Don't sign anyone on loan

[Bergen Blade]

If it means we have to keep making cuts that prevents us from running the whole organisation in a fair and proper manner.

There are options within the squad and we have plenty of youngsters whose development will only stop if they aren't given first team football.


But first and foremost we must realise that there's more to the club than the current first eleven.

 

[metalblade]

I don't think there will be much danger of that, most of any surplus wage budget will have gone to pay a 32 yr old unfit striker from the old boys network.

 

[sitwell]

I dont block posts by people on here but you are the first one I would metalbade. Why does every single post you make have a sly dig or a full on whinge at everything to do with Sheffield United ? If they make you so miserable why do you keep following them ? Apparently you dont watch us anymore so whats the point ? I dont get it.

 

[oldblade]

I dont block posts by people on here but you are the first one I would metalbade. Why does every single post you make have a sly dig or a full on whinge at everything to do with Sheffield United ? If they make you so miserable why do you keep following them ? Apparently you dont watch us anymore so whats the point ? I dont get it.

It's because he's Len's older brother. Either that or he's Len on steroids!

 

[yorkshirecoast]

If it means we have to keep making cuts that prevents us from running the whole organisation in a fair and proper manner.

There are options within the squad and we have plenty of youngsters whose development will only stop if they aren't given first team football.


But first and foremost we must realise that there's more to the club than the current first eleven.

The only reason the pigs got promoted last season was their 2 loan signings - Marshall & Antonio - who were their best players by a mile. And promotion will have improved their finances no end. If we can get a couple of decent loan signings in - particularly a pacey winger - I'll be very happy.

 

[Latters]

If it means we have to keep making cuts that prevents us from running the whole organisation in a fair and proper manner.

There are options within the squad and we have plenty of youngsters whose development will only stop if they aren't given first team football.


But first and foremost we must realise that there's more to the club than the current first eleven.

I disagree with the last statement.

The tangible product that I pay my cash for is watching the first eleven. Thus, this is THE most important aspect of a FOOTBALL club. Not a business, but a football club.

I want the best results from the best team we can put on the pitch. If success relies on loanees, then so be it.

 

[Kev Gee]

Give the option of having success with loanees or success with players within our first team squad & academy. I would pick the latter everytime. The question needs to be asked.........

Is DW the man to bring the youngsters through? The jury is still out on that one.

 

[Latters]

Give the option of having success with loanees or success with players within our first team squad & academy. I would pick the latter everytime. The question needs to be asked.........

Is DW the man to bring the youngsters through? The jury is still out on that one.

The question that really needs to be asked is "could we get success with players within our first team squad and academy?". The answer, over a season where we will get injuries is, probably not.

Adding loanees wisely (key word) to create a bigger, stronger squad is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[metalblade]

I don't think there will be much danger of that, most of any surplus wage budget will have gone to pay a 32 yr old unfit striker from the old boys network.

Awwww I guess Sitwell, Swiss and Oldblade find the truth a bit hard to take. Bless em.
Lets hope there is some money left in the kitty to pay for a couple of mid-fielders on loan which to me would seem to be a bit more use than striker #6 who comes here with a good past at Reading but has done next to nothing since ................a 32 yr old, un-fit, with no pre season behind him in average form at best, got James Beattie written all over it. Not to worry though he is a pal of Simon's.

 

[VespaBlade]

Awwww I guess Sitwell, Swiss and Oldblade find the truth a bit hard to take. Bless em.
Lets hope there is some money left in the kitty to pay for a couple of mid-fielders on loan which to me would seem to be a bit more use than striker #6 who comes here with a good past at Reading but has done next to nothing since ................a 32 yr old, un-fit, with no pre season behind him in average form at best, got James Beattie written all over it. Not to worry though he is a pal of Simon's.

Why is he unfit? And why do you think he is in average form? Who is Simon? Was he not still training with Pompey if not playing preseason? Whats BT got to do with it - 2 different players!

I don't see why you think Sitwell finds the truth hard to take,he just say's you aren't the most positive poster. FACT!
It's far from perfect at the club but let's get behind them and all the players.

