I wouldn't necessarily get five loanees, but I see no issue in getting a couple if they're good enough.
One or two regular starters; another one or two as useful squad players. Maybe a total of three this month, leaving the other two spaces available for January. Depending on which players leave over the next two weeks, that's roughly what I'd be looking at. Not too dissimilar to last time. Obviously they need to be good enough. I'm definitely not looking at getting five loanees as regular starters. That's far too many, and entirely unnecessary given the quality already within the squad.
I agree with a couple of good loans they will either be playing to get into their parent club first team stay with the club or gain a better salary with another team. Players like Bree and Smallbone want to get back to the EPL, if they don't and Saints do there will be clubs wanting to buy them on their Championship experience depending on wages and length of contract.
You've got to sift through a lot of leaky rain macs and creased yoga mats to find the last 24v drill driver set accidentally priced at £4.99 at the bottom of the bin
I don't disagree but I'm not sure it'll happen. Solak said earlier in the summer the club don't want to be so dependent on loan players this time around and what you're describing is quite similar to what we did last time. Downes and THB were key regulars with Fraser and Holgate (from the start of the season) and Brooks and Rothwell (from January) around the squad and varying in quality from useful to useless.
With the hand painted style packet depicting the ruddy cheeked Edwardian butcher and visionary crisp flavour alchemist, they just seemed like the were gonna be there forever! But alas no. KP you bastaaaaards!
West Ham have made an improved offer, remains to be seen... I thought they were including David Gold.
Sounds like West Ham's owners are doing the classic "Look, we upped our bid, we tried our best to get the player" to appease their fans.