they fully motivated? because at the end of the day they are not CFC players, knowing they will be on their way again after a couple of months? What effect does it have on the players who get pushed out – Harsley, Hall, Gritton, Picken? They probably become disillusioned and de- motivated, as they suspect they are on their way out?

So using loan players, having questionable motivation, causing disruption to the team, demotivating ‘contracted’ players: Recipe for poor performances I’d suggest?

Would it not be better to work with what you have got and try and get the best out of those contracted players, i.e. Harsley btw, Player of the Year at PV, before he joined; is Artus really a better player and even if he is, when he goes back – will leave another hole to fill probably with yet another loan player, causing even more disruption?

I’m coming around to thinking that working with what you've got, knowing you are ‘stuck with each other’ will encourage both player and manager to persevere, to get the best out of each other. Surely this is a better way to go than allowing all this apparent ‘chopping and changing’ to carry on?

Im my opinion, loans should just be allowed for emergencies i.e. goalkeeper injured etc, or multiple players out, rather than these protracted 'player on loan' who may not be fully committed i.e. just here to get some 1st team experience and then we have to suffer the aftermath following their subsequent departure. Not good for team-building or for long term planning.

Any thoughts?

[BlueRover52]

Rick Payne, on Jan 27 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

Is the current loan system ruining football?

I think it is and it is definitely impacting upon our results, especially based on last night, what must Harsley & Terell Lewis be thinking if Artus and Green are being selected in front of them?

Out of all the loan signings we have had there is only one who stands out and he has left a big gap to fill. The others, Little, Perkins, DJ, Somma, the list goes on, have flattered to deceive and have then left holes to fill when they have returned to their respective clubs. Plus we shouldn’t underestimate the unsettling influence they might have on the existing players.

Using loan players also begs the question; Are they fully motivated? because at the end of the day they are not CFC players, knowing they will be on their way again after a couple of months? What effect does it have on the players who get pushed out – Harsley, Hall, Gritton, Picken? They probably become disillusioned and de- motivated, as they suspect they are on their way out?

So using loan players, having questionable motivation, causing disruption to the team, demotivating ‘contracted’ players: Recipe for poor performances I’d suggest?

Would it not be better to work with what you have got and try and get the best out of those contracted players, i.e. Harsley btw, Player of the Year at PV, before he joined; is Artus really a better player and even if he is, when he goes back – will leave another hole to fill probably with yet another loan player, causing even more disruption?

I’m coming around to thinking that working with what you've got, knowing you are ‘stuck with each other’ will encourage both player and manager to persevere, to get the best out of each other. Surely this is a better way to go than allowing all this apparent ‘chopping and changing’ to carry on?

Im my opinion, loans should just be allowed for emergencies i.e. goalkeeper injured etc, or multiple players out, rather than these protracted 'player on loan' who may not be fully committed i.e. just here to get some 1st team experience and then we have to suffer the aftermath following their subsequent departure. Not good for team-building or for long term planning.

Any thoughts?

Like the big money spending of the Premiership affecting grass root clubs so is the loan system.The progress of decent young talent is being stifled for quick fixes.

[Mr.Spireite]

BlueRover52, on Jan 27 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

Like the big money spending of the Premiership affecting grass root clubs so is the loan system.The progress of decent young talent is being stifled for quick fixes.

I think it is a similar thing that is afecting the lower leagues. The Bigger clubs who are in the premiership/Championship can somewhat afford to hoard players who once upon a time would drop down the leagues to play week in week out. Add to this the fact that the bigger players who's careers in the top flight has finished no longer drop down the leagues because they have a mortgage to pay etc.

Also Foreign players are taking up places as well throughout the league, but this should push quality down the leagues, it doesn't because of wage demands of agents/players which are so out of touch with reality.

It's a real melting pot of problems within the English game and I don't see a solution to it anytime soon.

[paulwardle]

I think the Loan system doesn't breed any loyalty in the players and someone like Donal is an excption rather than the rule.

Players out to have to go out on Season long loans to Clubs unless they become injured for a long period, say 8 weeks when there could be an option to send them back, and there should be a deadline on when loan signings can be made.

The current situation is affecting us badly and disrupting our side.

