Talent mass murder

Lot of if not all big teams nowadays buys young talents and loan them out to random clubs. These players gets no continuity or better coaching . Those clubs who have then on loan don't give anything about their development.
Since this forum has majority supporting big clubs I don't expect a unbiased opinion but give it any way. We complain about lacking quality players nowadays but ignored what all these big clubs are doing.

Should FIFA restrict number of young players a club can send out on loan?

Ps-title credit to Gapless_Hens

The cream always rises to the top. The next Hazard or Neymar don't spend their careers out on loan.

Certainly agree. Kids get snatched up at such a young age from their youth clubs these day and then obviously don't get the game time in the top club so they become journeymen getting loaned out left and right. Plenty of talents go down the drain this way.

A prime example is the club I support myself, Liverpool.

Markovic already loaned out after 1 season of very little game time and he's already seen as some kind of a flop.
Luis Alberto, Ilori, Yesil are other examples.

Many can be destroyed though. Lot of should have been robbens turns into Jesus Navas.Gil,I probably don't have to tell you much as you have watched your club leading this talent deduction with unlimited loan deals.

Was thinking of this when I read a few weeks ago that Chelsea loaned Piazon for the 3rd or 4th time.

Wasn't he hailed as the new Kaka or something?  

Dat deceptive thread title.

Yohan Modric wrote:Dat deceptive thread title.

I share your disappointment.

By and large, I think the issue is more with big clubs being able to pay young players a lot more money than their current clubs, and for a lot of those players that's too attractive to turn down. If you restrict the amount of money you can pay young players then maybe we'd see fewer talents trading in playing time to get that big move.

I actually think there's some merit in what Gil said, though. If there were players who "could've been the next Robben" but for one reason or another didn't get his chances at a big club, he would have found himself playing regularly else where because scouts would have recognised that talent. How many players have left bigger clubs, dropped down a few levels, and have then returned to bigger clubs later on in their career? Not everyone becomes amazing by the time they're 21 and 22. The ones that do tend to play, wherever they are.

Using Piazon for example: he may or may not have the talent to play for Chelsea, but he could well, after all his loan spells, drop down a few levels, find a club he's comfortable at, and then four or five years later fulfill some of his potential be brought by a big club again.

Those big clubs can keep their money and stop ruining players though, there is always an option.

You don't need to put a limit on buying youngsters, that's not practical. You can however limitv the number of players out on loan so that big clubs will be forced to look after their players and they also will face to pay wages too so that they will think twice before stock piling youngsters to loan them out to random clubs.

The talented players will fulfill their potential? I disagree completely. You are ignoring the importance of coaching and continuity for these young players. These kids who gets loaned barely plays in their actual position. They are barely used because the manager has no idea who this guy is as he comes late loan deal. Does the coaching staff give a flying fk about giving proper coaching to these loanese who won't be here next season? Heck no.Repeat this into 4 loan deals and I just don't get how plying anywhere and everywhere is gona make them fulfill their potential argument make sense.

The talented players will fulfill their potential? I disagree completely. You are ignoring the importance of coaching and continuity for these young players. These kids who gets loaned barely plays in their actual position. They are barely used because the manager has no idea who this guy is as he comes late loan deal. Does the coaching staff give a flying fk about giving proper coaching to these loanese who won't be here next season? Heck no.Repeat this into 4 loan deals and I just don't get how plying anywhere and everywhere is gona make them fulfill their potential argument make sense.

Which kids are we talking about here? Because I've seen plenty of players who have gone out on loan, played their best positions and were valued by the manager of the loaning club. I can only speak for my own club, but Arsenal have several youngsters out on loan and all but two of them are playing regularly in their best positions under managers who rate them. The loan system is not as bad as you're making it out to be.

Talented players will fulfill their potential if they get the opportunities to play. Coaching and continuity are important, but so is experience, and most of the time that experience can only be gained away from the parent club.

