How have the new loan rules affected your season?

[Habbinalan]

Having reviewed recent posts, particularly on the Promotion thread, I think many of us have forgotten how big an impact the new loan rules have had on our seasons.

Although I think U's may have won less matches and delivered more frustrating performances than we would have with last year's rules, I think, on balance, I'm in favour of the rule change.

But for the change, I think we might have had 5 or 6 strikers in and out of the door by now, our January business would have been started earlier and the likes of Ben Williamson and Connor Newton could well be plying their trade elsewhere. The response to our early season form would have been significantly different - although the outcome and results may have been no better. Certainly I think it has given time for some key players and leaders to emerge and strengthened the togetherness in the team and club.

I'm sure that the impact has been much greater on others around us but it probably one of the keys to so much inconsistency from positions 5 - 15. Managers have largely had to get performances from fixed squads, with limited scope for replacing players injured, transferred or out of form - especially strikers.

 

[hellogregory]

It's harming us badly at the moment. We only have about 11 fit outfield players.

 

[K-Win]

I think it's definitely benefited us this season as it forced Cook to bulk up the squad, rather than have a small squad and work the loan market like he had previously. We went into the play-offs last year in a bit of a shambles with no centre-forward and no keeper and various other injured players, which is a bit stupid for a club with our supposed resources.

Crazily, the loan for striker Smith expired before the play-offs and we couldn't renew it, leaving us lightweight up front. The pasty-faced keeper we brought in, whose name escapes me, looked like he'd won a hastily arranged 'Be a Goalie for a Fortnight' competition. By the end of the second leg at Plymouth we were desperately hanging on for penalties before we were thankfully put out of our misery.

 

[shoddycollins]

We spent all our money on good first team players and had none left over to build a squad with capable understudies. Normally we'd be able to supplement that with loanees during the season but without that option we've really been hit hard by injuries. Maybe next season a better balance will be struck but I felt during the summer that nobody really knew how the new loan rules would affect negotiations, I imagine that squad players will command a higher premium going forward, knowing that even if they aren't first-team, they could still be needed, which probably isn't good for clubs like ours.

 

[That Fat Centre Half]

I like the change as it rewards better planning and scouting which is something that should be rewarded.
Also helps the players as they get a fair chance rather than the "one and done" types you used to get, who disappeared after an indifferent debut.

We got stung a little bit with the current goalkeeper situation however which isn't ideal as now Walton is getting splinters from the Brighton whilst we would desperately like him back! But overall I think it's a good thing and should hopefully encourage teams to think and plan for the longer terms than previously.

 

[oakroader]

imo..the one thing that gets more obvious is the amount of "ex-luton" players that crop up across the leagues...mainly lower ones tbf...they seem to have had an effect at their current clubs while maybe not making much of an impact whilst with us....perhaps thats indicative of our own problems??

 

[Boletus Edulis]

We have not been playing well consistently for a while, but what gives me hope is that some of our rivals are tailing off because of the smaller side of their squad. I noticed this especially in the programme against Carlisle were their squad was quite a bit smaller than ours. We have injuries, and to some important players, but unlike last year our squad depth means we are hanging in their. Some of our rivals won't be able to. So the new changes seem to benefit us, and presumably anyone else who had the money to get a few decent ones in. It is clearly an issue for those with little depth, few good young-uns or a lot of injuries

 

[Rob_of_the_green]

We have not been playing well consistently for a while, but what gives me hope is that some of our rivals are tailing off because of the smaller side of their squad. I noticed this especially in the programme against Carlisle were their squad was quite a bit smaller than ours. We have injuries, and to some important players, but unlike last year our squad depth means we are hanging in their. Some of our rivals won't be able to. So the new changes seem to benefit us, and presumably anyone else who had the money to get a few decent ones in. It is clearly an issue for those with little depth, few good young-uns or a lot of injuries

Definitely, I think it has quite obviously helped the clubs with bigger gates and bigger turnover that can have more depth in their squad for a sustained period of time (whereas clubs with smaller budgets and those on good locations before could just bring in a little gem for a short period and change their fortunes quickly without too much outlay). In fact look at the league table, top 3, Doncaster, Plymouth, Portsmouth, and then Luton only a couple places down too, that's definitely all the heavyweights of the league in and around the top, not a coincidence.

 

[Kenneth E End]

Gateshead used to be masters of the loan system. They'd fall behind and they'd just call up Newcastle and get them to send a loanee along for a month or three to propel them up the league.

We've had our arses bitten this season with the Walton situation, but I agree that the rules are right in their current form.

Yes it does advantage those with bigger budgets, but that's football - finances and squad building needs to be done better. A team like Wycombe used to pack their team with loanees; made a bit of a mockery of the division.