Jonny Smith out on loan again

[Colemanballs]

40 minutes ago, Shaun Taylor said:

Jonny Smith made his debut this afternoon against a Brentford B team and by all accounts was impressive 

Thanks for the report. Hopefully, he will be a big success for you and come back to us and really kick on. Please let us know how he's doing as the season progresses, either here or in the pinned loan thread. 

[Shaun Taylor]

1 minute ago, Colemanballs said:

Thanks for the report. Hopefully, he will be a big success for you and come back to us and really kick on. Please let us know how he's doing as the season progresses, either here or in the pinned loan thread. 

Will do and it's a shame that at 23 he not being given a chance within your first team squad as he obviously hot talent  

[Prinny]

7 hours ago, James54De said:

Welcome to Capitalism. 

We benefit. The club we loan to benefits. Jonny Smith benefits.

And who loses out? Our competition. And since we're in a competition. That's good! As fans of Bristol City we should celebrate our wins and our opponents loses.

Let's say reports of Wycombe bidding are true. We directly denied a direct competitor access to an asset they'd use to try and defeat us.

What's better for Jonny Smith? Well what are his goals? To be the best player he can, whether for personal achievement, happiness, finances, whatever. LJ talked about this with the Chelsea signings, not having a parent club hurts a player. There's one less person to go to if you're in a bad situation. If he's at Swindon on a two year deal, and he's left out the team first six months, he's stuck, with us maybe he can be recalled and sent somewhere else. Then you have access to better training during the off season, assuming Tinnion helps players too. etc etc.

For the loan club, well we all understand why clubs loan players, shorter term risk etc.

[Prinny]

10 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Not sure of we are playing the most ethical hand here.

Smith, contract extension and on another loan. 

Get the idea that we need to sell to survive (as do most clubs), but harvesting players, loaning them out and then moving them on, just because 'we' can afford to pay a few quid a week more than a non-league/league two/league one side - are we not just denying one of these clubs the chance to develop and then profit from developing the player, seems like we'll be the beneficial owners of the hard work of someone else.

 

@Bristol Rob What is ethical in this situation? Why is this other club more ethical than Bristol City? They'd just be using Jonny Smith as an asset themselves to benefit them? Then as you said, they'd sell him for profit. Is that ethical? I don't see anything more ethical about that than what we're doing. We're trying to make a profit here too.

Competition is GOOD for ethical behaviour in the long term. By giving people choices and options it creates improvement and wealth. Don't want to go too far off into business and politics. But if a company did what Amazon did and paid its workers more and kept its prices the same you'd buy from there right?

The working conditions here are for Jonny Smith. He's CHOSEN to sign for us again. He believes this is best for him. Our business succeeds if Jonny Smith does well. We invest in him, he invests in himself. Mutually beneficial. If someone does it more ethically and better than us, then they're more competitive than us so he chooses to go elsewhere.

Competition and Ethics is a way too long topic to dive into, so I'm just covering the basics here. Just remember that COMPETITION doesn't ALWAYS mean GREED. It does a lot because humans suck, but it doesn't have to.

[cidered abroad]

@Davefevs

Is this another case of a loan too far?

It's a problem caused by us doing a "mini Chelsea". Too many under 23's to assimilate a high percentage of them in our first team?

Assuming DH doesn't loan any of these out, do we have too high a percentage of young players in our squad? You don't win trophies with kids!

O'Leary, Vyner, Moore, Morrell, Walsh, Semenyo.

[Bristol Rob]

8 hours ago, Prinny said:

@Bristol Rob What is ethical in this situation? Why is this other club more ethical than Bristol City? They'd just be using Jonny Smith as an asset themselves to benefit them? Then as you said, they'd sell him for profit. Is that ethical? I don't see anything more ethical about that than what we're doing. We're trying to make a profit here too.

Competition is GOOD for ethical behaviour in the long term. By giving people choices and options it creates improvement and wealth. Don't want to go too far off into business and politics. But if a company did what Amazon did and paid its workers more and kept its prices the same you'd buy from there right?

