Your Thoughts On Being A Loan

[handsofclay]

This is the first time in years that we haven't had any loan players. From memory, although I could be wrong, I think it's the first time since the season Cotts won the League One title.

I wonder if not having loan players is helping to create a better atmosphere at the club. It also cuts the other way as NP appears to prefer keeping players at the club and a part of it rather than sending them out on loan, with a few exceptions.

I'm not saying that loan players don't help on occasions, such as when Lee Tomlin sparked City to stay up in LJ's first season. But is there an over reliance on them and do they actually erode the atmosphere and ethos at a club.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

[Silvio Dante]

I think there’s a real place for them, but not to excess.

Essentially, there’s three types of loans:

- Players you sign on loan with a view to buy (DaSilva, Palmer etc) - theoretically they should play well as they’re playing for a move

- Players you sign to “up the standards” of your team, both through their performances and the standards they bring. Thinking here from City David Howells and Tammy. 

- Players you sign just to give experience. That’s your Kent’s, Sessegnon etc.

Any of the three can go wrong. Group one includes Dinning, group two is least likely to, group three you might strike gold or shit

Inherently, loans aren’t bad - but I’d want them from group two any day of the week 

[Big C]

15 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

This is the first time in years that we haven't had any loan players. From memory, although I could be wrong, I think it's the first time since the season Cotts won the League One title.

I wonder if not having loan players is helping to create a better atmosphere at the club. It also cuts the other way as NP appears to prefer keeping players at the club and a part of it rather than sending them out on loan, with a few exceptions.

I'm not saying that loan players don't help on occasions, such as when Lee Tomlin sparked City to stay up in LJ's first season. But is there an over reliance on them and do they actually erode the atmosphere and ethos at a club.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

apart from Matt Smith , Todd Kane, James Tavernier and George Saville 

[New Dazzler]

I hadn't realised that we were without loan players, so a good point.  As you mention with the likes of Tomlin it worked a treat, other superb loans have been Andy Cole, Stephen Caulker and a few others.  We seem to have picked up more than our fair share of really bad loan players/just didn't work out (often because of injury) type players.  

I think it is a matter of getting the balance right.  But I would also add into the mix that a player on a season long loan is about the same risk as having a player signed on  a short term contract, and could be applied to players on the last few months of their contract, with a likelihood they will not have their contract renewed.  And last season we just had too many of those 3 categories of player, mixed in with an injury crisis, i think Nige mentioned the "perfect storm".

But I think the loan system can be very useful, we just seem to have had too many managers who have used it poorly, combined with atrocious bad luck.  I also think Cotts had a few loans that season, Saville, Tavernier come to mind.   This could be the first season that we haven't used the loan system since it began (haven't checked that out though).

[handsofclay]

3 minutes ago, Big C said:

apart from Matt Smith , Todd Kane, James Tavernier and George Saville 

Jeez how could I forget that especially Matt Smith!!

[GrahamC]

4 minutes ago, Big C said:

apart from Matt Smith , Todd Kane, James Tavernier and George Saville 

I assumed he meant at the season’s start, we added loans due to injuries & to get a very small squad over the line that season it definitely didn’t have any at the corresponding point of the season.

[Davefevs]

@Silvio Dante Tammy is a great example…..was 18 when he came here, but within a week it was enough to accept a bid to sell Kodjia.  There is no doubt that the players wanted to well for him, almost like they were saying “I was a part of the start for Tammy”.  Blimey, Adam Matthews even let him smash his car up!

It reminds me a bit of our cricket club when we had an Indian overseas player.  He’d played against Harbajan Singh and was obviously too good for us….but we didn’t want to let him down.  I’ve never seen so many first teamers at nets!!!

Wolves policy on loans was interesting too the year they went up, bit of a gamble that paid off.

I do like the strategy of loan with an option to buy.  I don’t really want to get in a player who has no interest in signing for us.  Tammy was a bit on a one-off wasn’t he?

But I am also pretty happy with Nige’s stance that he’d rather have players that are ours to develop, using loans to cover short term gaps.

Guess every loan needs to be judged on its merits….no exact science.

[alexukhc]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I do like the strategy of loan with an option to buy.  I don’t really want to get in a player who has no interest in signing for us.  Tammy was a bit on a one-off wasn’t he?

I agree with this but then we also send players out on loan, who have no interest in signing for them, or we have no interest in selling to..

so we can’t have one rule for us and another for them?

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, alexukhc said:

I agree with this but then we also send players out on loan, who have no interest in signing for them, or we have no interest in selling to..

so we can’t have one rule for us and another for them?

Yes we can…..double standards it’s called

[Robbored]

34 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I am also pretty happy with Nige’s stance that he’d rather have players that are ours to develop, using loans to cover short term gaps.

Me too - Nige continues to impress me and I’m delighted that we have at last a manager at the helm who knows exactly what it takes to build a squad capable of getting out of the Championship.

He’s different from every manager that I can remember and I go back as far as Fred Ford in the late 60s and his recent comment highlighted above is a perfect example of how unique he is. Most managers would utilise the loan market if their squad was lacking in a particular area but not Nige. Fair play to him for taking that particular stance which sends out a clear message to the up and coming youngsters that the pathway is much clearer now that the man in charge is unwilling to bring in loans, preferring to develop what he has - top decisions imo.

[alexukhc]

46 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes we can…..double standards it’s called

I thought better of you

[CyderInACan]

27 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Me too - Nige continues to impress me and I’m delighted that we have at last a manager at the helm who knows exactly what it takes to build a squad capable of getting out of the Championship.

He’s different from every manager that I can remember and I go back as far as Fred Ford in the late 60s and his recent comment highlighted above is a perfect example of how unique he is. Most managers would utilise the loan market if their squad was lacking in a particular area but not Nige. Fair play to him for taking that particular stance which sends out a clear message to the up and coming youngsters that the pathway is much clearer now that the man in charge is unwilling to bring in loans, preferring to develop what he has - top decisions imo.

There is the pathway thing but obviously also the finances to consider. I think we’ve done well bringing a few of the kids thru this time rather than a bunch of loanees 

[cidered abroad]

I suspect that loans were first introduced as a way of covering a lengthy injury situation. I believe that a club could only have one loanee in the team ( but I may be wrong) and, at that time, only one named sub.

But with the growth of Premier League Academies, there arose a mass of young players for development as those clubs gathered in boys that would have started their careers in the lower leagues. Clubs with them must have realised that playing against each other would not assist. So, IMO, the big clubs developed mass loans for their own benefit, not to help a club like City.

But, in our experience, we've had only a few who contributed any decent amount to the development of BCFC. One of the first to come to City was a defender Brian Hill who helped us stay up in AD early days. Since then we've had so many but apart from Tammy and Andy Cole how many others can we say were a genuine success for us and them?

[handsofclay]

Iirc Joe Royle was initially a loan. Back then it was one month loans and I recall thinking after he scored four on his debut that it might not have been such a great thing as Man City would likely want him back then. However, they did then sell him to us, £90,000 sticks in my mind. 

Thank you to those who contributed as I expected, there have been some well considered appraisals of the loan system both past and present and thought provoking points made. 

 

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, cidered abroad said:

I suspect that loans were first introduced as a way of covering a lengthy injury situation. I believe that a club could only have one loanee in the team ( but I may be wrong) and, at that time, only one named sub.

But with the growth of Premier League Academies, there arose a mass of young players for development as those clubs gathered in boys that would have started their careers in the lower leagues. Clubs with them must have realised that playing against each other would not assist. So, IMO, the big clubs developed mass loans for their own benefit, not to help a club like City.

But, in our experience, we've had only a few who contributed any decent amount to the development of BCFC. One of the first to come to City was a defender Brian Hill who helped us stay up in AD early days. Since then we've had so many but apart from Tammy and Andy Cole how many others can we say were a genuine success for us and them?

Mark Robins was a success for us ,as for him I don’t know. 
Fell into the category of a ‘ class above ‘ what we had .

 

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, cidered abroad said:

I suspect that loans were first introduced as a way of covering a lengthy injury situation. I believe that a club could only have one loanee in the team ( but I may be wrong) and, at that time, only one named sub.

But with the growth of Premier League Academies, there arose a mass of young players for development as those clubs gathered in boys that would have started their careers in the lower leagues. Clubs with them must have realised that playing against each other would not assist. So, IMO, the big clubs developed mass loans for their own benefit, not to help a club like City.

But, in our experience, we've had only a few who contributed any decent amount to the development of BCFC. One of the first to come to City was a defender Brian Hill who helped us stay up in AD early days. Since then we've had so many but apart from Tammy and Andy Cole how many others can we say were a genuine success for us and them?

Ignore- just looked Brian Hill up, don’t recall him at all.

[Major Isewater]

No one should be a loan.

[chinapig]

23 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Ignore- just looked Brian Hill up, don’t recall him at all.

In which case you may not remember Les Wilson who also joined on loan (from Wolves) that season iirc.

[chinapig]

I suggest OTIB loan @Davefevsto Opta. Provided I get 15% of the loan fee.

[BRIAN WILSON]

14 hours ago, New Dazzler said:

I hadn't realised that we were without loan players, so a good point.  As you mention with the likes of Tomlin it worked a treat, other superb loans have been Andy Cole, Stephen Caulker and a few others.  We seem to have picked up more than our fair share of really bad loan players/just didn't work out (often because of injury) type players.  

I think it is a matter of getting the balance right.  But I would also add into the mix that a player on a season long loan is about the same risk as having a player signed on  a short term contract, and could be applied to players on the last few months of their contract, with a likelihood they will not have their contract renewed.  And last season we just had too many of those 3 categories of player, mixed in with an injury crisis, i think Nige mentioned the "perfect storm".

But I think the loan system can be very useful, we just seem to have had too many managers who have used it poorly, combined with atrocious bad luck.  I also think Cotts had a few loans that season, Saville, Tavernier come to mind.   This could be the first season that we haven't used the loan system since it began (haven't checked that out though).

Andy Cole was not a loan, he was bought from the Arsenal Reseves for something like £ 250k 

[Maltshoveller]

38 minutes ago, BRIAN WILSON said:

Andy Cole was not a loan, he was bought from the Arsenal Reseves for something like £ 250k 

was to start with

 

[BRIAN WILSON]

16 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

was to start with

 

Yep, just looked it up - I must be going senile 

[Leveller]

I don’t really see why a loan player should upset the ethos or atmosphere at the club. OK they may only be at the club for a season - but frankly that’s equally true for talented permanent signings who are clearly likely to be traded on to a higher league - eg Andy Cole. I doubt players resent other players who are improving the team, unless their own pathway is being blocked, in which case it doesn’t matter whether they’re permanent or loan signings.