Talent mass murder

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''

IMO young players should realize that if they sign for a big club, there's a more than likely chance that they will get loaned out to 4 different clubs in 4 years and their development might get stunted. Instead, even though they would be giving up a lot of money right now, they have a better chance to develop well at their current / smaller club and more than make up the money in the future.

A good recent example (although not "young talent") is Pogba choosing to stay with Juventus instead of joining Chelsea. He could have been earning 3 times what he is earning now but will only be a cog in the wheel, whereas staying at Juventus he becomes the leader of the team with much more potential development.

All this talk seems to be assuming that the 90 minutes of match-day are the only times these youngsters play football. Clubs train daily for longer than that.

theres too much politics in football. managers are scared and unwilling to experiment with different players
the bigger issue here is the money. its sad football has a culture that more money: better experience. players just want more and more. so young players want that nice car, that lavish lifestyle, the parties, the women. and they just want more money.

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?

Still waiting for those names that would have flourished if they had stayed.

But here's the thing: maybe those players shouldn't agree to the loan in the first place. Maybe, if they feel the club is making a wrong decision, they could say no.

It's a two way thing. Clubs need to take care of their players, but players also need to look out for themselves. You can't just dump all accountability on one side, as you've been doing.

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.

I never claimed it was a right system. In fact, my first point in this debate was about limiting the amount of money clubs can offer young players.

Difference between Selling with a buy back option and Loaning players to random clubs? Laughing 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.

When a player is loaned there's no guarantee the parent club want him back. In some cases they're loaned specifically so their value will increase and can be sold, or because they tried to sell the player but couldn't.

When selling a player, why do teams put in a buyback in the first place? Because they think the player might develop at his new club with the benefit of more playing time. The club sends the player away to get more playing time, then brings them back when they think they're ready. On a basic level, is that not the same as loaning the player out to get more playing time, then bringing him back once he's ready?

Blue wrote: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.

As long as the number of 2nd teams in the league is limited I'm not against it.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

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.

Evaluate the need of a player before you bring him in/offer him a contract then there's no need to loan him out. Clubs hoarding tons of players they don't need because they can loan them out is ridiculous and I say that as a fan of a club that has loads of players out on loan itself. It's just bs. You can have a 2nd team where players can get experience or recover after an injury.
I'm completely against loaning but I wouldn't mind keeping it but reducing it to a max of 1-2 players per season or so.

Adit wrote: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.

On the other hand, in Germany it does seem to work. Christoph Kramer for example was loaned to Gladbach for 2 seasons, and he did become an integral part of the team despite being a loanee. We have a couple of teams in Germany that work very well with and for loanees, and if you wouldn't know it, you often wouldn't realize whether a player is loaned or contracted on a fix contract.

And this thing about sending youngsters to several different clubs - it might be not a bad idea for a goalie as they have even less chance at a starting spot than outfield players. E.g. Yann Sommer (who was a youth player at Basel) agreed to be loaned to Vaduz (then 2nd Swiss division) at age 18 to become a starter there instead of warming the bench at Basel. After he got promoted with Vaduz (which was a lot due to his top performances in goal) he was loaned a second time, then to GC where he was a starter too. Only when Franco Costanzo's contract as Basel wasn't extended (because Basel wanted their youth product Sommer now instead of the expensive Argentinian, even though the latter was a fan favourite and Basel's captain), he finally returned to his parent club. He could have stayed at Basel, but I doubt he would have developed properly when sitting on the bench behind Costanzo all the time.

loaning players isn't the problem. the thing with loans is, it provides a means of making players more affordable. a small club sometimes will play three times less what that player's transfer fee is, and only half or sometimes less than half of his wages. if there were no loans, these players would sit and rot on the bench or be forced to play with the b teams which can further damage their confidence.

the concern however is justified. there should be a sort of cap when it comes to signing young players, as well as stringent rules when it comes to clauses stipulated in contracts, but that's on their agents.

the problem is, clubs pay scouts to help them seek out 'potential'. potential gets hyped, more than what it really is, and every big club and their fans want to be known as the team that discovered such and such....even when such player has no chance of starting or even getting good minutes. it gets worse when there's a 'bidding war' or struggle for such player by multiple clubs and agents seek more money e.g canales, rumor around spain was his family were tough in negotiations, suggesting atleti and barca also wanted him, and flo signed him simply to prevent anyone from signing him, not necessarily because he was needed

its more complicated than banning loans, which doesn't do any good for players or clubs. after all, young players aren't the only ones being loaned out. i do agree that big clubs are the biggest culprits in this scenario of talent mass murder followed by agents of impressionable players

sorry but its the players fault. there is absolutely no loyalty in football nowadays. money is not everything and thats all young players care about. the days of gerrard and xavi are long gone

you can't blame players for caring about money or not being loyal. loyalty and money are two way streets. clubs, big clubs have had poor records in how they treat and value players. if a player is going to a club where the chances are, he won't be given a fair shot despite how hard he works in training, then he best situate himself to get the money he can. loyalty from players may be decreasing, but clubs have treated players like trash on numerous occasions over the years. clubs also care about money, its not players alone, that's one of the reasons why contracts and renewals get drawn out for such long periods

Phritz wrote:All this talk seems to be assuming that the 90 minutes of match-day are the only times these youngsters play football. Clubs train daily for longer than that.

But there needs to be stakes. Winning a place at the club. Suffering from defeat and constantly trying to improve yourself. If a young player for an English top team only ever plays reserve matches, sure, that's playing 90 minutes of football, but it's not going to do as much for his development as training for a championship team trying to win the competition, as Barca B and Castilla do.

Btw my problem with loaning isn't even the "talent mass murder" but that big clubs can pile up way too many players that way. They don't really have to evaluate if they need the player and the player doesn't have to worry too much about playing time as they can just loan him out and that way big clubs can easily buy tons of players, making the rich clubs even more powerful.