How many players have Madrid produced that didn't make much impact on their first team, were sold, and then ended up climbing up the ranks eventually? Off the top of my head: Kiko Casilla, Dani Carvajal, Alvaro Negredo, Roberto Soldado, Samuel Eto'o, Juan Mata. What was better for those players: the coaching and continuity they got by being in Madrid's B team, or going away and playing regularly somewhere?

Adit wrote:Many can be destroyed though. Lot of should have been robbens turns into Jesus Navas.Gil,I probably don't have to tell you much as you have watched your club leading this talent deduction with unlimited loan deals.

Again, the cream rises to the top. Loan system didn't affect De Bruyne, Sturridge, Bamford, Bertrand, Cork, Lukaku or Courtois.

Another thread blaming clubs for players failing to live up to hype rather than the players themselves. At what point do individuals become responsible for their own successes or failures? If a player's got the sort of talent his reputation credits him with, it's up to him to show it, not anyone else. It's up to him to make it a reality, not any club or clubs to coax it out of him. LeVersacci used the example of Lucas Piazon. If "the next Kaka" can't make even a moderate impression at the likes of Malaga, Vitesse and Frankfurt, how exactly is it Chelsea's fault he hasn't achieved the sort of level required at clubs of even that caliber, much less many degrees higher than that? I tend to err on the side Gil alluded to. If a player's got it, he's got it. He's gonna show it, one way or another, and totally irrespective any kind of supposed obstacles (provided loans to good, solid, and in some cases even superb sides can be considered "obstacles") put in front of him.
-

Adit wrote:Those big clubs can keep their money and stop ruining players though, there is always an option.

You don't need to put a limit on buying youngsters, that's not practical. You can however limitv the number of players out on loan so that big clubs will be forced to look after their players and they also will face to pay wages too so that they will think twice before stock piling youngsters to loan them out to random clubs.

The talented players will fulfill their potential? I disagree completely. You are ignoring the importance of coaching and continuity for these young players. These kids who gets loaned barely plays in their actual position. They are barely used because the manager has no idea who this guy is as he comes late loan deal. Does the coaching staff give a flying fk about giving proper coaching to these loanese who won't be here next season? Heck no.Repeat this into 4 loan deals and I just don't get how plying anywhere and everywhere is gona make them fulfill their potential argument make sense.

-

If what's being done to these players is so patently wrong and so obviously, inevitably damaging to them, then why are they themselves agreeing to these moves in the first place? Again it comes down to personal responsibility. If the invariability of their careers going down the tubes by moving to a big club were as glaringly obvious as you say it is, if there's flagrantly all this awful coaching and positional instability and marginalisation and neglect and everything, then let them show a bit of wit about them and some accountability for themselves and stop signing the contracts. It is them signing it, you're aware. No one's been abducted into football slavery by the big bad boogeymen clubs of Europe. These players are agreeing to these contracts, lining their pockets before they even reach the age of 20 and basking in the popularity and publicity (and all of their necessary byproducts) such moves confer to them, and then when they rest on their laurels, lose their drive and fail to live up to their potential, they've got shills like you to blame it on everyone but themselves.

GoonerJay29 wrote:

The talented players will fulfill their potential? I disagree completely. You are ignoring the importance of coaching and continuity for these young players. These kids who gets loaned barely plays in their actual position. They are barely used because the manager has no idea who this guy is as he comes late loan deal. Does the coaching staff give a flying fk about giving proper coaching to these loanese who won't be here next season? Heck no.Repeat this into 4 loan deals and I just don't get how plying anywhere and everywhere is gona make them fulfill their potential argument make sense.

Which kids are we talking about here? Because I've seen plenty of players who have gone out on loan, played their best positions and were valued by the manager of the loaning club. I can only speak for my own club, but Arsenal have several youngsters out on loan and all but two of them are playing regularly in their best positions under managers who rate them. The loan system is not as bad as you're making it out to be.

