Thursday deadline.

[JeffRover]

41 minutes ago, Stuart said:

With “some level of commitment” Warnock would have probably had us promoted instead of relegated.

We agree on that.

[JBiz]

40 minutes ago, Stuart said:

With “some level of commitment” Warnock would have probably had us promoted instead of relegated.

A fellow member of this board might coin you “captain obvious” for that reminder about how the club has been serially mismanaged.

Back to this summer

59 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

Out of my entire post you picked up on that?

Was just a reply to Paul Mani who believes fans ultimately dont give a toss about the club and would rather we go bust getting the best possible players as long as they are on the pitch.

Of course the ultimate 'minimum' aim is to stay in the Champioship and there is that value but at the end of the season he just departs and goes off to his third club in three years. I am not disputing this loan at all as believe he could be a big factor for us but overall we should not be relying on loans too much and just hope we bring in some permanent signings that are an investment for the club.

One thing about permenant signings to add, the difference between “top” players and good players in this division can be 10+ million in asking price, and a couple of million a year in wages; the reality then still potentially need replacing or a more expensive option if promotion occurs.

The pyramid is getting steeper all the time. It’s one thing to want sensible investments that could potentially lead to improvement and ultimately profit - it’s another to expect or wish for transfers that would double our entire first team budget overnight. 

If teams are asking 5 million for Armstrong (hardly proven above third tier, short contract) and he’s after 20k a week, or 7.5m for Gallagher on something similar or more (guessed/estimated wages from a few tabloid/itk) then it’s not hard to see why we haven’t added any more permenant deals to the two already in. 

I think Chapman might be available for a more realistic sum with one season contract and two recent injuries that could harm his pace. It’s a risk so perhaps in his case another loan with the deal agreed might be a better solution.

He and Armstrong both settled really well last season so I have no worries that TM will be choosing any loans on a similar personality basis.

[47er]

1 hour ago, Neal said:

Post wasn't particularly aimed at you just a general commentary that debating the advantages of loans and permenant signings are pointless from a fans perspective because we don't see sales reinvested into playing staff anyway. I understand why people crave permenant signings, I still do, I guess its a sort of tribal thing of a player belonging to us but I've come to accept in modern football, in our circumstances... It doesn't really matter anymore. 

I suppose Huddersfield is a model here. Had loanees galore it seemed but it doesn't matter how you get up if you get up.

Once up, they managed to stay and can now spend the sort of money they could only dream of before.

The problem occurs when you loan players just to stay up.

[Butty]

28 minutes ago, 47er said:

I suppose Huddersfield is a model here. Had loanees galore it seemed but it doesn't matter how you get up if you get up.

Once up, they managed to stay and can now spend the sort of money they could only dream of before.

The problem occurs when you loan players just to stay up.

Loaned Aaron Mooy from city. A player they wouldn't have been able to afford, he was their star man and they wouldn't have gone up without him. Once they got up and had the funds to sign him, they signed him. Loan players like Kachunga (another one they made permenant) Palmer and in particular Danny Ward in goal also played their part. Nothing wrong with loaning players as long as they do the business, doesn't mean permenant signings should ever be neglected though. 

[Exiled in Toronto]

3 hours ago, Waggy76 said:

Terry Shanahan my first loaner..

I think from Halifax Town !

Keith Fear was the loaner of all time. No-one had any idea we had him till he appeared ready for kick-off at the Turd. 45 mins later he was famous. 20 mins after that he was infamous.

[Paul Mani]

6 hours ago, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

On that basis and given how highly you rate Palmer, it's unlikely you will be impressed with any future permanent signing.

Get behind the lads ffs

?

There are some excellent permenant buys out there. Like Davenport for example who has potential after a great upbringing to improve and earn the club money. 

However, these players are usually limited to all positions EXCEPT forwards, who generally come at a premium. A premium that we cannot currently pay. 

There’s a reason why last season we loaned the likes of Antonsson, Armstrong, Chapman and even Payne. We needed their quality for less money. The situation with Palmer is no different.

[Paul Mani]

6 hours ago, Stuart said:

With “some level of commitment” Warnock would have probably had us promoted instead of relegated.

100% agree.

[Paul Mani]

7 hours ago, JacknOry said:

Out of my entire post you picked up on that?

Was just a reply to Paul Mani who believes fans ultimately dont give a toss about the club and would rather we go bust getting the best possible players as long as they are on the pitch.

Wow. wild accusations! 

What I actually believe in is value for money. I want the best possible outcome for the cash that is being spent. If we had £20m to spend of course I’d want us to buy Palmer, Armstrong, Chapman, Bauer etc...but we don’t. 

The options are a) buy lesser quality players for affordable prices or b) buy good players who you CAN afford and loan the good players you CANT afford (Usually forwards).

