so......you take a player on loan (Kaikai)........he ends up being a load of old tosh & you decide that he is worse than any of YOUR own players, that you've nurtured & brought up through your youth system, & so you decide that he wont be playing..........and they then want paying !!!
yeah.........feck off. Might as well have RD's version of "loaning" (ie network players)
so......you take a player on loan (Kaikai)........he ends up being a load of old tosh & you decide that he is worse than any of YOUR own players, that you've nurtured & brought up through your youth system, & so you decide that he wont be playing..........and they then want paying !!!
yeah.........feck off. Might as well have RD's version of "loaning" (ie network players)
Well it's the choice you take. The alternative is having to pay a share of the wages. IF you get a really good loanee for free who plays every week because he's first choice, the lower club will get a bargain.
Personally as a manager I wouldn't want that situation, where my team selection could be distorted in this way, but I can see certain clubs maybe going for it.
so......you take a player on loan (Kaikai)........he ends up being a load of old tosh & you decide that he is worse than any of YOUR own players, that you've nurtured & brought up through your youth system, & so you decide that he wont be playing..........and they then want paying !!!
yeah.........feck off. Might as well have RD's version of "loaning" (ie network players)
Why do think Kaikai and Mavididi were nearly always on the bench.
Dasilva when he first came to sat on the bench for three months but after his debut didn't get on.
When we loaned Sanogo the proportion of his wages we paid reduced with every game he played.
To be fair, it is not actually a bad idea. Every loan signing any club makes is a risk, as are all transfers. However, with loan signings, both the player and the parent club would be expected to be involved in the squad. It doesn't really make a huge amount of difference.
What it does do though is as mentioned, if you manage to get in a quality player on loan, you won't mind having to play them every week, but you also are not having to pay anything for that player either. It would make the better, quality players who may not be available to certain clubs because of budgets and finance, now available to them.
You have to always weigh up the pros and cons of each situation and you don't of course want to have players who may not be performing for you contractually obliged to play, but that is the risk you take. If they turn out to be good, well, you're laughing.
I'm divided. Obviously it suits Prem clubs because although they pay the wages, their players are getting valuable first team action. However, like others have said, it's going to be difficult to swallow paying someones wages (or half) when they turn out to be a load of shite.
As much as i hate the club and past loanees haven't been great, if there is a decent youngster i wouldn't say no. They produce quite a few over the year so if there is one that we fancy, then i dont see it as a negative.
Cullen is 22-years old now so would (?) have to be named in the 25-man squad if they wanted to involve him in the Premier League (of course this isnt a Premier League game tonight so doesnt matter)
this means that premier clubs (in this caser just palace so far) can dictate team selection and to a certain extent tactics to a smaller/skint/struggling club .. the players loaned out get battle hardened and scouted at no extra expense to the 'home' club .. already some big clubs loan out players with the caveat that the loanee will play (say) 2/3 of the games while he is on loan .. as richer clubs get richer and the lower leagues clubs get poorer and more desperate for success, this ostensibly could seem like a good deal .. BUT, it's the thin end of the wedge towards 'little' clubs being no more than feeder clubs/reserve teams for the Premier teams .. SO .. they can stick it where the sun never intrudes
So O'Kane deciding against a move to League One and West Ham reluctant to loan out Cullen I'd be surprised if we signed anyone now before the Loan Window closes - Might regret not giving a short term deal to Dawkins at this rate
Wonder what'll happen if a Championship side fails to show interest in time
Although I suspect if O'Kane is coming out with those comments, a Championship club has probably enquired after him
yeah Bowyer mentioned leeds trying to do him a favour and Cawley said Leeds wanted him to come to us, think this is him trying to get his way and get the move to a championship club. think Bolton want him.
My guess is that after reading somewhere that Bowyer said it was up to both clubs to agree fee's etc, that RD has not offered either Leeds or West Ham enough money, wage contribution, to take O'Kane or Cullen on loan. After-all he is cost cutting everywhere, and perhaps LB has to now put up with what he has?
Comments
yeah.........feck off. Might as well have RD's version of "loaning" (ie network players)
Personally as a manager I wouldn't want that situation, where my team selection could be distorted in this way, but I can see certain clubs maybe going for it.
Dasilva when he first came to sat on the bench for three months but after his debut didn't get on.
When we loaned Sanogo the proportion of his wages we paid reduced with every game he played.
What it does do though is as mentioned, if you manage to get in a quality player on loan, you won't mind having to play them every week, but you also are not having to pay anything for that player either. It would make the better, quality players who may not be available to certain clubs because of budgets and finance, now available to them.
You have to always weigh up the pros and cons of each situation and you don't of course want to have players who may not be performing for you contractually obliged to play, but that is the risk you take. If they turn out to be good, well, you're laughing.
I thought Prem clubs could only name 23 in a squad or is that just for Prem games?
Probably just for League games too
http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/premier-league-home-grown-players-rule-how-does-it-work/1mww3y06t775v1a7c6139l53ji
Cullen is 22-years old now so would (?) have to be named in the 25-man squad if they wanted to involve him in the Premier League (of course this isnt a Premier League game tonight so doesnt matter)
already some big clubs loan out players with the caveat that the loanee will play (say) 2/3 of the games while he is on loan .. as richer clubs get richer and the lower leagues clubs get poorer and more desperate for success, this ostensibly could seem like a good deal ..
BUT, it's the thin end of the wedge towards 'little' clubs being no more than feeder clubs/reserve teams for the Premier teams .. SO .. they can stick it where the sun never intrudes
"rubbish anyway"
"bad attitude"
"F*** him, if he doesn't want to join us"
"over rated"
Although I suspect if O'Kane is coming out with those comments, a Championship club has probably enquired after him