The working conditions here are for Jonny Smith. He's CHOSEN to sign for us again. He believes this is best for him. Our business succeeds if Jonny Smith does well. We invest in him, he invests in himself. Mutually beneficial. If someone does it more ethically and better than us, then they're more competitive than us so he chooses to go elsewhere.

Competition and Ethics is a way too long topic to dive into, so I'm just covering the basics here. Just remember that COMPETITION doesn't ALWAYS mean GREED. It does a lot because humans suck, but it doesn't have to.

I'm passing comment, not judgement. Simply pointing out that we will be the beneficiaries of other clubs development work as we are able to pay the player more than they are.

Maybe loaning players to lower league clubs could come with a 'development clause' in so far as 'you take our player and pay 'x' percent of their wages and assuming you hit various targets, we'll give you a tiny percent of any future sell on fee.

It might just help some non league clubs balance the books sightly if a year or two after investing time in developing a player who goes on to be worth millions they get a small return on their investment.

This could also work with Premier League to Championship loans and various other loan arrangements.

Think of the Ryan Kent loan, we ended up owing Liverpool at the end of it, they then sold him for 6.5 million to Rangers, who in turn have reject an offer from Leeds for him.

If we were able to claw back 65k of our spend based on that sell, it would possibly encourage a healthier use of young players, the right sort of stock piling and enable some smaller clubs to work at development.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

@Davefevs

Is this another case of a loan too far?

It's a problem caused by us doing a "mini Chelsea". Too many under 23's to assimilate a high percentage of them in our first team?

Assuming DH doesn't loan any of these out, do we have too high a percentage of young players in our squad? You don't win trophies with kids!

O'Leary, Vyner, Moore, Morrell, Walsh, Semenyo.

From my footballing perspective from the outside looking in - yes.  At 23, having never featured in City’s team, I’d say the chances of him breaking through into our first team is pretty low, maybe even less so with a Holden employing a 532.  He’s played League 2....this season he gets his first chance at League One.

@Garycpos may disagree....and I’m sure his opinion is better informed than me.  I’ve only seen him on tv, and he’s progressively done better with each loan.  Swindon will be a good yardstick.  Hope he does well.

I see this loan, and the contract extension being more of a financial transaction.  Trying to sell a player this summer with a year left on his contract, having played Lg2 is probably not likely to generate the same fee as next summer when he’s played Lg1.  Would be interested to know how much Wycombe offered to give some balance to the previous sentence!

In some respects you could compare a Championship side going after Lg2 Sam Szmodics last summer with Jonny this summer.  Same ages relatively.  Difference being Sam has made 43 appearances in Lg1 too.

But all about opinions.

[Shaun Taylor]

9 hours ago, Prinny said:

We benefit. The club we loan to benefits. Jonny Smith benefits.

And who loses out? Our competition. And since we're in a competition. That's good! As fans of Bristol City we should celebrate our wins and our opponents loses.

Let's say reports of Wycombe bidding are true. We directly denied a direct competitor access to an asset they'd use to try and defeat us.

What's better for Jonny Smith? Well what are his goals? To be the best player he can, whether for personal achievement, happiness, finances, whatever. LJ talked about this with the Chelsea signings, not having a parent club hurts a player. There's one less person to go to if you're in a bad situation. If he's at Swindon on a two year deal, and he's left out the team first six months, he's stuck, with us maybe he can be recalled and sent somewhere else. Then you have access to better training during the off season, assuming Tinnion helps players too. etc etc.

For the loan club, well we all understand why clubs loan players, shorter term risk etc.

I'm old school and would go back to how clubs were run in the 70''s & 80's and would abolish the under 23's, keep the youth team and reinstate the old combination league where you had games most weeks against the likes of Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, West Ham, Bristol City etc, all with named players either recovering from injury, poor form or suspension and then players can fluctuate between both depending on their current form so will always have opportunities.

[Robbored]

Players mature at different ages. Take Rooney - playing PL football at 16.........

Sure he’s an exception but Vardy signed for Leicester aged 25......

Johnny Smith is 23 and clearly Deano/Tinnion consider him not quite ready for the Championship. Another season in L1 is an opportunity for him to get ‘miles on the clock’ and improve his game although Swindon is the last place I’d have thought of as a loan..............

[Shaun Taylor]

9 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Players mature at different ages. Take Rooney - playing PL football at 16.........

