Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The loans route again - a concern?

edited January 2011 in General Charlton
So we going are down the loan route again, have we forgotten how badly this went under Pards, and so far not selected by the guy who needs to run the team. Parky had learnt the lessons of his predecessors mistakes and limited this, we have a better core team too I guess, bit concerning though?
«1

Comments

  • Bit early to comment at the moment. Okay, we've brought in Ecclestone on loan but i think that was good for all parties involved. Can't really bring in new faces before the manger is in the door.CP would like to choose his own players i'm sure. So let's see what happens during the remainder of the transfer window.
  • Jackson? Fry? Reid? All loans at the start.
  • Didn't Parky bring in so many loans that we had to drop one of them because we are limited by only being allowed 5 in one matchday squad?

    If the loans are better than what we have and prove that, i don't have a problem with them. its when they come to us just to get fit and don't put any effort in that i have a problem. I do like the loans with views to permanent thing. we get to try them out for the season and the player has something to play for as well.
  • The main problem with loans under Parky when he first took charge were that they were nearly all short term loans, and went straight into the side. Mind you the first team was in such disarray they sort of fitted in quite well ;-)

    Anyway, because of that we've had a downer on loanees ever since. However, since then the loanees have been reasonably good (Reid -last season, Jackson - last season til he got injured, and Fry), and this season he only got short term loanees as emergency cover. So as long as CP doesn't fall into to the trap of getting one month loanees and picks up decent players that know they are here til the end, he will hopefully do alright.

    For example, Ecclestone looks good. Much like Jerome Thomas did in his first 6 months.
    [cite]Posted By: Madz[/cite]Didn't Parky bring in so many loans that we had to drop one of them because we are limited by only being allowed 5 in one matchday squad?

    Yes it did happened, although can't for the life of me remember the game it happen.
  • Two things: Who is for sale out there who we can afford and who will improve the team to any great extent .. and .... the owner is not a billionaire, he'll save his money for a big splurge IF we get promoted. Remember that Mr Slater had a lot of debt to pay offf or a lot to still pay off if he hasn't cleared the debit column yet.
  • Far to early to criticise. Let's see what happens before we look to try to find something to moan about.
  • the type of loanees changed, we stopped taking flash harry premiership wannabees? until now that is. I don't think its moaning, possibly an 'early' criticism tho
  • I'm sure Powell and Slater would prefer to build the best side possible out of our financial resources. Powell hasn't even started yet and when he does I would imagine he would want a couple of months to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the squad. So any big overhaul is going to happen in the summer i think. Obviously the board have stated they want to get out of this division so it may well be that rather than spend rashly in the next two weeks we will bring in a few loan players to give us a better chance to go up but without that long term committment that permanent signings bring.
  • Loan players make sense at the moment. They will be coming in with the very specific task of getting us the 45-50 pts from the 23 remaining games that will be neccesary for promotion/play-offs.

    Nobody needs reminding that we have only got 35 pts from the first 23 games, so we need a far better second half of the season under Powell than we had first half under Parkinson. I think that shows us the tough task Powell faces, and why he may need another year in div three next season.

    But that's by the by. Whether or not we achieve promtion this season will determine the strategy of signings in the summer. Will we be seeking players for another season in div three? Or players we hope can do a Norwich or a Leeds in the championship?

    They might very well be different players for those two tasks, so well-chosen loans for the next 23 games which keep our options open is not such a bad idea, in my opinion.
  • Loans may be our only option at the moment? (I hope not) Fry for me has done well this season, I feel when we have him at LB and JJ at LM we are a lot stronger down the left. Martin hasn't done much for me, very lightweight, dosent score many goals and flits in and out of the game too much. I think it's best to avoid huge amounts of loan signings, it takes away the core and heart of the team. Saying that if the new guys grabs up 10 goals it could be a master stroke! I'm hoping CP will look at the team and see our weaknesses and adress it..
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: incorruptible addick[/cite]Loan players make sense at the moment. They will be coming in with the very specific task of getting us the 45-50 pts from the 23 remaining games that will be neccesary for promotion/play-offs.

