Breaking News Conor Clifford

[rigsby]

Did you miss the point about them being a short-term fix?

Part of the modern game. We either accept it or end up in the conference. Big clubs can now afford to swallow up most of the young talent even when their already at clubs like ours. We have done well to keep the likes of Bentley up until now. PB is a good connection for us, you'll see next year in league 1:winking:

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

Part of the modern game. We either accept it or end up in the conference.

Eh? Are no other options available? Surely not.

What about attempting to get the system changed for instance?

There have been changes that have brought us to the current position so I feel quite confident that it would be possible to see changes that would improve the current system.

Hash tag: Nowthere'sanidea

 

[Jam_Man]

Did you miss the point about them being a short-term fix?

Unlike Tomlin? He was our player, here the same time and length as his strike partner. Both left and Tomlin probably cost us more than Britt and gave us just as much return when he left, zip.

Most players this level are short term.

Its great to have players to build up, but it doesnt happen very often at this level when contracts are rarely longer than 2 years anyway.

It also benefits us in other ways, we get to loan a player that we then get to sign at a later date knowing how good he is, we have had a few from Chelsea alone. Anthony Grant, a loanee that turned into a long term player for us (who again left for nothing anyway).

 

[onceknownasrab]

Loans are terrible.

No one mention Federici, Assombolonga Egan or Sokolik.

Not sure what point these loans make as none of them got us promotion. Four very good players that performed well for us but ultimately not enough to make a difference.

 

[Jam_Man]

Not sure what point these loans make as none of them got us promotion. Four very good players that performed well for us but ultimately not enough to make a difference.

It was hardly Assombolongas fault the rest of the team werent good enough.

As for Egan and Sokolik their introduction played a big part in making sure we made the play offs, so they did make a difference.

You cant expect a loanee to guarantee promotion on their own.

 

[onceknownasrab]

It was hardly Assombolongas fault the rest of the team werent good enough.

As for Egan and Sokolik their introduction played a big part in making sure we made the play offs, so they did make a difference.

You cant expect a loanee to guarantee promotion on their own.

That is somewhat swerving the point. The much lauded and vaunted signings you referred to may have done well, but using the loan system and some very good players, still did not result in promotion. Maybe as some argue the time could have been spent bringing on more of our own players. Indeed, if clubs were more likely to use their own players then better yoofs might stay within the development squads of lower league teams with more hope of breaking through. Two sides to each argument.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Unlike Tomlin? He was our player, here the same time and length as his strike partner. Both left and Tomlin probably cost us more than Britt and gave us just as much return when he left, zip.

Most players this level are short term.

Its great to have players to build up, but it doesnt happen very often at this level when contracts are rarely longer than 2 years anyway.

It also benefits us in other ways, we get to loan a player that we then get to sign at a later date knowing how good he is, we have had a few from Chelsea alone. Anthony Grant, a loanee that turned into a long term player for us (who again left for nothing anyway).

I'm all in favour of signing players on loan with a view to a permanent move. That's how to use the system properly.

I don't even mind signing players on loan (like Assamabolonga) to replace long term injuries. It allows us to operate a smaller squad.

It's deals like those for Woodrow, Kiernan, Pigott that I'm opposed to: applying a temporary sticky plaster when we've no chance of signing the player permanently.

We get a rough, inconsistent player who we have to smooth the edges off, but if we manage to smooth those edges he returns to his parent club and we go back to square one again. The constant personal changes cause disruption, hinder partnerships being formed and ostracise and demotivate players looked over in favour of a temporary solution.

That sort of short-termism is not how to build a squad. Whilst Tomlin opted elsewhere, we were in pole position to sign him. We just failed to take that opportunity. But we got a year out of an experienced player and weren't stuck with his growing pains as he adjusted to the professional game - one hugely important difference between him and Britt was that Tomlin offered far more on his bad days than Britt did.

 

[chapperzUK]

In my opinion, there should only be 3 reasons for a loan:

1. Short term fix for a temporary issues, such as injuries and suspensions. Such as last season when White got injured and we had O'Neill on loan and this season when Coker got injured and we got Williams.

2. A "try before you buy". We've had several loanees in the past who have signed up on a permanent contract and it makes sense for all parties. If a player is told in January that he will be going at the end of his contract (like we have done), then he could go out on loan if no club is willing to buy out his contract. This is how we got Timlin and could have got Egan and Sokolik last season.

3. Get a young player who is still developing who we would never have a chance of signing. Some have said that this is just developing other teams' players and when they leave us we have nothing financial to show for it. While that is true, we also haven't paid anything for them and managed to get a quality player in to help us.

 

[Ricey]

The loan system is, for me, out of control - look at the number of loans taking place just in our division last week. Madness.

Just a bit look at what Watford did with their owner loaning all those Italian players from the two clubs he owned. On deadline day Rangers signed 5 Newcastle players on loan! The whole situation with Frank Lampard too, they really need to get their acts together and sort it out.

 

[chapperzUK]

It's deals like those for Woodrow, Kiernan, Pigott that I'm opposed to: applying a temporary sticky plaster when we've no chance of signing the player permanently.