Sure he’s an exception but Vardy signed for Leicester aged 25......

Johnny Smith is 23 and clearly Deano/Tinnion consider him not quite ready for the Championship. Another season in L1 is an opportunity for him to get ‘miles on the clock’ and improve his game although Swindon is the last place I’d have thought of as a loan..............

 

If he lives in or around Bristol it's a perfect commute, playing regularly in league one under a good young passionate manager and I doubt rivalries would enter a young professional players mind as he just wants to progress his career 

[Prinny]

28 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I'm passing comment, not judgement. Simply pointing out that we will be the beneficiaries of other clubs development work as we are able to pay the player more than they are.

You used the term ETHICAL. How is that not judgement? You directly said it's "not the most ethical", which means directly you JUDGED there's something MORE ethical. 

Maybe loaning players to lower league clubs could come with a 'development clause' in so far as 'you take our player and pay 'x' percent of their wages and assuming you hit various targets, we'll give you a tiny percent of any future sell on fee.

It might just help some non league clubs balance the books sightly if a year or two after investing time in developing a player who goes on to be worth millions they get a small return on their investment.

The return on their investment is the loan player playing for them. They can balance the books by NOT paying for this loan player. Every club makes a value judgement on every single player* on whether paying their wages and loan/transfer fee is worth it to them or not. You might have noticed but there's no shortage of people who want to get paid to play football. It's supply and demand.

This could also work with Premier League to Championship loans and various other loan arrangements.

Think of the Ryan Kent loan, we ended up owing Liverpool at the end of it, they then sold him for 6.5 million to Rangers, who in turn have reject an offer from Leeds for him.

If we were able to claw back 65k of our spend based on that sell, it would possibly encourage a healthier use of young players, the right sort of stock piling and enable some smaller clubs to work at development.

All that results in is a different kind of stockpiling. Every non league club would try to max out their loans in order to hit the loan sell on jack pot. That's not responsible at all. That's all about money, and less about sport. you'd end up with MORE situations where a club doesn't want a player and just wants the potential sell on. That's not ethical is it?

Think your ideas are terribly ill thought out!

[Bristol Rob]

3 minutes ago, Prinny said:

All that results in is a different kind of stockpiling. Every non league club would try to max out their loans in order to hit the loan sell on jack pot. That's not responsible at all. That's all about money, and less about sport. you'd end up with MORE situations where a club doesn't want a player and just wants the potential sell on. That's not ethical is it?

Think your ideas are terribly ill thought out!

Surely there is more to be gained, as in amongst hoping to develop their own players there would be a degree of reward for developing other players.

And if your club gets a reputation for being a favoured club from someone further up the pyramid you will probably get offered better players from bigger clubs and at a more favourable rate.

More money would filter down the pyramid.

For players thought less likely to make it by league clubs, then maybe they'll end up getting transferred earlier in their career for their own good.

 

[Prinny]

5 minutes ago, Shaun Taylor said:

 

If he lives in or around Bristol it's a perfect commute, playing regularly in league one under a good young passionate manager and I doubt rivalries would enter a young professional players mind as he just wants to progress his career 

Agreed, it's pretty much the perfect loan. A step up, forming links with a local club.

24 minutes ago, Shaun Taylor said:

I'm old school and would go back to how clubs were run in the 70''s & 80's and would abolish the under 23's, keep the youth team and reinstate the old combination league where you had games most weeks against the likes of Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea, West Ham, Bristol City etc, all with named players either recovering from injury, poor form or suspension and then players can fluctuate between both depending on their current form so will always have opportunities.

Genuinely what's the difference between a reserve league and an under 23s + x amount of over age players?

And why would the bigger clubs agree to this?

[Davefevs]

13 minutes ago, Shaun Taylor said:

 

If he lives in or around Bristol it's a perfect commute, playing regularly in league one under a good young passionate manager and I doubt rivalries would enter a young professional players mind as he just wants to progress his career 

The inky thing perfect about living in Bristol and commuting to Swindon is that you can listen to the first half of the OSIB podcast on the way up, and the second half on the way home!!!

[Lrrr]

3 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

@Davefevs

Is this another case of a loan too far?

