If we can sign Greenwood for £1.5m

Frozen Horse said:
I think the point is you can sometimes get a higher calibre of player through the loan market than permanent signings. Archer wasn't available to buy in January, not at any price that we could afford. We were able to get him on loan.

Ayton is suggesting a difference-maker; that little bit of quality that might get us over the line.
If it makes the difference between promotion and another season in the championship, then it was worth it, wasn't it?
Click to expand...

100% agree, and I understand the concept of loaning a difference maker - but we try it year after year and it doesn't work.
Last season was great... But it doesn't matter how good Archer was; we didn't get promoted - so financially we're worse off, and we end up worse off every time we try it.

Greenwood making any form of difference over the next 2-3 seasons, after signing him for £1.5m - is more likely than us paying a £1m loan fee for someone who's going to fire us to the PL in 20 games.

Frozen Horse said:
It's a gamble of course, but so is any permanent signing. We signed Britt for £15m and gave him away for free at the end.
There's always a risk that it backfires, but no one get promotion without some element of risk. Even Luton smashed their transfer record to get Morris in last season.
Click to expand...

Luton bought Morris from Barnsley for less than £2 million - and he scored 20 goals and got 6 assists.
He's also 1 in 3 in the premier league for them this season.
 
Ash88 said:
Luton bought Morris from Barnsley for less than £2 million - and he scored 20 goals and got 6 assists.
He's also 1 in 3 in the premier league for them this season.
Click to expand...

And that smashed their transfer record at the time.

You don't have to agree with it, I don't think I do, but there is a case for doing it.
 
Frozen Horse said:
And that smashed their transfer record at the time.

You don't have to agree with it, I don't think I do, but there is a case for doing it.
Click to expand...

I agree there is a case for doing it, but signing Greenwood on a permanent deal instead, is better long term business in my opinion.

I'd be proven wrong if we loan someone who scores 15 goals and fires us to the PL - but history suggests that's very unlikely to happen.
 
If it's "either / or " .. then of course signing greenwood would be the safer bet.

If however it was " either / or " ... Given it's an end of loan signing option on greenwood, then we'd have to be proper skint to not taken an option for an archer / diallo / vardy / mitrovic type loan for 2 million in January if we were in and around the playoffs.
 
Last edited:
I guess it also depends on the type of agreement we have with Leeds. Is it just a fee? I which case there is no guarantee Greenwood will accept our contract offer. Or is there a contract and wages already agreed and can we just activate it at end of season if we want?
 
Ash88 said:
Not doubting we've had some good ones. But the bad vastly outweigh the good...

Muniz, Hernandez, Connolly, Nmecha, Le Siliki, Morrison, Van La Parra, Zuccullini, Da Laet, Tiendalli, Velijkovic, Ishmael Miller, McEachren, Nimely, Hammill, Kilgallon, Jay O'Shea, Marlon King.
Click to expand...

Most of those were bargain basement stop gaps, not the high class loan signing that we'd never have had a chance of signing on a permanent.

No one is suggesting spending a £2m loan fee on a reserve player from Birmingham or Huddersfield
 
Frozen Horse said:
Most of those were bargain basement stop gaps, not the high class loan signing that we'd never have had a chance of signing on a permanent.
No one is suggesting spending a £2m loan fee on a reserve player from Birmingham or Huddersfield
Click to expand...

My point is, if we don't get promoted, it doesn't matter how "high class" any loan signing is.

Spending £1-2 million loan fee on an Archer-like striker for 20 games means nothing if we finish 7th, or lose a play-off final - It only benefits the parent club.

OR... We can sign Greenwood. He might not be as "high class" of a signing as some fans want - but his value isn't going to go down - he's still only 21 - and we'd have him for at least 2 - 3 seasons.
 
Ash88 said:
Not doubting we've had some good ones. But the bad vastly outweigh the good...

Muniz, Hernandez, Connolly, Nmecha, Le Siliki, Morrison, Van La Parra, Zuccullini, Da Laet, Tiendalli, Velijkovic, Ishmael Miller, McEachren, Nimely, Hammill, Kilgallon, Jay O'Shea, Marlon King.
Click to expand...

Nmecha has managed to get 7 full caps for Germany since he played for us. Not many people would have predicted that when he left.
 
Ash88 said:
My point is, if we don't get promoted, it doesn't matter how "high class" any loan signing is.

Spending £1-2 million loan fee on an Archer-like striker for 20 games means nothing if we finish 7th, or lose a play-off final - It only benefits the parent club.

OR... We can sign Greenwood. He might not be as "high class" of a signing as some fans want - but his value isn't going to go down - he's still only 21 - and we'd have him for at least 2 - 3 seasons.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy now o sign Greenwood especially at the reported price, but its not binary. The loan system has been heavily used by most clubs who have been promoted as a lower commitment route to recruit quality they can't afford but that can make the difference.
Saying we wasted money on Archer and Ramsey loans is bizarre. They took us to the cusp of promotion. They were not the reason we didn't go up, but were a huge, affordable aspect of us very nearly doing so.
 
