On loaning first team players

Someone

Something
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
7,917
Location
Somewhere
Was it ever successful for us? I get loaning young players that need minutes, but it seems whenever we send a first team player on loan it rarely ends well, and even when it worked well for Lingard, he returned with 1 year left on his contract and barely any value.

Is there really no market for the likes of Telles, Bailly, Henderson and probably AWB to be sold?

Selling them means reinvesting, but if we can't sell, why not just keep them? The squad is so thin as it is.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,047
Location
Blitztown
Was it ever successful for us? I get loaning young players that need minutes, but it seems whenever we send a first team player on loan it rarely ends well, and even when it worked well for Lingard, he returned with 1 year left on his contract and barely any value.

Is there really no market for the likes of Telles, Bailly, Henderson and probably AWB to be sold?

Selling them means reinvesting, but if we can't sell, why not just keep them? The squad is so thin as it is.
Wages. Loaning players you don’t need, saves tens of millions a year.
 

Elcabron

New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2022
Messages
848
Yeah but they also lose a lot of value by running down their contracts. The squad is also pretty thin, so why not just keep them?
It's very simple, other clubs cannot afford both their current wages and also the transfer fee hence why we can't sell them. Martial last season being a perfect example, he is probably paid at least double what the highest earner at Seville was paid, I would even say treble.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
57,579
Location
Canada
We loan them because we have no role for them and they won't get meaningful minutes here, and there is no market to sell them.

The reason we don't want to keep them or why it's bad/dumb to keep them is because it is better to have a smaller, "cleaner" squad. Of course, you need depth. But you need the right kind of depth, the right amount of depth, and in the right positions. What use is it having 3 left backs? One of them will quite simply never play. There is no use in keeping a senior player in the squad in case there are serious injuries, to then be squad players in that instance.

My logic is always this - if you aren't in the first 11 or 2nd 11 as a senior player, then you are a wasted spot and a spot that is more likely to bring down training levels, breed unhappiness and disgruntlement in the group than actually contribute anything.

Our current starting 11:
De Gea
Dalit Maguire Martinez Shaw
Fred
Eriksen Bruno
Sancho Martial Rashford​
Backup 11:
Heaton
AWB Varane Lindelof Malacia
Garner
McTominay Donny
Amad Ronaldo Elanga​

To fill out the squad, usually a few youngsters are good who can hop between the youth team and starters. But it depends then on what's best for them whether they stay or are loaned and if they can actually contribute. Garnacho, Hannibal, Zidane Iqbal, Savage, Laird, Shoretire make up that group right now.

To me, our goalkeeper, back 4 and midfield 3 for both starters and backup 11 is pretty much set, anyone that comes in will need someone else sold. Anyone not listed in the 2 lineups above can easily be cut from the squad with 0 negative impact, and we'd both get some money for them but more importantly, not have a bloated squad which is bad for morale.
 

bosnian_red

Worst scout to ever exist
Joined
Aug 13, 2011
Messages
57,579
Location
Canada
Yeah but they also lose a lot of value by running down their contracts. The squad is also pretty thin, so why not just keep them?
Horrible for morale. One of the main reasons for the disaster of last season was due to having a bloated squad. We kept Lingard and then didn't play him. We had Martial and Cavani, added Ronaldo, didn't play Cavani or Martial. Bailly never played. Henderson was kept on, and then benched all season when we also had a perfectly capable senior goalkeeper in Heaton to be the bench warmer. Van de beek was kept here, promised to get minutes... And then never got minutes.

All these players with no roles, if they aren't starters or the main backups, are entirely pointless and you might as well get rid of them as they can only bring a negative atmosphere. They are promise minutes, and then sulk when these promises are broken with them never getting minutes.

Our squad currently isn't thin. Its thin in attack. Its bloated in defence and in midfield. Anyone that comes in means that we have to sell players first. We have to sell defenders without even bringing anyone in already. Only in attack are we thin and need to keep players out of desperation.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,047
Location
Blitztown
Yeah but they also lose a lot of value by running down their contracts. The squad is also pretty thin, so why not just keep them?
£100k a year with two years left is a £10m outlay.

If a players is paid that and worth more than that, they offer a new contract and attempt to sell.

If they are worth less than £10m, get someone else to pay £5m in ages and you save £5m.

Get someone to pay for an asset you have no intention of utilising.

If they were good enough to play, they’d be playing……
 

Desmond69

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 16, 2022
Messages
24
Location
Denmark
Loaning out players can have great benefits, both financially and for development.

Normally, I think it is super good to loan the young players out to smaller clubs, to give them some experience in the PL. and then withdraw them to use in our 1st team. Then they will stand stronger when they come back.

A good example is e.g. Andreas Christensen who came to Chelsea as a 15-year-old. At 18, he was loaned out to Borussia Mönchengladbach and was there for 2 years before returning to Chelsea, and became quite an excellent defender.

I think it will be super good for us if we can get the best out of our young talents by loaning them out when we see a talent in them, and then get them back stronger. That way, all future players won't cost a fortune either.

The players we have in the squad, but who only play very little, will not be nearly as sought after by other clubs as those who play. So by lending them out, they can build experience, while at the same time they can increase in value because they get that experience in their legs... It gives us the opportunity to take them back, or better opportunity to sell them .

So by doing as the club does, it can only be a win win in the long run.