Negativity breeds negativity!

As for signing anyone on loan, if we can afford it and it helps the team then I am for it.

UTB

 

[JohnDenver]

It's because he's Len's older brother. Either that or he's Len on steroids!

I made a rare trip to Blades Mad this morning as this site wasn't responding. Found Len still being Len.

 

[Houso]

Len > Metal

 

[oldblade]

Awwww I guess Sitwell, Swiss and Oldblade find the truth a bit hard to take. Bless em.
Lets hope there is some money left in the kitty to pay for a couple of mid-fielders on loan which to me would seem to be a bit more use than striker #6 who comes here with a good past at Reading but has done next to nothing since ................a 32 yr old, un-fit, with no pre season behind him in average form at best, got James Beattie written all over it. Not to worry though he is a pal of Simon's.

And every word of that post just reiterates what Sitwell has said. You will always rubbish anything that the club does or tries to do. As far as you are concerned if things could go positively or negatively you will always take it as a given that the negative outcome will occur and for good measure that it's some underhanded attempt by McCabe (or someone else) to destroy the club.

Kitson may possibly be a signing that doesn't come off. But it's also just possible that he may be a very good acqusition for us. After all in 2007 James Beattie came to us after scoring a total of 2 goals in 35 league and cup appearances for Everton the previous season. Not exactly great form. But he still scored 34 goals in 65 league and cup appearances for us. Kitson actually scored more goals for Portsmouth last season than Beattie did at Everton the season before we signed him.

Some of us would like to see how he actually performs and in what role before passing judgement. If you view that as somehow unreasonable I think you have a serious problem.

 

[mpjacko]

Why is he unfit? And why do you think he is in average form? Who is Simon? Was he not still training with Pompey if not playing preseason? Whats BT got to do with it - 2 different players!

I don't see why you think Sitwell finds the truth hard to take,he just say's you aren't the most positive poster. FACT!

Sitwell often wear blinkers and doesn't see the real picture FACT

It's far from perfect at the club but let's get behind them and all the players. If the players do what they get paid to do and show some commitment then we have no problem getting behind them.

Negativity breeds negativity! I forgot, we are still in the premiership and all the last few years have been all a dream.

As for signing anyone on loan, if we can afford it and it helps the team then I am for it.

UTB

 

[mpjacko]

And every word of that post just reiterates what Sitwell has said. You will always rubbish anything that the club does or tries to do If it's not good enough then the club should know.. As far as you are concerned if things could go positively or negatively you will always take it as a given that the negative outcome will occur it's the blades way and for good measure that it's some underhanded attempt by McCabe (or someone else) to destroy the club. He has a good go at it with all his mistakes

Kitson may possibly be a signing that doesn't come off. But it's also just possible that he may be a very good acqusition for us. After all in 2007 James Beattie came to us after scoring a total of 2 goals in 35 league and cup appearances for Everton the previous season. Not exactly great form. But he still scored 34 goals in 65 league and cup appearances for us. Kitson actually scored more goals for Portsmouth last season than Beattie did at Everton the season before we signed him.

Some of us would like to see how he actually performs and in what role before passing judgement. If you view that as somehow unreasonable I think you have a serious problem.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I want the best results from the best team we can put on the pitch. If success relies on loanees, then so be it.

2009/10:
Bartley
Bunn
Connolly
Cresswell
Davies
Fortune
Harper
Ikeme
Kallio
Nosworthy
Seip
Stewart
Treacy
(Camara)
(Little)


2010/11:

Bartley
Batth
Bent
Calve
Lowry
Mattock
Nosworthy
Reid
Riise
Vokes
De Laet
(Jordan)
(Kozluk)
(Wright)

2011/12:

Clarke
Egan
Hill
Hoskins
Howard
Mendez-Laing
O'Halloran
Phillips
Williams
(Beattie)
----------------------------------------

One or two can be good and effective use of money. But continual plugging of gaps with loans and short term deals will eventually cause more problems than they solve.

