The Loan Arranger

[Frank Large's Black Book]

I've just been perusing the full list of January transfers.

The EPL teams have just loaned over 100 players to lower division clubs.  I include Scotland as lower division.

It leads me to question the loan system.  Is it fair to take 100+ squad places from youngsters that are battling their way up the hard way?

 

That's a potential 100 JV's losing their chance.

 

Persuade me.

 

 

 

[Aus Fox]

4 minutes ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

I've just been perusing the full list of January transfers.

The EPL teams have just loaned over 100 players to lower division clubs.  I include Scotland as lower division.

It leads me to question the loan system.  Is it fair to take 100+ squad places from youngsters that are battling their way up the hard way?

 

That's a potential 100 JV's losing their chance.

 

Persuade me.

 

 

 

Or that is 100 possible future stars if the game being given their first opportunity of professional football, some will go on to be Premier League stars, others will go on to be household names in the Championship or lower leagues, and others will disappear.

Does it makes a difference how they get there?

if the players are good enough and have the right attitude, they will rise to the top.

 

[Ric Flair]

18 minutes ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

I've just been perusing the full list of January transfers.

The EPL teams have just loaned over 100 players to lower division clubs.  I include Scotland as lower division.

It leads me to question the loan system.  Is it fair to take 100+ squad places from youngsters that are battling their way up the hard way?

 

That's a potential 100 JV's losing their chance.

 

Persuade me.

 

 

 

There are arguments for and against. As you say, they take away places for either youngsters at the said club or other players at the club if they play instead of them. However, they are usually loaned to the lower league clubs with all their wages being paid so the lower league clubs benefit financially and possibly marginally improve the competitiveness and quality of the league.

 

From the players point of view it could be crucial to their development to get a loan and first team football. 

 

It's a tricky one because some lower league clubs really haven't the resource or inclination to have a thriving academy so their young players coming through might be nowhere neat good enough but this is where I'd like to see more investment in time and money to level up lower league academies. For the future of the game its the epicentre. Whilst there's wage caps on 1st team players in the lower leagues to try and curb overspending and to cope, I'd rather see some extra funding from the PL coming down and being used solely on the academies and grass roots. 

[Bert]

17 minutes ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

I've just been perusing the full list of January transfers.

The EPL teams have just loaned over 100 players to lower division clubs.  I include Scotland as lower division.

It leads me to question the loan system.  Is it fair to take 100+ squad places from youngsters that are battling their way up the hard way?

 

That's a potential 100 JV's losing their chance.

 

Persuade me.

 

 

 

Or is it giving these 100 players a chance to shine? Giving them first team opportunities rather than playing academy football? You can look at it from both sides, for sure. 

[davieG]

5 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

this is where I'd like to see more investment in time and money to level up lower league academies. For the future of the game its the epicentre. Whilst there's wage caps on 1st team players in the lower leagues to try and curb overspending and to cope, I'd rather see some extra funding from the PL coming down and being used solely on the academies and grass roots. 

Agree with this, it would be good if the PL clubs had fewer Academy players, focusing on the best and the other leagues were capable and of a standard for taking more so they develop in a more challenging environment, They would also have a better chance of playing first team football earlier and the clubs would then benefit from sales if they proved they were up to a better level. 

 

Maybe the top coaches at PL clubs could provide training and support for coaches down the leagues.

 

We need more of the football money in England to stay in England and to circulate around the various leagues.

 

There's lots could be done and it needs the FA, PL, FL and the PFA to get together and start thinking about the overall game rather than how they can get more money from the system for themselves.

 

Well something along those lines.

 

Maybe they could get some advice from the Government about Levelling Up.

[Saxondale]

I think the loan system is a win-win-win. I’m not seeing any downsides.

 

The lower league sides don’t have such large squads and any young prospect will get their chance if they’re good enough.

[goose2010]

The loan system works well and certainly has for us over the past few years. Barnes and KDH are prime examples. 

 

Clubs will always harvest the young talent but with how cut throat the Premier League is they simply cannot be risked at such a high level. 

 

Maybe it should have a cap on it though ? As don't Chelsea currently have about 40 players out on loan? 

[Frank Large's Black Book]

Well I was expecting Chelsea to be up there too - but it's the Villa with 13 that head the list.  Just blew me away.

 

That's not total, just this January's crop

[sacreblueits442]

7 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

There are arguments for and against. As you say, they take away places for either youngsters at the said club or other players at the club if they play instead of them. However, they are usually loaned to the lower league clubs with all their wages being paid so the lower league clubs benefit financially and possibly marginally improve the competitiveness and quality of the league.

