Lack of loans

[sage]

It seems virtually every other championship team has managed to pick up a loan or two despite us being interested in at least 4 loan players.

Is this because bigger clubs don't see us as being a stable place to send a promising young player for a year?

[Ramslad1992]

I'd rather us not have loan players personally, what's the point in having our own youth team if we bring in youth players from other teams? 

[sage]

2 minutes ago, Ramslad1992 said:

I'd rather us not have loan players personally, what's the point in having our own youth team if we bring in youth players from other teams? 

Because Liverpool's young players may be better than our young players?

[Ramslad1992]

1 minute ago, sage said:

Because Liverpool's young players may be better than our young players?

Then why have our young players? We have one of the best academy's in the country apparently so theoretically we should have some of the best youngsters? I've always been against loans but if we require youngsters to play then play our own in my opinion, they'll either sink or swim. 

[Bris Vegas]

I guess if your going to want to send your young players out on loan, you do it to a team who plays a similar style of football therefore the experience would be worth it.

I guess Arsenal or Liverpool for instance probably look at Derby and think 'how would they improve our players?'

We don't keep possession well, we don't press well, we don't play with much width, we don't break quickly on the counter.

We don't really have any set style or philosophy these days and that might be off-putting for the big clubs.

 

[Andicis]

31 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I guess if your going to want to send your young players out on loan, you do it to a team who plays a similar style of football therefore the experience would be worth it.

I guess Arsenal or Liverpool for instance probably look at Derby and think 'how would they improve our players?'

We don't keep possession well, we don't press well, we don't play with much width, we don't break quickly on the counter.

We don't really have any set style or philosophy these days and that might be off-putting for the big clubs.

 

Very good point. Which may explain why we were so successful under McClaren in his first spell, as they knew exactly how we would play in our 4-3-3 possession based football. 

[Doodle]

5 hours ago, Ramslad1992 said:

Then why have our young players? We have one of the best academy's in the country apparently so theoretically we should have some of the best youngsters? I've always been against loans but if we require youngsters to play then play our own in my opinion, they'll either sink or swim. 

We may have one of the best academies around but we are a championship side. The best youngsters go to the premiership. There are also limits on the amount of loanees you can play, so you can't fill a team full of loan players. Finally there is a gulf in class between the 2 levels, thus prem level loanees fit well in the championship and ours would go to the lower leagues. With reference to your water analogy, there is nothing to be gained by dropping someone in out of their depth. It destroys confidence and inhibitits progress. If used wisely there are massive advantages for all parties with a couple of loans

[Will Hughes Hair]

13 hours ago, sage said:

Because Liverpool's young players may be better than our young players?

Haven't our u18's just drawn 1-1 with the mighty Liverpool u18s?

[kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong]

Looks like we are missing Mr rush after all

[John Doe]

13 hours ago, sage said:

It seems virtually every other championship team has managed to pick up a loan or two despite us being interested in at least 4 loan players.

Is this because bigger clubs don't see us as being a stable place to send a promising young player for a year?

I think it depends on the status/position of the player (within their parent club) you are looking to bring in.

Managers will feel with some players that they are not likely to feature at all in the coming season, so are willing to let them go early in the summer to give them the best opportunity possible to settle at the club they are being loaned out to.

With some others, the manager may feel the player could have a small role to play with the first team, and in those circumstances is happy to hold on to the end of the window to see if staying in and around his first team will be more beneficial.

Alternatively, they may be holding on to the player to cover for injury, or until they sign another player?  Or, as has been mentioned, for a club that fits the philosophy/style he wants his player to play in?

I think with someone like Ryan Kent, he may fit into the 2nd category, hence why he hasn't come in just yet (if indeed he will)?

[Jourdan]

14 hours ago, sage said:

It seems virtually every other championship team has managed to pick up a loan or two despite us being interested in at least 4 loan players.

Is this because bigger clubs don't see us as being a stable place to send a promising young player for a year?

