McCormack to Sunderland on loan? NO and loans in general

The story is that Ross McCormack is going on loan to Sunderland and if you believe the sources, he’s begun personal talks with the club.

I’ve been thinking about this one on and off all day and it’s frankly bugging me.
Ok, I’ve suggested previously that I believe after “Gate-gate” the relationship between the player and Steve Bruce has almost certainly irretrievably broken down.
I still think this and am convinced McCormack will have looked at Bruce’s comments at the time and thought to himself that he was being kicked when he was at his lowest ebb.
Which is a view I do have some sympathy for.

But Bruce is generally known as a good man-manager.
Perhaps he actually felt that Ross just needed a good kick up the proverbial for his own good and was trying to do him a favour?
I’m not really convincing myself about that point, to be honest.
Whatever, we probably only heard a fraction of the real story and will never get to hear all the facts.

So on the assumption that McCormack has told Bruce to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine, the only option is that we have to let McCormack go.
I totally understand that.
But what I don’t understand is why we’d let him go out on loan.

Apparently, no-one is willing to get anywhere near the £12-15 million or whatever it was that we paid for him.
Fair enough. He’s aging, apparently is trouble and was frankly poor last season. I understand thet too.
But letting him go out on loan could really be a worse option than just selling him on the cheap, in my opinion.

I know Sunderland are predicted by many to really struggle this season.
But what if McCormack feels really fired up and goes on to have a great season, banging in say, 20+ goals and helps them get promoted over us?
How stupid would our decision to loan him out look then?
And then we could take him back, when Sunderland deem that he isn’t good enough for the Premiership?
Where we’d still have to pay his monstrous wages and he wouldn’t want to play for Bruce (if indeed he’d still be our manager)?

Ok, that’s a worst case scenario. But football’s a funny old game.
Get rid, once and for all, in my opinion. Whatever the cost.
And do the same for the other usual suspects.

And then I said last night that I’d give my opinion on loans in general.
Most of you probably know that I’m not a fan.
And the reason I say that is because I utterly fail to see the point.

Let’s look at some recent examples;
Baker, went to Bristol. As it happens, I could see the point in this one.
Same league and was showing signs of progress for us (in my opinion), but couldn’t get a game.
Gardner. Showed next to nothing for us, so loaned out to Forest, where he does well. Comes back shows nothing again.
He obviously doesn’t fit our system, so he has to go. It would seem at least someone at the club agrees. So a total waste of time, yet I’ll bet we were paying at least some of his wages.
Johnstone, comes to us and was rubbish, but improved with more games (or a better defence?). Obviously deemed not good enough for Manure, yet they loan him to us again, where his contract is up at the end of the season, so they’ve effectively given him to us.
Again, what’s the point?

Who has gone out on loan for us and has come back vastly improved?
I can’t think of anyone and if you can, I’ll bet you can’t name many more.

No, I’m just not keen on the idea, except maybe for under 20’s and even then, my opinion is that they shouldn’t go more than a league lower than the club’s current position.
If they can’t cut it there, get rid.

For any player to go out on loan, it says to me that he might learn more than he’s going to learn at the Villa. And I don’t see how that should be right.

Perhaps then, a better solution might be for the higher club’s second string to play at a higher level, say two divisions down, like the likes of Barca and Real, etc?
But that means even more elitism, which I’m not a fan of either.
I’ve just thrown the thought out there, that’s all.

Like I said, I’m not a fan.
At best it helps a club out temporarily, but benefits the loaning club even more, if we’re talking real top level.
But otherwise, it’s a totally pointless exercise, in my opinion.

23 Comments

Page 1 of 2 1 2
  1. Avatar
    Hitchens 60 July 25, 2017 at 9:47 pm .

    Badger, in some ways I agree with you. The loan system was originally established (as I understand it) to give younger (English) players game time and also allow teams in lower divisions to add good players to their squads at minimum cost – all sounds pretty sensible. But the powers that be didn’t limit the loan regulations so hey ho it’s hijacked by the Prem clubs who start loaning players to each other and receiving a fee for the privilege. Frankly the FA need to put some restrictions on loans as it’s getting ridiculous – Hart loaned to West Ham – really!

    Now, having said all that – it is what it is and we’d be mad as a club to stand on a principle whilst all other clubs try to exploit the system for all they are worth. And I also suspect it helps with the ridiculous FFP rules.

    So returning to RM. having watched him in the friendlies I don’t think there is much risk of him scoring 20 goals in the Championship this year but clearly Villa are not going to sell him cheap. Other clubs realise he is a risk so are unwilling to take him for more than a season – answer use the loan system. No doubt we’ll trouser a £1m in loan fees, get the larger part of his wages off the books and, if by some miracle he does score a shed load of goals we can leverage his value. If he fails we aren’t really that worse off – and I assume at worst it helps with that FFP nonsense.

  2. Avatar
    Andrew July 26, 2017 at 3:03 am .

    I 100% agree, we shouldn’t look to loan out McCormack, I also 100% agree that it should be youth being loaned out. The only reason I was okay with Veretout and Gil being loaned was because I was expecting us to go back up and them coming back into the side.But with the manager’s we had for the Championship run, was not gonna happen.

    I also 100% agree on who we should loan too. I’m totally against sending say Oscar Borg to a Conference side. That league is no better than the U23 games he plays now, so there’s no point. I would be okay if he went to a League 1 or 2 side, however. The coaching is a bit better, and he’ll get real games.

    Our problem is, we don’t have a system that we play. I mean yeah you can say we play a really boring, defensive system, and that’s completely true, but we don’t have like a set of tactics. It almost seems like we’re playing like we did under McLeish, send the team out, tell them to be compact and hope for the best. So it’s hard to judge, because if we send players like Gardner to a team that attacks, of course he’ll look good, because he’s more of an attack minded player compared to his brother, but as Forest’s system is different to ours, he’s gonna look bad. Unless we’re loaning them to a team that plays a similar style too us, it’s almost pointless. Unless the manager won’t be here the next season, then I guess it doesn’t matter. I agree though, McCormack going to Sunderland on loan is pointless. Ask for 5-6m, and move on. Or try to get Ndong off them as he’s a beast.

    1. Avatar
      Andrew July 26, 2017 at 3:05 am .

      Personally speaking however, we 100% should be playing them at Villa Park. We have a group of youth players who are good, and never get a chance. We need too stop wasting the academy so much.

  3. Avatar
    Hitchens 60 July 26, 2017 at 7:03 am .

    I see the risk of bomb squad – the sequal – looming.

  4. Avatar
    johnnyuk July 26, 2017 at 4:01 pm .

    I feel like you’ve slightly over-thought elements of this Badger, like limiting how low the leagues you go. Truth be told, competitive football is competitive wherever you play and the line between Champ and 1st at times is pretty slim. Where I would want to see a restriction is that we can’t loan to teams in the same league – I think that’s utterly ridiculous and risky for the reasons you mention.

    I posted the same on another blog, but why the hell should we shoulder all the risk? If Sunderland want a player like McCormack, come and pay what we value him at, otherwise I think we should just play him until someone does. The key point is, football is a fickle world and even when relationships break down, all it takes is a few good performances and you’ve got everyone on side again – which I believe Ross has got in him still, somewhere…

    If Dr X loans him out, he’s more naive in football than I’d care to see.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: