AARON RAMSEY FROM VILLA

Don't get the negativity about loans. We've had some stinkers in recent years, but get it right and get a good year out of a player and it can be an excellent strategy.
 
I think it is believable. The tactic requires technical ability and keep hold of the ball. Jones ans watmore take more risks and it’s no surprise both are looking surplus to requirements
 
I think it is believable. The tactic requires technical ability and keep hold of the ball. Jones ans watmore take more risks and it’s no surprise both are looking surplus to requirements


Jones is a busted flush - won’t kick a ball for us ever again - will end up at St Mirren next season. Just read the Norwich Message Boards to see what a coup getting Ramsey is. A great signing of the quality we need to get promotion. Loans don’t bother me at all - next season is completely different to this - Carrick and his team using their influence to full effect. -UTB
 
Have we stated anywhere that the new model favours permanent signings over loans?

I personally think loan signings is a great tactic in this division. As mentioned above allows you to bring in better quality than you can afford and improves the overall quality of the playing staff.

Providing your recruitment department is decent, I'm not against it being a long term strategy to be honest. We'd all love to develop our own players but if they aren't coming through at the required level there's not much we can do. Hackney has been a revelation and I expect a future at the club for Coburn (again, the loan model working) but not heard a lot about the next cab off the rank so to speak.
 
Have we stated anywhere that the new model favours permanent signings over loans?

I personally think loan signings is a great tactic in this division. As mentioned above allows you to bring in better quality than you can afford and improves the overall quality of the playing staff.

Providing your recruitment department is decent, I'm not against it being a long term strategy to be honest. We'd all love to develop our own players but if they aren't coming through at the required level there's not much we can do. Hackney has been a revelation and I expect a future at the club for Coburn (again, the loan model working) but not heard a lot about the next cab off the rank so to speak.
Yes I think Scott stated the preference for permanent signing himself.
 
Be a squad player I would think. Assuming he is over his injury and you would think he is then a good substitute in the Duncan Watmore roll. Here’s an interesting thread on the Norwich Messageboard. Most have convinced themselves they were best shot of him despite being their biggest threat early season.



Some nasty comments in there too.
 
Yes I think Scott stated the preference for permanent signing himself.
that's obviously the long term aim, but that takes investment in the playing assets over a number of years. We are getting there though. In 12 months we have invested in Forss, Hoppe, Barlaser, Clarke, Lenihan and McGree with Hackney moving up from the youths. 7 players that are young enough to have value for a minimum of 5 years. You can add Coburn and Sol Brynn too, to take it to 9 new first team assets.

The only assets we have lost are Bamba, Peltier, Ikpeazu, Tav and Wood. First 2 were old and had little asset value, Ikpeazu was rubbish and was low value. Tavernier we cashed in on his value, Wood was the only management failure where we lost a talented player who could have had financial value. But that was brewing for 2 years as he wasn't given opportunities. So not really Scotts fault. Net value of the playing assets (in football not bookkeeping terms) must have increased.

Rinse-repeat and we will not need 5 or 6 loan players in future.
 
Really you have to look at the realistic aims and the long term strategy. Loans are expensive and they are short term. They should only really be used where they have to be and that is to add a bit of extra quality to an already good squad to challenge for promotion (or to save a squad from relegation). If you get promoted then you have spare cash and no squad player to replace with better quality players for the next league up. If you don't get promoted then you have half a squad to replace every transfer window. We have 6 loan players which are going to have to be replaced in the summer. It means a full rebuild every season which doesn't seem optimal.

The other thing that loans do is stop your own players from developing. We had Hackney in our squad but we brought in Mowatt. If Mowatt hadn't flopped we wouldn't have seen any of Hackney. If Muniz hadn't flopped we'd have seen little of Forss etc. There seems to be an obligation to play loan players when it would be better to develop our own players. The other benefit of developing your own players is that even if you aren't successful in getting promoted you are taking cheap players and then selling them for a profit. It's a far more sustainable model than developing other teams players so they can sell them on to you for over-inflated values down the line.

Do players even care about the club when they are on loan there? I would guess not in the same way as the permanent players do. How many of them actually work out? This season alone we only had 2/4 that could nail down a starting place (wait to judge at the end of the season on the other 2). That's big money to be bench warming. Last season's were all poor.

We all want to see better quality players playing for us so I'm not dead against loans. I just think a more sustainable model is the developmental route.
 
