With Stewart coming back that will be an interesting selection dilemma for Ainsworth. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rowe go out on loan. I just hope it'll be a Scowen-to-Eastbourne style loan rather than a Banton-to-Hartlepool...
@fedup1980 said:
I agree with mooneyman, Jason is pure class and if we can somehow keep him for the remainder of the season as well i would be chuffed to bits.
Didn't think I would say this, but I too endorse McCarthy extension, he's dominant in the air and can play a bit. Can't see Jason being dislodged from Centre Back atm.
Why not? In my opinion he has looked class from minute 1, obviously helped since he was being compared to Donacien's performances which weren't up to scratch. Hopefully we can keep him all season.
@Croider said:
Ciderk1d
"Didn't think I would say this..."
Why not? In my opinion he has looked class from minute 1, obviously helped since he was being compared to Donacien's performances which weren't up to scratch. Hopefully we can keep him all season.
Just my opinion has changed. So you didn't notice the hoofball to nonone in particular upfront, that resulted in the freak show goal, that their opposition keeper scored from ? there's been a lot hoofing from the back, that I'm not a fan of.
Yes, Jason has come good, and we shown on numerous occasions last few games, we can play from the back.
Some of our goals have been awesome when we put 3 or 4 passes together, instead of hoof, hope and watch our forwards to chase to the ball corner flag, so long may this continue giving better service to everyone on the pitch and seeing some marvel goals for doing so.
The McCarthy loan has served a purpose for us and since we have a lot of fixtures coming up maybe it still does even with the early return to fitness of Stewart. Come January, if Stewart hasn't had a relapse and if our other defenders are all still available, then I would far rather we were developing our own players than someone else's no matter how good they are.
Surely Ed we should be putting out our best team regardless of whether they are a loanee or not? Did you have the same view last season with Mawson and Saunders etc?
Don't you remember what happened last time we were 'developing' Stewart?
@fedup1980 - If our main players are injured, then yes, the loan market is an option. I think that's clear from my original comment.
@mooneyman - Of course we should be putting our best team out whether they are a loanee or not. I'm arguing that in January if everyone is fit again, when the term of the loan comes up we should reappraise whether it is necessary or not. The loan market costs the club money, still a scarce resource. To use it when we could be using and developing our own players has several disadvantages.
Regarding Mason, I had exactly the same view. If Doherty hadn't got injured, I wouldn't have expected us to be in the loan market and I doubt Mawson would have joined, but since he did and since our squad needed cover, we did and happily so as it turns out.
Regarding Saunders and Yennaris, again I had the same view They were necessary loans at the time, our having lost PCH and Scowan in the transfer window and not replaced them.
If your problem is specifically with Stewart, I can't help you there. He's back with us and I for one can accept that. Whether you can or not is a question of individuals not a question of the broader principle.
I like Stewart and I think he will be a good player for us when he's fit. Nice to see McCarthy is here for a bit longer as well...if he gells with big Aaron and stays longer all the better as it will give us cover at CB and give Stewart longer to rehabilitate. It's not really a case of either or. If Mccarthy does have to go back we've got a decent player to come in. More good work from GA.
Ed I have no problem with Stewart being here, I am merely pointing out that McCarthy is in a different class and in my opinion will play in the Premier one day. We need at least three central defenders anyway to cover further injuries/suspensions
You seem to be the one that has a problem with the idea of developing other teams players. We do not have a youth team so are not in a real position to develop our own young players. We now have a good reputation with a number of clubs of looking after and improving their players. Loanees are a cost effective method of putting out a competitive team in that we don't have the financial liability of contracts of players with insufficient ability such as Kuffour in the past and McGinn now.
It is highly unlikely that we would have got in the play offs last season without the loanees and as I see it there are clear benefits for BOTH clubs and the player concerned.
I'm quite conflicted on this. McCarthy is clearly a very good player, trained in the Southampton way of playing the ball out of defence and does a fantastic job of that when the tactics allow him to do so.
However Stewart played extremely well in the two matches he featured for us and is a player clearly motivated to do well now he's been given a second chance. He's fit, fast and scores from corners.
To keep him out of the team - with the potential knock-on of keeping Rowe out of the squad - in order to build up a player who will leave as soon as Southampton call him back seems like a bad long-term decision to me, even if in the short-term it means we put out a slightly better team.
