surely it must now be time to make or break the deal for benyon. he has been struggling to get into the team all season and now with trotta ahead of him as well he's wasting wages which could be used in other areas of the team. he now isent even playing reserve games, and i think he should just go back to swindon now. thoughts?
I can only assume that the season long loan deal with Swindon means that we have not been able send him back. This may change once the January transfer window opens. Having seen some of his performances I can see absolutely no reason why we should keep him any longer than we have to. Regardless of whether we are able to extend Trotta's (which I am sure we all hope happens) Benyon should go!
Most loans are structured so that the team loaning out can recall if necessary not the other way round so I very much doubt we can send him back before the end of the season. Logic would say that Swindon wanted to offload and we wanted him, they probably have used his wages for somebody else now so it would be an unfair deal on their part if they then had to take him back! On our part, it is our fault wanting to sign a rubbish striker!
regardless of whether or not Trotta stays we need to be ruthless - this is a CRUCIAL point in the season. We dont own Benyon so dont owe him any loyalty. Id rather see WWFC take the 'it hasnt worked out, all the best' stance and get another Trotta-style forward in for the rest of the season with the money we'll save.
There ought to be some clause in the contract that gives a way out if the player isn't up to scratch (eg minimum number of appearances in the first team). I don't like one way contracts, something I've always avoided. How do we judge how good they are if they aren't making first team appearances?
Ron, I think I would have to disagree with you in this case. In my mind the judging of a player and their potential should really be done before signing them whether that be on a full time contract or on loan. If I was the team loaning out, particularly on a long term loan I wouldn't be happy with the insecurity of knowing that if the team who takes the player on loan could just send him back whenever they feel like it, otherwise how do you make plans as a manager for your own team?
ron, if he cant get in the reserve team, let along the full team, then he isent good enough. when mcclure returns, he will probably be ahead of him in the pecking order. contracts should be 2 way, if it was another player i would say he should be loaned out but obviously this cant happen
Finchy, I didn't say "the team who takes the player on loan could just send him back whenever they feel like it".
Jose, sorry I didn't word that very well. I was referring to their performances with the loaning club. The player clearly isn't good enough to play for their first team, otherwise he wouldn't be on loan. So there must be some risk regarding the assessment of the player and these risks need to be safeguarded.
I think you are all basically right! It should always be on 2 way terms with both the club loaning the player out and the club taking him in being protected. I would argue that a minimum number of appearances should be guaranteed (other than injury). That way, parent club are happy that they have gained experience etc and club taking him have had the uses of his services. For example, I would like to see a system where, in the terms of the contract, a player can be sent back halfway through. That way everyone is happy. In Benyon's case, he just hasnt cut the mustard. He needs to go and we need to get someone else. End of.......
Apologies Ron! I think the point I am trying to make is why if you are the parent club would you take the risk of loaning one of your players out on a "long term" loan if you knew there was a risk he could be sent back? It makes it v difficult to plan your squad for the season, especially with many clubs having v tight budgets. Especially when a lower league team is loaning a first team player to another lower league team, in terms of wages and budgets. There is probably more scope for this when a premier team loans a young player to a lower league team. The only other time I can really see this being feasible is if the loaning club genuinely feel the player is useless and nobody else has come in for him so passing his wages on for any period helps! However that begs the question why the team signing him on loan is trying to sign him?! Also, if you are the team taking a player on a long term loan, why are your signing somebody if you feel there is sufficient doubt that you need a break clause at say half way through the loan? That smacks of indecision and a panic signing to me. Introducing minimum appearances clauses can always be manipulated, as you often see when players are put on contracts where if you for example you play 20 games you are guaranteed a further year. One of the posts also said above that this clause should be introduced "excluding injuries," how would you monitor this? It is very easy for a physio to determine somebody as injured with a very slight strain that in reality shouldn't stop them playing. At the end of the day we are only having this discussion because we have signed somebody on loan who hasn't performed for us and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Its not a fault of the loan system or contract its a fault of the manager who has signed him on a long term loan.
No problem Finchy. Loan contracts is a subject that could be debated for a long time I feel. At the end of the day, I would never sign a contract that left me exposed (especially to a con). One way contracts are not for me. It's a bit like buying a washing machine only to get it home and find it doesn't work and you can't do anything about it. Loan contracts can be very complicated (I had to draw one up myself last year because all the examples I found on the internet had loopholes). I wonder what the Benyon contract does say.
I seem to remember when someone signed and I think it was Benyon, that there was a clause to return during January window, but there hasn't been any talk of this.
I'm not suggesting that Wycombe should throw good money after bad, but I just wonder what has gone wrong. I saw Benyon play for Torquay twice last season; at Oxford and at Wycombe, and he was excellent in both games, playing as a lone striker. He's also local and you would think this is a great move for him. When he went to Swindon his face didn't fit with Paul Hart, and didn't they loan him out before Di Canio took over? It's a higher division, but why should he become a bad player overnight? Things have also gone badly for Scott Rendell, but I suppose it's over-analysing to put the two together.
i feel similar, i had very high hopes for eliot but im really disappointed by whats happened. however, i think theres no good keeping hold of him on the form he's on, so letting go of him would be the best thing to do
According to the offal he's only made 3 full and 7 sub appearances. Were the sub appearances relatively early on in a game? If not then is this really enough time to judge him properly? Has he been injured at all? I'm not in any way defending his position, but I've not seen Benyon play. Unless of course he really was that terrible in those few games... but surely there are quite a few players in the first 15 who could also be described in a similar way. Should he get another chance, possibly replacing Strevs or Rendell on the bench? I'm probably totally missing something.
he was very poor in the games he did play jock, plus strevens, rendell, trotta, beaver and possibly mcclure all ahead of him. if he was our own player i would suggest sending him out on loan in hope he can get some goals, but considering hes not even our player i would suggest sending him back
