Surely the nature of the loan market is such that the more of a success they are the less likely we are to be able to sign them?
Okay Yokuşlu would cost a few million in transfer fees plus a high wage. Kieffer Moore would cost a few million in transfer fees plus a high wage. For two players over 30 with no resale value. Once Philogene and Greaves go we have zero assets we can sell for 8 figures to balance the books. It’s terminal short-termism. It’s like Man Utd’s transfer policy of spending millions on aging players like Casemiro. There’s no structure to it at all.
I'd be happy with Moore but it should be coupled with a younger striker with plenty of potential. I thought that was going to be Ohio but I'm sure there are better prospects.
Of course? But no one signs failed loanees. There is a happy medium where a loanee does well and the club who has loaned them makes the move permanent.
You’re looking at 2 signings though. We don’t know what else we have in the pipeline. We signed Philogene last season how is it terminal short termism?
They've made it look bizarre pretty much immediately. Not sure that's the best example as Philogene was always likely to be short term but it's still a great deal for the club. We're a championship club so there will always be short term signings but when we're heavy on the short term loans and then back that up with short term permanents, we'll keep having rebuilds every year
Not every player needs a resale value. If Moore comes in for a couple of million and supports us getting in the play-offs this season, or the one after the next, that’s potentially money well spent.
We have nobody we could potentially sell for big money though, it's not like we're Sunderland and stacked with good young players but need experience
You need a balance of both. We will sign younger players but we aren't going to sign everyone on the same day.