Having said that, the main point of the original post is that we seem skint, and further increase of the wage bill could lead to more cuts. Like losing people like Mick Rooker. Like not naming a full sub bench. Like not allowing the manager to use certain players. Like losing the academy manager. Like selling more players. Cuts that eventually could prove more costly than trying a youngster instead.

 

[TopBoy]

2009/10:
Bartley
Bunn
Connolly
Cresswell
Davies
Fortune
Harper
Ikeme
Kallio
Nosworthy
Seip
Stewart
Treacy
(Camara)
(Little)


2010/11:

Bartley
Batth
Bent
Calve
Lowry
Mattock
Nosworthy
Reid
Riise
Vokes
De Laet
(Jordan)
(Kozluk)
(Wright)

2011/12:

Clarke
Egan
Hill
Hoskins
Howard
Mendez-Laing
O'Halloran
Phillips
Williams
(Beattie)
----------------------------------------

One or two can be good and effective use of money. But continual plugging of gaps with loans and short term deals will eventually cause more problems than they solve.

Having said that, the main point of the original post is that we seem skint, and further increase of the wage bill could lead to more cuts. Like losing people like Mick Rooker. Like not naming a full sub bench. Like not allowing the manager to use certain players. Like losing the academy manager. Like selling more players. Cuts that eventually could prove more costly than trying a youngster instead.

Looking at that list it seems that we average about 2 successes a season from loan signings. Can't imagine we'd get any less of a success rate from using the Development Squad to plug the gaps.

 

[stannyblade]

2009/10:
Bartley
Bunn
Connolly
Cresswell
Davies
Fortune
Harper
Ikeme
Kallio
Nosworthy
Seip
Stewart
Treacy
(Camara)
(Little)


2010/11:

Bartley
Batth
Bent
Calve
Lowry
Mattock
Nosworthy
Reid
Riise
Vokes
De Laet
(Jordan)
(Kozluk)
(Wright)

2011/12:

Clarke
Egan
Hill
Hoskins
Howard
Mendez-Laing
O'Halloran
Phillips
Williams
(Beattie)
----------------------------------------

quote]
Couldnt get a decent starting 11 from all of them.

 

[Russ]

and some of those could even get on The B @ stards List

http://www.s24su.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-bastard-list.27947/

 

[Toronto Blade]

I'm all for using the youngsters if they are developed enough to hold their own in League 1 .If they are not ready give them time nothing worse than to step into the side hearing boos because they are not up to scratch.
There is nothing wrong with loans,we would have been promoted if not for wendy's shrewd loans of Tracy,Antonio and Marshall.

 

[Bladesway]

For me, the problem with the entire setup of SUFC has been the people have overlooked the first team for the correct investment. Off for Chengdu or some other foreign pipedream.

If we get a couple of loanees in and that makes the difference who gives a flying one? Promotion must be achieved and if that means great uncle bert in the ticket office gets his P45 so we can get the missing part of the puzzle in I'll fly for that.

Above all that, I trust Wilson and his judgement. If he gets someone in on loan then it is because he doesn't feel we have the strength or depth. Isn't that what matters?

 

[Balham]

Above all that, I trust Wilson and his judgement. If he gets someone in on loan then it is because he doesn't feel we have the strength or depth. Isn't that what matters?

Nothing wrong with that assessment. I would rather Wilson have evidence that we don't have the strength in depth though and until he starts playing the youngsters we'll not know for sure.

I'm not talking about radically overhauling the squad for the Bury game but if there are two or three development lads on the bench then it would be good to see a couple on the pitch for the last 30 or so.

 

[Linz]

Gentlemen. I don't know if you're all on a collective time of the month but some of you are getting nasty.

Debate the points raised respectfully, please. Don't resort to snide digs at the person you are disagreeing with.

Much obliged.