[DIFH]

paulwardle, on Jan 27 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

I think the Loan system doesn't breed any loyalty in the players and someone like Donal is an excption rather than the rule.

Players out to have to go out on Season long loans to Clubs unless they become injured for a long period, say 8 weeks when there could be an option to send them back, and there should be a deadline on when loan signings can be made.

The current situation is affecting us badly and disrupting our side.

Although the loan system has saved our bacon I feel the loan system helps the 'HAVES'' to protect themselves and keep the 'HAVE NOTS' in a position where they cannot threaten. But without the loan system those clubs in the lower leagues would fold and die in the current climate.

[Sammy Spireite]

The loan system is why we are where we are, without it we wouldn't have had players like McDermott, Little, Perkins, Djilali, Conlon and wouldn't have moved the likes of Currie on etc.

Imagine where we would be this season so far with players like Harsley et al playing regularly.

[frearsghost]

Rick Payne, on Jan 27 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

Is the current loan system ruining football?

I think it is and it is definitely impacting upon our results, especially based on last night, what must Harsley & Terell Lewis be thinking if Artus and Green are being selected in front of them?

Out of all the loan signings we have had there is only one who stands out and he has left a big gap to fill. The others, Little, Perkins, DJ, Somma, the list goes on, have flattered to deceive and have then left holes to fill when they have returned to their respective clubs. Plus we shouldn’t underestimate the unsettling influence they might have on the existing players.

Using loan players also begs the question; Are they fully motivated? because at the end of the day they are not CFC players, knowing they will be on their way again after a couple of months? What effect does it have on the players who get pushed out – Harsley, Hall, Gritton, Picken? They probably become disillusioned and de- motivated, as they suspect they are on their way out?

So using loan players, having questionable motivation, causing disruption to the team, demotivating ‘contracted’ players: Recipe for poor performances I’d suggest?

Would it not be better to work with what you have got and try and get the best out of those contracted players, i.e. Harsley btw, Player of the Year at PV, before he joined; is Artus really a better player and even if he is, when he goes back – will leave another hole to fill probably with yet another loan player, causing even more disruption?

I’m coming around to thinking that working with what you've got, knowing you are ‘stuck with each other’ will encourage both player and manager to persevere, to get the best out of each other. Surely this is a better way to go than allowing all this apparent ‘chopping and changing’ to carry on?

Im my opinion, loans should just be allowed for emergencies i.e. goalkeeper injured etc, or multiple players out, rather than these protracted 'player on loan' who may not be fully committed i.e. just here to get some 1st team experience and then we have to suffer the aftermath following their subsequent departure. Not good for team-building or for long term planning.

Any thoughts?

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.

This post has been edited by frearsghost: 27 January 2010 - 04:21 PM

[Sammy Spireite]

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 permantly 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.

Given the standard of the majority of loan players we have had at this club in recent times, the loan system is the ONLY way we would see these players in a blue shirt. I don't think its that the club has no intention of signing them but moreover the club could never be in a position to sign them so the loan system allows you to gain from their ability without the financial burden.

Carson is a typical example, excellent shot stopper and for a young keeper, was big yet agile and was a class above this level. We would never be able to match his wages at Sunderland (reputed to be £2k a week plus) so the loan system allowed us to use his ability, him to get first team experience and for his parent club to see how he makes the step up, without jeorpardising their own league position/results. He is now a regular in the first team squad so it obviously worked for them and him.

[boot]

I think it was Wenger who said that he would never sign more than 2 players in a window because it is so difficult to integrate them into the club never mind the team. We sign players one after the other and they go straight in regardless of ability it seems. Rick makes some very valid points I believe. Too many necomers no better and sometimes worse than the demotivated ones already here.

[JonB]

Sammy Spireite, on Jan 27 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

Carson is a typical example, excellent shot stopper and for a young keeper, was big yet agile and was a class above this level. We would never be able to match his wages at Sunderland (reputed to be £2k a week plus) so the loan system allowed us to use his ability, him to get first team experience and for his parent club to see how he makes the step up, without jeorpardising their own league position/results. He is now a regular in the first team squad so it obviously worked for them and him.

Only have to look at the likes of O'Hara and Hitzlsperger to realise that a lot of loan players will never stay with the club permanently.

[philmoore6]

Rick Payne, on Jan 27 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

Is the current loan system ruining football?

I think it is and it is definitely impacting upon our results, especially based on last night, what must Harsley & Terell Lewis be thinking if Artus and Green are being selected in front of them?

Out of all the loan signings we have had there is only one who stands out and he has left a big gap to fill. The others, Little, Perkins, DJ, Somma, the list goes on, have flattered to deceive and have then left holes to fill when they have returned to their respective clubs. Plus we shouldn’t underestimate the unsettling influence they might have on the existing players.

Using loan players also begs the question; Are they fully motivated? because at the end of the day they are not CFC players, knowing they will be on their way again after a couple of months? What effect does it have on the players who get pushed out – Harsley, Hall, Gritton, Picken? They probably become disillusioned and de- motivated, as they suspect they are on their way out?

So using loan players, having questionable motivation, causing disruption to the team, demotivating ‘contracted’ players: Recipe for poor performances I’d suggest?

Would it not be better to work with what you have got and try and get the best out of those contracted players, i.e. Harsley btw, Player of the Year at PV, before he joined; is Artus really a better player and even if he is, when he goes back – will leave another hole to fill probably with yet another loan player, causing even more disruption?

I’m coming around to thinking that working with what you've got, knowing you are ‘stuck with each other’ will encourage both player and manager to persevere, to get the best out of each other. Surely this is a better way to go than allowing all this apparent ‘chopping and changing’ to carry on?

Im my opinion, loans should just be allowed for emergencies i.e. goalkeeper injured etc, or multiple players out, rather than these protracted 'player on loan' who may not be fully committed i.e. just here to get some 1st team experience and then we have to suffer the aftermath following their subsequent departure. Not good for team-building or for long term planning.

Any thoughts?

im inclined to agree with the way you are thinking rick

with the influx of players at the start of last season without the loan players we would have had to utilise the players on our books and with a settled side some of the sidelined players may well have formed a useful team

but then that is something we will never know now

[boot]

Sammy Spireite, on Jan 27 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

Given the standard of the majority of loan players we have had at this club in recent times, the loan system is the ONLY way we would see these players in a blue shirt. I don't think its that the club has no intention of signing them but moreover the club could never be in a position to sign them so the loan system allows you to gain from their ability without the financial burden.

Carson is a typical example, excellent shot stopper and for a young keeper, was big yet agile and was a class above this level. We would never be able to match his wages at Sunderland (reputed to be £2k a week plus) so the loan system allowed us to use his ability, him to get first team experience and for his parent club to see how he makes the step up, without jeorpardising their own league position/results. He is now a regular in the first team squad so it obviously worked for them and him.

I take your point, although you could have chosen a better example than Carson. The current debate revolves around not the likes of some of our past gems but the recent batch of quick fixes of questionable superiority to what we already have and the affect of that on team and club morale. The majority you mention is quickly becoming a minority.

[Sammy Spireite]

JonB, on Jan 27 2010, 04:38 PM, said:

Only have to look at the likes of O'Hara and Hitzlsperger to realise that a lot of loan players will never stay with the club permanently.

Two more excellent examples JonB, others include:

Clingan
JCR

and to a lesser extent players like Daniels, Hartley, Hawkins, Till and McDonald are all now playing regularly at a higher level on a higher wage than they could have commanded here.

[TOTONRABBIT]

good initial post, i would like to see the likes of gritton/harsley/kerry etc get a chance, you never know they might come good, i'm sure they'd put their all in even if it was to impress any scouts that are watching

is there a limit to how many loan signings you can make in a season?

how about going back to 11 plus 1 sub

[Rick Payne]

Sammy Spireite, on Jan 27 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

Two more excellent examples JonB, others include:

Clingan
JCR

and to a lesser extent players like Daniels, Hartley, Hawkins, Till and McDonald are all now playing regularly at a higher level on a higher wage than they could have commanded here.

Fully accepted Sammy but my point is, and they were great to watch btw, is that that they (clingan, JCR, O'hara, Hitz etc) were the real winners as like you say, they have gone on to better things, but I'd suggest their success has been at our expense as, 1) we paid for their development and intro to 1st team footy, 2) our team was weaker after they left, leaving us to struggle and find other lesser replacements.

