Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Loan stars add extra, but at what cost?

5 posters

Reply to topic

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

karlypants

karlypants
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

THE temporary fix worked wonders for Wanderers – but Dougie Freedman’s next task is to find a permanent solution to the club’s early-season woes.

When the Whites boss moved to bring in three loan recruits last month it was an admission that something was lacking in the squad who had contrived to make the worst start in more than a century.

Unheralded arrivals they may have been but whatever Kevin McNaughton, Neil Danns and Liam Feeney brought to the party has now got Whites fans looking up, rather than down in the early Championship table.

The success of loan deals, rather ironically, comes at a cost. Millwall have not been oblivious to the rave reviews given to Feeney and so it was perhaps to be expected that the Lions CEO Andy Ambler would make a stand before his loan was through.

Unbeknown to most of us, however, there was a clause in the deal that could see the Lions recall their man after only 28 days. That could leave the 26-year-old facing two more games at Bolton before returning to the capital.

Circumstances have changed at The Den in the last few weeks because of the sale of James Henry to Wolves and now manager Steve Lomas is short of options on the right wing. Welcoming back a player who has rediscovered some form at the Reebok would appear a clever move on their part.

Feeney couldn’t buy a start under Lomas before he was loaned out, and with his contract expiring in the summer, sources at Millwall suggest an extension is unlikely; all of which leaves the two clubs in a stalemate.

It would be foolish to think a deal would be done only on the strength of three impressive performances, as Freedman’s prior knowledge of the player is much more extensive than that. If the Whites boss feels the winger is value for money then the biggest hurdle would be convincing Eddie Davies to part with the cash.

There are also question marks over whether Feeney can really continue at this high level of performance?

Jay Spearing, pictured below, stood out head and shoulders as a model of consistency for Wanderers last season on loan from Liverpool but looked below par after the move was made permanent earlier this season.

The midfielder’s form has since recovered but it is a common trait in most loan players that their initial impact lessens after they secure regular football elsewhere.

For their part, Millwall are in a strong position to barter. Feeney cost £350,000 from Bournemouth two-and-a-half years ago and so the financial reward of selling him before the summer is negligible.

For Lomas to bring him back into a struggling squad may have a similar effect as it did for Freedman.

A deal could well boil down to the reaction of those ousted by Feeney a few weeks ago.

Chris Eagles, David Ngog and Chung-Yong Lee have all been out of the equation recently, leading to suggestions they could be moved on in January to pave the way for Freedman to make more wide-ranging changes to his squad.

Even if that were possible, it could not be achieved until January, leaving the Whites with just over two tricky months of fixtures to keep some sort of forward momentum going.

Feeney’s difficult situation is unlikely to be mirrored in the other two loanees, McNaughton and Danns.

Cardiff boss Malky Mackay has already given his blessing to experienced full-back McNaughton to stay on until Christmas at Wanderers should he so wish.

Danns is also well out of the first team reckoning at Leicester City and likely to see out the full three months of his loan, which expires just before the trip to the King Power Stadium on December 29.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Good article as it outlines the key variables in the equation. My hope is that our existing players and youngsters step up - they can't be short of motivation now.

Reebok_Rebel

Reebok_Rebel
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

I've always said Loaning instead of buying is a total pile of shit. 

We have had some really good players in the past, players we could have bought but chose not too. then, when we decided we really needed them... the players stock had increased twenty-fold.

Sturridge is an example,  we could have had him for about 5 million... he came on loan, is fucking amazing and leaves us worth 10/15 million more... 

If we decide to buy feeney, we will have to pay way more now for him than we would have in the first place.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Sturridge is an example,  we could have had him for about 5 million... he came on loan, is fucking amazing and leaves us worth 10/15 million more... 

If we decide to buy feeney, we will have to pay way more now for him than we would have in the first place.
So what are you saying, we should have shelled out £750k for Feeney even though he was playing for Millwall reserves?