It will demotivate Stewart and Rowe, prevent as strong a partnership with Pierre developing for one of them, and will potentially affect our ability to sell one or both of them for as much profit in the future.
It's a difficult one, but assuming Stewart and Rowe are both fit, I'd send McCarthy back.
Your aims are slightly different to mine. You want to get into the playoffs at all costs, I simply want us to do as well as we can with our own squad and suppliment the squad with loan players on an as-need basis. I'm sure we could improve half of the squad with loan players from Premiership clubs, but that doesn't make it an imperative to do so.
Ed I don't want to get in the playoffs at all costs. What I want to see is the best possible team on the pitch playing good football but strictly WITHIN our budget constraints. If it means scarce financial resources are directed towards loanees to better achieve these objectives then so be it.
If McCarthy plays for England in future years, I would look on with a certain pride that our club had an important part in his development.
I do respect and understand your view Ed but I probably have a more pragmatic financial approach based on the fact that we do not have a youth set up anymore.. One point I would leave you with, is a certain Aaron Pierre that we took on loan in 2013/4 which turned out to our advantage somewhat!
I'm struggling with your logic. You say that we should stay strictly within our our budget constraints and yet simultaneously you advocate directing scarce financial resources to loanees - not to get into the playoffs at all costs now but rather because since we don't have a youth team of our own why not help develop the England players of the future? And this is a more pragmatic financial approach than only taking loanees on when the squad needs to be supplimented?
The advantage of loanees is that if they don't perform we don't have to extend the loan and therefore the financial outlay is limited. Also under some loan deals you only pay a small proportion of the players salary anyway.
What makes better financial sense, to pay for a quality player like McCarthy for a few months or have an obligation to continue paying nonentities like McGinn and Banton for the duration of their contracts?
My take on this, is that GA had in his budget for 1/2 loaness and that Southampton may have let us have Mccarthy for next to nothing or even nought, providing Jason gets 1st team football experience, if fit and pulling his weight.
We are building a strong reputation for loaness and until we reach our end goal, long may that continue. As for Stewert he will gain some knowledge from Mccarthy and Pierre in training as well as on the field alongside either of the Centre Backs. Plus puts pressure on all of them not to take their position for granted as there is someone available to take their place.
Bringing in a loan player doesn't mean we don't have to honour the contracts we have with our own players. We are obliged to continue playing our players irrespective of whether we select them or not.
Presumably we aren't paying (all of) Banton's wages.
Mooneyman makes a good point about Aaron Pierre. There seems to be an increasingly small difference between a player on a season long loan and a Wycombe player whose contract expires at the end of the year.
Obviously, we shouldn't pay more than we can afford. But I think (from interviews and comments to the media at the start of the season) the plan has always been to have a small squad supplemented by loans as they are required, so I presume that some budget has been set aside for this.
I agree with the plan of using loans as they are required, that is what I have been advocating all along.
I don't know how often a loanee signs the following year, it happened with Pierre which was really nice, but notably hasn't happened with the likes of Mawson and Yennaris. That is why I would prefer to be developing our own players first where possible.
I think most of us would like to see us developing our own players but realistically it isn't feasable at the present time. For a start we have a very small coaching staff, so most of their time needs to be directed towards those that are up to speed in terms of being ready for the first team now or in the immediate future.
Secondly, we do not have the finance to employ more than a couple of "prospects'" at any time even though they would be on a minimal wage, as the cost all adds up.
Thirdly, we do not run any youth or reserve teams, so the only way these prospects are going to get games is to go on loan to non league sides.
Finally, when we did have the youth team, what percentage actually made it to football league standard? When we take youngsters like McCarthy or Mawson on loan from Premier or Championship sides, they are generally already of a much higher standard than any that we could attract.
In my opinion we are doing a briliant job in putting out a competitive team on the pitch using a combination of our own players and loanees. All clubs use loanees, look at Watford a couple of years ago who had probably three times the number we have ever had and even now in the Premier still have three to my knowledge. Things will not change until we have the finance/desire to reinstate a youth team.
Comments
With Stewart coming back that will be an interesting selection dilemma for Ainsworth. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rowe go out on loan. I just hope it'll be a Scowen-to-Eastbourne style loan rather than a Banton-to-Hartlepool...
