However, you ruined the sensible reply re loans by saying

"I did, however, point out that Clough was holding the potential of the club back, so that puts me way ahead of you in the 'nous' category because you didn't believe it. My solution for not being held back by Clough was getting rid of Clough, and it's worked a treat."
.................................

Its not getting rid of Clough that has worked a treat. It was bringing in McClaren et al.

Had you said replace Clough with MCClaren I'd give you full credit. You didn't, however. You just said get rid of Clough and bring in someone better.

Many times we have debated replacing Clough and my stance was always that I felt he was doing as good a job as anyone could given the parameters we believed he was working with. I still believe that to be the case by and large. Equally, I also acknowledged that he had his faults.

I could not see anyone who I was SURE would do better than Clough. I did not know that the parameters could be shifted (if they have). No-one to my memory suggested McClaren.

No, and I have to say I'm surprised by just how good a coach he's proved to be in such a short space of time.

The main thrust of my argument was never against the Lego-coiffed daddy's boy as a person though, it was always about his poor tactics, formulaic substitutions and inability to manage players effectively. He, with his poor decisions and laughable tactic, was what was wrong with the squad and I think that's been proved many times over since he left.

The new coaches have empowered the players through positive coaching and positive substitutions when required, and for that we must thank them. How much better the coaching is than any of the other candidates mooted over the years we'll never know, but certainly the removal of the negativity is largely responsible for our upturn in fortune.

I'm not certain the level of investment since Clough was removed was availed to him beforehand; there has long been rumours of him sitting on money and certainly he'd not shown any inclination to reinforce the defence since a tentative enquiry for Baptiste fell through (we couldn't afford him, the £164m-in-debt Bolton apparenty could?!!) but certainly there's a positivity running through the club now that I doubt Clough could ever had brought about.

comment by lastapostleofvidal (U1491)
posted 15 minutes ago
666

You still haven't answered the question. All you have said is that the loan system should be abolished. You are going around in small circles like a sweaty pooch waiting to to have a dump. Should Derby be the only club to refuse to use loan players, yes or no?



Is that your final attempt to phrase your question?

I'd prefer we use our own players and use the loan system only if we have a genuine emergency, ie all goalkeepers are overcome by fumes whilst creating 'art' atop a caravan, or something. Does that knowingly put us at a disadvantage..? Yes.

We're now exploring 'the line' between sport and business. Is it actually Derby County FC competing in the Premier League if we're just a collection of loanees from other clubs? Is that the height of our sporting ambition, 17th in the EPL and damn the consequences? Would we rather survive with someone else's players than be relegated with our own?

I appreciate that you had put on a single-season limiter, but why? Why are you happy to put on that caveat in your scenario, one that would disadvantage us in our second season, yet decry my opinion that we shouldn't do it for the first season? Hypocritical much?

"there's a positivity running through the club now that I doubt Clough could ever had brought about"
......................
I am going to contradict myself slightly here is that I agree with that comment (partly, at least) but shouldn't because, if you look at Sheff Utd since Clough took over, he has transformed them!

From no wins in 10 games to 7 wins, 5 draws and only 3 defeats in his 15 games in charge.

If he can do it there, why couldnt he do it here? Or, would he have done it here? Would the results be exactly the same as under McClaren?

I dont think so, as it happens, as I also believed that Clough could be a tad too defensive and predictable at times.

We will never know how far Clough would have taken us.

I believe he would have got us there, eventually.

I also believe, from what we've seen so far, that we are likely to get there quicker under McClaren - largely because of his so far excellent use of the much maligned loan market!

666 suggested Mick McCarthy, and looking at what he's doing at Ipswich it would have been a decent move. Just because McClaren wasn't suggested, doesn't mean that those of us who wanted Clough replaced were wrong, because quite simply, there's nothing to suggest that ONLY McClaren could've got the results that he has. Over the years there have been several appointments where similar has happened, Boothroyd, Dowie, Warnock, McDermott, Adkins, Lambert, Freedman, Keane and if I thought harder I could name many more managers who've kick-started a club.

As for the loans debate, I'm somewhere in the middle, and certainly don't agree with 666. The criteria for me should be different. I DO agree that clubs shouldn't be allowed to stockpile players. I would introduce rules that clubs cannot sell or release anyone under the age of 20, but that would contradict the new academy poaching rules bought in to ruin smaller club's academies. Loans in themselves are not a bad thing. Many lower league clubs rely on the salaries of their loanees being paid by the parent club. All players need competitive games to develop. Before I abolished loans, I would consider limiting squad sizes and restricting the transfers of certain ages.