At the end of the day, all that matters to the club and the player is whether the player will play football or not. I don't think style of play matters and I don't think the turnover of managers matters either.

Young players from big clubs go where the first team opportunities are. They will go to smaller clubs with different approaches to the game. They will even go to clubs with a regular turnover of managers if they are getting game time.

As an example, if you are a young striker not named Tammy Abraham, would you look at our current options - Martin, Nugent, Vydra, Blackman, Bent when fit - and see a clear pathway to the first team? Would you expect to play much football? 

From the outside looking in, with so many experienced and established players in the group, you would look at our squad and you wouldn't see a clear pathway to the first team.

This is probably why we have struggled to bring anyone in. The squad is too big.

[t'oldu]

It seems we haven't got the slack to pay loan fee and wages   nor  guarantee playing time until we have moved players out.

Maybe we will just have to wait till next summer when a lot of contracts are up.

[sage]

13 minutes ago, Jourdan said:

At the end of the day, all that matters to the club and the player is whether the player will play football or not. I don't think style of play matters and I don't think the turnover of managers matters either.

Young players from big clubs go where the first team opportunities are. They will go to smaller clubs with different approaches to the game. They will even go to clubs with a regular turnover of managers if they are getting game time.

As an example, if you are a young striker not named Tammy Abraham, would you look at our current options - Martin, Nugent, Vydra, Blackman, Bent when fit - and see a clear pathway to the first team? Would you expect to play much football? 

From the outside looking in, with so many experienced and established players in the group, you would look at our squad and you wouldn't see a clear pathway to the first team.

This is probably why we have struggled to bring anyone in. The squad is too big.

That's the issue. Rowett may want say Ryan Kent but he may not be in a future managers plans. If you have 3 managers a season, where is the stability/security.

[Gandalf's shin pads]

Rowett is now saying (not sure if this is from yesterday's interview!?!) that the 'one more' could either be a permanent or a loan deal. Seems like the club are speaking increasingly in singular and not plural terms regarding signings. Managing expectations perhaps? 

[Leicester Ram]

We've already got too many players. If you're looking at our squad from a purely financial perspective we don't really have room for loan signings.

Still got 3 left-backs, soon to be 5 wingers (and that's not even taking Bennett into account) and 4 well paid CB's.

The big mistake that happened post-Mac1 was that we brought in squad depth players on permanent deals rather than loans. Why have 5 wingers on permanent contracts when you can have three and compliment with a loan signing or two?

Does anyone else get a searing headache whenever they stop and think about the mess we're got ourselves into?

[Rample]

Too many players at the club yes, but I'd happily stick 4 young loanees in the starting line up Tuesday if we could get them.

[1of4]

3 hours ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Looks like we are missing Mr rush after all

Why are we missing Rush. Wasn't it rumoured that we only looked at players who's agents had a connection with Rush. If this was the case. Now that he's gone wont the club be looking at a wider range of players.

[irobinson]

Need a balance i think

Would be good to work and develop 3 in the next window - and give all the options a go

 

One from our our academy, one from a Liverpool or Everton - and buy a promising youngster  - like Tom Lawrence - three pronged strategy

[europia]

17 hours ago, sage said:

It seems virtually every other championship team has managed to pick up a loan or two despite us being interested in at least 4 loan players.

Is this because bigger clubs don't see us as being a stable place to send a promising young player for a year?

Yes very much so. Also a lot to do with the reputation of the manager. In his first spell, Mclaren was a highly respected coach and could attract top class loans from the best PL clubs. Less so in his second spell after his Newcastle debacle. Gary Rowett may be a promising young coach, but his CV is rather light. A decent spell with Burton and a better than expected season at Birmingham, where the team performed beyond expectations. 

[kingsy1884]

Its probably best to review this thread once the window closes. I feel there will be at least 1 arrival on loan. The budget just isnt that big anymore.