Sherwin Seerdorf

Is this what you’re thinking of Dennis?

 

Huddersfield and Blackburn went on opposite directions on the same wage bill. Sensible owner and good manager versus, well whatever Venkys did.

 

But I didn’t say it was my view. The owners want us to develop young players. The argument was that by signing a loanee it stops our own youngsters eyeing a chance.

Personally, I agree with it. But it still goes against the objectives of the club

 

So, back on track, have we signed Seedorf on loan or not?

 

I've read a few teams forums over the years and not one can compete with City fans when it comes to going off topic!!

Why not create a finances thread where all this can be discussed, It seems to have worked with the Edin is a d**k thread!

 

Something, anything, banter is fine but if its another subject find/make another thread.
Get a mod on the job

 

I think you need to take a look at our signings. They are entirely consistent with the clubs model. They've also said that loans will not be heavily relied upon but at no point have they said the loan market would not be used. It's an opportunity to bring in players which the club would otherwise have no chance signing permanently. It assists in bringing in quality, increasing competition and depth to the squad. That is exactly how it should be used in my opinion.

 

Spot on

 

So provide clarity for me. If we were to sign Seedorf, and he has to play when fit (or we have to pay more towards his loan fee), this means our own kid isn’t getting development opportunities. How does this help him and therefore our overall goal?

A couple of seasons ago, Devine burst on to the scene. He let nobody down and looked like he had a path to our 1st team long-term. However, players returned from injury and he dropped out of the team. The signing of Cullen pushed him further back and he’s barely been seen since.

My point is, Rahic wants the HC to promote our young players into our 1st team, but there could be occasions when a loaned player stops the development of our own players.

I agree that loans are good. The likes of Burke, Pickford, Cullen and Guy have been great for us in recent years. My point is that loans should only be brought in for positions where we are weak or do not have backup. Why sign a young player for our development team if he can’t get into the team because we are playing a loanee in front of him.

 

We probably can in 19/20 if they don’t go back up. For next season they have the core of a championship team and probably money in the bank from being there

 

I agree with the sentiment of your post but it makes the assumption every development squad player will be ready to make the step up to first team action. The reality however is likely to be something quite different.

A loan player will not be blocking the pathway to one of our own players if his progression in the development squad does not justify first team inclusion (Jacob Hanson for example). We also need to remember that loans might only be for the first half of the season. The first half of the season is likely to be the time when we are least likely to see the emergence of development squad players so the loan market provides us with the quality and competition we might need at that particular stage.

I would also argue a development squad player should see the arrival of a loan player as a target and someone to displace, not to take a defeatist attitude and assume their opportunity to play has gone.

If the club are to be believed then loans will only be brought in where necessary not all over the park so we should only be talking about a limited number in the context of the entire squad anyway.