    Nobody needs reminding that we have only got 35 pts from the first 23 games, so we need a far better second half of the season under Powell than we had first half under Parkinson. I think that shows us the tough task Powell faces, and why he may need another year in div three next season.

    But that's by the by. Whether or not we achieve promtion this season will determine the strategy of signings in the summer. Will we be seeking players for another season in div three? Or players we hope can do a Norwich or a Leeds in the championship?

    They might very well be different players for those two tasks, so well-chosen loans for the next 23 games which keep our options open is not such a bad idea, in my opinion.

    Agree with all of this.
  • I don't think any of us are big fans of the loan system, but its part and parcel of the football league these days. Most teams just don't have a budget for transfer fees and prefer to sign players permanently over the summer and then use the loan market to either cover for injuries or freshen up the squad during the season. This was certainly the case under Parky & Pardew. Pretty sure in Ecclestones case that Parky was after him at the start of the season & her certainly makes sense given Anyinsahs injury record since signing so that deal may have been in the pipeline pre takeover.
  • It is not the loan that is the problem, it is the loanee.
    Some players are dedicated, hardworking and committed. Some are not.
    Like Parky said, whats the difference between a player on loan and one whose contract runs out at the end of the season?
    Does this mean you would rather Semedo and Racon weren't in the team?
  • It's 100% the player, not the loan itself, Scott Sinclair was absolutely pants for us, got 15 so far for Swansea!

    Reiddy was brilliant last season, what has he done this season?

    Alex Song, proof that loans, when done properly, work. He's now one of the first names on Wenger's teamsheet
  • [cite]Posted By: Madz[/cite]Didn't Parky bring in so many loans that we had to drop one of them because we are limited by only being allowed 5 in one matchday squad?

    True, towards the end of last season....... but you are just looking at the bare statistics, ignoring the the underlying reasons.


    Sodje, Mooney and Reid were long term loans finishing at the end of the season.
    Because they were all long term, evidently planned signings to strengthen the squad in the same way as if they had been permanent signings.


    But the others were brought in late to cover injuries:

    With Youga and Basey both out for the remainder of the season, Jackson was brought in - then got injured himself, so Borrowdale was borrowed initially for a month and then extended.

    Burton hadn't been properly fit for much of the season, but was now missing games, so Forster joined in March to augment the front line; Fry came on loan to cover the CB and LB positions .......because with the transfer deadline passing, the club would not have been able to sign players for the remaining 2 months of the season.

    Statistics often do not tell the story; Parky was being prudent there, surely?
  • But that's not the only case, Oggy.

    Under Pardew and Parkinson, we undenibaly became over-reliant on the loan system (and I say that as someone who has just argued above that loans between now and May make perfect sense).

    In 2008/9 we had seven at one point I recall. Racking my brains to remember the names, but I think Bouazza,Burton, Cranie, Gillespie, McEveley, Primus and Waghorn were all here at the same time. Some of them went back and more came in (Murty among them) - and I think we were still over quota.
  • Who mentioned Pardew's times, Nigel .....?

    Madz made a statement which referred to Parky having 6 loan players at the same time; the only time that happened under Parky's control was at the end of last season ...... to which I answered specifically.
  • edited January 2011
    [cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]Far to early to criticise. Let's see what happens before we look to try to find something to moan about.

    Yep - let's wait and see, I suspect that sadly a small minority of fans (I don't mean Razil BTW) are itching to find reasons to criticize the new manager !
  • [cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]Who mentioned Pardew's times, Nigel .....?

    Madz made a statement which referred to Parky having 6 loan players at the same time; the only time that happened under Parky's control was at the end of last season ...... to which I answered specifically.

    But that's simply not true, Oggy Red. As I said, Parkinson had not six but seven loans during the 2008/9 season. He might have inherited some of them like Bouazza. Other he brought in. So why claim ''the only time that happened under Parky's control was at the end of last season'' ?

