After they initially joined on loan. Vinagre has an option to join (albeit an extreme one) so clearly Sporting are open to a sale.
Correct and my initial point was that if we have no chance or intention of signing players permanently after their loans, what we're doing is just developing other clubs' players with no long-term benefit for us. I'm not against loans but I think a transfer policy that relies heavily on loanees with no option to buy in key positions is flawed because it requires overhauls every summer.
Do we need a long term benefit if the short term benefit is a chance at promotion? (Which in turn leads to an increased chance of signing these players permanently)
Your post was suggesting all players coming in were loans, I asked if Lokilo was permanent because I thought he was. The post I liked was to do with the conflicting narratives around our budget. I'm not quite sure on the direct link you think there is.
I agree relying entirely on loans is bad but in reality we have a pretty built up squad right now that needs some shuffling. With FFP as it is towards non parachute teams you have to rely on loans every year. Hell even Burnley had to do it with Nathan Tella and Harwood-Bellis. Yes its hurt their squad but I think they'd rather be promoted
Yes. What Forest have done is not sustainable at all and very risky. Their promotion-winning team was made up of lots of key loan players who then returned to their parent clubs. It resulted in them signing more than 30 players in their first season back in the Prem over two transfer windows. Many of those players they signed are now surplus to requirements because of the scattergun approach and are on huge wages. City don't want to be in that situation.
I'm not proposing we have an entire squad of loans though, I'm asking on a case-by-case basis if we have 2-3 young players on loan do those players need to have a long term benefit to the club.
Jesus, you really are desperate for something to moan about. How are those two things conflicting? Loans and free transfers still cost money, and still need a budget. In fact, a loan or free transfer could end up costing more than paying a fee, depends on the wages and signing on fees paid.
We've been told by Kesler and Acun that we're not signing Darlow because Newcastle are demanding too high a transfer fee and that the club would rather spend that money on wingers and forwards.
So let me get this right. Everyone‘a complaining because we’re not signing players, then everyone’s complaining because we’re signing players on loan, that we have no way of signing permanently, so it only benefits the parent club. But then in the next post, “we need to loan out player X to an L1 team, because there’s no benefit to loaning him out to non league or L2 teams.” You can’t have it both ways.
In fact weren't both Meyler and Elmo recalled, forcing our hand on signing them permanently? Brady was signed after multiple loan spells.
How many pages did last summer’s thread end up on? The ratio of pages to signings is going to be 10x worse this summer, lots of chat - no signings!