Really you have to look at the realistic aims and the long term strategy. Loans are expensive and they are short term. They should only really be used where they have to be and that is to add a bit of extra quality to an already good squad to challenge for promotion (or to save a squad from relegation). If you get promoted then you have spare cash and no squad player to replace with better quality players for the next league up. If you don't get promoted then you have half a squad to replace every transfer window. We have 6 loan players which are going to have to be replaced in the summer. It means a full rebuild every season which doesn't seem optimal.

The other thing that loans do is stop your own players from developing. We had Hackney in our squad but we brought in Mowatt. If Mowatt hadn't flopped we wouldn't have seen any of Hackney. If Muniz hadn't flopped we'd have seen little of Forss etc. There seems to be an obligation to play loan players when it would be better to develop our own players. The other benefit of developing your own players is that even if you aren't successful in getting promoted you are taking cheap players and then selling them for a profit. It's a far more sustainable model than developing other teams players so they can sell them on to you for over-inflated values down the line.

Do players even care about the club when they are on loan there? I would guess not in the same way as the permanent players do. How many of them actually work out? This season alone we only had 2/4 that could nail down a starting place (wait to judge at the end of the season on the other 2). That's big money to be bench warming. Last season's were all poor.

We all want to see better quality players playing for us so I'm not dead against loans. I just think a more sustainable model is the developmental route.
I agree, I'd like next year to have no more than 3 loans regardless which league we are in. Season after no more than 1. We have had some great loans in the past that have added quality Geremi springs to mind, Zenden too. Psychologically it can be tough for those loan players to fully commit though and all the above about stopping opportunities for youth players. Hopefully we can get out of this cycle and have a better more sustainable model going forward
 
The other thing that loans do is stop your own players from developing. We had Hackney in our squad but we brought in Mowatt. If Mowatt hadn't flopped we wouldn't have seen any of Hackney. If Muniz hadn't flopped we'd have seen little of Forss etc.
You can replace the above with if Wilder hadn't been sacked we'd have seen little/none of Hackney. If Wilder hadn't been sacked we'd have seen little of Forss.
 
that's obviously the long term aim, but that takes investment in the playing assets over a number of years. We are getting there though. In 12 months we have invested in Forss, Hoppe, Barlaser, Clarke, Lenihan and McGree with Hackney moving up from the youths. 7 players that are young enough to have value for a minimum of 5 years. You can add Coburn and Sol Brynn too, to take it to 9 new first team assets.

The only assets we have lost are Bamba, Peltier, Ikpeazu, Tav and Wood. First 2 were old and had little asset value, Ikpeazu was rubbish and was low value. Tavernier we cashed in on his value, Wood was the only management failure where we lost a talented player who could have had financial value. But that was brewing for 2 years as he wasn't given opportunities. So not really Scotts fault. Net value of the playing assets (in football not bookkeeping terms) must have increased.

Rinse-repeat and we will not need 5 or 6 loan players in future.
Good analysis. Assuming we are in the Championship next season, then our likely first team as it stands is
Brynn

Smith
Lenihan
Fry
???

Barlaser
Hackney

Forss
Chuba
McGree

Coburn

Subs from: Daniels, Clarke, Howson, Hoppe (depending on Hibs loan), Jones
I expect us to sell Bola, Dijksteel and McNair this summer, regardless of what league we're in.

It doesn't look like a squad that would challenge for automatic promotion; for that I suspect we would need 2-3 high-impact loans and at least 2 significant signings. I am sure we'll make a major attempt to sign Giles permanently. I doubt Archer would consider it and I don't see a world in which we're paying Steffen what he wants for wages.

We might get Payero back and, like Akpom, we might get lucky with a turn-around. Probably not though. Conteh seems to be getting lots of game time with Gateshead but I suspect he would go back out on loan to league 1 or 2. Pharrell Willis will probably go on loan. Kavanagh could do with a successful loan at Newport. I thought Finch did ok in the Forss role against Hibs. Not sure who else among the U21s is making a case for themselves. Then again, I thought Hackney was on his way out until Leo played him. Regardless, I think the last few years have shown that it's almost impossible for a player to go straight from the U21s/U23s without 1 or 2 loans first because the step up has grown massively.

That all said, you can see the outlines of a strategy. At the moment we have a decent blend of youth and experience with most of our permanent players having been developed here or signed relatively cheaply.
 
Back
Top