The other thing i like about this window and since Acun took over is we have always looked at clubs like TWS and the massive and others at the players they buy or loan but now it's turned around and you can see their fans envy our club by the comments they leave in forums like " how could he choose a club like Hull over us" or wtf how are Hull doing it, i love reading their envy.
It'll be the usual 8-10 new arrivals, hopefully we can look to reduce the amount of loanees over the coming years to stop the major overhaul every year
It certainly does have its uses, but filling up your full matchday allocation every year just means there's always going to be a large turnover of players. We're beginning to get into the position where we're able to attract quality players to sign permanently here now (Giles, Philogene etc) so hopefully we can continue and build upon that and reduce the number of loanees we have each year.
I don't hope that, it gives us access to players of a quality we couldn't afford to buy. Would you rather we had bought Twine on a permanent and turned down Carvalho just because it makes next Summer a bit easier?
I have no problem with loaning special high quality players like Carvalho but having 5 each year means there's always a big turnover. I don't get your point either as we loaned Twine
I have no problems with the loans on the contrary. If we by miracle get promoted we need at least 20 new players.
My point was if we'd turned Twine into a permanent deal instead of sending him back for another loanee we would have had one less player on loan and in theory one less player to replace in the Summer. By your reckoning that's apparently better as it's less turnover.
It's a little different with options but with straight loans you end up developing players for other clubs more often than not.
So we should sign permanent players like Lokilo rather than loan players like Delap, but then when Lokilo turns out not to be very good and we get rid halfway through the season that's somehow better because the intention was to have him here permanently? As usual I can't help but feel you're approaching this discussion with the benefit of hindsight. If we sign 5 players on loan we have chances to have 5 good quality players of which some might sign permanently (Giles), some might not (Morton, Carvalho) and if some are rubbish (Vinagre) we don't have them on a multi-year deal. I just don't see the issue with loans that some seem to. For what it's worth when Twine first signed everyone was ecstatic that we'd got him, so you saying 'he's not very good' was definitely not something we knew at the time.
Yeah it's been rubbish having Morton and Delap developing here, it's really killed our season and relationship with their clubs. Next year when the next batch of top quality kids are ready to go out I'm sure it'll have done us no help by doing so.
Too soon to say with some of them but Delap and Morton alone prove the loan market is worth the potential summer headache in order to get them here for the season. If you're able to use loans to bring in quality then it's well worth it. On the flipside of this, I bet a few of us wish Sinik had been a loan too at this point. God knows how much we've spent on him in fees and wages and we're now hoping to recoup some of that. Loans generally equals less risk. It's not like we'll profit at the end of a loan period like selling a player that's done well, but the whole thing is basically a balancing act. Without our loanees this season we probably would be far worse off - and the fact they've done well only bodes well for us going forwards.