 

[Latters]

2009/10:
Bartley
Bunn
Connolly
Cresswell
Davies
Fortune
Harper
Ikeme
Kallio
Nosworthy
Seip
Stewart
Treacy
(Camara)
(Little)


2010/11:

Bartley
Batth
Bent
Calve
Lowry
Mattock
Nosworthy
Reid
Riise
Vokes
De Laet
(Jordan)
(Kozluk)
(Wright)

2011/12:

Clarke
Egan
Hill
Hoskins
Howard
Mendez-Laing
O'Halloran
Phillips
Williams
(Beattie)
----------------------------------------

One or two can be good and effective use of money. But continual plugging of gaps with loans and short term deals will eventually cause more problems than they solve.

Having said that, the main point of the original post is that we seem skint, and further increase of the wage bill could lead to more cuts. Like losing people like Mick Rooker. Like not naming a full sub bench. Like not allowing the manager to use certain players. Like losing the academy manager. Like selling more players. Cuts that eventually could prove more costly than trying a youngster instead.

Hence why I said "wisely" and then reiterated this point by sayin something along the lines of "and wisely is the key word". Nobody's advocating a loan XI if it was within the rules. I think there are gaps in the current squad that can't be plugged with what we have available.

Get the right players in and the results would be better than using reserves. As others have said, look at the scum with Antonio et al. Worked for them.

We've had some good loanees, Andy Reid, Matthew Phillips, Billy Clarke, Will Hoskins could have been, Riise, Bartley, Lowry, there's been plenty of them.

I'm always happy for us to bring in players better than we have, no matter who they replace.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Hence why I said "wisely" and then reiterated this point by sayin something along the lines of "and wisely is the key word". Nobody's advocating a loan XI if it was within the rules. I think there are gaps in the current squad that can't be plugged with what we have available.

Get the right players in and the results would be better than using reserves. As others have said, look at the scum with Antonio et al. Worked for them.

We've had some good loanees, Andy Reid, Matthew Phillips, Billy Clarke, Will Hoskins could have been, Riise, Bartley, Lowry, there's been plenty of them.

I'm always happy for us to bring in players better than we have, no matter who they replace.

But do you accept that it can be at the expense of developing/improving one of our own players?

If you look back at last season when we found out we needed some more width. We brought in Matt Phillips, rather than trying Jordan Chappell. I agree with you that Phillips is the better player (he's great and I'd love it if he was signed permanently) and he probably increased the chance of us picking up points in the following few games.

Do you agree with me that if Chappell had been given a run instead, Wilson may have had more confidence in him to play him later that season, and indeed vs Bury on Saturday?

Chappell is only an example. I could have said Kennedy. Or Long. Or Harriott. Or Whitehouse. Or Tønne. These players can devlop up to a point (they did win their league last season), but after that they will only develop if they are playing first team football at a high level.

I think someone will come in on loan before Saturday. It may be a very good player who does well and improves us. But when he leaves, and we later in the season suffer another few injuries I bet Chappell will still be considered too risky and inexperienced.

 

[VespaBlade]

But do you accept that it can be at the expense of developing/improving one of our own players?

If you look back at last season when we found out we needed some more width. We brought in Matt Phillips, rather than trying Jordan Chappell. I agree with you that Phillips is the better player (he's great and I'd love it if he was signed permanently) and he probably increased the chance of us picking up points in the following few games.

Do you agree with me that if Chappell had been given a run instead, Wilson may have had more confidence in him to play him later that season, and indeed vs Bury on Saturday?

Chappell is only an example. I could have said Kennedy. Or Long. Or Harriott. Or Whitehouse. Or Tønne. These players can devlop up to a point (they did win their league last season), but after that they will only develop if they are playing first team football at a high level.

I think someone will come in on loan before Saturday. It may be a very good player who does well and improves us. But when he leaves, and we later in the season suffer another few injuries I bet Chappell will still be considered too risky and inexperienced.

It's an interesting point that if you bring someone in short term that it could stunt someone who doesn't get in because of them.

Ok Long didn't make way for a loanee but he played when simmo was dropped last year and I am sure that for those few games we would rather of had a decent loan keeper in with hindsight-- I don't think those games would of helped Longs confidence much either short term.