 

From the players point of view it could be crucial to their development to get a loan and first team football. 

 

It's a tricky one because some lower league clubs really haven't the resource or inclination to have a thriving academy so their young players coming through might be nowhere neat good enough but this is where I'd like to see more investment in time and money to level up lower league academies. For the future of the game its the epicentre. Whilst there's wage caps on 1st team players in the lower leagues to try and curb overspending and to cope, I'd rather see some extra funding from the PL coming down and being used solely on the academies and grass roots. 

...I see your point and taking away the red tape from Lower league clubs would be a benefit long term!!!

  The problem for these lower league clubs are that  with this current system they are losing out, twice.

  Young players given the opportunity would gravitate to the big clubs around them (look at what we are doing with our new Training ground). These hopeful youngsters do not then go through these lower league clubs, develop and  then be sold to higher echelon teams to earn their existing club a profit. The income from any potential sale will dwarf the monies paid by the Premier League teams in order to take a player on loan.

  There is not much chance of "levelling up" if we are going to take players of potential from struggling clubs only to use the said clubs in the development of that individual. 

  We will  have to find a better way of getting finance into these lower teams and perhaps the student might just stay and help, and become an asset, where a decent price is paid to the smaller club.

 

  

[CosbehFox]

7 minutes ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

Well I was expecting Chelsea to be up there too - but it's the Villa with 13 that head the list.  Just blew me away.

 

That's not total, just this January's crop

They have a superb bunch of players at youth level at the moment. Current holders of the Youth Cup 

[moore_94]

2 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

They have a superb bunch of players at youth level at the moment. Current holders of the Youth Cup 

And we knocked them out this year 

[RowlattsFox]

No problem with youngsters being loaned out. But there are players that go out on loan constantly because they are stuck on big long contracts at their clubs and understandably don't want to take a pay cut to move permanently elsewhere. And we are going to see more and more of it.

[Dahnsouff]

The time of EPL B, C, D...Z teams cometh

[thegaffa]

34 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

There are arguments for and against. As you say, they take away places for either youngsters at the said club or other players at the club if they play instead of them. However, they are usually loaned to the lower league clubs with all their wages being paid so the lower league clubs benefit financially and possibly marginally improve the competitiveness and quality of the league.

 

From the players point of view it could be crucial to their development to get a loan and first team football. 

 

It's a tricky one because some lower league clubs really haven't the resource or inclination to have a thriving academy so their young players coming through might be nowhere neat good enough but this is where I'd like to see more investment in time and money to level up lower league academies. For the future of the game its the epicentre. Whilst there's wage caps on 1st team players in the lower leagues to try and curb overspending and to cope, I'd rather see some extra funding from the PL coming down and being used solely on the academies and grass roots. 

Brilliant post Ric Flair, more money should be put into the lower leagues and grass roots clubs in general to support youngsters getting the opportunity to play the game at a high level.

 

To be honest I think there should around 4 academy teams per age group as too many youngsters get released far too early before they can develop. 

 

I think their should also be B teams or reserve teams that play in competitive leagues outside the 4 divisions.

 

anything that improves from grassroots up through academy level and beyond will not only help more clubs be financially stable (more funding available for grassroots) long term and would ultimately help the national team too.

 

 

 

 

[davieG]

1 hour ago, thegaffa said:

Brilliant post Ric Flair, more money should be put into the lower leagues and grass roots clubs in general to support youngsters getting the opportunity to play the game at a high level.

 

To be honest I think there should around 4 academy teams per age group as too many youngsters get released far too early before they can develop. 

 

I think their should also be B teams or reserve teams that play in competitive leagues outside the 4 divisions.

 

anything that improves from grassroots up through academy level and beyond will not only help more clubs be financially stable (more funding available for grassroots) long term and would ultimately help the national team too.

 

 

 

 

They could resurrect the reserve league alongside the U23s so that the U23 players could play with the 1st team players that aren't getting games the bonus is those 1st team players retain their match fitness so we don't have to throw them in having not played a competitive game for months.

 

they used to get decent crowds as well,

 

Never understood why it was dropped, 

[Scotch]

I'm sure I read somewhere that major changes are being made to alter the loan rules. 

 

Not 100% on what those changes entail but I remember length of loan being limited to 12 months and the amount of players loaned to any one club from another being capped at 2. Not sure what other amendments there are. 

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

4 hours ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

I've just been perusing the full list of January transfers.

The EPL teams have just loaned over 100 players to lower division clubs.  I include Scotland as lower division.

