Too Many Loan Signings

  • Thread starter NOMOREFALSEDAWNS
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.


NOMOREFALSEDAWNS said:
How can a side develop a good team spirit with so many temporary loan signings? The answer is you cant.You would have thought the SAFC hierarchy would have learnt that by now.
Click to expand...
A successful loan can result in a happy transfer, or build the club to acquire better players. An unhappy loan SHOULD be the end of it. Players on contracts can look to bugger off after a year anyway (Bent and Berahino) so the only difference is really the transfer fee.
I'm not bothered about loans, I'm bothered that our CBs are still shit.
 
The Great Soprendo said:
These are season long loan deals. Just think of them as a one year contract instead if it bothers you so much, or equivalent to a player in the final year of his contract, doing his best to impress either his current employers or potential new ones. We may be developing other people's players, but likewise we are taking much less risk than buying them outright, and there are obvious advantages as well as potential disadvantages.

Putting the pros and cons to one side though, this is the modern game, like it or not.
Click to expand...

Superb post.
 
Perryqhill said:
only Sunderland team to finish in the top ten over the last ten years had 5 or 6 loan signings in the squad and the only Sunderland side to get to a cup final in 20 years had about 7 or 8 loan signings in the squad.

I say fill the team with loan signings, as generally they're better than permanent ones.
Click to expand...

Agree that loan signings have fuck all to do with team spirit, and see your point about the loan signings being key players on the above two occasions. And that's true.

It's worth noting though, that the immediate aftermath of both was a pre season of trying to replace the loan players with similar standards, JUST to stand still. Tasks we failed at, badly.

Point is, there's nothing wrong with a couple of loans signings if they complement your team. If your team is consistently built around them, then you're going to be in trouble long term.
 
Morny said:
Agree that loan signings have fuck all to do with team spirit, and see your point about the loan signings being key players on the above two occasions. And that's true.

It's worth noting though, that the immediate aftermath of both was a pre season of trying to replace the loan players with similar standards, JUST to stand still. Tasks we failed at, badly.

Point is, there's nothing wrong with a couple of loans signings if they complement your team. If your team is consistently built around them, then you're going to be in trouble long term.
Click to expand...

tbf my post was slightly made in jest. But even so plenty of money was spent prior to and after each of those seasons to ensure there wasn't the problems there was. The loans simply weren't the problem, poor permanent signings were. We didn't need to replace five or six quality players each time, we needed one or two and we failed at that.
 
Perryqhill said:
tbf my post was slightly made in jest. But even so plenty of money was spent prior to and after each of those seasons to ensure there wasn't the problems there was. The loans simply weren't the problem, poor permanent signings were. We didn't need to replace five or six quality players each time, we needed one or two and we failed at that.
Click to expand...

I get our permanent signings have been shite too, but I genuinely feel that our reliance on loans leaves us shot to pieces.

The summer after the cup final, we had to replace Alonso, Borini, Ki and Vergini so that we could stand still. We failed, miserably, and therefore rather than just stand still we actually became poorer.

The tenth place finish, we had to replace Onouha, Mensah, Wellbeck and Elmo just to maintain our level. This is complicated by the selling of Bent, Gyan, Henderson and Malbranque at the same time tbf, so that is probably a flawed comparison.

We're meant to be about long term planning. I just feel a consistent reliance on so many loans of such importance is one of the things holding us back.
 
There are generally two types of player out on loan, ones looking for games to start their careers and ones looking for games to restart their careers, Bruce's side had too many of the former, who we couldn't have signed as they wanted to go back to their club and try to get a place there. I think Toivonen and M'Villa fall into the latter category and if they have a good season would be amenable to staying here
 
SebastienELLISbexter said:
I've never thought that team spirit has been our problem. It's lack of quality. And our loan signings over the years have always been to a high standard generally and have out performed others. So I don't really see your point.
Click to expand...


That's the problem, our loans have been generally good but we've signed quite a lot of shite, the loanees go back leaving us in the same position season after season.
 
Morny said:
I get our permanent signings have been shite too, but I genuinely feel that our reliance on loans leaves us shot to pieces.

The summer after the cup final, we had to replace Alonso, Borini, Ki and Vergini so that we could stand still. We failed, miserably, and therefore rather than just stand still we actually became poorer.

The tenth place finish, we had to replace Onouha, Mensah, Wellbeck and Elmo just to maintain our level. This is complicated by the selling of Bent, Gyan, Henderson and Malbranque at the same time tbf, so that is probably a flawed comparison.

We're meant to be about long term planning. I just feel a consistent reliance on so many loans of such importance is one of the things holding us back.
Click to expand...
Morny said:
I get our permanent signings have been shite too, but I genuinely feel that our reliance on loans leaves us shot to pieces.

The summer after the cup final, we had to replace Alonso, Borini, Ki and Vergini so that we could stand still. We failed, miserably, and therefore rather than just stand still we actually became poorer.

The tenth place finish, we had to replace Onouha, Mensah, Wellbeck and Elmo just to maintain our level. This is complicated by the selling of Bent, Gyan, Henderson and Malbranque at the same time tbf, so that is probably a flawed comparison.

We're meant to be about long term planning. I just feel a consistent reliance on so many loans of such importance is one of the things holding us back.
Click to expand...

hold on ki had already gone before we hit form at the end of the season. We also lost colback, which imo hit us harder as he'd been one here to slot in for three seasons and was far more reliable. We replaced Alonso quite well, at least in terms of form and importance last season and the only one that really affected us was the one position we couldn't fill because of what he gave us and that was borini. We actually brought vergini back on a deal which was always designed to become permanent. Losing bardsley was just another reason for a weaker squad too. Spending money on rodwell and buckley and getting zero back highlights exactly where the problems are - blame the loans all you like, but you cannot spend up to 20m each season on players who add nothing to your side and then blame the loans when you go backwards. Because without the loans you generally won't be in the league.

in the 10th place season the big loss was bent, then gyan just as the season kicked off. Effectively wed already replaced welbecks contribution with the loan signing of bendtner who was available fsr more tha. Welbeck himself. At the back we brought in brown and oshea, given mensah's injuries that season we done well there andchose not to sign him.
 
Last edited:
Perryqhill said:
hold on ki had already gone before we hit form at the end of the season. We also lost colback, which imo hit us harder as he'd been one here to slot in for three seasons and was far more reliable. We replaced Alonso quite well, at least in terms of form and importance last season and the only one that really affected us was the one position we couldn't fill because of what he gave us and that was borini. We actually brought vergini back on a deal which was always designed to become permanent.

in the 10th place season the big loss was bent, then gyan just as the season kicked off. Effectively wed already replaced welbecks contribution with the loan signing of bendtner who was available fsr more tha. Welbeck himself. At the back we brought in brown and oshea, given mensah's injuries that season we done well there andchose not to sign him.
Click to expand...

PVA was a big downgrade on Alonso, imo and I'm sure many on here. Ki was massive for us in the period of the season we played our best football, December through February, he basically made us tick. Borini was massive for us.

The point is, we have to sign four players at least just to stand still. Then more on top to improve.

For example, if Mvila, Toivonen and Yedlin become key players (very possible in case of the first two), we'll be dipping into our budget to sign two or three players (either signing them permanently or replacing them) just to stand still. I really don't feel it's a sensible way to implement long term success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GK
The try before you buy option is of course infinitely inferior to the outright purchases of quality players like Christian Riveros, Giacherini, Nacho Scocco, Buckley, Bridcutt, Roberge, Graham, (oh to have been able to send them back at the end of a season). I'm sure the prospect of loaning for a year before an outright purchase must terrify the owner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top