Summer 2014 Transfer rumour thread

If you were a West Brom fan, after having Lukaku on loan last season, would you be happy with where they were this season compared to last? It doesn't always work out in the long-term.

 

Yeah the reason why West Brom is bad is because they loaned Lukaku.

 

They're worse this season because they don't have Lukaku. Last season they were in a better position than they should have been simply because of one loan player. I'd prefer we improved with our own players, rather than a one-off dramatic increase in performance.

I would rather see someone like Sims or JWP get match time and further their development over another team's player. If we were in a position where we were desperate for quality in a position (with no-one to buy or in the academy that's ready), or in order to stay up, I would be more accepting to it. Given we have a good young team already, and should comfortably survive each year, then I would prefer we give time to our own youngsters.

 

Right. So in other words, they aren't bad because they took Lukaku on loan, they were temporarily GOOD because they had him on loan. Instead of finishing 8th and then mid-teens, they should have just finished mid-teens twice. That makes no sense.

Would you agree that we need to sign a striker/winger in the off-season? If so, to get a player of Hazard's stature we would have to pay a tremendous transfer fee and sign that player to a long-term deal. If we could even get one.

If we sign Hazard, we could go deeper into Cups. More matches=more playing time. We might even qualify for Europe, which means even more opportunities for playing time the following year, when Hazard will no longer be here. Knowing that we have Hazard, it would be easier to put in Reed at times because we'll have a huge lead and/or Hazard can carry those players if he has to.

And if Hazard is bad or it turns out JWP or Reed or whoever is fantastic, we can simply sit Hazard because he's only on loan anyway. If we bring in a player for a high price on a five year deal, it's not nearly as easy to bench that guy.

No one is saying we need to make a policy out of loaning players, but they can serve a purpose. And that purpose is that if you have a great prospect who is maybe not quite ready for prime-time, you can use a loanee as a bridge until the other player is ready.

 

Agreed and if, as has been hinted, we won't be spending as much on transfers in the short term then a loan or two could bridge the gap until the club's commercial revenue increases. On top of that, once you get a player in through the door you have more time to convince them that staying long term would be a good idea.

 

They basically built their system around this one player though, who they then failed to replace, and have struggled as a result. Had they bought someone instead, then they'd have had more consistency and although may have finished lower last season, I would have expected a higher position this season, probably not a relegation fight. You could argue that their over achievement ultimately cost Steve Clarke his job.

Yes, but I'd rather see someone come in and be part of the group and ethos of the team long-term than someone in on loan. I think there is quality available which would not be too expensive. It depends what Hazard we're on about here. If it was Eden, there's no chance he'll come. With Thorgan, you could question his commitment to his current loan club as he wanted to leave them half way through the season to join a bigger club (what would your opinion be if he wanted to do that with us?). Doing it in the Belgian league doesn't necessarily mean he can do it in the Premiership either.

I'm not totally against loans, but I'd prefer a loan where we had an option to purchase the player at the end of the loan (Victor Moses for example if Liverpool don't buy him).

 

I still think Victor Moses could offer something for Saints.

 

They didn't build their system around one player. Lukaku is a striker who does nothing other than score goals. West Brom could not have had that successful season without a good defence and midfield. They had a poor start to this season and made a reactionary decision to sack the manager. That's what's cost them.

 

I wonder if teams shouldn't be allowed to loans players out into the same league they are in.

It's quite clear that Chelsea are abusing this system to give them selves a slight advantage.

 

I have always said that loans should not be able to happen with the same league. If a manager wants to see if a player can make it in the same league, play him in your team.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/manchester-united-transfer-news-move-3379394

At this rate we are going to sell everyone according to the red tops.

 

Might as well just give Moyes the whole side and be done with it.

 

14 PL assists in the last two seasons would suggest otherwise.

 

So next week the headline will be "MAN UTD BUY ENTIRE SAINTS SQUAD"

 

We'd finish above them for sure next season then

 

I think we should go for Holtby. Class player, we could probably get him for a low price

 

He is a good player. Is he better than Morgan, Jack, Vic, or are you thinking of replacing Steven Davis? Although Holtby is excellent, we would need to shift on an midfielder before bringing one in. We have other areas that are more critical in my opinion. Centre back, striker, keeper before a midfielder.

 

Yeah I think he'd be playing more in the S Davis, Rodriguez, Lallana, Ramirez area than the Cork, Schneiderlin, Wanyama area and an extra option there would be good, especially if Rodriguez is going to be out for a long time.

 

15 now!

 

I agree about Holtby, I thought he was good when he was with Spurs and couldn't believe Fulham got him. I'd have him like a shot.