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.
None of those are in the last four years because I gave up after looking through those and seeing good loan signings in each year.

Wilks worked out ok as a loan? Kane when fit was good from Liverpool but his injuries let him down, Bowler had promise and we've seen him come on now at Blackpool..
Slater was a loan. Adelakun first half then Whyte second half were brilliant in League One. Then Longman and Baxter last season. It's really not that hard to find examples at all.
Permanent signings do not have a much higher success rate, that's a daft sweeping generalisation.
Not a daft example but you hate loans, seems there's no changing you.
Last edited: