Mack Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 In recent times our team has been made up of a lot of loan signed players. Whilst this can improve the on paper standard of your first team, it also has the detrimental effect that players belonging to the club that are dropped to make way for loan players can club get disgruntled and unsettled. Then there is the question of are the loan players actually giving there all, or are they more concerned about their own long term future elsewhere. This season I count 9 loan players so far that have been involved in first team matches. Compared to... 2 at QPR 1 at Swansea 2 at Norwich 2 at Burnley 5 at Leeds 2 at Forest 2 at Reading I've got to say this must be a big factor in our inconsistent form, and if we are going to make long lasting progress in this or any other league we really need to get more key players under permanent contracts.
Kingylcfc Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 i dont mind how many loan players we bring in, as long as they play for us as if Leicester is their own club
thybluefox Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 Well obviously. Sigh. As much as people keep chirping on about it, Sven hasn't had a pre-season, which means he's had no time to properly sign players that he thinks are good enough to get us promoted. Its notoriously tricky to make decent purchases in the January window, especially when time is limited and you have so many positions that need attention. Loaning players was his only real option if Sven wanted to have a realistic push at the playoffs this year. If in 6 months he's still loaning players, then moan away.
Stevosevic Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 We had a new manager mid season, and its unlikely you can pick up quality players permanently in January, so what was Sven suppose to do? Play Neilson and Howard?
Mack Posted 22 March 2011 Author Posted 22 March 2011 Whilst I hear your point. The new owners have stated in at least two interviews I have read that they have already spent more than they had anticipated. Given that all we have done under their tenure to date is sign Waghorn for 3 million quid (i think that was since they came) and obtain freebies and loans, do you really think this will improve in the summer?
Houdini Logic Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 Maybe if we'd only used two we'd be as good as Scunthorpe.
dave the caveman Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 When considering improvements to the team, there is absolutely no room for consideration of existing players feelings. They're paid to do a job, and if there is someone available who can do it better, they are to be moved aside. Sentiment plays no part in on-the-field success. These are professional footballers - young adults paid a fortune to kick a ball around - it's not like we're dumping them at the alter. If they're so sensitive and immature that they genuinely become a negative influence then they should be sold or otherwise removed from the club immediately. See Fryatt. See Hobbs. The 2nd point is a fair one. Especially when loaning older players like Yak. Young players really ought to be up for it since they're playing for their careers. But when loaning older players there is a risk. It's up to the manager to make the judgement.
davieG Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 Didn't seem to affect the consistency under Pearson any more that it has Sven, didn't we have some bad runs last year under Pearson. Loans by Pearson first season Kerrea Gilbert Jack hobbs David Martin, Mark Bunn, David Stockdale, Tony Warner Mark Davies Tom Cleverly Wayne Brown Astrit Ajdarevic Loans in by Pearson last season James Vaughan Jay Spearing Alex Bruce Ryan McGivern Martyn Waghorn NB I'm not in favour of loans but needs must, Pearson because he had no money, Sven because of the timescales.
Babylon Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 2 at QPR 1 at Swansea 2 at Norwich 2 at Burnley 5 at Leeds 2 at Forest 2 at Reading You seem to be counting EVERY loan player that has been here, but only the ones that are STILL at other clubs. They have had other loans that haven't been carried on, or loans that have turned into permanents. Eg. Tudgay at Forest and Kyle Walker at QPR. Add Hulls on to that and we haven't had that many more than them.
m00nie Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 In recent times our team has been made up of a lot of loan signed players. Whilst this can improve the on paper standard of your first team, it also has the detrimental effect that players belonging to the club that are dropped to make way for loan players can club get disgruntled and unsettled. Then there is the question of are the loan players actually giving there all, or are they more concerned about their own long term future elsewhere. This season I count 9 loan players so far that have been involved in first team matches. Compared to... 2 at QPR 1 at Swansea 2 at Norwich 2 at Burnley 5 at Leeds 2 at Forest 2 at Reading I've got to say this must be a big factor in our inconsistent form, and if we are going to make long lasting progress in this or any other league we really need to get more key players under permanent contracts. when we was on the great run didnt we have the loanees in the team then ??
Mack Posted 22 March 2011 Author Posted 22 March 2011 I think the point I am trying to make is that for example Warnock was asked about other teams exploiting the loan market and he said while he would bring in one or two he did'nt want to get too many in or he felt it upsets the contracted squad of players. And I can see his point. You believe in a player enough to give him a permanent contract, then a few games down the line when it's not gone to plan in comes a raft of loans and the contracted player is left to rot with the stiffs. Fryatt is a good example, was overlooked for loan players yet when given a run and managerial backing (at Hull) he starts scoring for fun. Waghorn is another, bought for 3 million then binned after a few games played (mainly out of position wide) for temporary signings. I am genuinely concerned that our progress is being built on temporary scaffold rather than laying down firm foundations, and with the owners already stating they have spent more than they had planned can we really expect permanent signings this summer unless the windfall of Premier League football somehow comes our way? I forgot Curtis Davies when making the first list so that makes 10 for us.
Mack Posted 22 March 2011 Author Posted 22 March 2011 Waghorn was 2 million. "On 31 August 2010, Waghorn rejoined Leicester City on a permanent deal for a fee rising to £3 million." It's splitting hairs anyway.
