Hi northlondonsaint, thank you for not talking all day about it. Please come back around midnight when we are all feeling tired, you are just perfect to send us all to sleep. I was not writing a front page article for the daily mail, just inviting thoughts on a forum about the loan system. I am grateful for your ridiculous answer to my ridiculous post. You say it would also lead to even worse financial problems due to club's having to keep on high wage earners at a club who do not even play. Ironically in lukakus case Chelsea are crying out for a goalscoring striker with ba, Torres and etoo struggling. They may spend big money on a striker in Jan when they didn't need to. If only they gave . Lukaku a chance to prove himself.
I think if you get a player on loan there should be some kind of rule to stop you getting full benefit from them. Like they can play but with one hand behind their back, or they can only use one foot.
The loan system works both ways though. Say we have a number of superstars coming through the academy in need of some match time and they aren't quite ready to make it into the squad. We loan them out to a club in the Championship, give them a season's worth of experience, then reap the benefits when they return. And if they never quite make it at Saints but they did well on the loan, then we have a ready made buyer who would be interested in them and the player has some contacts in his new area, making the transition less painful.
I agree about that part of the loan system, just not the loaning of Prem players to other Prem teams.
I think as someone said earlier the loan system is here to stay as it is the only way to farm out players and reduce the wage bill: for example Barry may have a long term contract at Man City - noone is going to match their wages nor take an aging player for a big fee. Therefore the only way for City to save money is to let him go on loan and hope the club wishing to loan him takes on some of his wages as otherwise he will just be there stagnating for years to come. It is also beneficial for the player as for example Barry has showed his qualities this season. I think there should be a limit to the number of loan players a team can have him (perhaps two in the Prem and four in lower divisions). I remember us playing one team in League one and they had seven loan players in their match squad which is not really fair. Ok it may save them money but it hardly encourages development (although the new academy system has ruined this) and they then don't really have a team.
Oh another ridiculously thought out sentence. If there was no loan system, then maybe clubs wouldn't sign so many high earners, in the knowledge that they wouldn't be able to ship them out to other Prem teams and even better, that may mean less high earners in a squad and more youngsters coming through with a chance to play. But then again, I probably have just ridiculously thought out this post. If there are so many ridiculously thought out threads on this ridiculous forum, why do you keep coming on here and posting ridiculously not thought out replies?
