Loans

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, McEwan's Lager said:

Benfica, Sporting and Ajax all loan players and they three probably have the best academies in the world and strongly promote youth. It's not an either or.

The quality of loan they seem to get is always far higher than the quality we get tbf. They are willing to pay loan fees and higher wages whereas it seems like we're only interested in cheap deals

Sporting Lisbon had Sarabia on loan this year, that's a top quality loan from a player who is probably still in his prime (I think he's 30?)

[HG5 11,301]

2 hours ago, fuckthespl said:

How far back do we have to go to come across a Rangers loan signing that actually benefited us? Steven Davis in 2008?

Kent was on loan to start with.

I know there will be some debate as to just how much he’s benefited us, but he’s certainly made a go of it here.

[soulboy 2,520]

Ejaria just for his goal that got us into the europa league groups in Gerrards 1st season, did he not cut loan short coz he was homesick 

[G.E.C. 19,002]

Just now, soulboy said:

Ejaria just for his goal that got us into the europa league groups in Gerrards 1st season, did he not cut loan short coz he was homesick 

He did.

He just looked very uninterested throughout his spell.

[NorthernLights 2,526]

As everybody else has said, if the loan player improves the team then no issues with it. Problem is that we’re loaning the wrong players 

[left winger 14,472]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

What's different to signing a player on a one-year/18-month deal?

Pretty sure you know the difference.

[left winger 14,472]

1 hour ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

Why not? Putting a blanket approach of “no” to any player who might come here on loan is just a very narrow minded way of looking at things.

Because we should only be developing our own players, not another club's.

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,254]

Just now, left winger said:

Because we should only be developing our own players, not another club's.

It’s not just about “developing players” though is it? It’s about having the best possible team we can. If we have a chance to get a better player than one we have in the same position, who can contribute to us being a more successful team, then we should be taking it. 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, left winger said:

Pretty sure you know the difference.

No, Im asking because I'd like to know what you think the difference is.

If we sign two players, one on a 12-month contract and one on a 12-month loan, what is different? Both are registered to play for Rangers, both will be leaving at the end of the year unless a new deal can be agreed and, in the case of the loan player, we may actually be able to get someone that we wouldn't normally be able to afford and who would, typically, not look twice at playing at 'this' level.

 

 

[born a blue nose 90,993]

Loans are a brilliant way to be able to spend better money in another position. It's getting the 2 right that seems to be an issue

[left winger 14,472]

3 hours ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

It’s not just about “developing players” though is it? It’s about having the best possible team we can. If we have a chance to get a better player than one we have in the same position, who can contribute to us being a more successful team, then we should be taking it. 

Well, it is. They don’t come here for our benefit. Regarding the best possible team, I did think Ramsey would have contributed to that, and for that reason, alone, I was happy with the loan. Now it obviously hasn’t worked, and I’d rather have our own players playing for us. As a general principle I think players will give more playing for their own club, rather than another one. 

[left winger 14,472]

3 hours ago, The Dude said:

No, Im asking because I'd like to know what you think the difference is.

If we sign two players, one on a 12-month contract and one on a 12-month loan, what is different? Both are registered to play for Rangers, both will be leaving at the end of the year unless a new deal can be agreed and, in the case of the loan player, we may actually be able to get someone that we wouldn't normally be able to afford and who would, typically, not look twice at playing at 'this' level.

 

 

The difference is one is our player, and one is not.

There is also potentially a requirement from the other club as to how often that player should/must play.

There is also the question of effort the player may put in if he is on loan, or signed permanently. If a player is on loan for a season then he knows he will still go back to his parent club and still has a contract there. That may result in varying levels of effort.

You’ve also given a 12 month contract as an example. With the exception of extensions when do we genuinely go out and give one year contracts.

Regarding the level of player we could get on contract - Ramsey is the obvious example, yet he hasn’t worked. While he, in theory, is a level above, we also need to take into account his reasons for coming and how those reasons impact upon his performance, attitude, etc.

So I’ll stick with my no loans without an option to buy.

[The Dude 20,026]

10 minutes ago, left winger said:

The difference is one is our player, and one is not.

There is also potentially a requirement from the other club as to how often that player should/must play.

There is also the question of effort the player may put in if he is on loan, or signed permanently. If a player is on loan for a season then he knows he will still go back to his parent club and still has a contract there. That may result in varying levels of effort.

You’ve also given a 12 month contract as an example. With the exception of extensions when do we genuinely go out and give one year contracts.

Regarding the level of player we could get on contract - Ramsey is the obvious example, yet he hasn’t worked. While he, in theory, is a level above, we also need to take into account his reasons for coming and how those reasons impact upon his performance, attitude, etc.

So I’ll stick with my no loans without an option to buy.

Both ARE our player.

Contractual requirements for players to play while on loan are the exception rather than the rule.

The idea that players won't put in the same effort on loan as they would for their parent club is a nonsense. Do you think if a loan player goes out and bother their arse that it is going to look good when they return to their parent club? Let's use Amad as an example here. Do you really think Erik Ten Hag is going to decide to make him part of his Man U plans if he came up here and went through the motions for six months? Players don't work while on loan - particularly younger ones - and it is a stink that follows them around. 

All of those things you mention about taking into account when a player comes to a club on loan apply just the same when you sign them permanently. Why does X want to come here? Is it the money? Are they coming here to burst their arse to be a winner? Is it the prestige of playing for a club this size? Is it just their agent agitating for another payday.

