spudski Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Without doubt, it was a joy to watch Caulker and Spence last season, but it is tinged with sadness as you know they are going to go back to their parent Club eventually. I prefer to have a Team develop together, owned by the Club. Probably not possible if you want to be competive and save on costs. A sad state of modern football tbh. It's hard to feel that this is 'our Team', when players are coming and going at such a rate of knots. Some weeks it looks like a complete team of strangers playing for our Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 No quite! You must have forgotten the likes of McGammon, Vasko, Saborio, Webster, Keogh and many more pretty useless loans that Johnson brought in. I guess that if a manager has to use the loan market then better to do it as Millen has by using promising youngsters like Caulker rather than sign the dross that his predecessors did. He definitely voiced the view, he just didn't necessarily abide by it! There are only a few ways of obtaining quality players: 1. Pay large amounts for established, proven quality players who are young enough to have a resale value. 2. Sign older, proven players with no re-sale potential and high wages. 3. Find unknown and therefore cheap players of high quality. 4. Loan quality from a higher level for a short period. 1 is somewhat beyond our means at the moment and 2 doesn't fit in with the current signing policy. 3 is the ideal policy but requires an extremely good scouting network which I don't think we have in place just yet. That leaves 4, which allows us access to players of sufficient quality at a fraction of the cost. I don't agree with short-term loans but I think Millen is talking about season-long loans which are fine as they'll be around long enough for there to be stability and for the players to have a sufficient interest in performing well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 In days past loan players were used mainly short term when your squad was depleted by injuries and suspensions but nowadays it seems that, particularly in the Championship the loan system is used to improve the quality of your squad. Is it really right to get a promotion by using players that aren't your own? I dunno whether I have an old fashioned view on this issue but when watching the obviously quality of Caulker last season I had a disappointed feeling that he was really a Spurs player and that we wouldn't be seeing him in a City shirt this season because of it. The fact that most clubs use the loan system to improve the quality of their squad doesn't make it right imo. In some ways I agree; the loan system allows the big clubs to continue to hoard the best talent and keeps the top on top. Without it they would struggle to get young players match time and they wouldn't find it as easy to persuade them to stay signed to a big club without playing a decent standard. It's the hoarding that is wrong more than the loans IMO, there should be limits on the number of players in each age group allowed to be signed to a club. However, from OUR club's perspective, unless a rule change happens we have to make use of it whilst other clubs at our level do. At least when it's a season long loan that player can settle and be a real part of the team. In a lot of cases the player does end up transferring permanently too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooRya Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Banning the loan system would stop clubs hoarding players and I believe would benefit football as a whole, as better players would filter down through the leagues. Won't happen though as too much power is held by the top few. Something that could immediately help though would be putting the same transfer window restrictions in place as for permanent transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 I agree with whoever said that in particular the defence should have as stable as possible line-up. They should be very familiar with each other and almost be able to read each other's minds in order to ensure they have all the angles covered. We saw at the start of last season what happens when they don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melksham Red Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 At the risk of prompting the usual suspects into a plethora of personal jibes and insults, I would like to ask whether any other forum users feel a tad uncomfortable about Millen's plans to 'borrow' players from PL clubs particularly to strengthen City's defence in this coming season. We had Rose briefly, Caulker for most of last season and latterly Spence and they did a good job, particularly Caulker but.... The issue as I see it what happens when these loan players go back to their parent club? Caulker returning to Spurs has left a gaping vacancy in the back line and the likelihood is that that vacancy will be filled with another young starlet. That's fine you might say but isn't using the loan market to bring in players simply papering over the cracks in your own squad? Would it not be more prudent to sign players on City contracts in the knowledge that you'll have that player at your disposal for as long their contract is? No. Of course it would be nice to reach the Premier League with out using the loan system and by bring on your own younsters but with the way the system works I feel you'd be foolish not to use it. It's become a case of if you can't beat them join them. Of course you only want genuine quality that will improve what you already have, Caulker and Spence are two perfect examples. Rose is not and to this day I can not understand how he ever pulled on a Tottenham shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 No quite! You must have forgotten the likes of McGammon, Vasko, Saborio, Webster, Keogh and many more pretty useless loans that Johnson brought in. I guess that if a manager has to use the loan market then better to do it as Millen has by using promising youngsters like Caulker rather than sign the dross that his predecessors did. I think you'll find the useless loan of Keogh was made by our present manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 I think you'll find the useless loan of Keogh was made by our present manager. Not sure he was useless, he bagged the opening goal away at Preston which got us going. Only started 4 games due to Maynard and other strikers coming back from injury. he didn't play enough to be classed as useless, he