The problem is you always have to win your next match as a manager not a game 3/4 into the season. So I am sure that DW will be looking to strengthen now, cash permitting.
Loanees are always hit or miss, we have to hope that when we do get one that he is better than the Chappell's that we have and that the players that are already here look at it as inspiration to try harder to get into the team when the loanee goes back.

Problem is, it's not an exact science so it is hard to balance what helps now that doesn't hinder later.

 

[Racy]

Let's give the young uns a go there is still plenty of experience in the squad to bring them through.

As for promotion Ched going down was the reason end of

 

[Selly]

I Think what the above shows is that to explicitly rule them out or in is a bad idea.

As a wise man once said "Only Sith deal in absolutes"

Which is actually, an absolute, so he was probably a Sith....hmmm, not entirely sure that's quite had the desired meaning....

 

[Latters]

But do you accept that it can be at the expense of developing/improving one of our own players?

If you look back at last season when we found out we needed some more width. We brought in Matt Phillips, rather than trying Jordan Chappell. I agree with you that Phillips is the better player (he's great and I'd love it if he was signed permanently) and he probably increased the chance of us picking up points in the following few games.

Do you agree with me that if Chappell had been given a run instead, Wilson may have had more confidence in him to play him later that season, and indeed vs Bury on Saturday?

Chappell is only an example. I could have said Kennedy. Or Long. Or Harriott. Or Whitehouse. Or Tønne. These players can devlop up to a point (they did win their league last season), but after that they will only develop if they are playing first team football at a high level.

I think someone will come in on loan before Saturday. It may be a very good player who does well and improves us. But when he leaves, and we later in the season suffer another few injuries I bet Chappell will still be considered too risky and inexperienced.

I had typed a quite a lengthy tome but my sodding iPad lost it.

Anyway, the crux of it was, I'm not wanting to come across as argumentative, but I'm not sure I do agree re. Chapell. Look at McAllister. He never really got near our first team last season but has been an ever present thus far this year, as far as I know. If DW thinks a player is ready, and he has no better options at his disposal, he will play them. Same applies with Chapell. If there's no one better in the squad and nobody better available on loan, I'd like to think he'll play. If we can afford someone better, get him in!

The point is, you don't get points for developing youngsters, you get them for winning games. If we are more likely to do this with players in on loan (which is impossible to prove either way, I accept) then I, along with most others I would imagine, would rather we choose the winning team.

If we miss out on promotion because we'd played the youngsters (again, I know this isn't a definite outcome and it's all ifs, buts and maybes) they'd be the first ones we'd sell anyway, so we'd still be developing them for somebody else.

I'm happy with loanees playing instead of our own development players as long as they are better and it improves the team.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I had typed a quite a lengthy tome but my sodding iPad lost it.

Anyway, the crux of it was, I'm not wanting to come across as argumentative, but I'm not sure I do agree re. Chapell. Look at McAllister. He never really got near our first team last season but has been an ever present thus far this year, as far as I know. If DW thinks a player is ready, and he has no better options at his disposal, he will play them. Same applies with Chapell. If there's no one better in the squad and nobody better available on loan, I'd like to think he'll play. If we can afford someone better, get him in!

The point is, you don't get points for developing youngsters, you get them for winning games. If we are more likely to do this with players in on loan (which is impossible to prove either way, I accept) then I, along with most others I would imagine, would rather we choose the winning team.

If we miss out on promotion because we'd played the youngsters (again, I know this isn't a definite outcome and it's all ifs, buts and maybes) they'd be the first ones we'd sell anyway, so we'd still be developing them for somebody else.

I'm happy with loanees playing instead of our own development players as long as they are better and it improves the team.

We both agree loan players can improve results temporarily. We seem to disagree on:

• the long term consequences of continually, systematically avoiding to give our own youngsters playing time
• first team football at a high level being the most effective way to develop young players
• the long term effects of continually choosing short term solutions to plug gaps in the squad
• the things that could happen if the club continue to overspend