We can have as many as we want just include 5 in any matchday squad. The idea all 6 would be fit at any given time anyway is unlikely but if they were it would just lead to a selection issue like in any other position.
Appreciate that, but haven’t we got 6 on loan as it stands? Adding a 7th just feels completely unnecessary when you can’t even have them on the bench.
Carvalho, Morton, Zaroury, Giles, Ohio, Delap. If one or 2 are injured as Delap will likely be until at least April then it's unlikely 5 out of 6 will be fit all at once on balance of probability. If they were he'd just have to rotate the loanees. Not sure you'd have both Delap and Ohio in the same squad with Sharp and Connolly to chose from as well for instance.
We were obviously considering it, we being football people who know more about all this than any of us, so it obviously would have made sense on some level to justify it, if the numbers could have been made to work.
I think it could have been made to work, but I think if I was a loan player left out because we had too many fit loan players, I’d be fuming. One too many feels ok, 2 just feels like you are pushing it.
No, it wouldn't have made sense as it would have been our 7th loan and would have meant one of Zaroury, Ohio, Giles, Carvalho, Chambers and Morton being left out of not just the Starting XI but the squad altogether. Let alone when Delap is back. It would have made no sense.
We weren't considering it. We considered it as a permanent and said no. They then offered to subsidise his wages - which we're taking Tan's word for it and then twisting it to assume that meant loan rather than them giving Chambers a pay off - and we still said no. There's no indication we considered taking him on loan because, again, it would have made no sense.
Let's see how many are still fit by mid April, but by your logic we would only need a squad of 18 not 25.
What's the relevance of that to the bulk of my post? I mentioned Delap to underline just how crazy it would have been, but on the weekend all 5 current loanees were fit, and they will be again this weekend. I think this is another of those 2+2=5 discussions though. We're debating a hypothetical that was never on the table. Tan saying Villa were willing to help us get Chambers has been misinterpreted when I suspect he meant they were going to pay off Chambers. I can't see any world where we were actively trying to, or considering getting, Chambers in as a loan.
And 3 of the 5 had only just signed, so of course they're fit. But by your logic we would only need players we can fit in the starting 11 or on bench cos they're a waste if we can't play them all at once anyway? And besides I'd only see one of Ohio or Delap in any matchday squad if all players are fit and firing. Loans can be rotated too.
As Drew said, signing 4 loan players in January only to tell one of them that they'd be regularly out of the matchday squad for non-footballing reasons is just daft. Carvalho, Morton, Zaroury and Giles are all locks in the XI let alone the squad so you're effectively saying to Ohio 'sorry mate but we've signed you to sit in the stand most weeks unless we get an injury to someone'. Ohio or Delap is an irrelevant discussion as that would be in relation to our 7th loan, not the 6 we're discussing. Again, this is a hypothetical based on a faulty assumption.
The villa player would have been a 7th loan. We currently have 6. Telling a loan player they're out for whatever reason is no different than telling one of your own they're out.
8 or 9 loans would probably cause consternation. 6 or 7 is reasonable enough - especially given one is a long term injury as injury/natural rotation ect means they'll all likely be involved enough over the rest of the season, on the basis of 5 at a time.