Would it not be better to have a 'settled' team of probably less skilfull and less talented players than one that is constantly been re-configured every couple of months to accomodate future Premiership stars?

[Sammy Spireite]

Rick Payne, on Jan 27 2010, 05:16 PM, said:

Fully accepted Sammy but my point is, and they were great to watch btw, is that that they (clingan, JCR, O'hara, Hitz etc) were the real winners as like you say, they have gone on to better things, but I'd suggest their success has been at our expense as, 1) we paid for their development and intro to 1st team footy, 2) our team was weaker after they left, leaving us to struggle and find other lesser replacements.

Would it not be better to have a 'settled' team of probably less skilfull and less talented players than one that is constantly been re-configured every couple of months to accomodate future Premiership stars?

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.

[Scooby Doo]

Rick Payne, on Jan 27 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

Is the current loan system ruining football?

I think it is and it is definitely impacting upon our results, especially based on last night, what must Harsley & Terell Lewis be thinking if Artus and Green are being selected in front of them?

Out of all the loan signings we have had there is only one who stands out and he has left a big gap to fill. The others, Little, Perkins, DJ, Somma, the list goes on, have flattered to deceive and have then left holes to fill when they have returned to their respective clubs. Plus we shouldn’t underestimate the unsettling influence they might have on the existing players.

Using loan players also begs the question; Are they fully motivated? because at the end of the day they are not CFC players, knowing they will be on their way again after a couple of months? What effect does it have on the players who get pushed out – Harsley, Hall, Gritton, Picken? They probably become disillusioned and de- motivated, as they suspect they are on their way out?

So using loan players, having questionable motivation, causing disruption to the team, demotivating ‘contracted’ players: Recipe for poor performances I’d suggest?

Would it not be better to work with what you have got and try and get the best out of those contracted players, i.e. Harsley btw, Player of the Year at PV, before he joined; is Artus really a better player and even if he is, when he goes back – will leave another hole to fill probably with yet another loan player, causing even more disruption?

I’m coming around to thinking that working with what you've got, knowing you are ‘stuck with each other’ will encourage both player and manager to persevere, to get the best out of each other. Surely this is a better way to go than allowing all this apparent ‘chopping and changing’ to carry on?

Im my opinion, loans should just be allowed for emergencies i.e. goalkeeper injured etc, or multiple players out, rather than these protracted 'player on loan' who may not be fully committed i.e. just here to get some 1st team experience and then we have to suffer the aftermath following their subsequent departure. Not good for team-building or for long term planning.

Any thoughts?

Spot on Rick although I don't mind using the loan market if there is a player that you are interested in where there is a realistic chance of signing them permanently.

[Scooby Doo]

Sammy Spireite, on Jan 27 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

The loan system is why we are where we are, without it we wouldn't have had players like McDermott, Little, Perkins, Djilali, Conlon and wouldn't have moved the likes of Currie on etc.

Imagine where we would be this season so far with players like Harsley et al playing regularly.

Why don't we give him a proper chance more than just a game here and there, lets say 5 games on the trot maybe he might suprise us?

[Blueprint]

Rick Payne, on Jan 27 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

Is the current loan system ruining football?

I think it is and it is definitely impacting upon our results, especially based on last night, what must Harsley & Terell Lewis be thinking if Artus and Green are being selected in front of them?

Out of all the loan signings we have had there is only one who stands out and he has left a big gap to fill. The others, Little, Perkins, DJ, Somma, the list goes on, have flattered to deceive and have then left holes to fill when they have returned to their respective clubs. Plus we shouldn’t underestimate the unsettling influence they might have on the existing players.

Using loan players also begs the question; Are they fully motivated? because at the end of the day they are not CFC players, knowing they will be on their way again after a couple of months? What effect does it have on the players who get pushed out – Harsley, Hall, Gritton, Picken? They probably become disillusioned and de- motivated, as they suspect they are on their way out?

So using loan players, having questionable motivation, causing disruption to the team, demotivating ‘contracted’ players: Recipe for poor performances I’d suggest?

