Thursday deadline.

[tomphil]

Loans with outrages fees now loans with penalty clauses ! Jesus what next, it's an agents world alright.

Certainly explains some players being shoehorned into teams out of position week after week without actually performing. All this often prevents clubs own kids getting a look in when the bosses have got contractually bound to something else.

Sad.

[islander200]

3 minutes ago, TruRover said:

Kent is underwhelming. He hasn't had any real impact in the championship in two loan spells. Bristol city were fined 500k for not playing him in enough games. I'd imagine it would be the same for us as that is liverpools policy. That would put TM on massive pressure to play him as we don't have 500k to waste. Really feel like there's better options out there. Would rather us get in our perm signings first aswell, but if it is true hoping he proves me wrong and is a success. 

He got young player of the year for Barnsley the season before in the championship. Not saying I'm ecstatic with the signing if it happens,but it isn't the worst signing in the world

[TruRover]

7 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Had a good impact at Barnsley didn't he. played in 44 games in the league that season. 

better options? 

I would like Chapman and Kent. With Chapman as permanent signing. If we cant sign Chapman then I would look Moses Odubajo or Holmes from Scunthorpe 

Would prefer Maddison or chapman as better options. If we had already signed a proven winger I may be more positive about it. Just because a player plays in lots of games doesn't nesscearily mean they are a great player, look at Lowe for an example, tho it normally is a positive the stats for how he actually performed in those games are a much better indication (not sure how many goals or assists he got?). Time will tell if he does well and even if the rumour is true or not.

[Bigdoggsteel]

10 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Mentioned by @Butty at the top of the page.

I definitely think we need a pacy, direct winger. Im just unconvinced by his lack of success in previous loans and also the risk is how Liverpool penalised Bristol City and youd presume us for not playing him. So it has to be a success. Dont want to play him just to avoid being penalised.

Lets hope so.

We will never know the terms. I can understand it from Liverpools side to ensure hes playing. It may force Mowbrays hand to start him, weve seen with Chapman and Payne that he sometimes does handle pacy or flair players with caution, perhaps too much especially in Chapmans case last season. You might guess that his initial inclination would be to use him as a sub (due to lack of alternatives at the moment hed have to start anyway) so financial penalties might force his hand.

Attitude problems at Barnsley commented on by @Butty 

Because its a loan signing of a player who hardly set the world alight at Barnsley and whose career has regressed with poor loan spells at Freiburg and in particular, Bristol City. You cant just overlook that to suit your argument.

It is a risk yes, bigger than many loans assuming Liverpool insist on similar clauses which seem to be common now. He does tick a lot of boxes in terms of a pacy, direct winger so im happy with that but there are big questions about his end product, stats prove this with a lack of goals and assists. Form and potential financial penalties are my primary concerns.

All depends on the other signings. If we sign a couple of permanent attacking players to go with him and hes just one of our various options then it could be a shrewd signing. If hes amidst a series of loans then we may have a problem. As a standalone signing its a jury still out, could go either way.

Butty quotes one Bristol City fan on a forum who said it was like playing with 10 men in one game. He then says there are question makers over his application and attitude. I'm  it sure where the attitude bit comes from? I had a read through the forum there and many fans say he is a good player. My Liverpool supporting friends tell me he is good and report no attitude problems. It seems a few of you are mentioning attitude problems, but I don't see what this is based on? If you show me, fair enough. 

I still think we need to sign one of Maddison and Chapman on permanents as well though. To be honest, Maddison on a perm and Chapman on loan again would be ideal. 

I do hope Kent is here to compliment permanent signings and that there isn't a "must play" clause in his deal. Mowbrays should no way agree to that.

Other than that, I wouldn't see signing Kent on loan as an issue. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[TruRover]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

 

I still think we need to sign one of Maddison and Chapman on permanents as well though. To be honest, Maddison on a perm and Chapman on loan again would be ideal. 

I do hope Kent is here to compliment permanent signings and that there isn't a "must play" clause in his deal. Mowbrays should no way agree to that.

 

100% agree. Mirrors my thoughts. 

