They normally don't like options to buy with their prospects, though (they'll do it with players surplus to requirements). Their Academy exists as a means to generate money that serves as an offset for the Financial Fair Play rules, so setting up anything short of a ludicrously expensive option would be counterproductive if he has a breakout year. Better to loan him with no option, and if he has a good season (but not good enough to be considered a starter next year) flog him then to the highest bidder.
Think he could be pretty decent next to Romeu. Big, strong, physical and a decent passer. A box to box CM that we need.
Oh yes, that's much better for them and I'm not convinced they'd agree but it'd be nice. Lukaku and maybe De Bruyne aside they don't generally get huge fees for their young players and if he's spent a year here and done well it may make him happier to stay long term. I guess I don't hate it because I think there's at least a possibility he could stay longer than just a year.
For all the shambles of the Alderweireld deal, we got that Bertrand deal set-up perfectly. A season long loan which we converted to a permananent deal in January. The loan probably took him off other clubs radars in Jan.
I read an article recently, cant find the link, where they have generated £400m in the past 3 or 4 seasons from sales. Lukaku and De Bruyne were in their, but that is some income from unwanted players...
What about if we can't get the right CM or the right deal for a CM and so we bring him in on loan for a year while we get the right one? Those not wanting a loan deal, still not want one? Talk about cut off nose to spite face!
Agree...if a player is right for us and can do a job, why not? The only thing against it is if it keeps out one of our players who was at the point of needing game time...however, even that's covered as we now seem willing to loan them out (a strict no-no in the Cortese era). People keep mentioning the Alderweireld deal as if we were caught out....we may have thought at the end that he was signing for us, but the loophole in the loan was evident at the beginning. There was talk right at the moment that Toby signed that the right to buy was not set in concrete, but was dependent on agreement with the player and his parent team.
I think each loan case is different, but we talk a lot on here about the clubs status in the pecking order of English football. Selling our best players is bad enough, but if we start loaning in our rivals youngsters, which will help develop them and showcase their talent whilst they make the inevitable mistakes younger players make and then hand them back with no reward. It would just feel like we're their bitches. That's why in the case of Loftus-Cheek I think their should be the opportunity for the deal to be permanent.
If they make mistakes, we wouldn't play them. They get the same chances as any player...not good enough means they won't be in the first team. We are not so junior that we have to agree to play them. Of course we won't want to pay the wages of a player not good enough for us, so it's a judgement call. P.s. I agree that it would be preferable to have a right to buy.
very true, we've taken on plenty of loans and not played them and used them as a just encase. In terms of a young central midfielder like Loftus-Cheek. We have two young central midfielders in Ward-Prowse & Hoijberg. I believe our priority should be on these two
Permanent is better of course, but my point is why just look at the negative? If it benefits us, do it. It is a little blinkered to rule something out that might benefit us due to a possible benefit to the home club. So back to my question: would you not do it if the only option was a straight loan?
And also what if RLC is better than our current players... We usually go for loans with a perm option (not a Fats in 1973 perm either), so is it possible we will do it. Also, say the player has an amazing season and helps us win the League by the end of Jan, would that be so bad?
Not far off that one until it started to fall out. Went from a young Michael Jackson to Chris Waddle over a few weeks
Possibly. They got £75m from selling Ramires and Oscar to Chinese clubs and £40m (I think?) when they sold Luiz to PSG a couple of years ago plus Lukaku, De Bruyne and dozens of youngish players for £5-10m apiece.
The other point here is the takeover. I've suggested before that may change our transfer behaviour this summer. If it's fairly close but not going through until after the season starts then I'd guess Kat could be fairly reluctant to agree that much spending.
