The FFP thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Mckechnie Orange said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14 and HulltoHellandback
Drew said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Drew said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mckechnie Orange said:
Clearly not as it didn't happen. But it didn't happen as a permanent either.

Without knowing the proposal or intent behind it though that's a bit of a sweeping pronouncement to make. The boundary between loans and permanents seem to be blurring as they're quite commonly being used more creatively to structure what are to all intents and purposes permanents these days
Click to expand...

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.
 
LeftSaidFred said:
Errrrr.......why? It was clearly said it was the 'commercials' that they couldn't match up to FFP limits. So, if it could have worked financially a loan of a very experienced higher quality than what we've got centre half, at an 'affordable' wage to help us get over the line into the playoffs would surely have made sense. We would then have possibly assessed whether we sign him (if we got promoted) or he's back in the shop window for Villa to offload him. Makes sense to me, although as has been said above we don't know the details and therefore my comments here are but one possibility.
Click to expand...

See above reply.
 
LeftSaidFred said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mckechnie Orange said:
Let's see how many are still fit by mid April.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Mckechnie Orange said:
And 3 of the 5 had only just signed, so of course they're fit.

Ut by your logic we would only need players we can fit in the matchday squad.

And besides I'd only see one of Ohio or Delap in a matchday squad if all players are fit and firing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SydneyTiger14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mckechnie Orange said:
8 or 9 loans would probably cause consternation. 6 is reasonable enough given injury/natural rotation ect as they'll all likely be involved over the rest of the season, just 5 at a time.
Click to expand...

When I say I'm giving up on a discussion, continuing to try to engage me seems a bit pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back