It's a problem caused by us doing a "mini Chelsea". Too many under 23's to assimilate a high percentage of them in our first team?

Assuming DH doesn't loan any of these out, do we have too high a percentage of young players in our squad? You don't win trophies with kids!

O'Leary, Vyner, Moore, Morrell, Walsh, Semenyo.

My opinion would be no, we don't use wingers in our system (Eliasson being played centrally) so does it help Smith more to be sat around waiting for us to see if we may need to swap systems to include wingers or spend a season (with chance of recall in Jan you'd presume) playing in a system that does at a higher level than last season.

33 minutes ago, Robbored said:

although Swindon is the last place I’d have thought of as a loan..............

By all accounts they play a good style 433 (pretty sure Swindon fans on here have said from memory) so wingers are big in their system and sounds a better place for him to go on loan to given he'd be local and could still see our staff in person should need be, not as a far for anyone at the club to go watch him live either. Don't care they're a 'local rival' the last meaningful interaction between the clubs was 5 years ago, we shouldn't concern ourselves with what other teams may think of us as long as they're welcoming to the player.

[Shaun Taylor]

16 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Agreed, it's pretty much the perfect loan. A step up, forming links with a local club.

Genuinely what's the difference between a reserve league and an under 23s + x amount of over age players?

And why would the bigger clubs agree to this?

 

The combination leagues years ago were a mix of experienced  pros who were out of form, recovering from injuries & suspensions etc and the manager was able to move players accordingly between both depending on how they were doing. Under 23's seem based on potential with little experience unless they aren't loaned out for a year which means he's not available during that period. Also the home games were mainly when your club were playing away so there was always an opportunity to see some decent players on display 

[Prinny]

26 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Surely there is more to be gained, as in amongst hoping to develop their own players there would be a degree of reward for developing other players.

You're trading one players development for another? The non league team player has now been replaced by a loan?

And if your club gets a reputation for being a favoured club from someone further up the pyramid you will probably get offered better players from bigger clubs and at a more favourable rate.

More money would filter down the pyramid.

Well that depends, if there is more incentive lo loan out players and more incentive to gamble then more x% of wages go to the clubs loaning out player, which they have more money to invest in players to loan out. Instead of paying for two loan players you now increase it to four all to make money. You incentivising gambling.

For players thought less likely to make it by league clubs, then maybe they'll end up getting transferred earlier in their career for their own good.

Why it for their own good? Why do you know better than them? It's totally up to individual circumstances.

Jonny Smith is the exact example, why does he keep signing contracts at Bristol City if it's BETTER for him not to?

Would it have been better for Bobby Reid, Joe Morrell?

Taylor Moore halved his contract at a club that thought he was less likely to make it by that club.

This is all maybes.

 

[Shaun Taylor]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The inky thing perfect about living in Bristol and commuting to Swindon is that you can listen to the first half of the OSIB podcast on the way up, and the second half on the way home!!!

Anything would be better than Heart fm

[Prinny]

10 minutes ago, Shaun Taylor said:

 

The combination leagues years ago were a mix of pros who were out of form, recovering from injuries & suspensions etc and the manager was able to move players accordingly between both depending on how they were doing. Under 23's seem based on potential with little experience unless they aren't loaned out for a year which means he's not available during that period. Also the home games were mainly when your club were playing away so there was always an opportunity to see some decent players on display 

Could you break down what that means for a squad? Would you end up with more older players at a club? 

And still the question is why you want to do this? And why would the big clubs agree to it?

Born in 1985 so genuine questions about that era of reserve football as wasn't alive to see it.

Edit - Why does it matter which players get developed to you? Or is this just a personal "I want to see the bigger clubs reserve teams and go to watch my teams reserve players on the weeks you're away and don't travel"? Which is fine btw!

[Shaun Taylor]

13 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Could you break down what that means for a squad? Would you end up with more older players at a club? 

And still the question is why you want to do this? And why would the big clubs agree to it?

Born in 1985 so genuine questions about that era of reserve football as wasn't alive to see it.