[chaddyrovers]

1 minute ago, JHRover said:

Mowbray has publicly said numerous times that he prefers to make permanent signings rather than loans and that he wants to assemble a squad of players that will be assets to the football club, develop at the club over a number of years, improve us over time and retain value that the club can realise should the need arise to sell them. He wants to build a squad over time that will gradually improve.

To be fair to him the signing of Davenport appears to fit that criteria.

So how does signing this guy on loan fit into that?

It strikes me that we've a similar budget to last year e.g. 1 million or so at the most to spread around the squad. In League One that sort of dosh goes a long way if you can land a Dack with it whilst keeping your Championship players, but in the Championship it won't get you very far whatsoever. So we're now onto Plan B which is to rely on the loan market where players can be picked up quickly on favourable financial terms from clubs happy to let them out for a year's development. Low risk and cheap but not a long term solution.

I'd love nothing more than these concerns to be unfounded and be me overreacting or getting ahead of myself but I'm not confident.

I am fully aware of Mowbray's comments about signings and recruitment. I agree we dont want loads of loan players like we had under Coyle. I think 2 loans out 6 signings is fine and nothing to worry about..

Mowbray has a budget and I'm looking he is looking to spend most of it on a striker like Armstrong as a potential target. Im sure they will be others aswell. Plus possibly Chapman permanently if terms are right for us or cheap backup centre back if Wharton leaves on loan. 

Then sign 2 loan players. Kent and Gallagher being those 2. 

So our summer transfer business would be. 

Permanent signings - Rothwell, Davenport, Armstrong(my choice), Chapman or cheap centre back. 

Loan signings - Kent and Gallagher

For me thats would be good transfer window

 

[chaddyrovers]

8 minutes ago, islander200 said:

He got young player of the year for Barnsley the season before in the championship. Not saying I'm ecstatic with the signing if it happens,but it isn't the worst signing in the world

 

Just now, TruRover said:

Would prefer Maddison or chapman as better options. If we had already signed a proven winger I may be more positive about it. Just because a player plays in lots of games doesn't nesscearily mean they are a great player, look at Lowe for an example, tho it normally is a positive the stats for how he actually performed in those games are a much better indication (not sure how many goals or assists he got?). Time will tell if he does well and even if the rumour is true or not.

Look at the above comment.

Kent was Barnsley young player of the season so cant have been that poor could he?

Why Maddison? Dont see Mowbray spending 2.5 million pounds on him when we need a striker in. I rather sign Kent on loan then sign 2 strikers in Gallagher on loan and Armstrong permanently. 

[ChrisPriceBaldSpot]

I see the bookies odds have shortened overnight on Maddison coming to Rovers. Gone from 10/1 to 4/1. May be something in that. 

[Admiral Nelsen]

Just now, ChrisPriceBaldSpot said:

I see the bookies odds have shortened overnight on Maddison coming to Rovers. Gone from 10/1 to 4/1. May be something in that. 

Hopefully, wouldn't have taken much betting to shift those odds though I wouldn't have thought.

 

[TruRover]

Just now, chaddyrovers said:

 

Look at the above comment.

Kent was Barnsley young player of the season so cant have been that poor could he?

Why Maddison? Dont see Mowbray spending 2.5 million pounds on him when we need a striker in. I rather sign Kent on loan then sign 2 strikers in Gallagher on loan and Armstrong permanently. 

Why Maddison? 23 assists and 11 goals last season ( or something like that) which is more goal contributions than dack.  He also spent a couple of months injured at the end I think. Are u really telling me u would prefer Kent or loan to signing Maddison? I think singing 2 out and out wingers is more important than signing two strikers. Fair enough Kent probably  has potential to do well, but young loan players always take a while to get going and his Bristol city reviews which are from his most recent performances are not so encouraging. I would be very dissapoionted if we only signed Armstrong permanently with two loan signings. 

[Tom]

Just now, TruRover said:

Why Maddison? 23 assists and 11 goals last season ( or something like that) which is more goal contributions than dack.  He also spent a couple of months injured at the end I think. Are u really telling me u would prefer Kent or loan to signing Maddison? I think singing 2 out and out wingers is more important than signing two strikers. Fair enough Kent probably  has potential to do well, but young loan players always take a while to get going and his Bristol city reviews which are from his most recent performances are not so encouraging. I would be very dissapoionted if we only signed Armstrong permanently with two loan signings. 