[The Dude 20,026]

21 minutes ago, left winger said:

Well, it is. They don’t come here for our benefit. Regarding the best possible team, I did think Ramsey would have contributed to that, and for that reason, alone, I was happy with the loan. Now it obviously hasn’t worked, and I’d rather have our own players playing for us. As a general principle I think players will give more playing for their own club, rather than another one. 

Do you think Alfredo Morelos came here to benefit Rangers or to benefit Alfredo Morelos?

 

Bassey? Aribo? Gio?

 

 

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,254]

23 minutes ago, left winger said:

Well, it is. They don’t come here for our benefit. Regarding the best possible team, I did think Ramsey would have contributed to that, and for that reason, alone, I was happy with the loan. Now it obviously hasn’t worked, and I’d rather have our own players playing for us. As a general principle I think players will give more playing for their own club, rather than another one. 

 

I don’t agree with that at all. If we sign say Billy Gilmour on loan and we win the league with him being the driving force behind it then is that not as beneficial to us as the game time is to him?

[bassettger 378]

7 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Exactly. Anyone not wanting someone who delivers the equivalent of Jota has is plain daft. And writing off the loan signing of say a Billy Gilmour purely because its a loan is equally stupid.

Make the most of all options, but make it the right players. It may even free some cash to go further for quality of those we do buy.

Agree loans can work but would not want Billy Gilmour. He has failed at Norwich and has no chance of breaking into the Chelsea team who are only looking to maximise their return on the investment in him. Good player but lacks physical presence and has already missed the best part of a season through injury. Has got injury prone luxury written all over him. 

[My Fathers Scarf 1,144]

6 minutes ago, bassettger said:

Agree loans can work but would not want Billy Gilmour. He has failed at Norwich and has no chance of breaking into the Chelsea team who are only looking to maximise their return on the investment in him. Good player but lacks physical presence and has already missed the best part of a season through injury. Has got injury prone luxury written all over him. 

Ffs. Would take Gilmour in a heartbeat. The boys class. Norwich are shite.

[Valance1690 3,942]

We haven't learned what the tarriers seem to have this season...all big clubs these days are agreeing loan deals with optional clauses at the end to buy the players

The players themselves know they're playing for a new contract at a new club, something a player on loan is likely to want & it spurs them on + the team themselves has cover if the loan doesn't work out given its optional

Our 2 loans this season, Diallo/Ramsey, both look like they've took it as a mini holiday & they know they're going back to their parent clubs with the same contracts waiting for them.

[MARK92GERS 808]

What a stupid discussion tbh the loan market is a vital market we should be looking at more especially for a club like ourselves basically nullifies any risk in regards to transfer fees if they don’t work out & vice Versa on the other side it can be a great market when it works out it also helps in regards to squad depth with over a 60+ of games a season 

[bassettger 378]

1 minute ago, MARK92GERS said:

What a stupid discussion tbh the loan market is a vital market we should be looking at more especially for a club like ourselves basically nullifies any risk in regards to transfer fees if they don’t work out & vice Versa on the other side it can be a great market when it works out it also helps in regards to squad depth with over a 60+ of games a season 

As long as you don't sign injured yesterdays men who contribute 0 and instead sign guys like Hagi. I would honestly have Ross Wilson down the road for the crap he has lumbered our Gio with.

[sassaaaa 11,406]

All clubs need to do it now and its all about sniffing out the best loan deals for the club.

Our problem is Ross Wilson is the guy thats picking ours.......

[left winger 14,472]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Both ARE our player.

Contractual requirements for players to play while on loan are the exception rather than the rule.

The idea that players won't put in the same effort on loan as they would for their parent club is a nonsense. Do you think if a loan player goes out and bother their arse that it is going to look good when they return to their parent club? Let's use Amad as an example here. Do you really think Erik Ten Hag is going to decide to make him part of his Man U plans if he came up here and went through the motions for six months? Players don't work while on loan - particularly younger ones - and it is a stink that follows them around. 

All of those things you mention about taking into account when a player comes to a club on loan apply just the same when you sign them permanently. Why does X want to come here? Is it the money? Are they coming here to burst their arse to be a winner? Is it the prestige of playing for a club this size? Is it just their agent agitating for another payday.

It’s not a nonsense. Your statement that ‘players don’t work on while on loan - particularly younger ones - and it is a stink that follows them around’ basically acknowledges that loan players may not put in the same effort.

 

[left winger 14,472]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Do you think Alfredo Morelos came here to benefit Rangers or to benefit Alfredo Morelos?

 

Bassey? Aribo? Gio?

 

 

Both, but the individual primarily.

Now you’re going to ask the same question re players on loan. When on loan the balance shifts, imo, massively more toward just the players’ own benefit.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 54,124]

1 hour ago, bassettger said:

Agree loans can work but would not want Billy Gilmour. He has failed at Norwich and has no chance of breaking into the Chelsea team who are only looking to maximise their return on the investment in him. Good player but lacks physical presence and has already missed the best part of a season through injury. Has got injury prone luxury written all over him. 

Whether he specifically is someone you rate or not, ruling out a player of his calibre / potential because it would be on loan is daft.

[left winger 14,472]

1 hour ago, BlueSuedeSambas said:

 

I don’t agree with that at all. If we sign say Billy Gilmour on loan and we win the league with him being the driving force behind it then is that not as beneficial to us as the game time is to him?

And if we take Haaland, MBappe, De Bruyne and Van Dijk as well I’ll let it pass.