I guess the first team squad would have been around 20 with only a couple of subs in those days so you would have had around six pros with no game if not selected. The combination/reserve league was made up of those players and younger ones from the youth squad 16 upwards so there was always a competive games each week played at stadiums not training pitches 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Football_Combination

[Prinny]

31 minutes ago, Shaun Taylor said:

I guess the first team squad would have been around 20 with only a couple of subs in those days so you would have had around six pros with no game if not selected. The combination/reserve league was made up of those players and younger ones from the youth squad 16 upwards so there was always a competive games each week played at stadiums not training pitches 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Football_Combination

I looked at the WIki already but it doesn't have the answers to the questions i wanted!

So the trade you want to make is, having players play more at stadiums which potentially makes them better (I guess through experience at stadiums/pressure/playing on the same surface) , at the guaranteed cost to clubs who have to open the stadiums, policing, the pitches being worse through use (mitigated by modern technology)

I still don't know WHY you want this? Because you want to go to games at home and not travel? This isn't criticism, btw, I'm not sure WHY you want this yet. I keep asking, but what are the reasons?

If you're trying to limit squad size all you do is push people down the leagues. So let's say 20 players per club is allowed right? Say it's 25 now and we consider 125 players across 5 levels

Prem 25                     20

Champ 25                  20

L1 25                          20

L2 25                          20

Conference 25          20

Out of work 0            25

So those twenty players who used to be playing at league 2, are now at the Conference (CON) and are missing out at training with those 5 best players who'd remain at L2 level, and they're playing at a CON stadium, with CON facilities, with CON coaches. What about their development? It's now going to be worse.

And the players who used to be at the conference club are all gone. Obviously they'll go down a level, and so on until you reach the last turtle, which means people get unemployed. I wouldn't say that's good. Maybe new clubs could be made, or whatever, but I think the amount of clubs in the football pyramid paying players is saturated. Maybe TV revenue increases for lower leagues, but reducing the quality at the top means less money for that too and by probably much more!

The lower leagues get access to more talent, but that talent gets less access to good facilities and good coaching. Obviously we assume on average that you'll get better facilities and coaching the higher you go because market forces.

[MarcusX]

1 hour ago, Shaun Taylor said:

 

If he lives in or around Bristol it's a perfect commute, playing regularly in league one under a good young passionate manager and I doubt rivalries would enter a young professional players mind as he just wants to progress his career 

I've always thought the Swindon rivalry is more for the fans than the players anyway. Rovers and Cardiff are our big games, Swindon is/was when at the same level but not the same extent. I wouldn't want to see a player go to Rovers on loan

[Shaun Taylor]

28 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I looked at the WIki already but it doesn't have the answers to the questions i wanted!

So the trade you want to make is, having players play more at stadiums which potentially makes them better (I guess through experience at stadiums/pressure/playing on the same surface) , at the guaranteed cost to clubs who have to open the stadiums, policing, the pitches being worse through use (mitigated by modern technology)

I still don't know WHY you want this? Because you want to go to games at home and not travel? This isn't criticism, btw, I'm not sure WHY you want this yet. I keep asking, but what are the reasons?

If you're trying to limit squad size all you do is push people down the leagues. So let's say 20 players per club is allowed right? Say it's 25 now and we consider 125 players across 5 levels

Prem 25                     20

Champ 25                  20

L1 25                          20

L2 25                          20

Conference 25          20

Out of work 0            25

So those twenty players who used to be playing at league 2, are now at the Conference (CON) and are missing out at training with those 5 best players who'd remain at L2 level, and they're playing at a CON stadium, with CON facilities, with CON coaches. What about their development? It's now going to be worse.

And the players who used to be at the conference club are all gone. Obviously they'll go down a level, and so on until you reach the last turtle, which means people get unemployed. I wouldn't say that's good. Maybe new clubs could be made, or whatever, but I think the amount of clubs in the football pyramid paying players is saturated. Maybe TV revenue increases for lower leagues, but reducing the quality at the top means less money for that too and by probably much more!

The lower leagues get access to more talent, but that talent gets less access to good facilities and good coaching. Obviously we assume on average that you'll get better facilities and coaching the higher you go because market forces.

