The Bouazza one is an example of where the loan system is a bit dodgy. To play for one side in one fixture and the other in the return fixture is a bit strange. But noone would find this weird if we'd sold him to Brum.
I don't agree that the loan players have less commitment than long-term contracted players - our current squad has proved this wrong many times this season.
I've just realised that story is from the Daily Mail. No wonder it's rubbish.
The following extract seems especially true in light of our current predicament.
"Yet too often, loans are stop-gap, short-term, flags of convenience. They hold back investment in youth, thwart ambition and reward temporary strategies. Players have no roots and, worse, neither do clubs".
[cite]Posted By: Cipollini[/cite]I think it a pretty good article.
The following extract seems especially true in light of our current predicament.
"Yet too often, loans are stop-gap, short-term, flags of convenience. They hold back investment in youth, thwart ambition and reward temporary strategies. Players have no roots and, worse, neither do clubs".
If you saw the team that thrashed Narridge at the end of the season, did that look like a team that had had its youth development held back by loans?
[cite]Posted By: dabos[/cite]I don't agree that the loan players have less commitment than long-term contracted players - our current squad has proved this wrong many times this season.
I agree with that, but so many clubs having so many loan players does make a mockery of the game imho.
I think there should be much tighter restrictions on the number of players you can loan in and on the number you can loan out eg. max 3 in and max 3 out in a whole season and no loan players allowed in play-off games.
[cite]Posted By: dabos[/cite]I don't agree that the loan players have less commitment than long-term contracted players - our current squad has proved this wrong many times this season.
I agree with that, but so many clubs having so many loan players does make a mockery of the game imho.
I think there should be much tighter restrictions on the number of players you can loan in and on the number you can loan out eg. max 3 in and max 3 out in a whole season and no loan players allowed in play-off games.
So, what happens if you start the season with, say 23 players, sell 2, take three on loan at the start of the season, then have half a dozen injuries after those loans are completed? Do you go into games a few players short?
play young players, or play players "out of position" (they are professional football players after all). Loans are a relatively new phenomenon, clubs existed perfectly fine before.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Cipollini[/cite]I think it a pretty good article.
The following extract seems especially true in light of our current predicament.
"Yet too often, loans are stop-gap, short-term, flags of convenience. They hold back investment in youth, thwart ambition and reward temporary strategies. Players have no roots and, worse, neither do clubs".[/quote]
If you saw the team that thrashed Narridge at the end of the season, did that look like a team that had had its youth development held back by loans?[/quote]
I was at the Norwich game, and yes it was a good performance. A bit rare this season though!
Look at the Bouzza situation - we land a good player on loan who then bails out after a few months for a team with a better chance of getting promoted. How can a manager be expected to have a decent long-term stategy when faced with such short term, mercenary signings?
[/quote]If you saw the team that thrashed Narridge at the end of the season, did that look like a team that had had its youth development held back by loans?[/quote]
But the kids didn't come in until after we were effectively down.
Comments
I don't agree that the loan players have less commitment than long-term contracted players - our current squad has proved this wrong many times this season.
I've just realised that story is from the Daily Mail. No wonder it's rubbish.
The following extract seems especially true in light of our current predicament.
"Yet too often, loans are stop-gap, short-term, flags of convenience. They hold back investment in youth, thwart ambition and reward temporary strategies. Players have no roots and, worse, neither do clubs".
If you saw the team that thrashed Narridge at the end of the season, did that look like a team that had had its youth development held back by loans?
I think there should be much tighter restrictions on the number of players you can loan in and on the number you can loan out eg. max 3 in and max 3 out in a whole season and no loan players allowed in play-off games.
So, what happens if you start the season with, say 23 players, sell 2, take three on loan at the start of the season, then have half a dozen injuries after those loans are completed? Do you go into games a few players short?
Loans are a relatively new phenomenon, clubs existed perfectly fine before.
The following extract seems especially true in light of our current predicament.
"Yet too often, loans are stop-gap, short-term, flags of convenience. They hold back investment in youth, thwart ambition and reward temporary strategies. Players have no roots and, worse, neither do clubs".[/quote]
If you saw the team that thrashed Narridge at the end of the season, did that look like a team that had had its youth development held back by loans?[/quote]
I was at the Norwich game, and yes it was a good performance. A bit rare this season though!
Look at the Bouzza situation - we land a good player on loan who then bails out after a few months for a team with a better chance of getting promoted. How can a manager be expected to have a decent long-term stategy when faced with such short term, mercenary signings?
But the kids didn't come in until after we were effectively down.