4 thoughts on “Wrinkly Pete says: to be or not to be a borrower, that is the question”

  1. The worst and best loan teams are compellingly different (though it shows the overall quality of midfielder / attackers we’ve had on loan that you could on get 3 in midfield and were therefore forced to play Bendtner 🙂

    The problem with the loan system is that it’s actually a symptom of wider problems in the game which makes the answer harder. But I voted ‘yes’ solely on balance of what I feel it’s been for Sunderland alone…but again it’s a symptom even just in our case.

    The one upside is that given our shocking business on the permanent transfers if we’d also bought some of the crap that came in on loan instead of just borrowing them we’d be in even worse straights!

    • Agreed, but look at those we got on deals that required us to sign them. Coates and Alvarez spring to mind, both costly. I thought Coleman’s comments about loan to buy were interesting, with regards to the Ndong/Watford situation.

      Probably won’t affect us much in the Conference anyway!

      • The sad thing is , Coates and Alvarez would walk into our current shambles, as would £odwell if he could be bothered . The problem isn’t the loan system ,but our dismal permanent signings who we can’t move on .

  2. I agree with the loan system IF it is to help in the development of young players that are not getting game time at their clubs. I would set an age limit (22/23?), players should only be loaned to clubs lower in the pyramid to stop clubs borrowing rather than buying and stipulate the exact length of the loan with only a short recall window. If a player is recalled or chooses to leave outside this window then he would not be eligible to play for his parent clubs first team until the next transfer window has passed. There should also be a limit on how many players can be loaned (in and especially out) to stop clubs stockpiling players who they will probably never use, Chelsea being a case in point.

Comments are closed.

Next Post