It seemed to work in those days way before the football league was flooded with average foreign players who have pushed our own either down the pyramid or into non league 

Let's so you average 20,000 per home game and 1,000 away well there's 19,000 that don't travel and some of them may want to see BCFC reserves play a decent Arsenal team made up of first teamers/younger players on a Saturday afternoon. 

I never said playing at any stadium made them better it just gives them experience playing in that environment and more enjoyable for fans to watch and if young players are good enough they will be given the opportunity to break into the first team that season or can still be sold on

[Shaun Taylor]

6 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

I've always thought the Swindon rivalry is more for the fans than the players anyway. Rovers and Cardiff are our big games, Swindon is/was when at the same level but not the same extent. I wouldn't want to see a player go to Rovers on loan

I agree with you and one I enjoy more than any other as I've been to many over the years 

[Prinny]

1 minute ago, Shaun Taylor said:

It seemed to work in those days way before the football league was flooded with average foreign players who have pushed our own either down the pyramid or into non league 

Let's so you average 20,000 per home game and 1,000 away well there's 19,000 that don't travel and some of them may want to see BCFC reserves play a decent Arsenal team made up of first teamers/younger players on a Saturday afternoon. 

I never said playing at any stadium made them better it just gives them experience playing in that environment and more enjoyable for fans to watch 

I was just speculating since you weren't saying the reasons why you wanted it. i assumed it would have something to do with player development because hey, that's what this thread was on!

So why you want it, is because you don't want to go to away games, and want to see your team play each week at your home ground. no problem with that!

[MarcusX]

1 minute ago, Shaun Taylor said:

I agree with you and one I enjoy more than any other as I've been to many over the years 

Being from Wiltshire and knowing a lot of Swindon fans (and only knowing 2 Rovers fans) it definitely meant a lot growing up amongst friends, but I never went into a game with confidence and often used to dread them!

[bcfc01]

1 hour ago, Shaun Taylor said:

 

The combination leagues years ago were a mix of experienced  pros who were out of form, recovering from injuries & suspensions etc and the manager was able to move players accordingly between both depending on how they were doing. Under 23's seem based on potential with little experience unless they aren't loaned out for a year which means he's not available during that period. Also the home games were mainly when your club were playing away so there was always an opportunity to see some decent players on display 

Problem with the Combination leagues was that it pushed clubs apprentices and young pros into the 3rd team which invariably played in the local semi-pro leagues. This meant that a club like City had players 15-18 years old playing in the Western League and finishing near the bottom every season after getting more or less beaten up on the pitch every game. The hardened ex-pros or those playing for a few quid relished taking their chance to clobber the kids from the big club.

The FA set up now is much better and allows for much more technical development of young players.

[Shaun Taylor]

2 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Problem with the Combination leagues was that it pushed clubs apprentices and young pros into the 3rd team which invariably played in the local semi-pro leagues. This meant that a club like City had players 15-18 years old playing in the Western League and finishing near the bottom every season after getting more or less beaten up on the pitch every game. The hardened ex-pros or those playing for a few quid relished taking their chance to clobber the kids from the big club.

The FA set up now is much better and allows for much more technical development of young players.

I do agree with what your saying but some clubs have too many young players who drift from club to club on loan and I bet youve even got players you don't know anything about or what clubs they are at

4 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

Being from Wiltshire and knowing a lot of Swindon fans (and only knowing 2 Rovers fans) it definitely meant a lot growing up amongst friends, but I never went into a game with confidence and often used to dread them!

Why did you used to dread them?

[Shaun Taylor]

7 minutes ago, Prinny said:

I was just speculating since you weren't saying the reasons why you wanted it. i assumed it would have something to do with player development because hey, that's what this thread was on!

So why you want it, is because you don't want to go to away games, and want to see your team play each week at your home ground. no problem with that!

 

Out of curiosity do you go to all the away games?

[MarcusX]

1 minute ago, Shaun Taylor said:

I do agree with what your saying but some clubs have too many young players who drift from club to club on loan and I bet youve even got players you don't know anything about or what clubs they are at

Why did you used to dread them?

I just remember around 03/04/05 we rarely beat you. Lee Miller's last minute header onto the bar at your place, Rory Fallon always seemed to score or play well against us too, I remember an overhead kick on Sky? and Darius Henderson took us apart one game too.