Getting more games then they’d get in our first team isn’t the qualifier of a good loan.All of them got way more game time than they would have got at United, Kovar not sure what happened he started off extremely well then a massive drop off. I suppose it happens with young players. Lairds loan was very positive as was Garners 2nd loan, Pellistri also got lots of game time. Terrible loans are when players move and they’re not used and might as well have stayed and developed in the under 23’s I’m pretty certain they all were helped by their experience and growth at other clubs. Are you agreeing with the other posters that we do terrible loans? As I don’t agree.
Kovar was sent to a hostile club who sacked their manager and saw him receive a torrid of abuse from their fans. So bad that he turned into a shell of a player with no confidence. It was a terrible loan choice.
You’ve named 2 good loans to the 10 poor ones I listed. So how don’t we do terrible loans?
Pellistri averaged less than 45 mins a game. Their manager was also sacked and the new one came in and gave him 1 start in 9 matches. How is that lots of game time? They were also so shit he managed to attempt 3 passes in over 60 minutes one match.
Terrible loans are when players aren’t played like, Levitt, Joel, Andreas, Chong etc. Terrible loan moves are when players are played out of position like Garner at Watford, or Axel under Bruce. Terrible loan moves are to hostile clubs who sack their manager within months of the loan, like Garner at Watford, TFM etc.
Am I agreeing we do terrible loans? Yes of course as there is an unending list of our terrible loan choices.
Agree or don’t, it doesn’t matter. You’ve given 2 good loans to over 10 poorly chosen ones. Willfully ignore the facts all you want.