Baptiste has come back a better player after last seasons loan by all accounts, and although Napa wasn't loaned for a full season he seemed to do well.isnt the point of an U23 squad to develop our own young prospects? ..... loaning prospects out isnt something Ive ever been that comfortable with. I may well be wrong - I probably am! ...but.... after a long day on a north devon beach and a few strong somerset ciders.... I dont think of many and cant think of many OUFC prospects who have been loaned out (for more than half a season) who have ended up, after being loaned out by OUFC, to end up having a reasonable playing career at OUFC?
therefore, to me the mantra of loan them out to give them experience ...or to give them game time .... doesnt add up to me.
OUFC prospects who are sent out on loan might as well be offloaded straight away instead of playing what has become a nonsense at L1 L2 level!
A contributory factor can be playing as instructed by non league managers...who want 'their' players to play a certain way...which a knock on effect is the reports back to OUFC are probably not all that favourable ( especially as theyre not playing in a system or set up that is favoured by whoever the current OUFC head coach and his assistants prefer? )
Loaning out young prospects sometimes/occasionally pays divedends for Premiership and championship club assets after theyve been farmed out for experience. OUFC have played a part in more than a few of those success stories, as we all know. That said, how many loanees incoming at OUFC have made a serious impact in the first team of clubs that loaned those sucesses to us? One? possibly two? Maybe three?
however for clubs like OUFC it simply doesnt seem to work.... And I really do hope the U23 set up bears fruit with a number of homegrown youth team assests progressing through U23 into the first team squad.... I for one do like to see local lads come through the ranks
sadly loaning them out invariably results in the youngsters eventually ending up elsewhere ( often but not always the end up at Oxford City!)
heres hoping @ItsthehopethatkillsyouBaptiste has come back a better player after last seasons loan by all accounts, and although Napa wasn't loaned for a full season he seemed to do well.
I reckon player development has taken a step up of late, maybe the monitoring of the loanees has improved?
Bit of a weird one if I read that correctly as he was only on loan there. Could we not have argued the same with our previous loan players?And we end up paying compensation for a player who's never played for us!
Using logic, we already have an agreement with Celtic and are paying/paid that. Peterhead have won a share of that payment so Celtic will have to pay this to Peterhead. What % that is we don't know or what the original fee was.So using a bit of logic here ...
We pay Peterhead a five figure sum for the six months of his development whilst he was on loan from Celtic.
and therefore might we also be paying Celtic a sum for the rest of his development - presumably three or four times as much?
soccerbase says we signed him on a free. With Nelson he left Plymouth at the end of his contract, was under 24 and the clubs couldn't agree compensation, so it went to the tribunal.Using logic, we already have an agreement with Celtic and are paying/paid that. Peterhead have won a share of that payment so Celtic will have to pay this to Peterhead. What % that is we don't know or what the original fee was.
As asked on the other thread (HMRC?), on this basis do we have a claim on some of the transfer money that Man City received for the 2 players we had on loan last season?
I would agree it will be compensation (whether agreed or not I don't know). I doubt Celtic were that bothered about him going if they got some compensation for him.soccerbase says we signed him on a free. With Nelson he left Plymouth at the end of his contract, was under 24 and the clubs couldn't agree compensation, so it went to the tribunal.
Possibly similar with Kelleher? or do you reckon Celtic were happy to let him go, but Peterhead spotted a loophole?