    To go back to the original point of the thread. Loans between now and May make perfect sense for Charlton as we don't know which division we will be in next season, and therefore what kind of players we want on a longer-term basis beyond May.
  • Whether there are issues with loan players and I tend to agree that it really depends on the player, I listened to a top agent on the radio the other day and he said that because of the financial position of many clubs, the frenzied buying and selling is likely to be a thing of the past. If clubs want to freshen up their squad they will look to loans or swaps. He was primarily addressing the Premier League but I am sure what he said goes for the other leagues as well.

    So frankly some may not like loanees but we're going to have to get used to them.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I would rather buy and if all we do is loan then I think that points out that the money that some say we have is either not there or will be utilised to soak up the yearly shortfall.
  • Some decent standard loan player signings will be about right in my opinion. CP has been focussed on his job at Leicester I'm sure, not every going on at one of his former teams, so will need to assess what he has got, what he needs, who has the will to support his style of play and his vision etc etc. With 2 weeks of the window left, unless there was a player that he'd been tracking for Leicester that was within our price range and would fit into CP's intended 'system', I reckon a few loans will come towards the end of the window with more perm like activity happening in the summer. If one or more came in within the next few days, I'd fear for the scope of CP's recruitment control and we've seen how owner 'knows best' meddling has worked out at other clubs in the past......very rarely with a happy ending.
  • It's the way of the world in our league nowadays, end of story. Clubs like ours have access to a better quality of player than they could buy, via the loans system. Also, with budgets being tight and next year's league uncertain the kind of player that we need this year might not be the kind of player we need next year. Also, after so many there's a risk factor. Players that look good on paper sometimes don't work out and I think the club will now take the flexibility of a loan over the risk of being lumbered with a McLeod or Yassin for 3 or 4 expensive years, even if that means the player might end up elsewhere if he does well.
  • "Under Pardew and Parkinson, we undenibaly became over-reliant on the loan system (and I say that as someone who has just argued above that loans between now and May make perfect sense)."

    Sorry but that is not undeniable, it is actually your opinion.
    I personally do not believe it is possible to be 'over-reliant' on the loan system. We have to get the best players, at the price we can pay, for the length of time we need them.
    If this is via a loan then so be it.
    Again someone pointed out we had too many at one point and therefore had to not play one. I ask again what is the difference between having a player on loan that you do not play and having a player whose contract ends in a few months time, whom you do not play?
    'Undeniably' that the answer is Nothing.
  • It's no coincidence that the "over-reliance" came around the same time as we fell out of the Premiership and realised we were skint.
  • edited January 2011
    Fry is a great loan, my problem with the loans is that we need an experienced leader in the midfield and are unlikely to get that via a loan, for all their benefits both Racon and Semedo can be lacking in some nouse at times
  • Good post DRF

    As has been said above and I and a few others were saying at the time nothing wrong with loans per se. It all depends on the quality and commitment of those loans.

    Blackpool went up with 5 or 6 regular loanees in their side.

    as it is we don't know if CP going to use loans or perm signings or even if he is going to add players to the squad at all. Two or three loans and/or signings seem likely but we don't know.
  • I thought you knew everything
  • [cite]Posted By: cfgs[/cite]I thought you knew everything

    I'll send you a whisper with the names
  • edited January 2011
    When you have more loan players than you are allowed to field or even seat on the bench that's undeniably an over-reliance. At one point in the 2008-9 season we had seven loaneess and two of them were being paid to watch from the stands. That's not only over-reliance, but it pisses off the loaning club, which sends players out to get experience/game time.

    But in present circumstances, loans like Eccleston make perfect sense and one would hope Fry's loan can also be extended beyond next month to the end of the season, unless Sir Chris has his eye on someone better. We also have Martin. That means there is still room for two more loan signings. Any more than five, though, would be pointless.

    At the moment, flexibility is the key, as McLovin says. If Powell can identify and sign players that are not only available to us in div three but are also going to be good enough to challenge at the top of the championship next season, as Norwich and Leeds are currently doing, so much the better. But I thought we were being warned not to expect or demand too much of him !
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!