Cunning move away from a loan strategy to .....a strategy of loans

i think the plan was not to be so heavily reliant on them alone which we were completely last season. Having to only replace 2 loans next season instead of 5 will help.
 
Red Chairman Now said:
Like how we've outfoxed our competitors with our no loan, buy only approach, back to loan flip flop strategy 🤔
Got to get up early in the morning to catch the Boro out 😉
Click to expand...
This may add some context and substance.
Posted this before, so no problem posting it again.
This is part of the transcript of Carrick`s media conference v West Brom.

[Q from Reporter]
After losing in the play-offs, did Carrick realise he had “a hell of a job” keeping the three loanees plus Chuba. Was Carrick “almost resigned immediately to losing them all?

I`m not saying “resigned”. This is about more the reality of what that is in the loans: how many we had and how important they ended up being how well they did and improved. They`ve all gone on, kind of up a level if you like. Jumping up a level in terms of their career...in terms of different leagues. From that side of things its a real positive. We`re capable of helping players and developing players, pushing them on and getting the best out of them. Now its about doing exactly the same with the group we`ve got now. We don’t [want to] lose them and make them better for someone else. That goes without saying and we don’t intend to do that. But, with the loans especially, that can be a bit of an issue. I feel we`ve got to wait to...enhance our chances this year and maybe going into next year. Thinking ahead with the bigger picture and thats why I`m calmer with how the season`s started.

I`m not knocking the loan players at all. If you have quite a lot that you rely on or are a big part of your team, then at some point, you`ve got to change your team a little bit and that brings its challenges. [That is] fine and you can adapt and deal with it. We`re just looking ahead a littler more, the bigger picture and trying to make that foundation of the group really strong.

​
 
Nothing to say Boro haven't included an option to buy at the end of the loan. Well I hope we have otherwise we're not building towards anything. A lot of these younguns we've signed probably won't make the grade
 
No.
You dont write players off using subjective opinions written on the back of a fag packet.
 
Genuine question, I've not researched the answer myself. Have any of the teams promoted over the past couple of seasons done so without having any loan players amongst their regular 1st team starters?
 
Kilburn said:
Genuine question, I've not researched the answer myself. Have any of the teams promoted over the past couple of seasons done so without having any loan players amongst their regular 1st team starters?
Click to expand...
I'd guess not, because the supply of purchasable quality players is severely restricted by the PL as policy in their drive to reduce the EFL to a training league for their second string players.
 
Kilburn said:
Genuine question, I've not researched the answer myself. Have any of the teams promoted over the past couple of seasons done so without having any loan players amongst their regular 1st team starters?
Click to expand...
No, almost definitely not. That's not the whole story though because the majority of teams haven't been promoted and also been filled with loan players so for the majority of teams they have spent money on loans and had no return on their investments.
 
If you refuse to use the loan system as a matter of strategy, building for the future or principle, you needlessly handicap yourself

If you approach the loan system as a means of adding depth to your squad, ok, but you're surely hoping that everyone you bring in turns out to be good. You don't bring in loan players hoping they just be good enough for back up; you want them to fulfill their potential.

What I think the change of strategy means is not using resources to pay big loan fees or high loan wages. I guess Archer Ramsey and Giles were all relatively high on both accounts. Instead we use what funds we have to give priority to permanent deals. That, to me, seems a better way of building.

I don't think anyone ever said we wouldn't use the loan system?
 
Frozen Horse said:
If you refuse to use the loan system as a matter of strategy, building for the future or principle, you needlessly handicap yourself

If you approach the loan system as a means of adding depth to your squad, ok, but you're surely hoping that everyone you bring in turns out to be good. You don't bring in loan players hoping they just be good enough for back up; you want them to fulfill their potential.

What I think the change of strategy means is not using resources to pay big loan fees or high loan wages. I guess Archer Ramsey and Giles were all relatively high on both accounts. Instead we use what funds we have to give priority to permanent deals.

I don't think anyone ever said we wouldn't use the loan system?
Click to expand...
Yep it's just a bout a measured approach., Everything has to be black and white for some people with no space for judging the merits of individual circumstances.
 
To be fair we've been absolutely awful so far this season with the current threadbare squad! If it takes good loan signings to plug the gaps and get us firing then so be it.
 
Kilburn said:
Genuine question, I've not researched the answer myself. Have any of the teams promoted over the past couple of seasons done so without having any loan players amongst their regular 1st team starters?
Click to expand...
Burnley’s best player last season was a loan - Tella.
Sheff Utds best player was a loan -McAtee.
 
Couple of loans, fine.

I'm hoping with O'Brien there is a better chance of being able to sign him permanently as he's 17th choice CM at Forest. Little interest in him moving permanently this summer so .......🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

Greenwood is an odd one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top