I wonder if we have considered 'testing the water' about pinching one of Eddie Howe's young starlets on loan ?
And, I know ..... LOAN but seemingly the, very, Agent led big money transfer deals seem too fiscally strained for us at the moment.
Eddie HOWE may still have some positive and emotive connection with Pompey - certainly no threat to him, and he would/should know that a loan deal, and regular starts , may aid one of his youngsters ?
Only a suggestion guys and gals - I'll now wait for the tirade !
Not a goalkeeper though eh ?
Someone's "started" .... EARLY !
Just needed to take that syntax for a spin, sorry.
(20-07-2022, 08:16 AM)firqdays Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if we have considered 'testing the water' about pinching one of Eddie Howe's young starlets on loan ?
And, I know ..... LOAN but seemingly the, very, Agent led big money transfer deals seem too fiscally strained for us at the moment.
Eddie HOWE may still have some positive and emotive connection with Pompey - certainly no threat to him, and he would/should know that a loan deal, and regular starts , may aid one of his youngsters ?
Only a suggestion guys and gals - I'll now wait for the tirade !
He probably has bad memories of Pompey.
Didn't he lose a finger in an accident here?
I don’t really get the anti loan thing.
Chosen carefully, we get a far superior player on subsidised wages.
Loans are good if you're using them to sprinkle in some squad places that give you good competition.
If you use them as Pompey does, you can't progress season on season because all your best players have gone and you've spanked the budget on their wages. Having half your starting XI as loans isn't a very good long term strategy.
I kinda get that argument but I’ll develop the other side anyway.
If you buy players that are not good enough for the next level, don’t you waste time and money getting them off your books while having to buy new better stock?
It's about finding that balance really. In every team in every league you have players of different standard. Having a core group of players that you want to use to fulfil your long term objectives (I guess in football that means 2-3 seasons) is vital. Therefore you have to have some continuity.
I feel like Danny sets his sights too high sometimes and makes short term decisions that then come back to bite him.
(20-07-2022, 12:02 PM)Pedalo_menders Wrote: [ -> ]Loans are good if you're using them to sprinkle in some squad places that give you good competition.
If you use them as Pompey does, you can't progress season on season because all your best players have gone and you've spanked the budget on their wages. Having half your starting XI as loans isn't a very good long term strategy.
There can be no long term strategy anymore like the one you are hankering after. You are living in the past.
It is just not possible since Bosman. Players can move on for free after their contract expires. There really is NO difference between Pigott's one year no-recall loan and Oluwayami's 12 month contract this year or Williams' last year. Even the extension option on the keeper meeans nothing if he decides not to sign it because he has a better offer elsewhere.
So the longest long term plan you can have of the type you want is the length of the longest contract you offer and most players are on 2 or 3 year contracts .. anything longer than that is unheard of these days.
So the debate really is about whether you are going to use the loan system at all - and if the loan system is there every club outside the premiership would be mad not to maximise the ability in their squad and minimise costs by using it. So then you have a choice between using it to fill your squad (the Jackett way with the likes of Green & Isgrove) or use it to strengthen your team and improve your chances of success (the Cowley way with Bazanu Carter & Hirst).
For me it is a no brainer in the modern game. The best, indeed only, long term strategy a club can adopt is a good academy (some way for us to go yet) and a sensible season by season improvement target based on getting the best players in the squad that you can each summer.
(20-07-2022, 12:28 PM)DeepBlue Wrote: [ -> ] (20-07-2022, 12:02 PM)Pedalo_menders Wrote: [ -> ]Loans are good if you're using them to sprinkle in some squad places that give you good competition.
If you use them as Pompey does, you can't progress season on season because all your best players have gone and you've spanked the budget on their wages. Having half your starting XI as loans isn't a very good long term strategy.
There can be no long term strategy anymore like the one you are hankering after. You are living in the past.
It is just not possible since Bosman. Players can move on for free after their contract expires. There really is NO difference between Pigott's one year no-recall loan and Oluwayami's 12 month contract this year or Williams' last year. Even the extension option on the keeper meeans nothing if he decides not to sign it because he has a better offer elsewhere.
So the longest long term plan you can have of the type you want is the length of the longest contract you offer and most players are on 2 or 3 year contracts .. anything longer than that is unheard of these days.
So the debate really is about whether you are going to use the loan system at all - and if the loan system is there every club outside the premiership would be mad not to maximise the ability in their squad and minimise costs by using it. So then you have a choice between using it to fill your squad (the Jackett way with the likes of Green & Isgrove) or use it to strengthen your team and improve your chances of success (the Cowley way with Bazanu Carter & Hirst).
For me it is a no brainer in the modern game. The best, indeed only, long term strategy a club can adopt is a good academy (some way for us to go yet) and a sensible season by season improvement target based on getting the best players in the squad that you can each summer.
Utter nonsense. No the argument is absolutely not whether you use the loan system or not at all. It's very much about how you use it and having some sort of cohesion to include loans with the overall squad planning beyond the current season.
I'd far rather look south. London, Bournemouth, Brighton. Sadly too many youngsters are too mummified these days and can't cope with moving away from their family. Rebuild links with the likes of Spurs and Chelsea. The latter,especially poach youngsters from this are, so might as well let them spend the money developing them then bring them back as nearly first team ready but not prem or ever likely to be on the whole.
If was Richard Hughes who lost part of a digit.
It was Howe who lasted about half a game and was out for the season.
(20-07-2022, 12:34 PM)scumslayer Wrote: [ -> ]If was Richard Hughes who lost part of a digit.
It was Howe who lasted about half a game and was out for the season.
then joined the ranks of players forced to retire early who became excellent managers.
Talking of which, what's Awfs up to. I was hoping we might get him back in our youth system.
