Buying players we expect to increase in value is not exactly a revolutionary transfer strategy mind is it. We seem to have been particularly good at spotting them and I expect that to continue, just with less of a pull than if we were a PL club. The less said about the more experinced players we've bought in over the past 12-18 months the better.
It’s impossible to know if any wouldve but logic says they wouldn’t “Hey 19 year old talented player in top team u23s, would you like to go on loan to a Championship team for the year where you will play loads of games? Have a good or a **** year and you will come back here and we can re-assess next summer” “Sounds good” Hey 19 year old talented player in top team u23s, would you like to join a Championship team permanently where you will play loads of games? Have a good or a **** year and you might not get a move in the summer as you will be on a long term contract, we will put a buy back in but no guarantee we will activate it unless you are really good” “Nah I’ll take the loan thanks” Yes City could buy him back this summer, for more than the buyback was agreed a year ago so why even put one in if it becomes worthless? They could shorten when the buyback kicks in, and say it is valid for the length of his first contract or something, but would we want that? Most players aren’t going to be Lavias who look quality after a season at a young age. More are going to be like Bazunu/Larios/Edozie where a single season isn’t enough time to know if they are going to be top level players. There is also the possibility that the reason we bought those players with buybacks was to get round the loan rules in the PL of only being able to loan one player from another PL club per season. I’m not sure what the rules are in the Championship
If the player is given the choice between loan or permanent deal, then yeah, maybe most of the time he'd prefer a loan. But what if the only offer is a permanent deal? What if we don't want to loan them? That way they either have to stay with the u23s, or get a less desirable loan move. Most youth players want to get first team games under their belt. A lot of them are realistic about breaking through at a top team; look at Charlie Patino; he's demanding a move away from Arsenal, after just an okay-ish season in the Championship for a team that got relegated.
Weird one. Bree, Livramento & Abu as options. Unless we're expecting a departure (outside of the obvious KWP), is it a needed move? Unless it's to pad out the b-team (but even then they have Payne & Davis)
I have a niggling feeling over Tino. Think he’ll stay through this window to pay us back in his rehab, but may be gone in Jan.
He’s a 19 year old being released by Chelsea, don’t think it screams “first team player”. Seems more like the Simeu move where we think he has promise and loan him out for a season or two.
We wouldn't let him go in January. I think tino's future depends on 2 things: 1. Whether he is the same player after his injury and a year out of the game. 2. Assuming he is the same player, whether or not we get promoted. If we go up, he'll likely stay, but will definitely go if not.
Whilst i do think he is off, it has been very quiet on that front. Not even seen him linked with a move away or any interested parties.
The way we have been managed the last few years there still won’t be any playing in the correct full back slots!
Possibly. Though he doesn’t want to leave, and I think City need to give him another season to get ‘Pep-ball’.
Probably helps us out too. They wanted Caceido, he is now off to Chelsea. They wanted Rice, he is now off to City. They really won't want to miss out on their 3rd choice.
Rice to City means Lavia to Arsenal, but could also mean Phillips to West Ham, which would take out one of JWP's options.
