Permanent signings

It will only be nice to see if they have an impact and realise the potential the recruitment team see in them.

If not, it will be open season on here for the foreseeable
 
We've openly recruited different this summer, with an emphasis on permanent transfers and adding a couple of loans to complement that, rather than relying on them primarily.

It's a double edged sword isn't it, the better the do, the less likely they are to return, which is why we have such an overhaul this summer and reason why its been such a difficult start.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
We've openly recruited different this summer, with an emphasis on permanent transfers and adding a couple of loans to complement that, rather than relying on them primarily.

It's a double edged sword isn't it, the better the do, the less likely they are to return, which is why we have such an overhaul this summer and reason why its been such a difficult start.
Click to expand...

Add in the window closing a month into the season, it almost writes off the first few games for most championship clubs as a lottery. Especially when you need to supplement permanent signings with some loans, that usually dont get confirmed until the PL managers are happy with their own squad recruitment.
 
Seemed like a window in three phases - get the younger/development players in on permanents early, followed by targeted permanent signings for particular gaps in the squad. Finally top tier loans when parent clubs have sorted their rosters.
 
MichaelDebeve said:
Add in the window closing a month into the season, it almost writes off the first few games for most championship clubs as a lottery. Especially when you need to supplement permanent signings with some loans, that usually dont get confirmed until the PL managers are happy with their own squad recruitment.
Click to expand...
The fact that the season starts before the transfer window shuts is ridiculous.
 
I see the sense in permanent signings; I'd argue it is a better foundation for building to promotion. If we depend on loan signings to mount a bid and we just miss out, it does feel like back to square one. A successful loan from a PL club is going to a) be too expensive for us to sign permanently and b) have his eyes set on a PL move.

However, I also feel we can't afford not to make some use of the loan system. Refusing to do so as a matter of policy or principle does put us at a a short term disadvantage, as other teams will have some quality loans from the PL. All promoted clubs had successful PL loanees last year. I just think we have to use it selectively.

I see the problem as the loan system itself. It has been set up to really advantage the PL clubs and to make the lower leagues into feeder clubs and B teams in all but name. I like to see it switched back to a maximum of 2 loan players at a any time.

If that means PL clubs can't find homes for all their young players, maybe they'll release them like they used to, allowing them to fix themselves up with permanent new clubs.
 
Last edited:
Heard an interview with Pearson at Bristol and it seems like their philosophy is not to waste squad space on loans, and incorporate their own youth.

Great intentions, but cant help but think you are shooting yourself in the foot!

Without loans we would not have finished in the top 6 last year.
 
We were too heavily reliant on loans last year. We had six and could only actually use five at any given, meaning we were literally paying Muniz to sit on his arsé in the stand.

I’m not averse to one or two real quality loans if you can go get them but six is just way too many. I’m glad to see the club trying to reduce the dependence on them. At least that’s how it appears anyway.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
We were too heavily reliant on loans last year. We had six and could only actually use five at any given, meaning we were literally paying Muniz to sit on his arsé in the stand.

I’m not averse to one or two real quality loans if you can go get them but six is just way too many. I’m glad to see the club trying to reduce the dependence on them. At least that’s how it appears anyway.
Click to expand...

Thats because of the change in management though, if MC was here from August Muniz wouldnt have been in the club, potentially not Mowett either.
 
MichaelDebeve said:
Heard an interview with Pearson at Bristol and it seems like their philosophy is not to waste squad space on loans, and incorporate their own youth.

Great intentions, but cant help but think you are shooting yourself in the foot!

Without loans we would not have finished in the top 6 last year.
Click to expand...
But we didn't get promoted last year so we achieved the same thing as if we had no loans but spent significantly more doing it. Do it every year and you are just paying money out to grow PL club's investments. Instead of spending £5m a year on loans to stand still we could buy up and coming young players we have a chance of getting more money from in the long run.
 
MichaelDebeve said:
Thats because of the change in management though, if MC was here from August Muniz wouldnt have been in the club, potentially not Mowett either.
Click to expand...
Well that would be part of the overhaul I think, the club bought/loaned players to suit a manager who apparently wasn’t planning on sticking around for very long. There seems to have been tension between Wilder and the recruitment people maybe? It needs to be collaborative or it doesn’t work.

I don’t see six loans arriving this season and two of them barely featuring, for example.
 
I'm not saying what is right or wrong - more than 1 way to skin a cat.

Personally I think we had too many loans last year, but they were hugely effective.

So I am a fan of the loan system, but need the balance. I'm happy for the club to pay 50% of a PL strikers wage for instance, if he bags 20 goals for us.
 
MichaelDebeve said:
I'm not saying what is right or wrong - more than 1 way to skin a cat.

Personally I think we had too many loans last year, but they were hugely effective.

So I am a fan of the loan system, but need the balance. I'm happy for the club to pay 50% of a PL strikers wage for instance, if he bags 20 goals for us.
Click to expand...
Agree with that pretty much. You don’t mind paying Archer’s wages if he’s smashing goals in. Muniz though, you begrudge that because it’s pure waste. That’s what the club needs to eliminate and it seems to be what they’re trying to do.
 
The thing is, you don't miss an unsuccessful loan.

We're not going to miss Muniz this season, nor did we really miss Balogun, Connolly, Nmetcha or Alex Nimely in the past

We're going to miss Archer, and find him difficult to replace. It's the inability to replace the successful loan that makes it difficult to build anything lasting using the loan system.

My problem with the loan system is that you almost have to use it: the promoted teams this season will have a few successful loan players each, as did those clubs who were promoted last season. You have to use the system, or someone else will benefit from it and beat you as a result. I do think we should be looking to reduce the impact of loans on the division: if we simply said no more loans, it would be a level field for everyone. However, I think 2 loans is reasonable, 5 is too many.
 
Last edited:
It is not about whether it is a signing or a loan, it is about quality and value for money in order to get up and out of this league of inevitable loss-making.

Our loans last year were largely our better players, the recent signings weren't. We don't choose to pay to permanently sign quality, but can get it on loan.
I'd rather borrow Archer and Ramsey than sign Hoppe and Barlaser.

Buy quality, pay a premium for it, if you trust your recruiters.
Hire others if you can't afford to buy.
Don't dilute your funds across a tombola in the hope some come good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top