It leads me to question the loan system.  Is it fair to take 100+ squad places from youngsters that are battling their way up the hard way?

 

That's a potential 100 JV's losing their chance.

 

Persuade me.

 

I mean, there are two kind of players a club will loan out: Older players they can't sell on, so just want them out and youngsters needing experience. In general, they aren't taking spots from future JV's -- if they weren't on loan, they would be released and playing for a club similar to the level they are playing at now, perhaps a level lower.

 

Loans are good for the loaning club, because they can get fringe/youth players wages paid, and give them playing time, either developing them for the first team or adding sell on value.

Loans are good for the receiving team, because generally they are getting a higher quality player for less money, or at least a player without having to make a financial commitment to them for beyond the length of the season.

Loans are usually good for the players, since it gives them game time/helps their development, and usually -- at least for the youngsters -- means they are getting paid far more from their parent club than they would from a Football League club.

 

Without loans, young players would be released, and older players either rot in the reserves or have their contracts bought out (and released). These players would then go and play for other clubs...I don't see how that displaces other players, it just means the finances get jiggled around.

 

 

[Nalis]

Its still a good system that just needs fine tuning every now and again to combat current day pisstaking.

 

I think we've benefitted from loans in - Huth being the obvious one, and loans out such as Dewsbury-Hall and Barnes.

[Lambert09]

What is incorrect is the hording of youth players that will never make it. I think the introduction of under 23’s has pros and cons.  
 

A reserve team meant that clubs didn’t need to sign players just to fill a squad.. it allowed from learning for established pros but it did also block the way for players (see Izzet at Chelsea) 

 

There should be a limit on how many players you can have. It’s weird how these squads rotate so much and I’d prefer more of a conveyor belt. Honestly a squad of 20 or less would be fine, if short the opportunity goes to someone from the 18s and so on.

 

chelsea hoarding as many as they do is simply wrong. 

Edited 2 February 2022 by Lambert09

[fox_up_north]

I think guarantees are important, too. So every under 23 over the age of 18 is guaranteed X mins of first team time over the season and if you don't meet that in 2 consecutive seasons then you get sanctioned.

 

EG: 18 year old has to have 60 mins first team appearance over season and 23 has to have 450 (5 full games)

 

[SpacedX]

9 hours ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

I've just been perusing the full list of January transfers.

The EPL teams have just loaned over 100 players to lower division clubs.  I include Scotland as lower division.

It leads me to question the loan system.  Is it fair to take 100+ squad places from youngsters that are battling their way up the hard way?

 

That's a potential 100 JV's losing their chance.

 

Persuade me.

Really stimulating thread and discussion this - very interesting to read people's perspective and the balanced arguments on this. Thanks for starting it OP. 

[Lambert09]

Ive got a solution and it may not be a popular one... what if there was a minimum wage cap. The lowest earner must be at least 1% of the highest earner at the club etc. 

 

That way you would only keep the ones you are confident about.  Im not sure what someone on a under 23's contract looks like but for us that would be about$1k a week which seems about right.  

 

For chelsea they would have to commit to at least $3k pw ... it might actually start to push clubs to be more reasonable on the wages offered to stars.

 

For a lower league team whos top earner is on about 5k they'd only have to pay $50 a week....and this is a minimum, they obviously can pay more.   *Excuse the fact I dont have a pound sign on my laptop

Edited 2 February 2022 by Lambert09

[Fox1norfolk]

6 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

Ive got a solution and it may not be a popular one... what if there was a minimum wage cap. The lowest earner must be at least 1% of the highest earner at the club etc. 

 

That way you would only keep the ones you are confident about.  Im not sure what someone on a under 23's contract looks like but for us that would be about$1k a week which seems about right.  

 

For chelsea they would have to commit to at least $3k pw ... it might actually start to push clubs to be more reasonable on the wages offered to stars.

More important to have a maximum pay cap, then at least we might establish a level playing field

[Winchesterfox]

I agree there should be a limit on clubs hoovering up young talent and putting them out loan for years.  Although loaning out not very good older players who we bought in a panic is a different story. 

[Bayfox]

13 hours ago, Frank Large's Black Book said:

I've just been perusing the full list of January transfers.

The EPL teams have just loaned over 100 players to lower division clubs.  I include Scotland as lower division.

It leads me to question the loan system.  Is it fair to take 100+ squad places from youngsters that are battling their way up the hard way?

 

That's a potential 100 JV's losing their chance.

 

Persuade me.

 

 

 

Having just seen the old firm clash. JV could play upfront for rangers until he was 87 and still have more impact that Roofe.