I don’t think everything is so black and white as you two seem to be putting it. It has its obvious advantages, like trying something on before you buy it, but at the same time could restrict home grown players. The really difficult thing is getting the right balance. We’ve seen some that haven’t worked out at all, Walker, and others that have gone really well, Seddon , Hirst eventually although his first five games or so were dire.
Hirst eventually although his first five games or so were dire.
Which sums up part of our fan base's problem. Far too many make their decision in about 30 mins and then right off a player for good. Even worse they make it very hard for the chosen player to thrive at home games, we've seen a few in the last decade or so, driven out.
Yes, Hirst and Bazunu are good examples of loans being completely pointless for our needs. You have to look at where we are as a club and a squad. We're Hirst and Bazunu (and the other expensive loans) enough to tip us over the edge to promotion?
You could see before a ball was kicked that we would be nowhere near it. So why spend money on having them when the ultimate result remains the same? Why not use that season to develop your own player? Or use some of the budget to get in a player for the longer term.?
I don't have a problem with loans per se but you have to be smart about how you integrate them into your plans. My suspicion is that we just didn't have a plan lol.
The eisners talk a lot about sustainability and long term vision. How can you achieve that with half the team leaving every season? The actions weren't matching the rhetoric.
(20-07-2022, 01:33 PM)Pedalo_menders Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, Hirst and Bazunu are good examples of loans being completely pointless for our needs. You have to look at where we are as a club and a squad. We're Hirst and Bazunu (and the other expensive loans) enough to tip us over the edge to promotion?
You could see before a ball was kicked that we would be nowhere near it. So why spend money on having them when the ultimate result remains the same? Why not use that season to develop your own player? Or use some of the budget to get in a player for the longer term.?
I don't have a problem with loans per se but you have to be smart about how you integrate them into your plans. My suspicion is that we just didn't have a plan lol.
The eisners talk a lot about sustainability and long term vision. How can you achieve that with half the team leaving every season? The actions weren't matching the rhetoric.
Don't think its the eisner's idea to go via loans. Kenny built our own team and added loans in Jan or those he thought we could buy at the end of the loan.
The brothers obviously like to borrow players that we are never gong to buy, seem keener on keeping parent clubs happy than our own fans.
Maybe its me but the current team just don't feel linked to Pompey, less so than for years.
Loanees are probably not going to be as committed to Pompey as we’d like them to be. The same could be said for some players who have been bought.
Personally, I felt Bazunu and Hirst gave me good value for my money but then I’m not as concerned with perceived success, as I am with being entertained. I’ll keep the memories of how certain performances made me chuft and quickly forget the league position we finished in. I’m still reveling in how good watching Prosinecki was and what a resilient, totally absorbing performance Pompey showed in that Stockport match. We ended up nowhere near promotion, as I recall.
Can only agree with the last part prosi and stockport
If the new season team can be half as committed as vs Stockport, set up for square pegs in square holes and have 10% of Prosinecki's skills we will be fine and have a team to be proud of.
(20-07-2022, 01:33 PM)Pedalo_menders Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, Hirst and Bazunu are good examples of loans being completely pointless for our needs. You have to look at where we are as a club and a squad. We're Hirst and Bazunu (and the other expensive loans) enough to tip us over the edge to promotion?
You could see before a ball was kicked that we would be nowhere near it. So why spend money on having them when the ultimate result remains the same? Why not use that season to develop your own player? Or use some of the budget to get in a player for the longer term.?
I don't have a problem with loans per se but you have to be smart about how you integrate them into your plans. My suspicion is that we just didn't have a plan lol.
The eisners talk a lot about sustainability and long term vision. How can you achieve that with half the team leaving every season? The actions weren't matching the rhetoric.
Utter nonsense.
Bazanu and Hirst made the team better ... how can that be pointless ? You can't say all loans are pointless unless they get you promotion, that is a complete nonsense. if Hirst resigned on loan for a second season would that have made his loan pointless ? No, he probably won't now but it was a possibility (and technically still is). Your view is we should not take good loan signings in case they do well !!
And with two year contracts half the team will be leaving every season - there is nothing you can do about that and you have to learn to plan around it. You can try to keep them, and sometimes like Raggett & Jacobs they will decide to stay, but if your plans are dependent on players agreeing to stay when they do not have to then your plans are worthless because they are based on quicksand.
Long term planning like you are asking for is impossible. Get used to it and adapt.
Sort of suggests the thing about 3 transfer windows is also out of date.
In fact you might as well appoint a new head coach each season and leave the exec or whoever to sign the players.
(20-07-2022, 11:11 AM)Cunninglinguist Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t really get the anti loan thing.
Chosen carefully, we get a far superior player on subsidised wages.
Loans should be banned.
Eat what you buy
(20-07-2022, 03:03 PM)Isaac Hunt Wrote: [ -> ] (20-07-2022, 11:11 AM)Cunninglinguist Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t really get the anti loan thing.
Chosen carefully, we get a far superior player on subsidised wages.
Loans should be banned.
Eat what you buy
ban loans and the likes of /Chelsea would stop stockpiling players. Then the likes of us could sign players permanently.
The young keeper is very unusual and one we should make our number one if at all possible. I can't spell or pronounce his name as yet!
There is no logic reason whatsoever to have more than 30 full time professionals ( not apprentices) at any football club. It should be capped. Also the loaning of premiership players to other premiership clubs should be scrapped. The current situation does nothing to improve home grown players.
(20-07-2022, 02:58 PM)Hammie Wrote: [ -> ]Sort of suggests the thing about 3 transfer windows is also out of date.
In fact you might as well appoint a new head coach each season and leave the exec or whoever to sign the players.
No logic behind that statement at all.
Three windows is only one season if you get the beginning of the first summer.