Talented players will fulfill their potential if they get the opportunities to play. Coaching and continuity are important, but so is experience, and most of the time that experience can only be gained away from the parent club.

How many players have Madrid produced that didn't make much impact on their first team, were sold, and then ended up climbing up the ranks eventually? Off the top of my head: Kiko Casilla, Dani Carvajal, Alvaro Negredo, Roberto Soldado, Samuel Eto'o, Juan Mata. What was better for those players: the coaching and continuity they got by being in Madrid's B team, or going away and playing regularly somewhere?

Which kids are we talking about? There are more players who got ruined by these loaning than that survived. City,Chelsea,Arsenal loan list in the past will show the names .

So Coaching and continuity is important you say but playing time will only get by going on loan. There is always option of staying in their club and not go to big clubs so that he can have all three.

Rather poor example of showing a list of players who Madrid sold with a buy back option. How can you compare that to Loan deals is beyond sensible. It's day and night.

Gil wrote:

Adit wrote:Many can be destroyed though. Lot of should have been robbens turns into Jesus Navas.Gil,I probably don't have to tell you much as you have watched your club leading this talent deduction with unlimited loan deals.

Again, the cream rises to the top. Loan system didn't affect De Bruyne, Sturridge, Bamford, Bertrand, Cork, Lukaku or Courtois.

And how many got ruined?

For everyde bruyne there is 10 kalas 5 piazon 4 kakuta ruined.

Those you listed , they survived despite being put under this..credit to them.

Adit wrote:

Gil wrote:

Adit wrote:Many can be destroyed though. Lot of should have been robbens turns into Jesus Navas.Gil,I probably don't have to tell you much as you have watched your club leading this talent deduction with unlimited loan deals.

Again, the cream rises to the top. Loan system didn't affect De Bruyne, Sturridge, Bamford, Bertrand, Cork, Lukaku or Courtois.

And how many got ruined?

For everyde bruyne there is 10 kalas 5 piazon 4 kakuta ruined.

Those you listed , they survived despite being put under this..credit to them.

So what you're saying is that you've cracked the code that there are far fewer excellent players in the world than run-of-the-mill average ones. Congratulations.

Or buying best players from actual great academies and turning then into shit. Isn't that the most appropriate description.

You tell me. My initial post is the only one you've not attempted to rebut.

Which kids are we talking about? There are more players who got ruined by these loaning than that survived. City,Chelsea,Arsenal loan list in the past will show the names .

Name some of those players those clubs "ruined", then, by sending them out on loan. Because I can tell you that some of those names on the Arsenal loan list (obviously I can't say anything about Chelsea or City) from seasons gone by were simply not good enough to play for Arsenal. Some of them are even forging good careers and steadily rising up the leagues.

So Coaching and continuity is important you say but playing time will only get by going on loan. There is always option of staying in their club and not go to big clubs so that he can have all three.

Right - the players have to make the best decision about their own futures as well. So why do you keep placing the blame on the big clubs and their misuse of the loan system?

Rather poor example of showing a list of players who Madrid sold with a buy back option. How can you compare that to Loan deals is beyond sensible. It's day and night.

They were examples to illustrate my point about players gaining experience away from a big club, becoming better players than re-joining a big club.

In any case, Madrid sells a player then buys him back three or four years later, or Madrid loans a player for three or four seasons; what is, effectively, the difference?

Adit wrote:

Gil wrote:

Adit wrote:Many can be destroyed though. Lot of should have been robbens turns into Jesus Navas.Gil,I probably don't have to tell you much as you have watched your club leading this talent deduction with unlimited loan deals.

Again, the cream rises to the top. Loan system didn't affect De Bruyne, Sturridge, Bamford, Bertrand, Cork, Lukaku or Courtois.

And how many got ruined?

For everyde bruyne there is 10 kalas 5 piazon 4 kakuta ruined.

Those you listed , they survived despite being put under this..credit to them.

Piazon was never thatt that good. Stop pretending he was ever a special talent.

