|
|
Post by Lard Buttie on Sept 1, 2015 9:31:58 GMT 1
Good or bad?
We've got a few now. Do they really give us stability in the long term?
|
|
Melc
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Posts: 4,829
|
Post by Melc on Sept 1, 2015 9:34:19 GMT 1
Well when we go down they wont have to worry about getting them off the wage bill!
|
|
jimmymac
Steve Kindon Terrier
Posts: 1,642
|
Post by jimmymac on Sept 1, 2015 9:36:10 GMT 1
Good or bad? We've got a few now. Do they really give us stability in the long term? in my opinion it shouldn't really make any difference....when a loan player crosses that white line his mentality should be to win the football match...... |
|
|
|
Post by snoopy on Sept 1, 2015 9:40:01 GMT 1
There are pros and cons
Pros
We don't have to waste money on transfer fee, generally don't pay all the players wages
We can look at players before signing perminantly (Vaughan and hammil)
We can loan players that are out of our league in terms of buying
Cons
We don't own the player
Can't build a team around your key player if on loan
I think for clubs like ours it's a good thing to have loans
|
|
|
|
Post by PellonTerrier on Sept 1, 2015 9:44:07 GMT 1
I think we wanted Huws as butter fields replacement but the asking price after so long injured was too much of a gamble, this gives us the opportunity to see if he can come back and still be worth it, without the risk of a big initial outlay so in some ways it's a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Sept 1, 2015 9:44:47 GMT 1
Robinson and Vaughan (first time round) were good uns.
|
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Sept 1, 2015 9:45:18 GMT 1
So have we signed a crock to replace Butterfield?
|
|
|
|
Post by PellonTerrier on Sept 1, 2015 9:48:21 GMT 1
Hopefully not
|
|
|
|
Post by beadlesrighthand on Sept 1, 2015 9:51:01 GMT 1
Butterfield had injury problems before we signed him...
|
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Sept 1, 2015 9:53:11 GMT 1
So did Vaughan
|
|
|
|
Post by PellonTerrier on Sept 1, 2015 9:55:35 GMT 1
To me it makes good sense Huws has shown himself to be a quality player at this level, but is only just coming back from a serious injury. the club probably could not have afforded him if not but this way round we get to see if he lives up to his potential before we decide to buy
|
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Sept 1, 2015 9:57:59 GMT 1
I don't like them.
Give them a month, two or three & then renew if they earn it.
If they set the world alight you will always run the risk of losing them but if not Majewski.
|
|
|
|
Post by PellonTerrier on Sept 1, 2015 9:59:01 GMT 1
All the loans we have in have an option to terminate in January Thrice, looks like we have learnt our lesson from Majewski
|
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Sept 1, 2015 10:02:47 GMT 1
get 3/4 lads off the bench or just in the squad elsewhere who really want to prove something and you may get a very healthy return.
working out which those are and which are having a year off is the hard bit..
|
|
|
|
Post by teddytheterrier on Sept 1, 2015 10:04:17 GMT 1
Some of the loans we have had here have been good business, beckford, Vaughan, Robinson. Others haven't Majewski et al.
|
|
|
|
Post by ozterrier on Sept 1, 2015 10:29:43 GMT 1
Good or bad? We've got a few now. Do they really give us stability in the long term? If they help us to stay in this division then they're certainly contributing to long term stability. |
|
|
|
Post by Giggity on Sept 1, 2015 12:22:44 GMT 1
Will be massively disappointed if the only signings we make with the Smithies/Butterfield proceeds are season long loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomo on Sept 1, 2015 13:56:44 GMT 1
Our first team is now so incredibly pathetically weak, we're going to be relying on four or five of the incomings to be part of our first eleven
What happens if/when those four or five season long loaners all leave next summer? That leaves a gaping hole in the side. I also think it's just too many players to be relying on that are not ours, I'm not sure we'd get the same level of commitment from all loans as we would if they were ours - many might just be going through the motions to run down their contract at their parent club and then get a big pay day on a bosman. That's why we need a few permanents.
I do recall however when Lee Tomlin went to Boro, he was taken on loan with a permanent after the transfer deadline with a permanent transfer already agreed for January.
|
|
|
|
Post by canuckterrier on Sept 1, 2015 14:25:41 GMT 1
Good or bad? We've got a few now. Do they really give us stability in the long term? in my opinion it shouldn't really make any difference.... when a loan player crosses that white line his mentality should be to win the football match...... As long as it's not the halfway line or else we'll ship him right back to where he came  |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Sept 1, 2015 14:32:49 GMT 1
Will be massively disappointed if the only signings we make with the Smithies/Butterfield proceeds are season long loans. I'd take season long loans all day rather than 3 or 4 year contracted rushed panic buys if our primary targets are not available in this window. |
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,075 
|
Post by Tinpot on Sept 1, 2015 14:39:08 GMT 1
Makes sense tbh.
Try to buy replacements with only a few hours left in the transfer window, and clubs will inevitably raise their price. Get a loan in to cover in the short-medium term & strengthen our bargaining position when it comes to actually buying somebody.
It's not a very exciting strategy, I admit. I could do with some (positive) exciting news after Coady, Smithies & Butterfield going, with Vaughan looking certain to follow.
|
|
