I haven't seen much of Loftus-Cheek, is he good enough to be our guaranteed first choice? If he isn't then I don't really see the reason Chelsea would send him here, surely makes more sense to send him somewhere else from their perspective
I would always prefer an option to buy clause in the contract. Just look at how many millions it has probably cost Bmouth with Ake (you can't tell me that 12 months, £20m would have been the agreed clause if both sides had wanted one). But I'm not going to reject the chance to loan someone just because such a clause is not included. I'd rather Toby stayed with us permanently, but I'm still very happy and grateful that we got the 12 months out of him that we did. It comes down to whether or not he would improve our team. And of that, I have no idea. I have hardly seen him play.
I don't mind the lower leagues loaning players or us doing it when we were down there, but we are a top 8 club now. Top 8 in the whole country. We absolutely shouldn't be needing to loan in players. Besides I totally disagree with it full stop in the premiership. With all the money swirling around there is no need for any club to be getting players on loan (except loan to buy).
I agree with your second point Bill. I too disagree with PL teams being allowed to loan players; its wrong. However, the rules say we can and even though my preference is always a permanent or a loan to perm, if a player we wanted in a particular position became available and we couldn't find the right permanent signing, we'd being cutting off our noses if we didn't do it.
I'll throw it back again. Forget the player. Your disagreement seemed to be about the loan not the player. Would you not do it for any player?
This is spot on. It would be nuts to not have a player (not necessarily this one) who would improve our team, even if on loan. People were disagreeing with loaning from a competitor, that is the bit that's is cutting ones nose off.
I think people are saying that when we have a young CM ourselves who needs gametime (Hojbjerg) it seems a bit short term bringing in another teams young player to play. Unless Loftus-Cheek is some Kante level of CM I don't think having him or Hojbjerg playing is going to make a huge difference to our season next year, so we may aswell give the playing time to a player we have a long term interest in
I don't agree with the loan System.. Why coach a player only for us to just send him back? He blocks the pathway for another Academy player too, We have good players already. So a loan should only ever be with a option to buy.
I'm not sure he and Hojbjerg would be competing for a place. The bits I've read on Loftus-Cheek suggest he's a more attacking player than Hojbjerg so he'd be competing with Davis (and JWP?) for game time.
People weren't saying that. They were saying we shouldn't loan a player from a competitor without at least a loan to buy deal.
Forget the player. That's not my point. My point is clear and has been in every post. If the coach or club think a player can improve us and is only available on a loan (no buy deal), then to turn it down is cutting off your nose to spite your face. (Again on the understanding we haven't found an alternative). Of course we want to bring players on, but this week some of you are saying don't block the Pathway, but next week You'll all be moaning that Everton signed a CB for 30m and were giving Stephens a crack. Don't read more into the post other than what's been said. Ps. Did you read where I said I don't agree with the loan system?
If there was a player who would improve us that significantly available on loan with no option to buy then yes I would. If it is a player who may improve us slightly but who played in a similar position to younger players we have already at the club then no I wouldn't loan them in. I feel Loftus-Cheek falls into the second sentence so I wouldn't want him on a loan with no option to buy
I haven't moaned about that Everton have spent £30million on Keane.. I couldn't give a stuff about it, And I am glad Stephens got a chance in the first team. I hope he stays their than buy another player. We have a very good squad, So I don't honestly thing we will bring in a player on loan that will be better than what we already have.., What has been said is why bring in Loftus Cheek on loan for us to coach him, improve him for another team to buy him. He isn't going to be a starter.
The sales don't really go to inbound transfer fees, they go to wages. I know, it sounds silly to separate the two, but under the FA's financial rules, they are separate...profit on player sales allows them to exceed what would otherwise be their maximum wage bill by a large sum. So bringing in and selling those players is essential, even if they don't always wring full market value out of the deals, because it allows them to keep sending their wage bill ever higher.
Actually, no, that is not What has been said. I've said it every post clearly because it started with people saying we shouldn't loan players without a buy clause. I've mentioned it all the time. I couldn't be clearer. My posts have not been about the specific player but about the loaning of a player.
