We have had few loanees and even fewer that have worked out. We have had promising youngsters from bigger clubs, but then scarcely played them or they aren't good enough. We don't do it at all now, apart from a loan with a view to signing such as Jos. I don't think it fits our plan...what would be the point of a loaned player that you either scarcely play or who displaces a Saints player only to leave at the end of the season. Loans are for emergencies or teams that think one season at a time...if we had struggled this season and faced relegation I could see their worth. The only area I could see us taking a loan are GK (but Boruc is back soon) or striker (if Dani is out for a while leaving us with only 2 strikers + Gallagher). Or a loanee we plan to try out before signing in the summer. Everton have gone down the loan route and it has worked for them if they get a European place (which seems likely). It is an area that the PL should look at, but for now it is within the rules. Like all rules, it's okay until someone drives a coach and horses through it.
Papa Waigo was a loanee I believe. Loved that guy. Just had a look at our line up for the JPT final. Davis in goal, Fonte, Lallana and Lambert in the starting line up. That's the way to build a football team.
It's not about it being "fair", it is fair and you have used it well. My opinion is that it shouldn't be needed in the top flight. Not a dig at Everton or any club.
Hooiveld wasn't loaned with a view to signing him, there was no agreement to purchase as you see with some other loans. He performed so well though that we ended up buying him. So there's one example of a recent and beneficial loan we have used.
It's been allowed, so it is fair as all can use it. However, it does need looking at. Should you be allowed to loan out players in the same league?
I don't think it would be good for us. Everton paid a few million to loan Lukaku, if they finish 4th instead of 5th then it's worth it. But if we signed him and finished 8th instead of 9th, you'd wonder what was the point. On the other hand Remy was clearly a good striker and I don't know why more teams weren't interested in a permanent deal. Punch got a move that seemed to be beneficial for everyone, but he could have left permanently for not too much money I am sure... I don't know if I like it much, it doesn't seem to fit our long term game.
You wonder what Lukakus take on it is, Chelsea push him from pillar to post, if they don't want him why not make it a proper transfer, the unfairness is more to do with the player, I guess if he is getting megabucks that would overule any thoughts of loyalty to a Club? Still seems a strange way to run a business, but, not in my opinion, in the Spirit of the beautiful game. I see loans as a case where a player comes on trial for possible purchase, or an emergency to cover injury. Not for a Club to absorb more players than they need thus depriving others of possible signings, because they can, coz they are loaded.
As said before in the thread, I agree teams from the same division shouldn't be able to loan each others players. Every other kind of loan is fine by me.
The loan system will become increasingly used at the top end of the league, due to the limits on wage bill increases post the new TV deal. Therefore the likes of Chelsea & City, will have to loan out high earning peripheral players, in order to allow them to strengthen at the core of their first team.
I agree...it was supposed to help lower teams...certainly helps in the lower leagues. Was never intended to help big teams reduce their wage bill after they sign too many players or to be part of a strategic system to beat your main rivals.
Which sums up nicely why I think it is not a good system for the top division and shouldn't apply to Prem teams.
Don't think the unfairness is directed at Everton or other clubs who bring players on loan but at the loaners such as Chelsea & Man City who buy up talent not ready for there 1st team because they can. Take Lukaku as an example. Chelsea signed him for about £10 million with little to no intention of him being in their 1st team. For that value a club the size of Everton may well have purchased him. Everton then pay Chelsea a few million to have him for a season. (This helps fund the initial outlay to Anderlect and gains him valuable playing time as well as helping to hurt there league rivals). After a good season at Everton, Lukaku is now ready to be a regular at Chelsea bidding Everton a fond farewell. How much is Lukaku worth now? £30 million? If Everton or any other reasonably sized club was allowed to purchase Lukaku two years ago they'd be looking at a potential £20million coming into the club. Instead they're left with nothing but a few goalden memories. You may think you're getting a great deal with a player like Lukaku on the cheap, but it's Chelsea who are laughing all the way. I'd rather be Villa with Benteke than Everton with Lukaku.
Once again another ridiculously thought out thread on this forum. I would assume the main reason why teams loan players out to other premier league clubs is so the player gets first team football. With the whole big hoo-hah about English development surely getting rid of these loans would have a huge effect? It would also lead to even worse financial problems in the league due to clubs having to keep high wage earners at the club who do not even play. I could talk about this all day but i have better things to waste my time on
If the threads on this forum are so clearly beneath you, why not contribute something worthwhile or start what you consider to be a decent thread, rather than coming on here and constantly moaning and berating people.
I think it would hilarious if Everton finished ahead of Chelsea in large part because Lukaku. If it comes at Saints' expense I suppose it would be somewhat less funny, but I'd still enjoy it. I got nothing against Everton. I don't agree with the rules, but they were in place and Everton used them so fair play. Did Lukaku and Victor Moses suddenly become English and I missed it? Who is the hot England prospect who has benefited from going on loan to another Premier League club. Andy Carroll? It seems to me like one complaint about English football is that teams buy up foreign players instead of developing English players. So if you allow teams to buy up a ton of foreign starlets and then develop them by loaning them about to other clubs, isn't that just more foreign players taking up slots? If you are a smaller, just promoted club one option is to take a chance on a Championship player as we did with Clyne and Rodriguez. And I suppose Cork as well. But it's a big risk. We paid quite a bit for Rodriguez-- many said it was way too much at the time. But luckily we had the finances to do it. If you aren't bankrolled like us, it's almost like payday lending. A team will have to pay a million for a loan of a foreign player simply because they can't spend 8-9 million on a domestic one. Then next year they have to do it again. And again. Because they are always borrowing and never gain equity in anything. In the long run, that team actually ends up spending a lot more than if they'd just bought someone. And a bunch of (most likely foreign) players get to play for one year at that club instead of maybe a good Championship player developing over the course of several years to reach their full potential.
There is so much wrong with your take on the loan system, the wealthy teams clearly mop up talent to prevent other Clubs from getting them, then have the cheek to loan them out so that they can get match time, even when they don't actually need or want them for their own use, that is where the system is flawed.
