RLC v Ross Barkley

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

RLC v Ross Barkley

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

mattteo 17 Jul 18 10.19am
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Was RLC a disruption because we couldn’t afford to stay gun him at the end of the season? You only get a disruption if the player is disruptive. It’s a squad game now and rarely does a player play all season, even if fit. Yes, what I meant by disruption is that he was a starter and the team had gotten used to a certain style with him there. Now he needs to be replaced and a new player needs to come in just 1 year after using the on loan player. If you think taking a player on loan for a year and then changing him year after year takes the team further, I disagree. I think a team should only take on loan players that they can actually buy. Players need to play together for 2-3 years to give maximum eficiency. Sure, if you could get Ronaldo or Salah on loan for a year it would be worth it. But just developing a player for a top 6 team....no, not unless there's a really affordable buying option.
Alert a moderator to this post

mattteo

17 Jul 18 10.19am

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Was RLC a disruption because we couldn’t afford to stay gun him at the end of the season?

You only get a disruption if the player is disruptive. It’s a squad game now and rarely does a player play all season, even if fit.

Yes, what I meant by disruption is that he was a starter and the team had gotten used to a certain style with him there. Now he needs to be replaced and a new player needs to come in just 1 year after using the on loan player. If you think taking a player on loan for a year and then changing him year after year takes the team further, I disagree. I think a team should only take on loan players that they can actually buy.

Players need to play together for 2-3 years to give maximum eficiency.

Sure, if you could get Ronaldo or Salah on loan for a year it would be worth it. But just developing a player for a top 6 team....no, not unless there's a really affordable buying option.

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 17 Jul 18 10.47am
Originally posted by mattteo Yes, what I meant by disruption is that he was a starter and the team had gotten used to a certain style with him there. Now he needs to be replaced and a new player needs to come in just 1 year after using the on loan player. If you think taking a player on loan for a year and then changing him year after year takes the team further, I disagree. I think a team should only take on loan players that they can actually buy. Players need to play together for 2-3 years to give maximum eficiency. Sure, if you could get Ronaldo or Salah on loan for a year it would be worth it. But just developing a player for a top 6 team....no, not unless there's a really affordable buying option. If we had £70 mil or £100 mil to spend each summer your opinion would be valid but as we don’t it’s irrelevant. It’s nothing more than a ‘what if we had...’ COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 17 Jul 18 10.47am

Originally posted by mattteo

Players need to play together for 2-3 years to give maximum eficiency.

Sure, if you could get Ronaldo or Salah on loan for a year it would be worth it. But just developing a player for a top 6 team....no, not unless there's a really affordable buying option.

If we had £70 mil or £100 mil to spend each summer your opinion would be valid but as we don’t it’s irrelevant. It’s nothing more than a ‘what if we had...’

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 2 << First < 1 2

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

RLC v Ross Barkley

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors