The Beckham loan should never have happened. If he was kept with the first team squad where he was already getting games we may not have all those injuries and meltdowns. I seem to remember thinking he should have played the cup final against Everton that time too. The loan and the general lack of faith SAF showed in him that year possibly cost us a domestic double. Only on redcafe could a month long loan that happened 27 years ago be cited so often as something exemplary that needs to be repeated.
What gets me though is the way we totally neglect the reserve team. It makes a difference. It's no coincidence we lost 6-0 to West Ham in the reserves and then within 24 hours we lost 5-0 to Liverpool in the league. It's about momentum and just doing things right as a club, putting out good teams. It's absurd for the club to complain about the standard of the reserves, send players on ridiculous loans that prove nothing, then go out with a weakened team and get beat 6-0.
It also happens often that redcafe automatically assumes the loaned guy will be good enough upon his return to make meaningful contributions. Everyone here presumed that Pereira and Tuanzebe would be good to go, based on performances that had nothing to do with Manchester United. It's funny how the club shares the opinions of this forum too: for me that's the real troubling part.
No idea if this post is a wind up or not....but the first part makes no sense at all given the number of games Beckham actually played in for United prior to his loan. In addition, his performances in the games he did play in gave nothing to suggest he should warrant a starting place in the Cup Final ahead of Keane, Butt, Ince and Sharpe. Secondly, I don't see any correlation to Beckham's development as a 19 year-old and any fallout with Ferguson nearly 10 years later? If you read Beckham's book, Ferguson's books and the one on the Class of 92...they all say the same thing about his three weeks at Preston. It had nothing to do with any 'lack of faith' and certainly didn't 'cost us a domestic double'. That is a big leap!
Finally, I have no idea how how our depleted reserves losing 0-6 at West Ham affected the first team result against Liverpool?
I don't always agree with the clubs loan policy and often wonder how really effective it is (which I guess is your point)...and often wish we would play our strongest team at youth level. However, the club has a clear plan about winning v development which is focused on bringing players through to the first team which we are pretty good at. So something is working.
The loan system is fraught with uncertainty in numerous ways and as far as United is concerned it has rarely worked to our favour. There are too many factors to manage so it becomes a bit of a lottery. It worked for Beckham, Welbeck, Evans and a few others but overall no club really manages it well.
To my mind the loan system/strategy at United has four major upsides:
1. It provides a pathway for young players who need that next step and probably aren't going to make it at United
2. It provides spaces in the U/18 and Reserve teams for the next group to come through
3. In 5% of cases we might get a player back who can contribute positively to the first team
4. It attracts young players to the club
That's why we use the loan system the way we do.