Would it not be better to work with what you have got and try and get the best out of those contracted players, i.e. Harsley btw, Player of the Year at PV, before he joined; is Artus really a better player and even if he is, when he goes back – will leave another hole to fill probably with yet another loan player, causing even more disruption?

I’m coming around to thinking that working with what you've got, knowing you are ‘stuck with each other’ will encourage both player and manager to persevere, to get the best out of each other. Surely this is a better way to go than allowing all this apparent ‘chopping and changing’ to carry on?

Im my opinion, loans should just be allowed for emergencies i.e. goalkeeper injured etc, or multiple players out, rather than these protracted 'player on loan' who may not be fully committed i.e. just here to get some 1st team experience and then we have to suffer the aftermath following their subsequent departure. Not good for team-building or for long term planning.

Any thoughts?

Given that Rico was said to be a poor motivator and one of the worst managers we've ever had i would have liked the new manager to come in and show us that the players who were signed were good enough and it was the manager who couldn't get the best out of them, JD used to bring in cast offs from other clubs, often players who had been injured and couldn't get back into the side, but he usually brought in the right players that we needed, the difference is he brought them in gradually, and we gradually improved, too many changes due to the revolving door of loan players is costing us as we can't obtain a balanced and settled side. We need a few loan players to complete the side, not many loan signings that we sorely miss when they return to their parent clubs. Basically if a player is precisely what we need it means they have a future at their parent club, if we have chance of signing them permanently it's as they aren't good enough at their parent club and they usually aren't good enough for us either.

The best managers at this level are the ones like Keith Hill, John Still, Eddie Howe, Sammy McIlroy and John Coleman, managers who can get the best out of cheap buys, John Sheridan seems to be a manager who needs that extra bit of money to bring better players in as he can't improve existing players like Gritton, Hall, Harsley, Niven, Currie and Kerry. We are a division two club, so far with the exception of Conlon every other signing has been from a club in a higher division, we're not signing many players that JD would sign - players who aren't getting opportunities at clubs around us but have the experience at this level, all we are doing is signing players who either won't be good enough until they've got 6 months first team games under their belt or players that aren't going to come here full time.

The best opportunity for us to strengthen is the summer when the deadwood can be offloaded and replacements can be brought in who will be our own players, the best we can hope for this season is to sneak into the play offs and then rebuild in the summer so we have a better side to compete next season - when we have our new stadium and more income.

[DIFH]

Blueprint, on Jan 27 2010, 08:52 PM, said:

Given that Rico was said to be a poor motivator and one of the worst managers we've ever had i would have liked the new manager to come in and show us that the players who were signed were good enough and it was the manager who couldn't get the best out of them, JD used to bring in cast offs from other clubs, often players who had been injured and couldn't get back into the side, but he usually brought in the right players that we needed, the difference is he brought them in gradually, and we gradually improved, too many changes due to the revolving door of loan players is costing us as we can't obtain a balanced and settled side. We need a few loan players to complete the side, not many loan signings that we sorely miss when they return to their parent clubs. Basically if a player is precisely what we need it means they have a future at their parent club, if we have chance of signing them permanently it's as they aren't good enough at their parent club and they usually aren't good enough for us either.

The best managers at this level are the ones like Keith Hill, John Still, Eddie Howe, Sammy McIlroy and John Coleman, managers who can get the best out of cheap buys, John Sheridan seems to be a manager who needs that extra bit of money to bring better players in as he can't improve existing players like Gritton, Hall, Harsley, Niven, Currie and Kerry. We are a division two club, so far with the exception of Conlon every other signing has been from a club in a higher division, we're not signing many players that JD would sign - players who aren't getting opportunities at clubs around us but have the experience at this level, all we are doing is signing players who either won't be good enough until they've got 6 months first team games under their belt or players that aren't going to come here full time.




The best opportunity for us to strengthen is the summer when the deadwood can be offloaded and replacements can be brought in who will be our own players, the best we can hope for this season is to sneak into the play offs and then rebuild in the summer so we have a better side to compete next season - when we have our new stadium and more income.

Come the summer then and we are in this division would you retain;-

Boden, Bowery, Gray. and upgrade some more of the youth team - the likes of Clay etc. bearing in mind the continuity views expressed.