Is the 'loan system' undermining the game?

[Rougvie]

Interesting discussion in the pub last night.

I'm getting more and more unsure if the 'loan system' is actually benefitting the game, particularly at our level. Whilst it is nothing new, its now used at the drop of a hat to cover players who are sometimes only out for a few weeks, i'm wondering also if it devalues the efforts of many parents to get their kids interested in local sides if every week a different team turns out and they just simply cannot identify with players who come and go, buy a shirt with a name on it and all of a sudden the name is out on loan to Yeovil and so on.

OK, it is of use when you have genuine injuries, but what sort of message does it sent to 'reserve' and youth team players, sometimes replaced by a loan player from a higher division for the simple reason at times that he is from a 'bigger' club, again it works in reverse, giving those players experience, but am I alone in thinking that the Football League should be a fixed number on the amount of loan players per season?

 

[alex_brighton]

we have had far to many loan players this season

 

[Brighton Breezy]

I think teams are allowed too many loans.

You get some teams who can get by without actually paying money for any players, instead just getting Premiership youth teamers in on loan.

The standard of players they would be signing instead would be from fellow lower league teams, which could be (together with obvious mismanagement) part of the reasons a lot of lower league clubs are having financial problems. In seasons gone by they could flog one of their better players, but now rival teams can easily just pick someone up on loan.

As cover for injuries, or perhaps used as a sort of one month, non extendable trial period before buying someone, loans are good.

As they are currently? They are crap and are just turning lower league clubs into sides the big boys can farm people out to.

 

[BensGrandad]

I think the sysytem needs looking at and should only be used for players coming back from injury or those clubs are prepared to sell.

I believe that a transfer value should be set on the player prior to the loan and a universally agreed % of this value be paid as a loan fee. At the end of the loan period the borrowing club has to either pay the full price for the player and sign him permenantly or the agreed % if they do not sign him. That would mean that clubs could only sign players that they can afford unlike say Ipswich loaning Giovanni Dos Santos from Spurs, who they could never sign.

 

[BLOCK F]

In my opinion,yes.The system seems to have become a monster and has been used by our club to a ridiculous extent and look where we are now.It encourages short-termism and 'management by knee-jerk' rather than by good solid long term planning,coaching and the nurturing of younger players.Could also have a detrimental effect on club and team spirit in many instances.
Yes,there are instances where it can be justified ,but amongst certain clubs(ours included)it appears to have taken over from the bigger long term picture.Over reliance on the loan system is no way to build a successful club.....we should know that!!

 

[beorhthelm]

we'd have been royally screwed lately if it weren't for loans. how do the authorities judge a "proper injury", or at least how long it takes a player to come back? not saying your wrong though.

and where are our premiership players?

 

[withdeanwombat]

Yes it is.

The "we want him to go out on loan to get some games" syndrome.

Should clubs get by with what they own? Surely.

Are there any grounds for loans? Certainly.

But I do not think they should become a routine part of the game,any more than I think substitutes should be allowed for anything other than genuine injury.

But heyho,nothing will change on either score,except possibly more of both will be allowed.

 

[NMH]

Perhaps the club borrowing a player should have a 'right to buy' clause?

Thus when a club loans someone out, they know they are allowing the player to leave and be bought. It will be a good system for the borrower as they'll try before they buy, and for the player who can also see how they like another club.

 

[drew]

But I do not think they should become a routine part of the game,any more than I think substitutes should be allowed for anything other than genuine injury.

But heyho,nothing will change on either score,except possibly more of both will be allowed.[/QUOTE]


Hey, someone turn the light on as I thought we were no longer in the dark ages!!!

With regards to loans, there is nothing wrong with loan players but the system does need to be looked at. For a start, Premier league clubs should not be allowed to buy up players then farm them out on loan to other premier clubs. Scrap the loan system and we would have been relegated by Christmas. It ain't perfect but I like to know what alternative people are suggesting bearing in mind the transfer window closes in January and not March like it used to.

 

[algie]

No is the simple answer.You can gain from using the market correctly like Hereford who one promotion with a team of loans.Besides how else will our very own youngsters get better if they couldn't be loaned out because they are not getting into the first team? I'm all for it.

 

[Simster]

I'd say the transfer window is ultimately responsible. Why is this really necessary? All it does is force teams to bring in more loan signings to cover injuries because they can't sign proper replacements who would then actually be properly committed to the club signing them.

 

[algie]

I'd say the transfer window is ultimately responsible. Why is this really necessary? All it does is force teams to bring in more loan signings to cover injuries because they can't sign proper replacements who would then actually be properly committed to the club signing them.

