highlandlichtie Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 I have this dislike of loan players since the Weir team of loaners got us relegated then they went back to their own clubs leaving incoming PS with nothing. Ok it worked out in our favour when PS came in but perhaps we might have won the Second Division instead of the Third if we had not been relegated. Loan players cost money which cannot be recovered by selling on (if young and a prospect like SM) and obviously have their parent club as priority. Would feel better if we did not have to pay the parent club anything for giving their players game time. We are doing them a favour and if good enough they get a game and if not they do not play with no conditions. Perhaps I just remember when we used to sign and sell players who gave their all for the club when at Gayfield. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 I have this dislike of loan players since the Weir team of loaners got us relegated then they went back to their own clubs leaving incoming PS with nothing. Ok it worked out in our favour when PS came in but perhaps we might have won the Second Division instead of the Third if we had not been relegated. Loan players cost money which cannot be recovered by selling on (if young and a prospect like SM) and obviously have their parent club as priority. Would feel better if we did not have to pay the parent club anything for giving their players game time. We are doing them a favour and if good enough they get a game and if not they do not play with no conditions. Perhaps I just remember when we used to sign and sell players who gave their all for the club when at Gayfield. They cost a pittance, if anything, they are young lads. Why would they not give their all when playing too?'I remember when we used to sign and sell players' so do I, think last January was the last time that happened..? Lower league clubs and footballers usually work to 1 year deals now so that doesn't happen and in a way it's the same period of time a loan player is here for anyway?I'm perfectly fine with loan players, as long as there's not about 10-15 coming in over the course of the season.. Some of my favourite players from recent seasons have been loans, Erwin, Booth, Forsyth to name a few. We initially had Steven Doris here on a loan.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokerson Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 With loan players it purely comes down to if they are good enough and contribute, if they don't perform and are no better than our fringe players then fans (particularly ours) get infuriated. If they come in and and improve us and help us win games and play better then it has to be a positive. Personally I think 3 is enough at any given time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terracingtam Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 10 hours ago, lichtie23 said: Obviously a passing seagull is not a Dick Campbell supporter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonLichtie Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 12 hours ago, highlandlichtie said: I have this dislike of loan players since the Weir team of loaners got us relegated then they went back to their own clubs leaving incoming PS with nothing. Ok it worked out in our favour when PS came in but perhaps we might have won the Second Division instead of the Third if we had not been relegated. Loan players cost money which cannot be recovered by selling on (if young and a prospect like SM) and obviously have their parent club as priority. Would feel better if we did not have to pay the parent club anything for giving their players game time. We are doing them a favour and if good enough they get a game and if not they do not play with no conditions. Perhaps I just remember when we used to sign and sell players who gave their all for the club when at Gayfield. I think at this point in time, we have to weigh up what we can do. The squad is short of two 'filler' players in my opinion, a forward and a central defender. We've signed all of our higher earners already and we have a smallish budget left to get two bodies in. The chances of us being able to sign two unattached players who are any good for a small wage in August are very small, whereas signing two development loans on smallish (or no wage in some weeks depending on T+Cs) is very high and fairly easily done in comparison. 'Would feel better if we did not have to pay the parent club anything for giving their players game time' - Why do you presume this isn't exactly what we're doing? Depending on T+Cs this can happen. At our level, development/ standard loans will have various clauses. If the management/ board have negotiated a deal whereby if the parent clubs player plays, we don't have any contribution to his wages that week and if he doesn't play we pick up a certain percentage - similar to the amount we would pay to a bench/ squad player if they were contracted to us then I would say that's a bloody good deal. We either get a good first team player for free, or we get a bench/ squad player cheapish where we would struggle to pick up someone on a free for a similar wage. Someone like Simon Murray is a once in a decade type of sale; and we were incredibly lucky with him. Dundee Utd only paid 20k to get him in January and make sure no-one else got him first on a pre contract deal, which is almost always what happens. In my opinion having a loan on a season long deal or having a player contracted only to our club makes little difference. Aside from the extremely rare occasion like Simon Murray, we will never make money on players who're on one year deals, and one year deals are pretty much the standard thing at this level. I don't think it makes any difference if a player has a parent club or not in terms of the effort they put in either. I think why it may come across that way is because the bulk of loans are development loans for U20s who seem to get more disheartened and bullied physically than older players who are used to playing week in week out against men. I can understand the frustration with loan players in recent years - we've signed a stack of them in the past 10 years or so and very few have proved their worth. However, I don't think this is a fair reflection on the loan system, it is more a reflection on several managers who have been unable to get players in and have ended up having to take kids on loan who have been recommended to them and throw them into a team on a downward spiral. Signing 17/18 year olds, chucking them into a struggling team to play most weeks and expecting it to work out is piss poor management and is scraping the barrel when unable to sign better players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichtie78 Posted August 10, 2016 Author Share Posted August 10, 2016 Dick saying in the tele today a centre half and striker will hopefully be in before Saturday. Presume it's the Inverness lads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 Dick saying in the tele today a centre half and striker will hopefully be in before Saturday. Presume it's the Inverness lads. Brown the Striker? Gilchrist the centre half? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichtie78 Posted August 10, 2016 Author Share Posted August 10, 2016 Brown the Striker? Gilchrist the centre half? Presume so 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokerson Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Heard Skelly may be coming back from Dundee on loan, think he would compliment us at the moment, he's another year older so hopefully see an improvement in him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 No thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afc_36_0 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 If true and he's ahead of hester in the pecking order we'd be as well giving up on football 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 If true and he's ahead of hester in the pecking order we'd be as well giving up on football Why? Anyway not a fan of Skelly. Heard this a while ago along with a few other names but if we get the 2 ICT guys then doubt we'd be looking at any of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afc_36_0 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Why? Anyway not a fan of Skelly. Heard this a while ago along with a few other names but if we get the 2 ICT guys then doubt we'd be looking at any of them. Because we've lost a lot of decent local players because we loan in other teams youth players who turn out to be utter mince 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtie23 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Because we've lost a lot of decent local players because we loan in other teams youth players who turn out to be utter mince I think "mince" is being to kind on Skelly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Because we've lost a lot of decent local players because we loan in other teams youth players who turn out to be utter mince Who? And we need 4 strikers anyway. There will be a 4th striker coming in, all 4 including Kane will be needed over the course of the season. I like Kane and be has proven himself at this level now and will get his chance when the time comes. Eta: not sure what difference being local makes either tbh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afc_36_0 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 I think "mince" is being to kind on Skelly I did say utter mince. Given game time i thought chris scott, keiran mcwalter and dayle robertson could have been players for us, i still hope hester is. And i support my local team so naturally i would like local players to do well 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichtie78 Posted August 11, 2016 Author Share Posted August 11, 2016 I did say utter mince. Given game time i thought chris scott, keiran mcwalter and dayle robertson could have been players for us, i still hope hester is. And i support my local team so naturally i would like local players to do well Out of the 3 you mentioned, Robertson is probably the only one I'd have back. Scott hasn't played for 2 years or something and McWalter wasn't technically good enough for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Think you lads are being overly harsh on Skelly. Is he not only 16/17? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 Think you lads are being overly harsh on Skelly. Is he not only 16/17? He's 20 next April 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted August 11, 2016 Share Posted August 11, 2016 He's 20 next April So, 19. Older than I thought tbf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.