No dilemma at all in my view. McCarthy is a significant upgrade on Stewart.
Have to agree with @mooneyman. I really rate McCarthy
I agree with mooneyman, Jason is pure class and if we can somehow keep him for the remainder of the season as well i would be chuffed to bits.
Didn't think I would say this, but I too endorse McCarthy extension, he's dominant in the air and can play a bit. Can't see Jason being dislodged from Centre Back atm.
Another GA gem brought to AP.
@Ciderk1d
"Didn't think I would say this..."
Why not? In my opinion he has looked class from minute 1, obviously helped since he was being compared to Donacien's performances which weren't up to scratch. Hopefully we can keep him all season.
Excellent in the last two games. A neutral observer who was at one game said he was immense.
Just my opinion has changed. So you didn't notice the hoofball to nonone in particular upfront, that resulted in the freak show goal, that their opposition keeper scored from ? there's been a lot hoofing from the back, that I'm not a fan of.
Yes, Jason has come good, and we shown on numerous occasions last few games, we can play from the back.
Some of our goals have been awesome when we put 3 or 4 passes together, instead of hoof, hope and watch our forwards to chase to the ball corner flag, so long may this continue giving better service to everyone on the pitch and seeing some marvel goals for doing so.
Perhaps you didn't notice that it was Bloomfield wot done it - not McCarthy.
Bloody specs subscription, best sort appointment fast.
@Ciderk1d Probably all that apple juice - makes you go blind.
The McCarthy loan has served a purpose for us and since we have a lot of fixtures coming up maybe it still does even with the early return to fitness of Stewart. Come January, if Stewart hasn't had a relapse and if our other defenders are all still available, then I would far rather we were developing our own players than someone else's no matter how good they are.
It's quite hard developing your own players with no academy. If our main players are injured then the loan market is our only option.
Surely Ed we should be putting out our best team regardless of whether they are a loanee or not? Did you have the same view last season with Mawson and Saunders etc?
Don't you remember what happened last time we were 'developing' Stewart?
@fedup1980 - If our main players are injured, then yes, the loan market is an option. I think that's clear from my original comment.
@mooneyman - Of course we should be putting our best team out whether they are a loanee or not. I'm arguing that in January if everyone is fit again, when the term of the loan comes up we should reappraise whether it is necessary or not. The loan market costs the club money, still a scarce resource. To use it when we could be using and developing our own players has several disadvantages.
Regarding Mason, I had exactly the same view. If Doherty hadn't got injured, I wouldn't have expected us to be in the loan market and I doubt Mawson would have joined, but since he did and since our squad needed cover, we did and happily so as it turns out.
Regarding Saunders and Yennaris, again I had the same view They were necessary loans at the time, our having lost PCH and Scowan in the transfer window and not replaced them.
If your problem is specifically with Stewart, I can't help you there. He's back with us and I for one can accept that. Whether you can or not is a question of individuals not a question of the broader principle.
I like Stewart and I think he will be a good player for us when he's fit. Nice to see McCarthy is here for a bit longer as well...if he gells with big Aaron and stays longer all the better as it will give us cover at CB and give Stewart longer to rehabilitate. It's not really a case of either or. If Mccarthy does have to go back we've got a decent player to come in. More good work from GA.
Ed I have no problem with Stewart being here, I am merely pointing out that McCarthy is in a different class and in my opinion will play in the Premier one day. We need at least three central defenders anyway to cover further injuries/suspensions
You seem to be the one that has a problem with the idea of developing other teams players. We do not have a youth team so are not in a real position to develop our own young players. We now have a good reputation with a number of clubs of looking after and improving their players. Loanees are a cost effective method of putting out a competitive team in that we don't have the financial liability of contracts of players with insufficient ability such as Kuffour in the past and McGinn now.
It is highly unlikely that we would have got in the play offs last season without the loanees and as I see it there are clear benefits for BOTH clubs and the player concerned.
I'm quite conflicted on this. McCarthy is clearly a very good player, trained in the Southampton way of playing the ball out of defence and does a fantastic job of that when the tactics allow him to do so.
However Stewart played extremely well in the two matches he featured for us and is a player clearly motivated to do well now he's been given a second chance. He's fit, fast and scores from corners.