Maybe because the majority of league 1 and league 2 clubs have to work within a tight budget due to shit gates,income etc.This is not the premier league where you can blow 5 million plus on a player and move onto another one if he turns out to be a flop.Anything that helps the smaller clubs is a bonus in my books.

 

[pishhead]

The loan system as it is now is not in the long term beneficial, it should be changed due to age, for example a limit on loan players over the age of 21. Primarily the loan system should be used to blood young players. Not to plug the gaps.

 

[BLOCK F]

But I do not think they should become a routine part of the game,any more than I think substitutes should be allowed for anything other than genuine injury.

But heyho,nothing will change on either score,except possibly more of both will be allowed.

Hey, someone turn the light on as I thought we were no longer in the dark ages!!!

With regards to loans, there is nothing wrong with loan players but the system does need to be looked at. For a start, Premier league clubs should not be allowed to buy up players then farm them out on loan to other premier clubs. Scrap the loan system and we would have been relegated by Christmas. It ain't perfect but I like to know what alternative people are suggesting bearing in mind the transfer window closes in January and not March like it used to.[/QUOTE]

I don't think many people are saying scrap the loan system completely,but it is hard to argue against the view that,for whatever reason(transfer windows etc.)it has become a bit of a farce when clubs continually field almost half a team of loanees.
As to whether we would have been relegated by Christmas without the loan system suggests to me that a certain amount of mismanagement at the club may be in some way responsible for that !!

 

[Simster]

Maybe because the majority of league 1 and league 2 clubs have to work within a tight budget due to shit gates,income etc.This is not the premier league where you can blow 5 million plus on a player and move onto another one if he turns out to be a flop.Anything that helps the smaller clubs is a bonus in my books.

I'm not talking about spending money on new signings. It just seems odd to me that you're not allowed to sign players except inside two 3-week windows.

IMO, loan signings should only be made to patch up your team in an emergency, while the loaning team gets their player some valueable experience. Wouldn't you have preferred Adams to have recruited a proper midfielder on a 2 year deal instead of having part of Robbie Savage's crippling wages to pay just so that he could get fit for Derby?

 

[goldstone]

The loan system as it is now is wrong and needs fundemental changes.

We have had far too many loan players this season and overall I do not believe we have benefitted.

 

[Thimble Keegan]

The loan system is not something I am in favour of. Years ago you would get a loan player in if you were really struggling with injuries...Now, teams get them in for a whole season and build a team around them. When Pompey went upto the Premier League Harry, Radknapp had a core of a team that were loanees.

Also I remember reading a story whereby Chelski signed someone one summer and immediately loaned out for the entire season.

I mean, take us for example, we got in 5 loanees the other which nearly half a team which are not even our own players! It also did not help us earlier in the season when we had the loan players as certain ones could not play in certain games (like the JPT). So we just kept changing the team which did not help.

I think the loan system needs a radical overhaul and really should go back to how it used to be.

Albion & England forever.

Thimble Keegan
Littlehampton BHA

 

[pishhead]

A limit of 2 season long loan signings and a maximum of 5 short term loans and only 1 short term loan allowed at any one time.

 

[SNOOBS]

The loan system is not something I am in favour of. Years ago you would get a loan player in if you were really struggling with injuries...Now, teams get them in for a whole season and build a team around them. When Pompey went upto the Premier League Harry, Radknapp had a core of a team that were loanees.

Also I remember reading a story whereby Chelski signed someone one summer and immediately loaned out for the entire season.

I mean, take us for example, we got in 5 loanees the other which nearly half a team which are not even our own players! It also did not help us earlier in the season when we had the loan players as certain ones could not play in certain games (like the JPT). So we just kept changing the team which did not help.

I think the loan system needs a radical overhaul and really should go back to how it used to be.

Albion & England forever.

Thimble Keegan
Littlehampton BHA

Albion & England forever.

Thimble Keegan
Littlehampton BHA

Why do you always post that? Must be very tiresome

 

[sam86]

Would people moan if we got 3 or 4 Arsenal youngsters on loan for the whole of next season (fantasy speaking lyke')? Imagine they'd only be a few, of whom the majority would probably die out after watching them a few times.

The main problem with our loanee's this season is that the majority were bought in within a week of each and thrown on the pitch the next weekend, in some kind of emergency exercise. If we had them all from the beginning of the season, on a season long loan, I'm sure they'd be performing a lot better than they are now.