Loan Recruitment Myth

Lots of people seem to be blaming IF for poor recruitment this January, but what exactly is the reality?

Argyle really struck gold last season bringing in Mumba Whittaker and Azaz on loan and i seem to remember that Hardie and Ennis came in as loanees but I'm struggling to remember any other decent loan signings under Lowe and SS.

But this season we signed Warrington who I think played one game, Matete last season got nearly as many bookings as starts (6 starts I believe) and most other loan signings are instantly forgettable.

So, before this season we are looking at 5 good loans over 4 years.

Makes me wonder if Argyle are actually that good at utilising the loan market and whether loan signings is really the route we should be following.

Grovehill wrote:

Lots of people seem to be blaming IF for poor recruitment this January, but what exactly is the reality?

Argyle really struck gold last season bringing in Mumba Whittaker and Azaz on loan and i seem to remember that Hardie and Ennis came in as loanees but I'm struggling to remember any other decent loan signings under Lowe and SS.

But this season we signed Warrington who I think played one game, Matete last season got nearly as many bookings as starts (6 starts I believe) and most other loan signings are instantly forgettable.

So, before this season  we are looking at 5 good loans over 4 years.

Makes me wonder if Argyle are actually that good at utilising the loan market and whether loan signings is really the route we should be following.

I blame the recruitment team that includes Jimmy Dickinson the head of recruitment, neil dewsnip and the input of the role of manager/head coach whatever Ian Foster for january's failure of a transfer window thats left us weaker not stronger and the policy of bringing in kids over ready now talent that we needed. They can use all the data and analysis they like facts and figures on a spreadsheet are not always going to tell the truth about a player when actually scouting the player and watching him play may help fill in blanks and answer whether or not he is a great fit for the squad. I feel no work went into january's window other than using IF fy time as an england under 18-20 coach to justify singing the guys on loan that they did that arent ready for this level yet. I will be fair and say sorinola isnt a bad signing forshaw is a waste of time.

oh and answer to your question, alex palmer was a good loan signing under lowe however Ennis wasn't on loan here he came direct from wolves.

Grovehill wrote:

Lots of people seem to be blaming IF for poor recruitment this January, but what exactly is the reality?

Argyle really struck gold last season bringing in Mumba Whittaker and Azaz on loan and i seem to remember that Hardie and Ennis came in as loanees but I'm struggling to remember any other decent loan signings under Lowe and SS.

But this season we signed Warrington who I think played one game, Matete last season got nearly as many bookings as starts (6 starts I believe) and most other loan signings are instantly forgettable.

So, before this season  we are looking at 5 good loans over 4 years.

Makes me wonder if Argyle are actually that good at utilising the loan market and whether loan signings is really the route we should be following.

Hit and miss really. Going back to the Lowe era-Alex Palmer was very good, people like Broom and Garrick were ok but probably more misses than hits overall- Cosgrove and Nigel played their part last season so a very mixed bag. But that could also be said of the permanent recruits as well. Most of the good long term ones were made by Lowe in all truth-Edwards, Scarr, Wilson, Mayor, Hardie, Camara, Gillesphey, Galloway and Ennis. Very few of Schumachers permanents were of much cop-Miller and Butcher were decent, Callum Wright did well last year, Earley has been unlucky but a goodly few duds as well.

Obviously it isn't ideal to operate chiefly in the loan market [Whittaker last year, Azaz, Cundle and KKH this year] but it wouldn't seem to make much difference in comparison with permanent signings in terms of value to Argyle-some good and a few more bad but it won't change from that pattern unless serious cash comes into the club. As for Foster, can't believe that his previous England coaching background didn't have a major influence on the players he brought in and they haven't paid off so far-it was a difficult situation after Schumacher fecked us over for sure but can't help feeling that a more experienced manager would have had a better handle on what was required to compete in the division.

Greenskin wrote:

Grovehill wrote:

Lots of people seem to be blaming IF for poor recruitment this January, but what exactly is the reality?

Argyle really struck gold last season bringing in Mumba Whittaker and Azaz on loan and i seem to remember that Hardie and Ennis came in as loanees but I'm struggling to remember any other decent loan signings under Lowe and SS.

But this season we signed Warrington who I think played one game, Matete last season got nearly as many bookings as starts (6 starts I believe) and most other loan signings are instantly forgettable.

So, before this season  we are looking at 5 good loans over 4 years.

Makes me wonder if Argyle are actually that good at utilising the loan market and whether loan signings is really the route we should be following.

Hit and miss really. Going back to the Lowe era-Alex Palmer was very good, people like Broom and Garrick were ok but probably more misses than hits overall- Cosgrove and Nigel played their part last season so a very mixed bag. But that could also be said of the permanent recruits as well. Most of the good long term ones were made by Lowe in all truth-Edwards, Scarr, Wilson, Mayor, Hardie, Camara, Gillesphey, Galloway and Ennis. Very few of Schumachers permanents were of much cop-Miller and Butcher were decent, Callum Wright did well last year, Earley has been unlucky but a goodly few duds as well.

Obviously it isn't ideal to operate chiefly in the loan market [Whittaker last year, Azaz, Cundle and KKH this year] but it wouldn't seem to make much difference in comparison with permanent signings in terms of value to Argyle-some good and a few more bad but it won't change from that pattern unless serious cash comes into the club. As for Foster, can't believe that his previous England coaching background didn't have a major influence on the players he brought in and they haven't paid off so far-it was a difficult situation after Schumacher fecked us over for sure but can't help feeling that a more experienced manager would have had a better handle on what was required to compete in the division.

we shouldn't be relying heavily on the loan market like are doing. Sure use it has its uses so im not against using it once or twice maybe if the circumstances call for it thrice but no more never 5 at a time and certainly not over loading an area of the team with them ie 3 midfielders.
As we keep seeing time and time again no matter what league we are in or who is the boss those players come and go from the team and disrupt the harmony of the team when they get recalled leaving key positions weak. If we want to develop young players we have our own academy that we could do the same job with and the best bit is if they come good they wont be recalled in january and if we ever do sell them on we collect the money not another team for our work done with the player.

alot of soul searching needs to be done over the summer whatever the outcome because the 5 year plan the board have is doomed and needs admending.

One advantage with the loan market is financial, we can cover or partly cover a Whittaker/Mumba et al salary but probably couldn’t afford the transfer fee at the time, swings and roundabouts.