Do you read the independent? :winking:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ding-lowerleague-squads-together-9944246.html

 

[chapperzUK]

Just a bit look at what Watford did with their owner loaning all those Italian players from the two clubs he owned. On deadline day Rangers signed 5 Newcastle players on loan! The whole situation with Frank Lampard too, they really need to get their acts together and sort it out.

They changed the rules after the Watford incident. It only happened because they were getting players from clubs outside England. The current rules allow a maximum of 5 loanees in a matchday squad. For me, that is fine as if injuries hit hard then you can't expect a lower league club to carry a big squad to cover for any possibility.

 

[Ricey]

They changed the rules after the Watford incident. It only happened because they were getting players from clubs outside England. The current rules allow a maximum of 5 loanees in a matchday squad. For me, that is fine as if injuries hit hard then you can't expect a lower league club to carry a big squad to cover for any possibility.

5 players from one club is a little extreme though don't you think? And all signed in one go.

 

[chapperzUK]

5 players from one club is a little extreme though don't you think? And all signed in 1 go.

It is, but that would be down to the Scottish FA to change. If that were an English team then it wouldn't have happened because of restrictions allowing only 4 from one club. Even 4 from one club is quite high.

If I'd change the rules, I'd do this:

Maximum of 4 loanees in the matchday squad and maximum of 2 loanees in the starting lineup, along with a total of only 6 loanees made during a season. Exceptions can be made in emergency cases which is reviewed by a panel.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Do you read the independent? :winking:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ding-lowerleague-squads-together-9944246.html

No, but they may read me.

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

Maximum of 4 loanees in the matchday squad and maximum of 2 loanees in the starting lineup, along with a total of only 6 loanees made during a season. Exceptions can be made in emergency cases which is reviewed by a panel.

That would be a significant improvement over the current position.

But there is also the question of number of players on loan to a club over a season.

I also (possibly irrationally) find the "season long loan" a bit of a farce. What happened to the days of covering for injuries? Although the imposition of a transfer window is an obstacle, even the most languid of managers should be able to find and sign players during the period from August through to May to cover holes in the squad without resorting to taking another club's player for a whole season!

 

[Bearded Shrimper]

That would be a significant improvement over the current position.

But there is also the question of number of players on loan to a club over a season.

I also (possibly irrationally) find the "season long loan" a bit of a farce. What happened to the days of covering for injuries? Although the imposition of a transfer window is an obstacle, even the most languid of managers should be able to find and sign players during the period from August through to May to cover holes in the squad without resorting to taking another club's player for a whole season!

i think the longer the loan the better really. a player is then part of the group, can find their feet without having to hit top form straight away. i think you get more value out of a season loan than a month, and i'm sure i've heard other people back that up.
i personally don't have a massive problem with the loan system other than the Watford/foreign ownership of a network of clubs scenario. at this level clubs get smashed financially. the bigger clubs bully them out of their best players at all the youth levels then buy abroad so the old food chain doesn't work. the one thing smaller clubs now have is loans to try to fill the gaps as best they can. if you're struggling to make up the numbers then loans make sense, whether that be in improving the quality or quantity available. we got Egan and Sokolic and they were awesome for us, plenty others too in the past. some poor, fine, but thats the same with permanent signings.
hopefully us loaning Williams out will help him develop,
Look at Mason at Spurs, he's a first team regular now because he was developed over all those years on loan and is now a proper player. also, and this is key, he wasn't rushed, he was allowed to develop at his own pace

 

[rararblue]

My pet dislike is loans within the same division, particularly with the proviso - 'you can play against everyone else, but not us'.

 

[RobM]

That's reasonable enough. Just using Connor Clifford as an example - suppose he was on loan at, say, Bury and scored their goal in a 1-0 win - a defeat that left us 1 point out of the play-offs and they went up! I doubt he'd be popular at Southend.

 

[onceknownasrab]

The sad reality is that if we did not exercise our options in the loan market, along with all the other clubs, then the big bucks clubs of the Prem would exert even greater pressure to be involved in our league. They want the huge pool of players and to develop their players they want to see how they fare in competitive action. Everyone stops taking loans and the idea of the big clubs having 'b' teams in our division will happen quicker than mrsblue can type.

 

[chapperzUK]

That would be a significant improvement over the current position.

But there is also the question of number of players on loan to a club over a season.

I also (possibly irrationally) find the "season long loan" a bit of a farce. What happened to the days of covering for injuries? Although the imposition of a transfer window is an obstacle, even the most languid of managers should be able to find and sign players during the period from August through to May to cover holes in the squad without resorting to taking another club's player for a whole season!

I said "a total of only 6 loanees made during a season", so that should clear up your first comment.

As for a "season long loan", I don't have a problem with it as long as they are here with the possibility of becoming a permanent player or they are a level above our current squad players. I don't see any difference between getting a player on a season long loan and getting a player on a one year contract. Both will be here a season and with both there is a strong chance the player could leave in the summer for nothing if he does well.