I was wondering what people's opinions are of Loan Signings. Unfortunately they seen to be a necessity, and not just for clubs outside the Prem. However twice now I have seen our season go pear shaped in January when our loan signings went back to their home club: Adam Johnson a few seasons ago, AT and JM last season. In both cases the players had become integral parts of the team and their loss was sorely felt. Of course we have had some successes, most notably Cleverly, Lansbury and Ben Foster. However the key thing for me was that they were season long loans (or stayed for the season in the case of TC and HL). So should we only take players on loan that we can keep for the season or is it something that we have little control over and therefore have to make do with what we get (i.e. half a season is better than nothing). Who knows where we would have finished last season had we been able to keep Taylor and Mutch? ps How do I include a picture under my name?
Go to Forum Actions above - then General Settings and to Edit Signature and pop a picture in. I would prefer to have loans for a full season - we have suffered half way through now twice but it may be difficult to persuade teams to loan them that long
In an ideal world, loanees (if they're good!) should be with us a year, and if they're not, we should have the option to send them back in less than that...!
I'd agree with that. The main problem for us last season was losing Taylor and Mutch in the middle of the season and not replacing them very well...not the fault of Malky because Boro wanted to keep the former and Drinkwater was probably a replacement for Mutch but turned out to be a waste. Wouldn't want a whole team of them though as that can only solve a short term problem and if they get called back then your stuffed.
Wasn't it Cardiff that had 8 loanees in the squad...hmm, i think for the play offs...ringing a bell that. It shouldn't be allowed to happen...i didn't think it was...not sure how they got away with it!
Here we go, didn't think i was going mad lol..just C&P'd from another message board: "I see that Cardiff who currently have 7 loanees are likely to get Aaron Ramsey on board as well. This getting out of hand. I think that there is a limit to how many you can play in you team but look what they are loaning back up players also. 5 in a match day squad from a team in the same country. (In Cardiff's case the same country as the league they play in.) I think it's a massive flaw as they could have 8 season long loans each season if they wanted too which is way too much!"
Ah Cardiff and their loanees, the big flaw there was they wanted promotion on the cheap (bluebirds!). I look foiirward to Boxing Day. Loanees in the modern system are essential for both ends. Big clubs have too many players and need to give them game time. This can be economic (Ellington/Sadler), or for the players development. As for Watford we need a balance which includes Premier League loanees to top up our thin squad. Just about every other Champ team will be doing this, so we have to join in this "game".
loans are obviously important they have kept us in this division for the last few years, but I'm hoping that the academy will be able to replace the idea of loans for watford, if our academy is as good as we hope then hopefully we wiull be able to be completely self sufficient and not need loans or even that many sighnings.
The new system involving Ross Wilson and Brian Cox is designed so that we only recruit external players that we need. The academy is being relied on the produce the majority of players.
