So again what is the difference between paying a contract-ending player to sit in the stands and a loan??? You have different needs for different games and sometimes people get injured
.
Look at the squad we have, see how many players we are paying who don’t play week in week out. Are you saying that having any more than 15 players is a waste as you will undoubtedly not be able to play them all?
As for pissing off the loan club, some want to see their players play week in week out, some want to get them fit and therefore know they wont be, some just want to get the salary costs off the books. They will be sure to let you know what type if loan you are getting in the loan agreement. So it is not fair to state that by not playing the loanee you are automatically pissing off the loan club.
As for not getting leadership from loans. I say Graham Murty. Not the best player on the field all the times but he most definitely led the team.
Both the above posts highlight the issue, applying over-riding statements to loan players rather than looking at the character of the player and needs off the loaning and loan-to clubs..
[cite]Posted By: MuttleyCAFC[/cite]In this window- I think loans can be your best bet - as long as they are players from above the level you are playing at.
Probably also important to distinguish between long-term loans like Martin and Fry and emergency loans, brought in to cover for an injured player. But long term or emergency, the 'five only' rule is there for a very good reason...if you need seven, that't not because it's an emergency. It is because the manager has lost the plot and doesn't know what his best formation is or what to do next. And that's exactly what happened when Pardew became over-reliant on loans at the end of his tenure and was bringing new ones in on what seemed like a weekly basis.
In response to DRF, flexibility is surely the key at the moment until we know where we will be next season.
Comments
So again what is the difference between paying a contract-ending player to sit in the stands and a loan??? You have different needs for different games and sometimes people get injured
.
Look at the squad we have, see how many players we are paying who don’t play week in week out. Are you saying that having any more than 15 players is a waste as you will undoubtedly not be able to play them all?
As for pissing off the loan club, some want to see their players play week in week out, some want to get them fit and therefore know they wont be, some just want to get the salary costs off the books. They will be sure to let you know what type if loan you are getting in the loan agreement. So it is not fair to state that by not playing the loanee you are automatically pissing off the loan club.
As for not getting leadership from loans. I say Graham Murty. Not the best player on the field all the times but he most definitely led the team.
Both the above posts highlight the issue, applying over-riding statements to loan players rather than looking at the character of the player and needs off the loaning and loan-to clubs..
for the usual fee?
Probably also important to distinguish between long-term loans like Martin and Fry and emergency loans, brought in to cover for an injured player. But long term or emergency, the 'five only' rule is there for a very good reason...if you need seven, that't not because it's an emergency. It is because the manager has lost the plot and doesn't know what his best formation is or what to do next. And that's exactly what happened when Pardew became over-reliant on loans at the end of his tenure and was bringing new ones in on what seemed like a weekly basis.
In response to DRF, flexibility is surely the key at the moment until we know where we will be next season.