Oh sure, but loaning players out is a two-pronged policy which I don't think is always practiced with enough prudence by the staff here. On the one hand we loan out certain players because we're basically looking to get rid. On the other hand we loan out certain other players because we're looking to help them speed up their development for us. When it's the second aim, we really need to be much more hands-on, I think, from picking the club to monitoring how they're handled.
Some clubs, for example, seem to take our players more with a view to have a look at them playing for the reserves for a few months rather than give them a chance in their first team. And my advice to them would be: if you want to see how they play in the reserves, come up to Kirkby and see in them play in OUR reserves, against better opposition. If they want to have them on loan, they should really be confident they want to play them. Of course, if a player gets the chance and struggles, then fair enough - we've all learned something. But too often we send them off to warm benches.
The mancs, for example, are far more ruthless than us about this - every unofficial means available is used to make sure the loanees are either coached properly and given chances or just called back to the club. The pressure is always on: it's the mancs doing THEM a favour, not, as is often implied in our case, the other way round.
And when it comes to the likes of Kent, Ojo and Wilson, well, was there really such a careful deliberative process before it was decided that, say, Kent would benefit more from sitting on the bench watching Coventry enacting Tony Mowbray's somewhat limited tactics rather than getting some time playing for the first team in the Europa League and the cup competitions here? I know there were arguments for and against in all of these cases, but too often it seems like we act out of a lack of consensus rather than a clear and coherent policy tailored to each talent.