It occurs to me that 666 and Nigel both hated the loan system in equal measure and that, in fact, it was Nigels stubborn refusal to use it TO OUR ADVANTAGE that resulted in his demise.

Sheff United are still a big fish in that pond and their 'par' position should be about 4th or 5th.

Peeder, Nigel wasted loads of money on loans. In the last 2 seasons he realised he couldn't get quality players anymore due to the poor standard of coaching, so had to buy them!

Is Clough a bad coach or is it Garner.? Is Taylor a good goalkeeping coach.? Why did Metgod not go to Sheff Utd.?

Talking about Coaching.....http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=c4-overview&list=UUsOKCDfSRPwRhnbCqBO8CQw&v=DRzr2JvKSwQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DDRzr2JvKSwQ%26feature%3Dc4-overview%26list%3DUUsOKCDfSRPwRhnbCqBO8CQw and that's why he's is come to Derby.welcome aboard

Mostyn talking about coaching can anybody coach our team to take a decent freekick

"Hypocritical"

Everything is not a question of a moral stance. We aren't talking about huge issues of RIGHT and WRONG here, it's just football. I honestly don't think you're so thick that you don't understand the nuances of the debate, it's simply that in your desperation not to appear to be wrong you want to avoid getting into even the slightest degree of complexity. Hence the retreat into hyperbole: "we're just a collection of loanees from other clubs" for example.

I don't say it's an absolute one-season limiter as such, just that the first season represents a massive step up and it is unlikely that the existing squad could survive. To add several more players can be cripplingly expensive with no guarantee of survival, so it could be a way of reducing that risk is all. Not the whole team but maybe two or three. The hope would be that if the club could become firmly established in the top flight that loan players would be required less and less and perhaps not at all in the longer term. Were relegation to occur the hit to the club ought to be much less than if getting relegated with high earners who really don't want to be there any more.

I am, I confess, gradually becoming worn down which is perhaps your objective. You can then declare yourself the "winner". I have rephrased it a number of ways and you insist on trying to polarise it as yourself as a shining knight against the evil others who want every Derby player to be a loanee. We have already seen this season how a loanee can be a great asset to the club. It is conceivable that if Derby got promoted Wisdom might be available as a season-long loan next season. Obviously this is not a "permanent" solution to a right-back problem but no player is ever "permanent", just a temporary member of the staff with financial consequences on acquisition and departure. A budget must cover signings and wages and unless you can afford to cover all bases with high-quality long-term signings and to hell with the consequences if you go down it can be a PART, hear me? PART of a strategy.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Mostyn - an interesting list of managers who have kick started a club.

Boothroyd - aka "Aidy Hoofroyd" - kick started Watford, then sacked by them and also by Northampton. Currently unemployed.

Dowie - kick started Palace - failed everywhere else. Unemployed

Warnock - 12 clubs in 30 years of management. I actually like Colin but he's hardly a recipe for long term success.

McDermott - actually took him 3 years to "kick start" Reading but people tend to overlook that. Not exactly kick started Leeds.

Adkins - kick started Southampton I assume? But was then kicked out to be replace by a foreigner who they needed to kick start their season. Adkins has not kick started Reading, that's for sure!

Lambert - Kick started Norwich? Maybe! Villa - Hardly!
Freedman - who? The ex Palace bloke who has failed miserably at Bolton? He only took Palace from 21st to 17th position BTW. More a gentle shove than a kick start.

Keane - Come on. More a KICK UP THE ARRIS than a kick start. Sunderland possibly. Cuurently unemployable after his utter failure at Ipswich.

There is a common theme in the list above, however. Few of them have lasted more than 3 years in one job and all have been failed and been sacked in the end.

You should have added Billy!

You are, as usual, missing the whole point, Vidal's'.

It's not whether or not players in on loan can improve a side; we've seen time and again that often that is the case, even if it just drives the existing players on that extra few percent due to competition for places, and I'm all for Derby County having as many decent contributors as it can afford, and it's there that we differ.