plugged a gap when we needed it and helped us on our way to a few good results. I have certainly seen a lot worse strikers on loan at city than Keogh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Not sure he was useless, he bagged the opening goal away at Preston which got us going. Only started 4 games due to Maynard and other strikers coming back from injury. he didn't play enough to be classed as useless, he plugged a gap when we needed it and helped us on our way to a few good results. I have certainly seen a lot worse strikers on loan at city than Keogh RR's words not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 No quite! You must have forgotten the likes of McGammon, Vasko, Saborio, Webster, Keogh and many more pretty useless loans that Johnson brought in. I guess that if a manager has to use the loan market then better to do it as Millen has by using promising youngsters like Caulker rather than sign the dross that his predecessors did. As someone else has already pointed out Keogh only arrived in February, which was a whole year after GJ left us and it was McCammon, who replaced Bas Savage and with 4 goals in his first 5 games was a distinct improvement on him, anyway. I'd also question how "useless" Vasko was, a regular squad player in the season we made the play off final... Our history with loan signings was pretty shocking up until last season when Calker and Spence made big contributions and I'm sure it is no coincidence that Steve Wigley's arrival was at the same time. My personal view is of course I'd be much happier to see a City side with 11 of our own players (and come to that, a large sprinkling of Bristolians in it, too), however in the real world our competitors borrow the best youngsters from The Prem and so we'd be putting ourselves at a real disadvantage if we didn't follow suit, especially if we are serious about reducing our wage bill. I'll give you another advantage of loan players, yes, Andy Webster was awful for us, so we sent him back pretty sharpish, but that isn't an option we have with Nicky Hunt or had with Peter Styvar, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 ... it was McCammon, who replaced Bas Savage and with 4 goals in his first 5 games was a distinct improvement on him, anyway. As I recall it, they mainly played together, at the expense of the more expensive and less productive Stewart and Bridges. Neither was particularly brilliant at football but they were instrumental in turning a bottom 4 position into a top 8 finish that season. Once that job was done they were replaced with better players (Jevons, Showunmi) for the promotion season. It's also worth bearing in mind that some of Johnson's early loan signings were used to make a point to existing players as much as anything else. The likes of Sankofa and Youga came in to tell Carey, Woodman, Orr etc. "If you don't shape up and toe the line I'm prepared to play worse players ahead of you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Banning the loan system would stop clubs hoarding players and I believe would benefit football as a whole, as better players would filter down through the leagues. Won't happen though as too much power is held by the top few. Something that could immediately help though would be putting the same transfer window restrictions in place as for permanent transfers. I agree with that. Why not allow teams to play 'B' sides in the league as they do in Spain, it doesn't seem to have done them any harm ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 I agree with that. Why not allow teams to play 'B' sides in the league as they do in Spain, it doesn't seem to have done them any harm ? How would it help stop big clubs hoarding youth? Surely it would do the opposite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redhyde Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 National game vs clubs interest. You ideally as a nation want as many young talented players playing together at the top facilities with the best coaches around them. That means B sides, C sides, taking the youth championships and the olympics seriously. As a club i'm not sure. Our current youth producing system has been fairly rubbish. We've only what, Skuse and Carey in the first team squad. Perhaps Wilson perhaps Ribeiro. So in order to access good young talent we NEED the loan system, But if we had more of the young talent we'd maybe make more of them. Kinda don't care where our players are from if we're winng though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Kinda don't care where our players are from if we're winng though. Fair comment but loan players aren't 'our players'. They belong to another club. That's what leaves me a tad uneasy. Winning promotion using other clubs players feels like cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Fair comment but loan players aren't 'our players'. They belong to another club. That's what leaves me a tad uneasy. Winning promotion using other clubs players feels like cheating. I see where you coming from - but the biggest cheats have to be the top clubs. Clubs like tottenham and man utd etc who are hoarding all these young players - we have no option but to loan these youngsters.... Personnally, I think there should be a maximum amount of proffesional players a team can have on there books - a limit of say 30. So clubs like man u etc dont have ALL the young talent. It would also be beneficial for the young players, who would actually get first team football in the lower leagues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperFly2002 Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 I see where you coming from - but the biggest cheats have to be the top clubs. Clubs like tottenham and man utd etc who are hoarding all these young players - we have no option but to loan these youngsters.... Personnally, I think there should be a maximum amount of proffesional players a team can have on there books - a limit of say 30. So clubs like man u etc dont have ALL the young talent. It would also be beneficial for the young players, who would actually get first team football in the lower leagues I'm with you all the way on this subject, it makes me sick that the Prem clubs are pathological hoarding all of the younger talent that I would imagine are desperate for first team footy. Trouble is all these young lads hope to be the next Rooney etc so wont rock the boat by voting with their feet and moving to the championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.