Kakuta earned a move to Sevilla this summer you weapon lets see how he develops. He's a good dribbler but his game intelligence & touch is lacking.

Kalas ain't that good either.


There's nothing wrong with going out on loan and earning gametime.

Gil wrote:The cream always rises to the top. The next Hazard or Neymar don't spend their careers out on loan.

hazard and Neymar both spent a significant amount of time at Santos and Lille though, none of them moved as 17 year Olds to a club they could not break into. If anything they seem like an argument for continuity and delaying your move.

Loaning players shouldn't exist. Would be glad if they just banned it. Imo there's nothing beneficial to it.

The issue is England does not allow B sides in their professional leagues, if that changes then yeah i would be in favor of capping loaned players.

Parma FC has 226 players on loan

Damn Roman 33 is just rookie numbers, we have long ways to go.

zigra wrote:Loaning players shouldn't exist. Would be glad if they just banned it. Imo there's nothing beneficial to it.

Players get playing time, chance to re-value themselves or gain experience. Clubs get to sign a player without paying an expensive transfer fee. There's nothing wrong with this.

There is something wrong with young players signing up for clubs they can't develop at, and big clubs signing players they can't do right by.

GoonerJay29 wrote:

Which kids are we talking about? There are more players who got ruined by these loaning than that survived. City,Chelsea,Arsenal loan list in the past will show the names .

Name some of those players those clubs "ruined", then, by sending them out on loan. Because I can tell you that some of those names on the Arsenal loan list (obviously I can't say anything about Chelsea or City) from seasons gone by were simply not good enough to play for Arsenal. Some of them are even forging good careers and steadily rising up the leagues.

So Coaching and continuity is important you say but playing time will only get by going on loan. There is always option of staying in their club and not go to big clubs so that he can have all three.

Right - the players have to make the best decision about their own futures as well. So why do you keep placing the blame on the big clubs and their misuse of the loan system?

Rather poor example of showing a list of players who Madrid sold with a buy back option. How can you compare that to Loan deals is beyond sensible. It's day and night.

They were examples to illustrate my point about players gaining experience away from a big club, becoming better players than re-joining a big club.

In any case, Madrid sells a player then buys him back three or four years later, or Madrid loans a player for three or four seasons; what is, effectively, the difference?

Of course there wont be accountability from a club side. Loans kids to 5 teams in 4 years and he ends up lacking proper coaching or continuity then after four years club declares they were never good enough any way. May be these players wouldve been flourished much better under a consistent coaching and in a certain team instead of packing their bag every summer to random clubs...ever thought about that?

Yes, its young players getting attracted to the money and they themselves are falling for this trap but that doesnt mean this is a good practice. Just because people are joining money chain doesnt mean it is a right system.


Difference between Selling with a buy back option and Loaning players to random clubs? do i have to explain it to you?

When a player is sold with an option there is no guarantee the parent club is going to come back in for him.So the team he joins actually treats him like their own player instead of 1 season passengers like those loanees, they will get integrated into the team and they actually enjoys continuity of playing for a specific club.Comparing that to sending youngsters to 4 different clubs, does the managers and coaches even give a single fk about his long term development? comparing Selling with a buy back and those loaning to randoms clubs is hilarious and not using your thinking capacity.

Gil wrote:

Adit wrote:

Gil wrote:

Again, the cream rises to the top. Loan system didn't affect De Bruyne, Sturridge, Bamford, Bertrand, Cork, Lukaku or Courtois.

And how many got ruined?

For everyde bruyne there is 10 kalas 5 piazon 4 kakuta ruined.

Those you listed , they survived despite being put under this..credit to them.

Piazon was never thatt that good. Stop pretending he was ever a special talent.

Kakuta earned a move to Sevilla this summer you weapon lets see how he develops. He's a good dribbler but his game intelligence & touch is lacking.

Kalas ain't that good either.


There's nothing wrong with going out on loan and earning gametime.

That is the standard response.

''They were never that good anyway''