But Nixon hasn’t linked us to Maddison! 

[Dreams of 1995]

Anyone who says they'd prefer Kent on loan than Maddison permanently has severely clouded judgement.

Kent wouldn't be the worst signing in the world but I'd much prefer to have our own player. Renting is never as good as owning in any market.

That said though, Watford were a club that mastered the loan market in their time in the Championship. They got promoted with the likes of Matej Vydra on loan and subsequently had clauses to buy them upon promotion. I'm certain they had 6 players on loan and 4/5 of them signed permanently once they won promotion. The loan market, if used correctly, is a great tool for a club with limited resources. 

[SBlue]

I'd like both. Still don't know if we can pull the Maddison one off tbh but Barnsley fan mate is raving about Kent when I mentioned it today.

[Bigdoggsteel]

The fact Rangers and Gerrard are/were interested in Kent is a good sign I reckon. Gerrard wouldn't be interested if he was a  dud and he would have a lot of inside knowledge on Liverpool's younger players. 

[Mattyblue]

16 minutes ago, ChrisPriceBaldSpot said:

I see the bookies odds have shortened overnight on Maddison coming to Rovers. Gone from 10/1 to 4/1. May be something in that. 

Christ, there aint half some left field betting markets these days!

[JHRover]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

Anyone who says they'd prefer Kent on loan than Maddison permanently has severely clouded judgement.

Kent wouldn't be the worst signing in the world but I'd much prefer to have our own player. Renting is never as good as owning in any market.

That said though, Watford were a club that mastered the loan market in their time in the Championship. They got promoted with the likes of Matej Vydra on loan and subsequently had clauses to buy them upon promotion. I'm certain they had 6 players on loan and 4/5 of them signed permanently once they won promotion. The loan market, if used correctly, is a great tool for a club with limited resources. 

Watford was a different model. Their loaning system was done from the direction of the owners who used their ownership of multiple clubs across Europe to effectively move players around between them without paying fees. It was so controversial that the League changed the loan rules to try and stop it happening again. Wolves did a less extreme version of it but again it was all set up from the owners and their partners to exploit loopholes and take advantage of the system to achieve promotion as quickly as possible by signing a calibre of player they could never sign permanently nor attract to the Championship.

Nothing like what we do which is to take a punt on 2-3 loans in order to avoid making permanent signings.

[Bigdoggsteel]

25 minutes ago, ChrisPriceBaldSpot said:

I see the bookies odds have shortened overnight on Maddison coming to Rovers. Gone from 10/1 to 4/1. May be something in that. 

If the bookies had any inkling he was coming here for definite, the odds would be a lot lower than 4/1 

[Bbrovers2288]

second favourites to reading

[TruRover]

Just now, Bbrovers2288 said:

second favourites to reading

Think Peterborough chairman said a week ago that reading 200% wouldn't be signing any of there players. They did enquirer about him earlier on in the window tho.

[Tom]

Wonder if Ivan Toney or Devante Cole would be considered as the backup striker option, think both are available, id take Toney if the price was right.

[TruRover]

8 minutes ago, Tom said:

Wonder if Ivan Toney or Devante Cole would be considered as the backup striker option, think both are available, id take Toney if the price was right.

Id take Toney aswell, not scored the most goals but having watched a couple of his games his overall hold up play is good and has a good mix of strength, pace and ability. 

[Bbrovers2288]

Think Carlton Morris would be a good backup striker

[Give 'Em the Axe]

Wonder what Tammy Abraham is up to next month?

[Bigdoggsteel]

Rover the dog just tweeted that he is looking forward to wearing the new kit tomorrow ant that he has a special guest to look after. 

Regardless of the sponsor being a bit RUFF, could Rover be talking about a new signing? 

#morereliablethannixon 

Edited July 18, 2018 by Bigdoggsteel

[perthblue02]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

Rover the dog just tweeted that he is looking forward to wearing the new kit tomorrow ant that he has a special guest to look after. 

Regardless of the sponsor being a bit RUFF, could Rover be talking about a new signing? 

#morereliablethannixon 

Or the Liverpool mascot? or a Mrs Rover mascot

Edited July 18, 2018 by perthblue02