Jump to content
IGNORED

Have boots will travel


RoystonFoote'snephew

Recommended Posts

I note that Jamal Blackman, the 26 year old keeper nominally at Chelsea, has signed for Rotherham on a season long loan, which is his 8th loan. I know for a keeper 26 is not old but surely there comes a time when either Chelsea or himself cuts the ties and looks to settle down somewhere permanently. I wonder what the record for the most loans is - any ideas? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not keep him when it’s profitable to them if they charge a fee and offload his wages? He knows if he has an exceptional season he will get better offers the next season and if he hasn’t a bad one his wage is still guaranteed.

We have started to do this in recent years buying players on cut price deals or frees (Smozdics, Eisa or Adelakuun) where we can loan them for a fee and then cover at least our outlay at the end. Furthermore, in the event they tear it up on a loan spell all of a sudden we have a player for the first team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mad Cyril said:

Apparently Chelsea have loaned out 57 different players in the last 10 years.

Second in number only to Udinese (62).

I'd like to know how many of those from Udinese were just to Watford. Their owners own both clubs don't they? Remember Watford having loads from Udinese the seasons when they were trying to get promoted. Not sure many other Forestieri (really not sure on the spelling there) were that great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JamboBCFC said:

I'd like to know how many of those from Udinese were just to Watford. Their owners own both clubs don't they? Remember Watford having loads from Udinese the seasons when they were trying to get promoted. Not sure many other Forestieri (really not sure on the spelling there) were that great.

The rules were changed a few years ago here specifically to stop this.

Their owners also own Granada in Spain and players were being loaned between the 3 teams all the time. Watford had 5 on loan from Udinese prior to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

The rules were changed a few years ago here specifically to stop this.

Their owners also own Granada in Spain and players were being loaned between the 3 teams all the time. Watford had 5 on loan from Udinese prior to this.

Yeah, I think it's now a maximum of 4 on loan from one club to another at the same time.

We had 4 on loan at Torquay a couple of seasons ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

I note that Jamal Blackman, the 26 year old keeper nominally at Chelsea, has signed for Rotherham on a season long loan, which is his 8th loan. I know for a keeper 26 is not old but surely there comes a time when either Chelsea or himself cuts the ties and looks to settle down somewhere permanently. I wonder what the record for the most loans is - any ideas? 

I know people will respond saying he'll be on a decent wedge at Chelsea, but it must be hard constantly moving from club to club.   

Uprooting family if you have one.  If you haven't trying to start a relationship when you don't know how long you'll be around.   

It would take a serious amount of money for me to want that lifestyle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, JamboBCFC said:

I'd like to know how many of those from Udinese were just to Watford. Their owners own both clubs don't they? Remember Watford having loads from Udinese the seasons when they were trying to get promoted. Not sure many other Forestieri (really not sure on the spelling there) were that great.

At one time they also owned Granada (not now) and had players revolving around 3 clubs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Northern Red said:

Yeah, I think it's now a maximum of 4 on loan from one club to another at the same time.

We had 4 on loan at Torquay a couple of seasons ago.

We had 3 on loan at one time from Chelsea not so long ago ourselves - Kalas, Dasilva and Palmer.

From an outsider looking in, you might think why would a player want to do that, when they never seem to settle in one place. The thing is though, they are getting paid very well to do something most of us could only dream of being able to do.

Your club pays you £10-15k a week before any bonuses. If that club then says, we want to loan you out for a season or two, see where you are and then assess whether you can get in the team or not, most young players will do just that - just to have a chance of playing for one of the top sides in the country.

2 years in, you're doing OK on loan, club seems happy with your progress, but have just spent £40m+ on a player in your position, which puts you down the pecking order a bit more. It's ok though, you're in your early 20's, still a promising young player - here sign a new 4 year contract taking you up to £20-25k a week. You still need to be playing regular competitve football though, so we're going to send you back out on loan. The cycle continues.

Most young players that sign for the big clubs won't make it. You know you need to be an exceptional talent to get in one of the sides of a "big club".

If, like Kalas, you get to the point where you realise, or are told you aren't going to be anything more than a "sub contractor", or a bench warmer at best, you can then decide what you really want to do with your (relatively short) career. Carry on being the "training cone" as Kalas once said, or put some roots down and crack on at a club where you know you can settle and make the position your own.

Sometimes you will find a Blackman - numerous loans, but never going to get into the Chelsea first team. Occasionally you will find a Henderson at Man Utd - few loans out at a club, win promotion with them, carry on for another season, actually make a real difference, and then actually force your (contracted) clubs managers hand - play me, or I'll go and play first team football at one of your rivals. 

The point was made previously about us using the Chelsea model, albeit on a smaller scale. Clubs need to adapt, and find a revenue stream that will keep them going, whilst not missing out on younger, lower league "punts". The big clubs have been able to cherry pick the best talent from our level and below for years, and the direction that the club is heading in now with the new training ground etc, is only going to help us be able to do the same thing a little bit further down the chain.

Recent seasons we've taken gambles ourselves. Some have not worked out, and we have just about broken even in terms of transfer fees in and out - Eisa, Taylor, Engval to name a few. You loan them out, get most/all their wages paid by a club elsewhere, take a small hit or get your money back.

It's what Chelsea, as well as others, are doing. Taking relatively small risks by signing players lower down, loaning them out, making a profit usually, then selling them on when they realise they're actually no good for the first team, or the loan requests dry up.

In some cases, so long as they can still get an income from loaning you back out - like Blackman - and the player is happy in that loop, then why would they change the way they work? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...