Article on loans

[cooperblade]

By Richard Williams of the Guardian. Think it's relevant enough to us to be in the Blades Chat section

Carlisle United were formed in 1904. They joined the league in 1928 and spent one memorable year in the old First Division in the mid-1970s. But as a friend of mine who supports the Cumbrians remarked the other day, their most famous player never actually belonged to the club.

Jimmy Glass joined them on an emergency loan from Swindon in April 1999, when they were in the old Third Division and found themselves without a goalkeeper after the expiry of the transfer deadline. With three games remaining they were in the relegation zone and potentially on the brink of extinction. Glass helped them to a couple of draws but their destiny was still undecided when they met Plymouth Argyle at Brunton Park on the final day of the season. Only a win would do.

The score was 1-1 and there were 10 seconds left in the last minute of injury time when the award of a corner prompted Glass to race up and join his team-mates in the Plymouth penalty area. As his opposite number blocked a header, Glass was there to volley the loose ball home and save the club. His feat made the television news headlines that night but it was his last appearance for Carlisle. The next season he was back at Swindon, not just the most famous player in Carlisle's history but also the most spectacularly successful example of a short-term loan.

Those were the days. Back then loans were infrequent. But now look. Arsenal currently have 19 players out on loan at clubs from Lincoln City to Juventus. Manchester City have 10, Tottenham Hotspur 14, two of whom, the teenaged forwards Paul-José Mpoku and Harry Kane, were on the Leyton Orient bench against Arsenal on Sunday. Chelsea have 13 out, Liverpool 10.

Few other statistics so starkly expose the scale on which England's biggest clubs now operate. It shows the way they are able to maintain giant squads of young players in the hope that a handful of them come through, and in a few instances it also demonstrates their willingness to continue paying older players' salaries, as per their contracts, while they play for other clubs, simply in order to get them off the premises. One leading club is currently paying three-quarters of a former international player's £40,000 a week, with the borrowing club supplying the difference, mostly because their supporters cannot stand the sight of him.

More disturbing than this evidence of excess, however, is the distorting effect the phenomenon can exert on success and failure in the lower divisions, where these players are invited to continue their footballing education. Cardiff City and Leicester City, for instance, both have five loan players in their current squads as they challenge for promotion from the Championship and these are not just any old Premier League rejects.

The Welsh side have Craig Bellamy from Manchester City and Aaron Ramsey and Jay Emmanuel-Thomas from Arsenal, while Sven-Goran Eriksson has enticed Yakubu Ayegbeni from Everton, Kyle Naughton from Spurs, Ben Mee from Manchester City, and two Chelsea starlets, Jeffrey Bruma and Patrick van Aanholt, all of whom can be expected to make a difference to the Foxes' performance as they zoom from early-season obscurity towards the play-off positions.

Eriksson is good at that sort of thing. A young, inexperienced manager, without the necessary contacts, would be at a disadvantage – unless, of course, his name was Darren Ferguson, who borrowed two players from his dad and two from Tony Pulis while he was in charge of Preston North End. When he was sacked at Christmas, Ritchie De Laet and Matthew James were immediately recalled to Manchester United, while Danny Pugh and Michael Tonge were on the first train back to Stoke. Their absence has not improved Preston's results.

The whole business needs reforming, starting with a reconsideration of the rule allowing Football League clubs to borrow up to 10 players at any time and to play five of them in a single match. These numbers are too great. Supporters do not care who gets them promotion but, when times are bad, how can they be expected to maintain a deep and consoling affinity for a side stuffed with players who are, after all, only waiting for the call to return to their five-star lives in the Premier League?

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

By Richard Williams of the Guardian. Think it's relevant enough to us to be in the Blades Chat section

Quick thoughts.

What would happen to the excess of players on the Prem clubs books if loans [except emergency] were outlawed?

Would there be a releasing of these young players at the end of their contracts back into the market place cus other clubs would not then be picking up part or most of the wages?

Would we see the quality of the Championship improve because these players would be then playing for ‘their club’ not just being a visitor there?

 

[Bath Blade]

Agree entirely with that. It's ruining football at all levels below the Premiership. If the number of loans were reduced, it would help clubs like us keep hold of players like the Kyles as they would be less inclined to move to the Prem to sit in the reserves.

We're on the way to the stage where a Premiership team will buy a lower division team outright and use them as a reserve team.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

It also struck me that it helps to have a manager with good standing in the game when it comes to getting top talent from the big teams, otherwise you end up with Nyron Nosworthy and Marcus Bent.

 

[raul]

Given the divisions between the PL and the FL, difficult to see any joined-up thinking on this one whatsoever, as per.

It's up to the FL to show some and take short term pain for long term gain and say 5 loans a season, emergency or otherwise, maximum.

Eventually the PL will scale back on hoarding players if they can't let them all out on loan as there's nowhere to send them, and equally players who actually want to play football rather than sit on their arses for three or four years wont have the opportunity to do so and will stay at/sign for Championship clubs and still earn a very very good living.

