Was going to say, that it now looks like Wellens is coming back, we are more likely to see Richie in CM than Danns.
Hence ND going out on loan.
He needs to do something to be fair to him.
He did serve us well last season IMO.

Another one bits the dust.....its not a surprise though
and those man utd boys are good and cheap.

I have some mixed feelings about Danns as, although I thought he was rubbish when we first signed him, he form was much better in the second half of last season. He’s short on quality, but makes up for it to some extent in industry and does have the capability of scoring the odd goal.

Unlike the Beckford situation, however, I feel sure that we have better players in the current team and maybe in the squad, so I suppose it does make some sense to get him off the wage bill and give him some match practice.

A short term loan seems about right with our relatively small squad but, despite what Dungeon might say, I’d still sooner see him loaned to a club in a different league, or lower down the table rather than a club who is directly influencing the play off chase.

Nev, which Man U boys do you mean?
Keane only made one game and Lingard was inneffective against Forest.
If you mean Drinkwater and James I agree.

Joby, I too would like to see Danns out to lower league or struggling Championship teams.
I do struggle with loans to teams in direct competetion. As we all know these things can come back and bite you!
But I also do trust NP and beleive in him.

I'd happily see him loaned to a team in the bottom half that's going to be playing lots of teams in the top half in the next month.

Loan him to a team in the top half that pays against teams in the bottom half and it works against you. Loan him anywhere for a long time and there's no big cumulative effect.

"As we all know these things can come back and bite you!"

----------------

With DJ Campbell it didn't bite us and almost benefitted us significantly.

Ok Dungeon, are you saying that when DJ played for Blackpool his goals were against lower placed teams and helped us?

DJ played against teams across the division, making his contribution to us neutral.

Later, his goals helped Blackpool into the playoffs. This cost Swansea, but not us as we were in the playoffs as well. This was also neutral to us.

If we had defeated Cardiff, we would have faced Blackpool in the final and they would have been without their top striker as he would have been ineligible to play against us. This would have been a great benefit.

DJ Campbell going on loan to Blackpool that season cost us nothing.

You have a brilliant memory and perspective Dungeon, along with an adept way to put this.

I do see what you mean, I never looked at it from that point.
Guilty of jumping on the "it's all DJ's fault" bandwagon.

Do you think Wellens will get into the side other than injuries? I hope he has returned a better player and something of the Wellens a couple of years ago.

Just a bit more on loans :

I think the significant thing with loaning someone to a team in the same division is the fact that they're ineligible to pay against you. For instance, if player X is worth 10 points to the team they've gone to (optimistic, but go with it for a moment) then they're also costing other teams in the division approximately 10 points. However, since player X is ineligible to play against his host club, none of those ~10 points can be taken from the host club - theoretically they should end up with the same number of points as they would otherwise. It's possible that the loan club will move above them in the league because of the extra 10 points, but it's also subtly possible that the host club might have jumped another club that were cost points because of Player X's contribution.

It's still better for Player X to play for a club at the opposite end of the table to the host club because it lessens the possibility of the loan club's extra points being enough to jump the host club itself; however this is a marginal effect over the season and can be balanced by other benefits the loan might bring (freeing up wages, for instance). Over a shorter period of time (e.g. a month), the loan club only plays certain teams in the division, therefore if you can strengthen a loan team who won't be near you and will happen to play many of the teams around you, this is probably a benefit. As for Beckford at Huddersfield, I don't know which teams Hudds have been playing but they had a striker crisis against us (he was ineligible) and given the length of the loan they will have played teams from across the division by the end of it so it's again probably neutral.

Anyway...

Wellens is an interesting one. I think he'd be a good option for the bench and, as some have suggested on this board, he'd be good as someone to come on and provide a bit of steel and experience if it's needed in a match. However, I'm not convinced that he's good/fit enough as a starter anymore, and not above King, Drinkwater and James. Whether he'd be happy with this when he could get first 11 football at Ipswich, I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if he left in January.

1962 i was being ironic about the 4 or 5 man utd players we have two of whom we can never sign.

Dung wow great argument and revisionist theory Would man utd loan a player to a premier club who could be in the top ten.....Never

Dungeon my head hurts


OK Nev, didn't realise your tongue was firmly in your cheek.

On your point Nev, agree never

There are different considerations there Nev:

Part of the problem is perception. If Man Utd were to send out a youngster to someone in the bottom half of the Prem, nobody would care. In fact, people would think if beneficial.
If Alex Ferguson were to send out a player to a rival for non-footballing reasons, the press would be all over it. You know what woud happen - there would be hysteria. The sheer amount of negative media coverage would put a lot of pressure on the club and the staff, and all for what would end up beign very little effect. Pundits would bang on all season about whether the decision could cost them the title, while the player's contribution against other rivals would go unnoticed.

Additionally, the extra benefits would be gone as well. Man Utd don't need the money so much. Any player of such a calibre wouldn't need a shop window either. It would also be easier to drum up interest and sell them abroad (particularly if they're non-British).

So no, they wouldn't loan a player to a rival, but again there are subtle differences. As it happens, I believe many managers wouldn't do it because they'd be too afraid of the negative press/fan reaction and they'd be too afraid of sod's law. Pearson is having to remain resolute in the face of critcism over Beckford and may have to face criticism over Danns as well. Other managers wouldn't have the nerve. But all that doesn't make the technicalities of the argument wrong.

Anyway, it seems that Danns is going out on loan to Bristol City, so no worries. Looking at who they're playing, I doubt the loan will make much difference at all to us.

Dung on the other sied its not unknown for Man Utd to try and sign a striker to stop other clubs from getting them.

If another club got said striker, he would be eligible to play against Man Utd and they would therefore lose that advantage.

Besides, that tends to be a rare phenomenon and there are other issues at play - players with high potential for the future, the symbolic nature of bossing another club around, that sort of thing. It's not really the same argument.

I have no issue with any player going to any team.

If they were genuinely good enough to male a difference to that team, they'd be in our first team.

Same for Danns. Send him to Cardiff, forest or palace for all I care. The only reason we'll be promoted or not this year is based on our own results, not 1 player in 1 rival team.

Perspective people!

Looks as though he's gone to bristol city for a month

One caveat to my statement above. If the player in question is actually your nest player and wants out, you should never loan or sell him to a rival.

If they are a top player, it's a matter of principle and that they would strengthen your rival.

For example, Cristiano Ronaldo IS good enough to improve a team by himself which is why Real Madrid would never sell him to us.

I'd have no issue with us lending some of our players out - particularly Waghorn, James and Vardy !!

They all need to gain experience where there is less pressure - somewhere like Division 1.

Bristol City? After the way they treated us over the Maynard saga?

I'd tell them to do one and then flood their forum with endless posts about how the player refuses to play for another Championship club.

"If another club got said striker, he would be eligible to play against Man Utd and they would therefore lose that advantage."

The earth has stopped spinning on its axis. The one i call Dung is wrong! Man Utd like leicester have done will have a clause in thier contract which means they wont be able to play against them... Will the world ever be the same again.

"Dung on the other sied its not unknown for Man Utd to try and sign a striker to stop other clubs from getting them."
>
"If another club got said striker, he would be eligible to play against Man Utd and they would therefore lose that advantage."

That was merely a response to your comment directly above. I wasn't talking about a loanee, I was replying to your point about (the frankly rare situation of) Man Utd buying up players to stop their rivals from getting them. Explain what's technically wrong with what I put.