Jump to content

Loan SIgnings


Recommended Posts

I don't know whether it's just me but I much prefer to have a squad like we have now that are all owned by OAFC. As loan signings go don't get me wrong I think a couple of long term loans help and I would be happy to welcome any loan signing that puts on an Oldham shirt whether that be for a month, two months or a season long loan. However I enjoy seeing us play with 11 of our own players and have a squad of young, exciting prospects. I know last season started off with the same but this season I don't feel like we have a real weak link in our squad (there will be one i'm sure)

 

Of the players we have, we have a blend of experience and youth which I really like to see.

 

The squad we have is as follows:

 

Rachubka

Coleman

 

B.Wilson

J.Wilson

Brown

Lockwood

Dieng

Kusunga

Mills

 

Kelly

Jones

Forte

Winchester

Mellor

Dayton

 

Turner

Bove

JCH

Philiskirk

Gros

 

A couple of long term loan signings I think will help but I like the look of our squad going into the season.

 

What do you think of loan signings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The squad we have is as follows:

 

Rachubka

Coleman

 

B.Wilson

J.Wilson

Brown

Lockwood

Dieng

Kusunga

Mills

 

Kelly

Jones

Forte

Winchester

Mellor

Dayton

 

Turner

Bove

JCH

Philiskirk

Gros

 

You missed a couple:

 

Truelove

Morgan-Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot will depend if any of our young players go out on loan to get valuable game time. I wouldn't want players like Truelove, Bove, Turner just to stagnate and only get 5 minutes every other week or so, as that is not going to aid their development. A lot will depend on Gros if we bring in another Striker or not.

 

Maybe then we will look at bringing in one or two more expeiranced players or young academy players from a team in a higher league, Depending on how much of a wage contribution the clubs will want us to give.

 

For me i still think we are a player light in most positions but i don't want players that are just going to sit on the bench and make up the numbers, i would only want players on loan that are going to come in and make a difference to the matchday squad, first team. Neither would i want players just to come in for a month or two and get themselves back fit after a lengthy injury, we have had enough of those in past and they have provided nothing to the team.

 

6 month loan - full season loan deals only please.

 

With any loan deal at our level and our budget there is always a risk, but they could also be the difference to a decent season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know whether it's just me but I much prefer to have a squad like we have now that are all owned by OAFC. As loan signings go don't get me wrong I think a couple of long term loans help and I would be happy to welcome any loan signing that puts on an Oldham shirt whether that be for a month, two months or a season long loan. However I enjoy seeing us play with 11 of our own players and have a squad of young, exciting prospects. I know last season started off with the same but this season I don't feel like we have a real weak link in our squad (there will be one i'm sure)

 

Of the players we have, we have a blend of experience and youth which I really like to see.

 

The squad we have is as follows:

 

Rachubka

Coleman

 

B.Wilson

J.Wilson

Brown

Lockwood

Dieng

Kusunga

Mills

 

Kelly

Jones

Forte

Winchester

Mellor

Dayton

 

Turner

Bove

JCH

Philiskirk

Gros

 

A couple of long term loan signings I think will help but I like the look of our squad going into the season.

 

What do you think of loan signings?

I totally get what you are saying, but I think it is far too soon to see if we have any weak links.

On paper, I agree, it seems stronger but time will tell.

Mind you, we say that every pre-season!

I did think we were 2 or 3 players from being a challenging side, but the wholesale cahnges mean it is too tricky to call I feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind loan players I think they can add something to the team just aslong as they don't dominate the team.

 

As the season goes on and injuries suspensions and fatigue kick in then it's something that we have to use given the fact that we cannot afford a squad of players. Also if someone seriously performs in the first half of the season then they can more often or not be quaked away in January for an undisclosed fee we won't be able to replace with a permanent signing so it will be a loan.

 

It's a fact of life but if you play it right you can use it to your advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it doesn't matter WHO is up front - no service like last season = no goals from whoever you are

 

If we create, these strikers will score

 

And lo and behold if we actually spread goals around the team then the 'just need that 20 goal-a-season striker (every season apparently)' becomes no issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels as though over the last 10 years the amount of loan players has grown significantly in football - at least at our level. Not sure if that is true, or just a perception - they may be some stats somewhere.

 

I suspect that a few factors have influenced this trend I have perceived:

 

1) Transfer window: Once this "slams shut" there are then subsequent loan windows that allow for some movement of players. Prior to the window the need was less?

2) Premiership clubs seem to have a 'sign a lot of young players' policy with the hope that they turn out to be gems - presumably the money in the PL, its popularity abroad, and the potential to save a fortune if one turns good is a cause of this. But then they have too many players and those that are not near catching are now looking for regular football and are loaned. Perhaps previously these players would not have been in England or more if native then more likely to have been at the local club?

3) Lower league clubs are strapped for cash - more than ever? - and are wary of risking a larger squad of their own with the longer perm contracts that entails. Cheaper to take a risk on a smaller squad and use loans when and if necessary to cover up the gaps?

4) Perhaps the link between 2) and 3) is that PL clubs are willing to subsidise the wages of lesser players on loan to reduce their costs and get them in a shop window for another club (Championship etc) to take them off them? Far more likely to sell a reserve team player from a Prem side to a Championship one if they are playing regular football in League One and impressing verses being in the stiffs?

 

Overall I am not a big fan of the number of loan players we have had over the last few seasons - particularly the really short ones. Though that said we have managed to get a few of the decent ones to stay or comeback (Mills a recent example), but it feels as though the return rate is not good.

 

 

The other side of the debate is the sending out players we own to get experience. And I am struggling to think of a recent success story in that area....O'Grady seemed to work perfectly at first, dropped a division, banged in goals for fun, we were struggling for forwards and goals....and we let them keep him. Am sure that there must be some good examples - am sure you will post some examples - but overall the main benefit seems to be a reduced wage bill perhaps allowing us to bring another loan player in and sort of have a bypassed transfer in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plenty of decent strikers get sent out on loan, mainly from clubs above us.

We've had Derbyshire and Barnard in recent seasons.

They are out there.

Are strikers the worst type of loanee?

 

It's easy to slot into a sides defence at a days notice and head the ball away all afternoon but it takes time for a teams midfield, wingers, strike partner etc.. to know where a forward is going to go and for that forward to know who's going to play which pass where.

 

Barnard and Derbyshire are prime examples - both have decent records before their loan spells here but hardly scored any for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inexperienced and unproven strike force.

 

If we're making a loan signing then we need a half decent and proven striker.

 

 

If they're half decent and proven they're far less likely to be on loan.

Its true, we have made dozens of loan signings of proven strikers only for them to be crap

For every Defoe, Derbyshire, poss LEon Clarke etc there are loads more like Jordan Slew, Iwelumo, Luca Scapuzzi, Andreas Mancini, Harry Bunn, Dean Windass, arguably Robbie Simpson

Edited by singe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are strikers the worst type of loanee?

 

It's easy to slot into a sides defence at a days notice and head the ball away all afternoon but it takes time for a teams midfield, wingers, strike partner etc.. to know where a forward is going to go and for that forward to know who's going to play which pass where.

 

Barnard and Derbyshire are prime examples - both have decent records before their loan spells here but hardly scored any for us.

this is why i like the consistency of having philliskirk and JCH.. both capable of scoring 10+ with a full season each, and with my optimistic head on.. both capable of scoring 15 definitely JCH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...