Reebok_Rebel

Reebok_Rebel
Frank Worthington
Frank Worthington

Natasha Whittam wrote:
Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Sturridge is an example,  we could have had him for about 5 million... he came on loan, is fucking amazing and leaves us worth 10/15 million more... 

If we decide to buy feeney, we will have to pay way more now for him than we would have in the first place.
So what are you saying, we should have shelled out £750k for Feeney even though he was playing for Millwall reserves?
Dougie wanted him - meaning he knew (id assume) that we needed him/he would fit in to the team... 

So, yes.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Reebok_Rebel wrote:I've always said Loaning instead of buying is a total pile of shit. 

We have had some really good players in the past, players we could have bought but chose not too. then, when we decided we really needed them... the players stock had increased twenty-fold.

Sturridge is an example,  we could have had him for about 5 million... he came on loan, is fucking amazing and leaves us worth 10/15 million more... 

If we decide to buy feeney, we will have to pay way more now for him than we would have in the first place.
No chance of getting Sturridge/Wilshere etc - ever.
I think the other thing about loans is that it pushes our own talent further down the pecking order and reduces the amount of game time our own get.
Contrast that with trying to motivate them to work harder so they can fight for a place.
Doesn't stack up.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Reebok_Rebel wrote:Dougie wanted him - meaning he knew (id assume) that we needed him/he would fit in to the team... 

So, yes.
Come off it, we aren't in a financial position to take a punt on anyone, let alone a player who couldn't get into Millwall's first team. If we'd signed him for any amount of money you'd be the first to call Freedman a wanker if he played like a Millwall reserve.

I agree that Freedman is too reliant on loan signings, we seem to have got to an age where it is no longer the managers job to improve the players he has, he simply goes out and buys/loans more donkeys.

It would be a bigger test of management if the transfer window was only open during the Summer break - meaning that every manager would have to use his skills to get the best out of the squad rather than look for a quick fix.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

wanderlust wrote:
No chance of getting Sturridge/Wilshere etc - ever.
I think the other thing about loans is that it pushes our own talent further down the pecking order and reduces the amount of game time our own get.
Contrast that with trying to motivate them to work harder so they can fight for a place.
Doesn't stack up.
Wanderlust, you're obsessed with Dougie "pushing our own talent further down the pecking order", you reference it several times a day.

I would agree with you if Dougie had ever shown any inclination to give youth a chance, but he is simply too cautious to ever risk it. If loans weren't available mid-season he still wouldn't give youth a chance - he'd still be picking Ngog, Lee and all the other donkeys he has.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Natasha Whittam wrote:
wanderlust wrote:
No chance of getting Sturridge/Wilshere etc - ever.
I think the other thing about loans is that it pushes our own talent further down the pecking order and reduces the amount of game time our own get.
Contrast that with trying to motivate them to work harder so they can fight for a place.
Doesn't stack up.
Wanderlust, you're obsessed with Dougie "pushing our own talent further down the pecking order", you reference it several times a day.

I would agree with you if Dougie had ever shown any inclination to give youth a chance, but he is simply too cautious to ever risk it. If loans weren't available mid-season he still wouldn't give youth a chance - he'd still be picking Ngog, Lee and all the other donkeys he has.
...and yet in your previous post you write of the importance of developing our own players.

So picking through your borderline schizophrenic ramblings, I guess you're trying to say developing current squad is good, but because Dougie hasn't got a track record of giving youth a chance it's pointless mentioning it?

Thing is that Dougie has given youth a chance if they're good enough, especially at Palace. With us, Hall for example seems OK, but has sat on the bench since the loanees came in.

The other question is whether the donkeys have improved as a result of the loanees. Knight was Ok when he came on and I guess the competition for places must have inspired one or two others.

That said I wouldn't be surprised if he gave the donkeys another chance and cleared them out in January if they don't make the grade.

I have made the point about improving our squad on several occasions because I'm fed up with helping out other clubs just to provide us with a short-term unsustainable solution to our problems. The only way forward is to give our lot every chance, give them all the support they need and if they don't hack it, bite the bullet and get rid.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I wasn't slagging off your point, just saying that it's not going to happen. Freedman has had several chances to blood the youngsters and gone with "experience" every time. He gave Hall a game or two then dropped him.

Personally I don't rate Hall at all, but who knows how he'd perform given 10 games.

Guest


Guest

Reebok_Rebel wrote:I've always said Loaning instead of buying is a total pile of shit. 

We have had some really good players in the past, players we could have bought but chose not too. then, when we decided we really needed them... the players stock had increased twenty-fold.

Sturridge is an example,  we could have had him for about 5 million... he came on loan, is fucking amazing and leaves us worth 10/15 million more... 

If we decide to buy feeney, we will have to pay way more now for him than we would have in the first place.
You use Sturbridge every time and its a load of rubbish we wouldn't have got him and he wouldn't have wanted to come. He came to us to develop not because Chelsea wanted rid.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Natasha Whittam wrote:I wasn't slagging off your point, just saying that it's not going to happen. Freedman has had several chances to blood the youngsters and gone with "experience" every time. He gave Hall a game or two then dropped him.

Personally I don't rate Hall at all, but who knows how he'd perform given 10 games.
In that case I tend to agree. I guess it takes a big nads to risk relegation whilst you sort out the wheat from the chaff - or maybe we just have a load of chaff on the books, in which case he should get rid.

doffcocker

doffcocker
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo

I don't get this negativity towards loans. Sometimes you have to accept that it's the only way of getting the quality in that you need.

Sturridge and Wilshere were arguably the difference between us staying up and going down. But they came away better, more valuable players, so we shouldn't have bothered?

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Am I the only one who thinks Wilshere wasn't that good for us?

doffcocker

doffcocker
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo

Natasha Whittam wrote:Am I the only one who thinks Wilshere wasn't that good for us?
You're probably not the only WUM that thinks Wilshere wasn't that good for us.

Natasha Whittam

Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

He was ok, but other than scoring at West Ham I don't remember coming away thinking he's going to be a great player.

Guest


Guest

Dougie clearly wasn't keen to use the loan market, but once he realised we desperately needed fresh faces and it was obvious we didn't have enough money to bring in players permanently then we don't have a choice but to loan. It's not ideal but for a club of our size and stature it's a necessity.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

doffcocker wrote:I don't get this negativity towards loans. Sometimes you have to accept that it's the only way of getting the quality in that you need.

Sturridge and Wilshere were arguably the difference between us staying up and going down. But they came away better, more valuable players, so we shouldn't have bothered?
I think of it this way:
* Ideal scenario is that we have a strong squad in depth so that we can compete and at the same time manage our finances including debt reduction and investing in youth to provide the next generation of players at a relatively low cost
* We are a long way from that "ideal scenario" ATM.
* At some point we'll have to bite the bullet and sort our squad out probably by a combination of giving everyone a shot and getting rid/replacing them if they don't perform so that at least we have players who are capable of delivering what's required.
* Our first team hasn't been competing effectively. Worse still is that despite the poor performances, the rest of the squad haven't been given a chance to prove that they're made of the right stuff so we're none the wiser - and in theory could be carrying a load of dead weight.
* Spending money on dead weight reduces our options in the marketplace
* The reason we haven't rotated the squad and given opportunities to the second stream is because we've plugged the gaps with loanees purely because of the pressure to get points on the board in the short term
* When the loanees leave we'll be left with the same players we had before only they won't have improved as they haven't been given chances and are likely to feel undermined by the managers vote of no confidence in them - so we're possibly worse off than when we brought the loanees in.
* If we had rotated the squad instead of bringing in loanees it's likely we would still be bottom of the league - but at least we'd know the real extent of our problems and be able to act on it.
* Bringing in loanees is a stop gap to appease fans in the short term and for me equates to burying your head in the sand rather than facing up to and sorting out the real problems we have. And if the real standard of our squad is relegation fodder, then let's get relegated and deal with our problems instead of putting lipstick on a pig.
You never know - our squad may turn out to be better than that, but we'd have to play them to find out.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Reply to topic

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum