Me neither, hope we aren’t entirely restricted to Turkey in the future but I imagine Tan Kesler’s scouting/contacts is deep into Europes top leagues if anyone knows more please share
Honestly mate, you're savage when it comes to spending other peoples money. You're about 3 windows ahead of yourself.
I just think Turkey is easier as it's where we have the biggest pull. I'm sure we're looking everywhere. We still haven't replaced Honeyman and that needs doing. There's not loads of players available domestically at reasonable prices and there's always a shed load of competition. It doesn't have to be millions, I love a good free or a 6 figure deal, but I just don't see why PL loans should ever be considered the solution. They're a no win situation for us. If the player does well, he either costs a fortune or we can't get him back and if he does crap, you may's well not have signed him. Pretty much all of them have decent loan fees and they generally come with penalty clauses if they don't get the agreed number of minutes. I'd love to see us going and sign a few 18-20 years olds for a few hundred grand a piece to fill the holes. It'll cost less in the long run, we know they'll be here next season and if we hit a home run with one, at least the profit is ours. I really hate these PL loans, they're just the epitomy of short-termism.
That’s it isn’t it. All the good prem loans aren’t up for sale so effectively just increasing the value of other teams players. Although we did pretty well last season in finding fringe youngsters with no real future at their given clubs but with untapped potential
Yep, all it's about is developing other club's players. If we go down the PL loan market, that's the route we have to try again but with the increased level in our squad now, those players won't have got the same playing time they did last year. This is where it gets tricky. Loan to buys are better but if it's a smallish fee (six figures), why not just buy them? I just don't see the point in bringing in 4 more loans this year as you know that's 4 players you have to replace immediately next year. It's just making more work for us when we should be targeting a promotion push in 12 months. I'd rather have a major upheaval this year, so that next year, we only need 3/4 additions and it's a pretty settled squad. Oh and last point, no loan player is treated as well as a permanent player. There's a much greater incentive for the club to spend time on their own players rather than another club's.
It would shock me if we weren't looking at PL loanees. Shota the other day mentioned we were looking at a PL player for instance.
So getting Baxter on loan last summer was bad business and just developing a player for Chelsea was it? Loans work both ways. It gives the club a chance to look at the player and potentially offer them a permanent role the following season.
And Wilson, and Baxter, and.. Fancy suggesting loans are a bad thing. Also love the notion that free signings are literally free and we wouldn't be paying a large sign on fee to the player anyway. There's nothing cheap about a permanent signing either from a selling club or as a free agent. Topping up with a few loans as depth who we aren't paying a wedge too and don't need to keep beyond the season if they don't work out is emminently sensible and the cheap/safer approach to take. It doesn't show a lack of ambition, just not blowing our wad all in one window as some seem to want us to do.
He also said we'd spend more. I think it's more downplaying expectations and not expecting another £16m to be spent which I think is completely reasonable Well it certainly wasn't ideal business, I'd much rather have bought him last summer. If he has a decent season, we're going to have a monumental struggle on our hands to get him out of Chelsea despite having a buy option.
Well we haven't spent money on Sinik yet at the time of his comment. Or Estupinan, Tetteh or this other CDM we're probably after. So we should have bought Bernard, Forss and Walsh as well? Hindsight makes everything pretty easy.. Do you understand how a buy option works?
You said only a page back we should be blowing up 90% of our squad and bringing in new players. It was absurd.
I said to fill the spots with young players on permanents, not experienced pros with big signing on fees. We'll be bringing in double figures of new players anyway, so what's the difference between that and 15 which should get the rebuild sorted. It's not like we're only signing 4 and I'm suggesting bringing in 15. There's only a small difference as it's already a big upheaval. Forss is exactly the reason you should avoid the loan system. He'll have cost a 6 figure loan fee as he came with a decent pedigree, and he recently signed a new long term deal at Brentford so with their promotion too, he's going to be on somewhere close to £10k, which we'll have had to pay as there was competition. He was utter cack, but he'll have cost us significantly more than keeping Magennis, which is what we should have done and would have been the better option. I said at the time, the Magennis one was a mistake. I'd have bought Bernard too yes, there was enough in him to show that with some work he could be a decent CB. Walsh was another pointless waste of money that was just a rushed signing and another reason why you should avoid the loan market
That was 14 years ago Chazz, the fact that you've had to go that far back probably proves that the loan market is far from ideal. I'm not saying there hasn't been a few others too, but there's certainly been a lot more than haven't worked than those that do.
You can't in the same breath say "Yes we should have signed the players that worked out on permanents instead of loaning them in" and say "Of course we shouldn't have loaned the players that didn't work out" as if these things are magically clear before the loan spell. At the time neutrals and pundits were saying Forss was a big signing as he was doing well in the League Cup for Brentford and had done reasonably as second string to Toney in the Championship. Of course in hindsight that didn't work out but no one was saying that at the time.
Elmo, Meyler, Brady all started as loans in the same season! Gedo on loan was pretty good that season too.. More recently Ranocchia, Markovic, Niasse and N'Diaye weren't too bad on loan were they? Even more recently, Wilson and Tomori were good promising players. Aina and Hector had their moments. And so on.. A lot of loans work, and a lot fail. It's impossible to tell going in but it means you aren't locking yourself into a multi-year deal for a player. Look at Scott who everyone seems to have written off and we spent close to 1m on. If we had loaned him first I doubt we would have signed him on a permanent? Just one example, but to write off an entire system of transfer is quite silly.
Of course you can. We signed Baxter, Longman, and Bernard with the idea that they could be with us for the long term. If we could've spent, I'm pretty certain we'd have gone for them permanently last summer. We went for Forss as a rushed signing as we'd missed out on a tonne of targets. I hadn't seen Forss play much but just from the type of player he is and the type of forward we used, it's not rocket science to say it wouldn't work out. You don't need to use hindsight to say that somebody with zero physical presence won't make a good target man. We'll have known that too but we needed a striker, it was late in the window and he was probably the best available. None of those were in the last 4 years. The fact you're having to go back that shows they don't really work. They're seen as short term options which I'm saying I want us to get away from. Permanent signings have a much higher success rate. Scott's a daft example too, he was a young kid doing okay in Scotland, there's no way we could've taken him on loan. He was another rushed signing late in the window, which is certainly not what I'm suggesting we do.
