Friends of Fulham

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: MrProphet on August 28, 2014, 09:47:05 PM

Title: Loan v short term contract
Post by: MrProphet on August 28, 2014, 09:47:05 PM
I'm sure I read a quote from Felix somewhere saying he doesn't like loan signings as he feels they aren't always committed to the club. It got me thinking that why would signing an old player on a 1 year deal who knows if we achieve our target of going up will be out the door give you anymore commitment?

Surely a player with something to prove would be just as usefull?

A look at what we could have won.....

Faszili (appreciate not how you spell his name and not old but on a pointless one year deal) could have been Chalobah (good cover for parker and proven at championship level)

Fotheringham could have been Tom Caroll

Kiraly could have been Butland

Appreciate we may not have got any but surely better options then what we have and if we aren't wanting to pay the inflated prices Felix talks about then the loan market if used correctly has to be a better option
Title: Re: Loan v short term contract
Post by: Artful Dodger on August 28, 2014, 09:57:13 PM
Very good points well made, although the underlying premise of having less drive may be true. Personally, I think it is down to the individual - some loan players will naturally be more driven than permanent signings so I don't think you can make hard and fast rules. It's down to the manager to pick the right player and then motivate them when they are at the club whatever sort of contract they are on.
Title: Re: Loan v short term contract
Post by: aaronmcguigan on August 28, 2014, 11:24:00 PM
isnt Stafylidis here on loan?
Title: Re: Loan v short term contract
Post by: psand22 on August 29, 2014, 03:30:06 AM
I don't like a loan unless there's with an option to buy.  I'm sure most of the short contracts are about the same.  The club would have an option to pick up another year. 
Title: Re: Loan v short term contract
Post by: K33NY on August 29, 2014, 03:46:41 AM
To me loans and short term deal is the same but still different

In both situations, the playerd want to play as much as they can, the loaned will want to either prove he is developing in a positive way, and to get a first team shot on hes original team, therefore giving 110% all the time. Or hoping to get to a bigger team or sold to the team hes loaned to getting more play time.

In a short term deal that player allso wants to give it all, but if hes young, then the short term deal is most likely because sallary is high, and therefore allso gives 110% to get a bigger team's attention. If he is old, he gives 110% in hope to finnish of at current club ending the career there and/or to maybe get a coaching carerr through the team.


At least thats how I think it works
Title: Re: Loan v short term contract
Post by: Roberty on August 29, 2014, 05:41:13 AM
Quote from: aaronmcguigan on August 28, 2014, 11:24:00 PM
isnt Stafylidis here on loan?

yes - with an option to buy
Title: Re: Loan v short term contract
Post by: Roberty on August 29, 2014, 05:43:17 AM
If we took BUTLAND on loan he would want to be first choice and our two young goalkeeper would not get off the bench.

Rightly or wrongly FM sees them as having a future and he says that he wants to develop that sort of player ready for our return to the PL.

The FM weekly letter makes it clear that the new goal keeper is a back up not first choice, so he will spend the season eating pies and warming the bench