To keep him out of the team - with the potential knock-on of keeping Rowe out of the squad - in order to build up a player who will leave as soon as Southampton call him back seems like a bad long-term decision to me, even if in the short-term it means we put out a slightly better team.
It will demotivate Stewart and Rowe, prevent as strong a partnership with Pierre developing for one of them, and will potentially affect our ability to sell one or both of them for as much profit in the future.
It's a difficult one, but assuming Stewart and Rowe are both fit, I'd send McCarthy back.
Your aims are slightly different to mine. You want to get into the playoffs at all costs, I simply want us to do as well as we can with our own squad and suppliment the squad with loan players on an as-need basis. I'm sure we could improve half of the squad with loan players from Premiership clubs, but that doesn't make it an imperative to do so.
Ed I don't want to get in the playoffs at all costs. What I want to see is the best possible team on the pitch playing good football but strictly WITHIN our budget constraints. If it means scarce financial resources are directed towards loanees to better achieve these objectives then so be it.
If McCarthy plays for England in future years, I would look on with a certain pride that our club had an important part in his development.
I do respect and understand your view Ed but I probably have a more pragmatic financial approach based on the fact that we do not have a youth set up anymore.. One point I would leave you with, is a certain Aaron Pierre that we took on loan in 2013/4 which turned out to our advantage somewhat!
I'm struggling with your logic. You say that we should stay strictly within our our budget constraints and yet simultaneously you advocate directing scarce financial resources to loanees - not to get into the playoffs at all costs now but rather because since we don't have a youth team of our own why not help develop the England players of the future? And this is a more pragmatic financial approach than only taking loanees on when the squad needs to be supplimented?
The advantage of loanees is that if they don't perform we don't have to extend the loan and therefore the financial outlay is limited. Also under some loan deals you only pay a small proportion of the players salary anyway.
What makes better financial sense, to pay for a quality player like McCarthy for a few months or have an obligation to continue paying nonentities like McGinn and Banton for the duration of their contracts?
My take on this, is that GA had in his budget for 1/2 loaness and that Southampton may have let us have Mccarthy for next to nothing or even nought, providing Jason gets 1st team football experience, if fit and pulling his weight.
We are building a strong reputation for loaness and until we reach our end goal, long may that continue. As for Stewert he will gain some knowledge from Mccarthy and Pierre in training as well as on the field alongside either of the Centre Backs. Plus puts pressure on all of them not to take their position for granted as there is someone available to take their place.
Bringing in a loan player doesn't mean we don't have to honour the contracts we have with our own players. We are obliged to continue playing our players irrespective of whether we select them or not.
Presumably we aren't paying (all of) Banton's wages.
Mooneyman makes a good point about Aaron Pierre. There seems to be an increasingly small difference between a player on a season long loan and a Wycombe player whose contract expires at the end of the year.
Obviously, we shouldn't pay more than we can afford. But I think (from interviews and comments to the media at the start of the season) the plan has always been to have a small squad supplemented by loans as they are required, so I presume that some budget has been set aside for this.
I agree with the plan of using loans as they are required, that is what I have been advocating all along.
I don't know how often a loanee signs the following year, it happened with Pierre which was really nice, but notably hasn't happened with the likes of Mawson and Yennaris. That is why I would prefer to be developing our own players first where possible.
I think most of us would like to see us developing our own players but realistically it isn't feasable at the present time. For a start we have a very small coaching staff, so most of their time needs to be directed towards those that are up to speed in terms of being ready for the first team now or in the immediate future.
Secondly, we do not have the finance to employ more than a couple of "prospects'" at any time even though they would be on a minimal wage, as the cost all adds up.
Thirdly, we do not run any youth or reserve teams, so the only way these prospects are going to get games is to go on loan to non league sides.
Finally, when we did have the youth team, what percentage actually made it to football league standard? When we take youngsters like McCarthy or Mawson on loan from Premier or Championship sides, they are generally already of a much higher standard than any that we could attract.
In my opinion we are doing a briliant job in putting out a competitive team on the pitch using a combination of our own players and loanees. All clubs use loanees, look at Watford a couple of years ago who had probably three times the number we have ever had and even now in the Premier still have three to my knowledge. Things will not change until we have the finance/desire to reinstate a youth team.