Consider, if you will, the chicken and the egg. The modern equivalent of that debate is 'Can the Championship chicken afford an egg?' when, in fact, the only reason that the Championship chicken does not have sufficient eggs of requisite quality is because the Premier League Chickens have bought all of the likely-looking eggs for a pitiful amount of feed but cannot fit them all under it's breast to incubate them, and so the bereft Championship chicken now incubates the 'EPL' eggs that would ordinarily be it's own and incubates them on behalf of the marauding pirate EPL chickens.

Peeder, you've changed the topic of the conversation. Quite simply the lifespan of a manager in any role is limited, and 99.999999% of ALL managers in the game have been sacked at some point!

The list I put forward was in direct debate with the assumption that replacing Clough would only be successful with McClaren replacing him, I'm suggesting history shows that a long list of managers have fired a team up the league when coming in.

Nigel Clough lasted longer than three years but was ultimately sacked, and it's difficult to argue that he made any progress in real terms for the last few years; was he a failure?

I'd argue not as he left the club in a better state than he found it in, and built a platform to go on from... would you agree, Peeder?

No 666, it is you who missing the point, again. You insist on making it an issue of right and wrong. We cannot force others clubs to abandon the loan system. If it was possible for loans to be abolished I would have some sympathy, but we remain in the real world. I am talking about what could be a real scenario, that is Derby getting promoted this season, and how we might increase our chances of survival. Your contribution to this is to say that the whole loan system is evil. This is a bit like saying that football is all about money these days, and not like it used to be: it's true, but we either pick up our ball and go home or we compete as best we can. It is possible at the same time to campaign for a limit to loanees and protection of clubs that have developed young players.

Mostyn - yes it does but it also shows that there is no real rhyme nor reason about which managers will be successful in doing so, although some have more evidence of success than others.

I didnt say that ONLY McClaren would have improved Clough's legacy. I'd wager around 50% would have improved it and 50% would have made it worse.

In fact, if you'd asked me before he started, I'd have been sceptical about McClaren - cetainly more so than McCarthy, for example, or even Warnock who have a proven track record.

I happen to think that, with some very notable exceptions, your are spot on with the llifespan bit. Its not just about football managers either - it can be applied to many jobs in various sectors.

People get stale, their impact diminishes and unless they are able to retrain themselves they do need to move on (or be moved on).

I think that's exactly what happened with us. Nigel had been set a challenge - he's done what he was tasked to do and was sitting in a position of comfort (some might say complacency?), lacking the impetus to drive us faster.

So to answer 666, of course he wasn't a failure. But equally, I do think it was about the right time to change things around. I'd have given him this season, myself, but I'm not going to argue with Rush's decision in hindsight!

I'm not "making" it an issue of right and wrong; you canvassed opinions on whether we should improve our (first season back) chances by signing loan players, and I gave you my response.

When you did not like that response, you eventually rephrased the question and I responded to that too. You're now suggesting that it isn't an issue of right or wrong and that I cannot comprehend the nuances of debate when in fact it is you that has posed questions and then been confused by the responses garnered.

If you wish to preach, Reverend, then crack on and preach, but if you're serious about discussing subject matter then be prepared to have answers and opinions that might not gel with yours offered.

Clough OUT.
Vidals OUT.
Loans OUT.
Peeder Meh.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Not really sure if the OP is asking about using loans in the season you get promoted to the Prem, or the 1st season up in the Prem.

On the former, its a bit of a trap. Look at Wisdom as an example.

Are Liverpool going to let us sign him? - No

Are they going to let us keep him on loan - maybe for 1 more season. All that does is kick the can down the road.

Are they going to let us play him against them, or get him cup-tied? No

So while it may help get us up, I figure it makes it harder to stay up once there.

However, with the impending pincer-movement of FFP and Parachute Payments for the moment I say get up no matter what. It will be much easier than ever before to be a yo-yo club under the new financial regime.

On the subject of loans in the first season up, my concern is more about getting a loan of sufficient quality to make a difference. If it can be done, then I've no problem with it.

"I'd argue (Clough was not a failure at DCFC) as he left the club in a better state than he found it in, and built a platform to go on from... would you agree, Peeder?"

Yes, I've completely ignored his contribution, haven't I?

You might want to have your optician check your prescription, Mapdini, as this is the second time in less than 24 hours that you've completely mis-read contributions on here. Last night you praised Iwas for his ability to copy and paste one of my comments!!

Loan market > 666

It was the two words after the copy and paste that drove the message home 666.

Do you want promotion or not?