The Doctor Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 "On 31 August 2010, Waghorn rejoined Leicester City on a permanent deal for a fee rising to £3 million." It's splitting hairs anyway. if he carries on playing as little as he does at the moment it will never actually reach £3 mill
davieG Posted 22 March 2011 Posted 22 March 2011 I think the point I am trying to make is that for example Warnock was asked about other teams exploiting the loan market and he said while he would bring in one or two he did'nt want to get too many in or he felt it upsets the contracted squad of players. And I can see his point. You believe in a player enough to give him a permanent contract, then a few games down the line when it's not gone to plan in comes a raft of loans and the contracted player is left to rot with the stiffs. Fryatt is a good example, was overlooked for loan players yet when given a run and managerial backing (at Hull) he starts scoring for fun. Waghorn is another, bought for 3 million then binned after a few games played (mainly out of position wide) for temporary signings. I am genuinely concerned that our progress is being built on temporary scaffold rather than laying down firm foundations, and with the owners already stating they have spent more than they had planned can we really expect permanent signings this summer unless the windfall of Premier League football somehow comes our way? I forgot Curtis Davies when making the first list so that makes 10 for us. Sven didn't bring them in so was entitled to leave them out, every time you change the manager this will happen especially if the don't get an opportunity to buy and sell. As for Warnock his views change with his circumstances and he was just pissed off that Naughton/Spurs chose us rather than QPR And just to reiterate Pearson used plenty of loanees in the 2 years he was here because for both years he was in an a differently league and had to make wholesale changes on a minimal budget, Sven is doing the same but for different reason in that he didn't have a decent transfer window to strengthen the squad on a more permanent basis. I think people are noticing it more because Pearson had built a relatively successful but limited squad and yes with 5 loanees in it, but Sven plays a different game and needed players with a different skill set. I doubt anyone would be making an issue of it if we hadn't have achieved what we did with Pearson and if Sven had been here from the off and with the same success rate that he's already achieved.
Mack Posted 23 March 2011 Author Posted 23 March 2011 Sven didn't bring them in so was entitled to leave them out, every time you change the manager this will happen especially if the don't get an opportunity to buy and sell. As for Warnock his views change with his circumstances and he was just pissed off that Naughton/Spurs chose us rather than QPR And just to reiterate Pearson used plenty of loanees in the 2 years he was here because for both years he was in an a differently league and had to make wholesale changes on a minimal budget, Sven is doing the same but for different reason in that he didn't have a decent transfer window to strengthen the squad on a more permanent basis. I think people are noticing it more because Pearson had built a relatively successful but limited squad and yes with 5 loanees in it, but Sven plays a different game and needed players with a different skill set. I doubt anyone would be making an issue of it if we hadn't have achieved what we did with Pearson and if Sven had been here from the off and with the same success rate that he's already achieved. Some good points mate. But do you think we can build sustained longer term success using this policy?
thybluefox Posted 23 March 2011 Posted 23 March 2011 Some good points mate. But do you think we can build sustained longer term success using this policy? Buddy, you're missing the point. This won't be the long term policy! Sven has only used the loan market so much because he had no other option. Over the summer he WILL start to buy players and build a squad. I'm not saying there won't be any loanee's next season, but it won't be on the same scale. Raping the loan market won't be Sven's long term plan. End of.
davieG Posted 23 March 2011 Posted 23 March 2011 Some good points mate. But do you think we can build sustained longer term success using this policy? No I don't but I don't think it's a valid argument in the 'is Sven doing a good or bad job' because in the circumstances results wise he's done an excellent job, based on his results we'd be 4th and his points/game ratio is better than Pearson's last season, considering he 'doesn't know this league and 'had no pre-season' I don't see how anyone can justify a different view. That's not to say he shouldn't be criticised for some his decisions as I'm sure he will be self critical anyway. Re the loan system, I'm thoroughly against the loan system, all I think it does is sustain the big clubs and allows them to soak up and keep all the potential talent knowing that clubs like ours are only too willing to loan them. Talent that could and should remain with their original clubs . I believe it should be restructured to limit the number of players a club can loan out or in to maybe 1or 2 and that they will be under 21 or so. So no loanings of the likes of Yakubu or us with Kermogant. Emergency loans should be just that only allowed in a real emergency. This would hopefully put a brake on the big clubs and would ensure managers have to manage with what they've already got. Maybe an official squad size as per the 25 for the Premier League. It could also help develop an improve camaraderie between players and fans. However I also think the transfer window should be scrapped as it's not achieving what is was intended to achieve, players are still being touted and unsettled during the closed period and it also forces prices up. The squad limits would act as a natural brake on transfer.
Corky Posted 23 March 2011 Posted 23 March 2011 Some good points mate. But do you think we can build sustained longer term success using this policy? No we can't, which is why they are called loans, they aren't here for the long term. Prices in January are going to be higher than the summer, so we should have the ability to sign players at more competitive prices in the close season. I think we've had too many loan players this season overall, but Sven needed to do something and without a summer to bring in permanent players loans were the only option.
muzzy1981 Posted 23 March 2011 Posted 23 March 2011 Hopefully if we can make a couple of our performing loanees perm in the summer then it will have been a more worthy exercise. Have to agree though that i'm pleased we haven't ruched into making perm signings. I'd rather Sven have the time to scan the markets, just as expertly scans the european female markets.
Guest Col city fan Posted 23 March 2011 Posted 23 March 2011 Works for me on Football Manager. Not for me!!! try as I might I can NEVER get City up in the first season.... unless I cheat
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.