Game time is key for young guns

THE EFL’s decision to contact FIFA to ask for greater flexibility on loan signings for their member clubs is an intriguing one – and will divide opinions.

When the emergency loan system was in operation, clubs could borrow players for one month to three months outside of the transfer windows. It gave clubs great flexibility.

If, for example, they had a few injuries to their defenders, they could go out and sign a player to plug the gap. It was convenient.

Players, too, could benefit from short spells out on loan at clubs lower down the ladder.

Since the emergency loan system was scrapped a couple of seasons ago, EFL clubs who wanted to borrow players have had to take them on half-season or full season loans.

There are pluses and minuses with this. Sometimes Premier League clubs do not want to loan out their players for that length of time and will keep them in-house where they will maybe get a few minutes of first team action here and there, or play U23s football.

There is also a danger that players will not settle at their temporary club or get in the side. With the rules as they are now, they are then trapped.

There is also a financial aspect to it. Clubs who do not have the resources to make permanent signings may be able to borrow players for a fraction of the cost, or even as a favour.

As Rochdale manager Keith Hill says, loans can sometimes be a quick fix. He also makes the point that half-season or season-long loans provide greater stability. A manager knows what he’s got to work with and has to get the best out of that squad of players.

He can’t just borrow young players from higher level clubs. Indeed, he may have to look at using his own young players.

This is a complex issue and it’s going to be fascinating to see what FIFA’s response is. The key is that young players get game time and the chance to develop – whatever system is in place.