If man city are trying to off load some of their future stars to mere mortals like us so they get Premiership experience then i hope we come to some agreement of what it is worth to them and what its worth to us, Because if we have to pay over two million for his services when we will be doing man city a favour and we are the ones taking a chance then we only have to look at josh from chelsea where he cost us a fortune but cold not play our football....I dont want to see our fingers burnt again on a loan player because he looked good on u-tube that always show the best bits anyway.....when nobody has even heard of this youngster then i hope the club have learned that we take him on our terms as a trial and if he is not up to what we expected we can send him back...after all we are premiership ourselves now and not a nursery for the big clubs to use for experiance for their players....
Think the guy would be a good signing...better than Beckford anyway :/ as long as we dont have to spend too much just for a loan Would like to see us to look at Gai Assulin who Man C just released. Attacking Midfield/Winger, 21 and a product of Barcelona youth set up and spend the last 2 years at Man C. Had an unsuccessful spell at Brighton over a 2 month period so you cant read much into that....was rated very highly!!! at 16 Barca gave him a 20 million euro release clause and was rumoured to be about to play for Barca first team before injury (according to a quick bit of research! ) Could be a bit of a bargain!!!
my point being is remember the u-tube clips on josh...everyone was saying the same thing that he looked good and would do well for us...look what happened. I'm not saying we should not take a chance but lets be careful this time and dont just take him without some assurances just incase he is not that good for us and we end up with a man city player playing reserve or bit part player for the whole season that will cost us a minimum of a couple of million....
I agree YouTube is good to show clips of football players, you will see all the good sides of people, what you rarely see is the crap side of things. If we go in for a loan lets do it for the right price and for only 6 months at the maximum
I agree with Dai. Yes I do so there. I think this guy looks the business but only if the price is right. Nobody can deny we got badly burned on McEachran.
Seems Feyenord's year loan for last season includes an option for an extra 6 months. If it's a 6 month loan offer from us, he will stay put in the Eredivise.
Granted, it all depends on wether Feyenord get first dibs though. I say loan for the year is the best way forward (but like Caulker's last year, when we had the option at xmas to keep him). At the end of the tear he will have just 1 year left on his contract. If he's good and he's happy here, then who knows? I would much rather see us recoup some investment from developing our own players, rather than loanees for richer clubs.
The problem with that of course is that we don't have the luxury on bringing on untested players in the premier league, every point is vital and we can't afford to slip up. Loaning this person should be for six months with an option after that. We are allowed 2 season long loans, and 4 short term loans. Meaning that a short term loan is for 6 months maximum, but we can renew if an agreement can be reached.
Thats hopefully why we recruited Dave Leadbetter http://www.swanseacity.net/page/Latest/0,,10354~2776553,00.html. Lets see him earn his keep. Don't forget, you could argue our whole squad were untested in the Premier League last season. We have to be clever with loans, yes, but the very future of the club lies with our academy/training/scouting system.
Yes you are right on that, but we don't have an academy right now, and even if we did it would be at least 5 years down the line before we get players out of it. The scouting part of things is good as well, but again we are limited with what we can do due to funds.
Sorry, I disagree. The whole point of the scouting system is exactly because we have limited funds, not to identify loan players. The starting point is to develop for us, not others! Of course we will get a loan players or two, but the ultimate goal is the players we own that become tangible assets for the club, not expensive folly's like Josh/Priskin.
You seem to think that having an academy will show immediate returns, sorry but it doesn't work like that. It will take at least 5 years before we get any returns. So we must use the loan market and possibly develop players for others. That means taking risks.
An academy is for young upcoming players. Yes, tomorrows men. The scouts are there to also look at players overlooked by others who can , if given the chance, step up to 'The Show'. We have not yet got an academy and signing these types of players have got us to where we are now. I am struggling to see why you are arguing. Surely your not honestly saying that we only need our allocated loanees to be succeful and then give them back as proven players? Well, if your not, then you agree that we have to buy/ take risks! All I have said is that I want to see our club take a punt on a few players (ala Situ/ Taylor/Donnelly etc), but you seem to be reading things into my posts that arent there. Do you sometimes have arguments with yourself? I am bored with this now.
Well if you are bored don't reply! All I am saying is that we have no option but to use loanees. But to use them we gamble the same as the players we own. The problem with that is we can't really afford to gamble as we need points. I am just glad it's not me making the decisions on this conundrum.
