Too Many Loan Players?

R

redimpsfan100

Vital Reserves Team
I am not keen on having too many loan players as I feel it can unsettle the permanently signed players if and when they are not in the match day team or squad.

I also feel loan players don't really "belong" and that they are a short-term fix for problem positions in the team/squad.

I was really disappointed City didn't sign Lee Shaw to become "one of our own". Maybe it was the correct outcome. Time will tell with his success, or lack of, at Chesterfield.

Yes, we all want success but isn't it so much more satisfying when the players "belong" or have been nurtured and developed into top players?

UTI!
 
Fact of life as a lower league club I’m afraid. We could sign 10 Lee Shaws and be lucky if one came off. Or we could sign Wharton on loan as a player proven at this level. I’m sure the DC/NC mantra of ‘don’t sign wankers’ extends to loan players as well, so I think we should be ok on the team spirit angle.
 
It gives us the opportunity to get players that in our current level, we would not have a hope of getting.

We would never get Scott Wharton in a million years, I would value him way above what we can afford currently.
 
redimpsfan100 said:
I am not keen on having too many loan players as I feel it can unsettle the permanently signed players if and when they are not in the match day team or squad.

I also feel loan players don't really "belong" and that they are a short-term fix for problem positions in the team/squad.

I was really disappointed City didn't sign Lee Shaw to become "one of our own". Maybe it was the correct outcome. Time will tell with his success, or lack of, at Chesterfield.

Yes, we all want success but isn't it so much more satisfying when the players "belong" or have been nurtured and developed into top players?

UTI!
Click to expand...
We have Freck as one of our own ,i dont believe Shaw came through the academy? Shaw had an offer from us but got a better one from Chesterfield so we wish him luck.
We have had to have numerous triallists as we havent got enough permenant squad players to play games,i very much doubt triallists( or do you mean loanees)upset anybody if a team needs numbers and all have a common goal of success.Plus loanees are necessary for lower league clubs without the premiership/championship excesses imo.
 
Skip155 said:
Isn't a season long loan basically the same as giving a player a 1 year contract though?
Click to expand...
Exactly that, 4/5 of these to bolster the squad. Win win I reckon their player gets game time at a good level and helps their development. And as had been said we get a player we couldn't otherwise afford.
Short term loans not so keen on but do like long term loans and sometimes we do get the player.
 
You can sometimes try before you buy, or have a chance of doing so knowing what you are getting. On the flip side you also get to see if something doesn't work out right, Champion, Southwell etc.
 
Skip155 said:
Isn't a season long loan basically the same as giving a player a 1 year contract though?
Click to expand...
Whilst paying less and generally from a higher league.

I'd prefer 3 or 4 loan signings than 3 or 4 squad player one-year signings. Of course, it's important to ensure that you're not reliant on loan signings through the spine of the team and putting you in trouble the following season (see Hereford when they got promoted from L2 and were hugely reliant on loans during their promotion season).
 
redimpsfan100 said:
I am not keen on having too many loan players as I feel it can unsettle the permanently signed players if and when they are not in the match day team or squad.

I also feel loan players don't really "belong" and that they are a short-term fix for problem positions in the team/squad.

I was really disappointed City didn't sign Lee Shaw to become "one of our own". Maybe it was the correct outcome. Time will tell with his success, or lack of, at Chesterfield.

Yes, we all want success but isn't it so much more satisfying when the players "belong" or have been nurtured and developed into top players?

UTI!
Click to expand...
I understand re too many loans but this is often a useful way to get a player in of a better standard than you could get on a permanent basis.

Re Lee Shaw, if DC didn't deem him up to the job then that is good enough for me. Without being awful I couldn't really care less whether he's a success or not at Chesterfield, if he scores 20 goals next year then brilliant for him, but that still wouldn't mean he would have been up to what we were after.

I agree It is pleasing however to see local lads getting a chance if good enough.
 
Skip155 said:
Isn't a season long loan basically the same as giving a player a 1 year contract though?
Click to expand...

I think the answer is - 'it depends'. Re-call clauses are the biggest issue, but also who is paying the wages, is there a loan signing fee. Swings and roundabouts really. If they are too good they won't stay around and if they are rubbish we are not lumbered with them. We have had few 'season long loans' that haven't lasted a season - Josh Ginnelly, Jordan Maguire-Drew,
 
re: local players to get behind
we have chapman.
and frecklington. o'connor has lived in lincoln for 8 years. akinde and the management are moving to lincoln.

i get the feeling the management will bring on the academy, and really hope we will see more conversions from the youth team. such a good way to support the self-sufficiency.
 
cherryexile said:
I think the answer is - 'it depends'. Re-call clauses are the biggest issue, but also who is paying the wages, is there a loan signing fee. Swings and roundabouts really. If they are too good they won't stay around and if they are rubbish we are not lumbered with them. We have had few 'season long loans' that haven't lasted a season - Josh Ginnelly, Jordan Maguire-Drew,
Click to expand...
Definately these days a loan fee is paid for some deals!
 
At the end of the day players are here as paid professionals and with generally only one or two year contracts being given loan players on season long loans are just as much part of the team.

We view the club differently and rightly so but just look at our squad, only two players remain from when Danny and Nicky started two year ago. It's all about attitude imo and that is exactly what Danny has said. Players who want to win whether they are on loan or contract.

What I think is really good though is that if both Chapman and Frecklington play in the team this season we will have two Lincoln born players in the team and there are not many football clubs can say they have 2 regulars from the actual place!
 
Skip155 said:
Isn't a season long loan basically the same as giving a player a 1 year contract though?
Click to expand...

Financially, no. The player's wages are usually split between the two clubs, although Riccardo Calder was a notable exception.
 
Luke Imp said:
Whilst paying less and generally from a higher league.

I'd prefer 3 or 4 loan signings than 3 or 4 squad player one-year signings. Of course, it's important to ensure that you're not reliant on loan signings through the spine of the team and putting you in trouble the following season (see Hereford when they got promoted from L2 and were hugely reliant on loans during their promotion season).
Click to expand...

Like Accrington last season.
 
Scotimp said:
Financially, no. The player's wages are usually split between the two clubs, although Riccardo Calder was a notable exception.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming the club loaning out the player will pay NI etc as opposed to the other club as well so that'd be another saving.
 
Saw on twitter the other day one of the mega clubs has loaned out one their players for 3 YEARS!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.