Jacob Butterfield - loan extended for another month - Iles

terenceanne wrote:
Loanees come in to supplement a team if they have injuries for the most part. Our loanees keep our players out of the team or away from the bench. Most glaring example is Adofe keeping Sordell off the bench.

No they aren't, loans are brought in to improve the team and get first team football/experience, thats the whole point of loans. Why would a manager let a player leave on loan if hes not even going to play? Thats not beneficial to the player.


Obviously in a perfect world Id like to field a team thats entirely ours, but if a loan can be brought in to improve the team then I don't see that as a bad thing, without Warnock, Butterfield and Spearing we might have even fewer points.

terenceanne wrote:Natasha has a point .....

Loanees coming in seem better than "our" players. i.e. Wiltshere, Sturrige, Spearing, Butterfield, Adofe, etc It's supposed to be the other way around. Loanees come in to supplement a team if they have injuries for the most part. Our loanees keep our players out of the team or away from the bench. Most glaring example is Adofe keeping Sordell off the bench.

I don't think that was Natasha's point.

Although I'm not positive I understand yours, other than you think we've made some good loan signings in recent years.

(Afobe not Adofe by the way)

Lofty_Love wrote:

terenceanne wrote:
Loanees come in to supplement a team if they have injuries for the most part. Our loanees keep our players out of the team or away from the bench. Most glaring example is Adofe keeping Sordell off the bench.

No they aren't, loans are brought in to improve the team and get first team football/experience, thats the whole point of loans. Why would a manager let a player leave on loan if hes not even going to play? Thats not beneficial to the player.


Obviously in a perfect world Id like to field a team thats entirely ours, but if a loan can be brought in to improve the team then I don't see that as a bad thing, without Warnock, Butterfield and Spearing we might have even fewer points.

Either way there is another angle to the loanee question. Ultimately they go back to their parent club - often as better players than when they arrived.

If getting first team competitive football is deemed as being good for their development - and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it is good for their development - we are to some extent cutting our own throats by taking loanees.

I'd be happy to sacrifice points in the short term if it meant that our own youngsters were getting those development opportunities.

There are several positives to be had by taking that approach including:

• good for squad morale if more of our own players are getting a shot
  
• good for our finances if we develop our own players, either to improve the team or sell them on
  
• good to find out early if they are going to make the grade so we can either offer them contracts or move them on rather than hang on to them for years never knowing
  
• good for the team having a bigger pool of players to draw on over several seasons - less chopping and changing and the whole (extended) squad is familiar with the style of play and the movement of each other
  

As mentioned, the down side is potentially taking a few beatings whilst we sort out the wheat from the chaff, but I personally think it's a preferable approach for the overall good of the club and an essential part of sustainable long-term development.

wanderlust wrote:

Lofty_Love wrote:

terenceanne wrote:
Loanees come in to supplement a team if they have injuries for the most part. Our loanees keep our players out of the team or away from the bench. Most glaring example is Adofe keeping Sordell off the bench.

No they aren't, loans are brought in to improve the team and get first team football/experience, thats the whole point of loans. Why would a manager let a player leave on loan if hes not even going to play? Thats not beneficial to the player.


Obviously in a perfect world Id like to field a team thats entirely ours, but if a loan can be brought in to improve the team then I don't see that as a bad thing, without Warnock, Butterfield and Spearing we might have even fewer points.

Either way there is another angle to the loanee question. Ultimately they go back to their parent club - often as better players than when they arrived.

If getting first team competitive football is deemed as being good for their development - and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it is good for their development - we are to some extent cutting our own throats by taking loanees.

I'd be happy to sacrifice points in the short term if it meant that our own youngsters were getting those development opportunities.

There are several positives to be had by taking that approach including:

• good for squad morale if more of our own players are getting a shot
  
• good for our finances if we develop our own players, either to improve the team or sell them on
  
• good to find out early if they are going to make the grade so we can either offer them contracts or move them on rather than hang on to them for years never knowing
  
• good for the team having a bigger pool of players to draw on over several seasons - less chopping and changing and the whole (extended) squad is familiar with the style of play and the movement of each other
  

As mentioned, the down side is potentially taking a few beatings whilst we sort out the wheat from the chaff, but I personally think it's a preferable approach for the overall good of the club and an essential part of sustainable long-term development.

In an ideal world this would be fine, but we neither have the talent nor the finances to do this.

We need the likes of Spearing and Warnock at the moment and it’s not as if they’re so good we won’t be able to replace them when they leave, they are stop gaps for now because we can’t afford to go and buy every player we need in one go. Teams our size need loans, Swansea had Borini when they went up for instance, they haven’t missed him since he’s gone, or Sigurdsson last year, Andy Carroll at West Ham. It’s normal and necessary I’ve got no problem with loans.

I think finances and talent are the key though. It costs plenty to bring in players on loan - money we could use in the transfer market. All we're doing is helping out the competition long-term for short-term gain. And if we don't have the talent coming through we should move those players on and try again with others, but we won't know that unless they're given a chance. Showing a bit of faith in our youngsters could do wonders for them and if we don't ever play them what's the point?

This season is the ideal opportunity to try something different IMO



BTW I also have no problem with loanees if necessary, but as much as I like some of the loanees we currently have, I'd prefer to see our own on the park.

IMO only Josh Vela could have played where Spearing has, but he’s injured. Maybe Alonso in for Warnock, but considering how poor our defence is I don’t know if it’s really worth the risk with him, why not loan him out and give him some experience?
I doubt we’ll have paid fees for Warnock or Butterfield, maybe for Spearing but even so our budget is that tight we could never have afforded to buy 3 players, and as I’ve said above I don’t think we have the talent in our squad to otherwise fill those positions. We need loans simple as that.

Which youngsters would you have played over Spearing or Butterfield though? and we can't just 'move on' all our youngsters, we have no money!

Vela could develop into the role, Riley could be involved more, Sordell - who knows? Alonso - not sure these days as he's had a chance and either needs to learn how to defend or leave - or play alongside a back 3 which has worked for other clubs e.g. Wigan. But these are players we've seen before and I was thinking of being a little more experimental. There are a few crackers in the U18s who could be brought on quicker and maybe 2 of the U21's. Eaves/Wylde/O'Halloran? not sure but I'd like to see them have a shot before I decide. All the prospects need to be involved with the 1st team squad if they're going to develop quickly IMO.

There are lots of things we could try - I actually think Ngog could make a cracking holding midfielder! He has the pace and workrate to do it and can pass a damned sight better than Fabrice ever could. In a world where proper tackling is taboo, he'd do OK.

As regards moving on those that don't make it, "having no money" is perhaps the worst reason imaginable for keeping them. We pay their wages, but they'll never play. Where's the logic in that?