I think Brucies comments today about further loanees tells its own story...its bloody obvious !!!.....Wellbeck and Nedum are on the way back....and I for one would be chuffed to bits too see again
But do we want 5 loanees again, after all the palaver this close season? Too much hassle and stress. A lot of peeps on here towards the end of last season were saying how bad for us it was to have loanees because they weren't dedicated tothe cause - remember? I accept that we will probably get (need?) some loanees, but not to the max PLEASE. x
City are wanting £8million for Ned but thats ridiculous as hes not going to break into the first team there so another season long loan looks highly likely and I would be happy with that. It frees a potential £8 million up for a centre back or left back. Welbeck on another loan also makes sense as he will cover Fraizer Campbell while he is recovering, cant see that happening until maybe a few days before the start of the season as it all depends on whos coming and going at Man U.
But Bruce can't wait that long, if SAF is considering letting Wellbeck go on loan again, we will not be the only club, looking to capture him. Maybe we will have first option, but sure the likes of Bolton and Everton will be keeping a tabs on things. Needs to be sorted fairly quickly.
I believe you can only have 2 loans from the PL, not sure how many from other leagues though. I would say a max of 1 Loan from the PL at the start of the season, and maybe 1 from abroad, then if or indeed when we get another injury crises, thats when you "try" to get the others in, to help with your problems, if they are already here and injured as well, then you are snookered, just like last season.
The loan process is also a good way of getting a good look at a player such as Elmo/Muntari and deciding yes or no at the end of their loan spell. The only hitch is when the loanees turn out to be good and integral parts of our team such as Ned & Danny then when they go back to their parent clubs they are so hard to replace if you dont have a deal in place like the Elmo deal. Although I agree we dont need another 5 this coming season. 2 @ Maximum. Shame we didnt get Angelerie on an Elmo type loan.
Only reason I can see us getting 4 or 5 loans again this season would be purely financial. Surely this will free up the capital for the big name striker(s) we need and that illusive left back!!
Absolutely correct Steve. I'm disappointed to hear this news from Steve Bruce. I know Welbeck and Onouha did well for us last season, but I just don't like us having so many loan players. Building team spirit with a load of loanees is impossible. Like it or not, Newcastle clearly showed what can be achieved with a team that isn't loaded with loan players. The team spirit, togetherness and will to fight for each other was evident throughout the last campaign. You just don't get that same mentality in a team with several players that belong to other clubs. If we must loan players, it has to be with an option to buy at the end of the season, or as an emergency loan in January.
Just got in to read this and having read what other poster's have said in the past few day's this seems to go against a lot of what people want on here. It's all well and good having loanee's but to me, Bruce will never have a settled side/squad, particularly when a player as shown is worth only for the club's who lease them out being reluctant to sell when the loan period elapses. I bet this won't go down well with a lot on here who have been very much against loanee's.
As you can probably tell from my post above, I'm not exactly thrilled to hear this news. It's alright Steve Bruce saying that he wants to loan players that have the hunger to prove themselves, but aren't we just improving these individuals for their parent clubs to then up their value when they do decide to sell the players? I wonder how we would all feel if Danny Welbeck came back to the SoL next season with Man Utd and put a hattrick past us, after our coaching staff and Steve Bruce put so much time and effort into him last season? That would be gut wrenching for me and no doubt you too.
1 or 2 loanees perhaps but not too many. It is not a good way to build a strong premiership team. How many loanees have Man U, Citeh, Chelsea or Arsenal got? There is a reason and it is a sign of a poor club IMHO.
Sorry Dorset for the delay in reply, I read the report elsewhere as well as the thread here, without reading all and sundry. I agree to your view on the club's setting a valuation on the player's once they have been put out on loan. Hence why I'm not too happy with the way Bruce and the Club seem to continue in this way, where Bruce is actually playing them to be put in the shop window, and they seem to be priced out of Bruce's reach to buy them on a permanent basis. Catch 22? Bruce has even admitted this in his statement in affect. This seems to me that the club aren't keen to spend and are relying on Bruce to wheel and deal on a shoestring, which I believe he's been brought in for. With which I can't argue with (the dealing on a shoestring).
Correct, we are supposed to be building a team, and every year since Bruce has been a manager he needs two zillion new players, now [AGAIN] the loan ****e, I do DESPAIR.