I hate the loan system and it was reason Numero Uno I didn't renew this time around as I don't care to watch a bunch of temps jogging around for a few weeks at a time.

 

[Kenilworth]

Agree 100% - the loan system is killing clubs below the Prem. If youngsters could not be loaned out they would think twice before going to a big club if football was what they were really interested in. The sport as a whole would benefit.

They should get rid of the transfer window and stop all but three loans a year to any one club (except keeper emergency loans) and that would make a significant impact. Any smaller club with a good youngster would then get a fee if the big boys needed a replacement at any time during the year and that would make the whole system work in a much fairer way. Clubs could get back their stability and the fans might regain their identity with their club. A side full of loanees is not your side and never will be.

 

[Selly]

It also struck me that it helps to have a manager with good standing in the game when it comes to getting top talent from the big teams, otherwise you end up with Nyron Nosworthy and Marcus Bent.

Like Robson???

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Robson brought in decent players, he just had no idea how to manage them.

 

[JohnDenver]

Robson brought in decent players, he just had no idea how to manage them.

I'm not sure about that. Beattie was obviously a good player, but we should never have gambled that sort of money. Naysmith was never anything more than solid. Hendrie was an utter disaster. Cahill was great but just a loan. Ugo was another expensive and desperate measure. As was Speed.

The unifying features of all his signings = old / slow / expensive. That meant we had no plan whatsoever beyond bouncing back during the parachute era. We didn't do that and now we're screwed.

Granted Blackwell didn't do that much better in terms of medium-term planning either. And now Adams has no option but to plan week by week. Farcical.

I wonder if this sorry tale shows the benefit of having a long-term football strategist working above the manager? I know managers hate it because their jobs are always dependent on the here and now. But someone needs to implement a "Blades Way" that has genuine meaning.

Fat Terry wasn't the man. Birch hasn't done well, but is probably more into the finance. Pembo has a plan, but is subservient to the manager. So who can do it?

 

[shorehamview]

.....someone needs to implement a "Blades Way" that has genuine meaning.

......So who can do it?

This is what we need - a plan with more depth than a paddling pool. A strategy that is more than what my Dad would call "TUBMIN" - Thumb Up Bum, Mind In Neutral.

Who is the man for that? Not Micky, and not Dave Bassett either.

So who? I genuinely have no idea. Suggestions?

 

[FleaPitBlade]

It's up to the FL to show some and take short term pain for long term gain and say 5 loans a season, emergency or otherwise, maximum.

Eventually the PL will scale back on hoarding players if they can't let them all out on loan as there's nowhere to send them

Wouldnt they all just end up in a Holland/France/Spain/Italy Championship ecquivilent?

I dont think there is anything wrong with the loan market as such, its just become a victim of monopolisation by the premiership clubs. Until money is spread more evenly from top to bottom to put everybody on a more even playing field then tinkering with the loan market will just force them to farm the kids and squad players further afield and the benefit to the FL would be zero.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I'm not sure about that. Beattie was obviously a good player, but we should never have gambled that sort of money. Naysmith was never anything more than solid. Hendrie was an utter disaster. Cahill was great but just a loan. Ugo was another expensive and desperate measure. As was Speed.

The unifying features of all his signings = old / slow / expensive. That meant we had no plan whatsoever beyond bouncing back during the parachute era. We didn't do that and now we're screwed.

Granted Blackwell didn't do that much better in terms of medium-term planning either. And now Adams has no option but to plan week by week. Farcical.

I wonder if this sorry tale shows the benefit of having a long-term football strategist working above the manager? I know managers hate it because their jobs are always dependent on the here and now. But someone needs to implement a "Blades Way" that has genuine meaning.

Fat Terry wasn't the man. Birch hasn't done well, but is probably more into the finance. Pembo has a plan, but is subservient to the manager. So who can do it?

But we're talking just the context of loans here, not permanent signings.

I thought his loan signings were pretty good on the whole.

 

[alcoblade]

"These numbers are too great. Supporters do not care who gets them promotion but, when times are bad, how can they be expected to maintain a deep and consoling affinity for a side stuffed with players who are, after all, only waiting for the call to return to their five-star lives in the Premier League? "

Sums it up really.

UTB

 

[raul]

Wouldnt they all just end up in a Holland/France/Spain/Italy Championship ecquivilent?

I dont think there is anything wrong with the loan market as such, its just become a victim of monopolisation by the premiership clubs. Until money is spread more evenly from top to bottom to put everybody on a more even playing field then tinkering with the loan market will just force them to farm the kids and squad players further afield and the benefit to the FL would be zero.

No Tickler, it's pretty much part-time clubs in all these countries outside of their respective top-flights and given the lack of Engish players' culture of trying out football abroad, they probably wouldn't venture that far anyway.

 

[super_pig]

it isn't the loan system it is the transfer window.. seeing as big clubs can't go out and get a stopgap replacement they stock up on spare players instead