If Monk and his agent were here Leeds would offer him for 1.5M and we’d pay 7M.
 
indeedido said:
Saying we wasted money on Archer and Ramsey loans is bizarre. They took us to the cusp of promotion. They were not the reason we didn't go up, but were a huge, affordable aspect of us very nearly doing so.
Click to expand...
Of course it is "wasted money" we ended the season in the same league we started in. Ultimately we had nothing to show for that money but some rather good memories. Was it worth the gamble? Yes of course. Loan signings can make the difference but they can also leave you with a big hole in the squad if you're not careful.
 
Muttley said:
Of course it is "wasted money" we ended the season in the same league we started in. Ultimately we had nothing to show for that money but some rather good memories. Was it worth the gamble? Yes of course. Loan signings can make the difference but they can also leave you with a big hole in the squad if you're not careful.
Click to expand...
Not just a big hole in the squad but also a big hole in your budget, I would suggest, as the sign on fees and percentage of Premier wages we must find makes them a massive outlay. It can be more than an actual signing. But Archer and Ramsey took us so close and who knows if Ramsey had not been injured they might have taken us all the way and might now both be star players for us in the top flight.
 
Muttley said:
Of course it is "wasted money" we ended the season in the same league we started in. Ultimately we had nothing to show for that money but some rather good memories. Was it worth the gamble? Yes of course. Loan signings can make the difference but they can also leave you with a big hole in the squad if you're not careful.
Click to expand...
You need a squad of players. If we didn't sign loan players we would have to produce or sign other players to fill the squad. That costs money in fees and wages too.
Neither you or I have any idea what we actually paid for any of our loan players last season, or what the contract specifics are for our own registered players.
But to say there is only risk, or more risk with loan players versus signings is just nonsense.
Sign a player who is no good sinks a fee that will not be recovered on sale and commits wages over a full contract. Sign an Aaron Connolly and he is not a weight around your neck for years. Sign a Cameron Archer, Patrick Bamford, Gaston Ramirez and they increase your chance of vital promotion.

The point is we can borrow quality players cheaper than we can buy them.
If and when we are promoted the strategy can start to move away from borrowing quality.
 
I feel we got the balance wrong in terms of building a team for the future and making the most of the loan market. It did leave us with a lot of ground to make up over the Summer which, in turn, led to our slow start this year.

However, you surrender a big advantage to your rivals if you refuse to use the loan system. Tella and Maatsen were cornerstones of BUnrley's team last year; McAtee and Doyle were for SU; Luton's starting keeper and Nekamba were loanees. The same rings true in previous seasons.

I like the way we're using the loan system this season. However, if an Archer-calibre striker was available in January and would cost us £2m, there is a strong case for taking that player over a £2m development type.
You don't get promoted by just thinking about the future; some thought has to be given to the here and now.
 
Ash88 said:
My point is, if we don't get promoted, it doesn't matter how "high class" any loan signing is.

Spending £1-2 million loan fee on an Archer-like striker for 20 games means nothing if we finish 7th, or lose a play-off final - It only benefits the parent club.

OR... We can sign Greenwood. He might not be as "high class" of a signing as some fans want - but his value isn't going to go down - he's still only 21 - and we'd have him for at least 2 - 3 seasons.
Click to expand...

It’s risk v reward isn’t it.

I think risking a couple of million on a quality loan signing or two is worth it if they increase your chances of the £100m promotion jackpot.

It’s similar to risking a couple of million on a quality 30+ year old player who you know will have little sell on value in a year or two.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I feel we got the balance wrong in terms of building a team for the future and making the most of the loan market. It did leave us with a lot of ground to make up over the Summer which, in turn, led to our slow start this year.

However, you surrender a big advantage to your rivals if you refuse to use the loan system. Tella and Maatsen were cornerstones of BUnrley's team last year; McAtee and Doyle were for SU; Luton's starting keeper and Nekamba were loanees. The same rings true in previous seasons.

I like the way we're using the loan system this season. However, if an Archer-calibre striker was available in January and would cost us £2m, there is a strong case for taking that player over a £2m development type.
You don't get promoted by just thinking about the future; some thought has to be given to the here and now.
Click to expand...


I think we’re in a much stronger place now to make a couple of loan signings in January, thanks to our work in the summer transfer window.

The loans were much more of a gamble last year as they effectively ended making up half of our team, but I guess we thought it was a punt worth taking.
 
indeedido said:
You need a squad of players. If we didn't sign loan players we would have to produce or sign other players to fill the squad. That costs money in fees and wages too.
Neither you or I have any idea what we actually paid for any of our loan players last season, or what the contract specifics are for our own registered players.
But to say there is only risk, or more risk with loan players versus signings is just nonsense.
Click to expand...
Good job I didn't say that then! I was agreeing with you to a large extent that loan players CAN add an extra impetus especially in the January window when good permanent signings are difficult to find. Signing a loan player is however not without risk, perhaps you recall the "performances" of one Kitson, David in a Boro shirt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top