You aren’t going to go bust with that logic. In fact you’re working with the best possible players for your money. And if your superstar loan forwards get you into a promotion fight at the top of the table, the exposure will likely put millions on the heads of your your permenant players anyway...

 

[AllRoverAsia]

6 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

All pure opinions which can be flipped dependant on your motives. 

1. Players are motivated by many different things. If Palmer bombs out with us, what chance does he have getting in Chelsea’s first team? Is that not motive enough?

2. The recall thing is either in or out of the deal. 

3. If we have a good season but don’t go up do you think many of our top players will still be here next season? Lenihan, Dack etc...will likely be gone. The money doesn’t mean anything to us because it doesn’t get reinvested with The Vs. So what’s the difference?

4. Yeah maybe.

5. Fines thing same as recall thing. Negotiated in the deal but not every time.

But what’s the alternative? Buy lesser talented players? Because we definitely couldn’t afford Kasey Palmers transfer fee...

You can’t have all loans but ones like these are the best we can hope for. I for one have no interest in us signing lesser but permenant players.

Good post.

Item 3: If we have an average or poor season as a team but individuals perform well, let's use Dack and Lenihan as examples, then they may well move on. If we go down there will be  mass exodus plus the loans.

Huddersfield had a well thought out plan using loans and it worked but only just, helped by Fulham imploding. I don't know but suspect their approach kept them out of the clutches of FFP if the promotion attempt had failed?

I am coming around to having good quality in attacking areas via loans.

[Paul Mani]

2 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Good post.

Item 3: If we have an average or poor season as a team but individuals perform well, let's use Dack and Lenihan as examples, then they may well move on. If we go down there will be  mass exodus plus the loans.

Huddersfield had a well thought out plan using loans and it worked but only just, helped by Fulham imploding. I don't know but suspect their approach kept them out of the clutches of FFP if the promotion attempt had failed?

I am coming around to having good quality in attacking areas via loans.

Exactly, the focus is on getting as much quality as possible in for your money. Loan or permenant. If you get the right group and the right level of quality then you have a great chance of being successful, and success = money! 

[Stuart]

6 hours ago, Biz said:

A fellow member of this board might coin you “captain obvious” for that reminder about how the club has been serially mismanaged.

You must have been desperate to throw that one in as it has nothing to do with my post.

[Mattyblue]

Indeed meadows, Chelsea churn out and hoard dozens upon dozens of players for up to a decade for no discernible reason that I can see - as many of them will never make the grade at that level.

Who was the last Chelsea academy player to become a regular - John Terry?

[Paul Mani]

9 minutes ago, meadows said:

Falls down a bit on item 1. Two words. Todd Kane. 

The exception, not the rule...

 

6 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Indeed meadows, Chelsea churn out and hoard dozens upon dozens of players for up to a decade for no discernible reason that I can see - as many of them will never make the grade at that level.

Who was the last Chelsea academy player to become a regular - John Terry?

That’s Chelsea’s business model. But it doesn’t mean that every player is happy to settle like Todd Kane. At 21 with England youth honours in his back pocket Palmer must fancy himself to play in the Premiership? That accepted, he has to play well in order to either break into Chelsea’s team or get a move to another premier league team. 

What im saying is that he’s unlikely to want to come and let the world pass him by.

[Stuart]

11 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

Indeed meadows, Chelsea churn out and hoard dozens upon dozens of players for up to a decade for no discernible reason that I can see - as many of them will never make the grade at that level.

Who was the last Chelsea academy player to become a regular - John Terry?

And yet there are some high profile players that they let go who did make it. De Bruyne being the most obvious one.

They just hoover up young talent and loan them out. Chelsea are a big part of what is wrong with football in this country. Yet the southern media turn a blind eye to it preferring to point the finger at clubs like Rovers who ‘bought the league’. If ever a club bought football it’s Chelsea.

[JacknOry]

8 hours ago, Biz said:

A fellow member of this board might coin you “captain obvious” for that reminder about how the club has been serially mismanaged.

Back to this summer

One thing about permenant signings to add, the difference between “top” players and good players in this division can be 10+ million in asking price, and a couple of million a year in wages; the reality then still potentially need replacing or a more expensive option if promotion occurs.

The pyramid is getting steeper all the time. It’s one thing to want sensible investments that could potentially lead to improvement and ultimately profit - it’s another to expect or wish for transfers that would double our entire first team budget overnight. 

If teams are asking 5 million for Armstrong (hardly proven above third tier, short contract) and he’s after 20k a week, or 7.5m for Gallagher on something similar or more (guessed/estimated wages from a few tabloid/itk) then it’s not hard to see why we haven’t added any more permenant deals to the two already in. 

I think Chapman might be available for a more realistic sum with one season contract and two recent injuries that could harm his pace. It’s a risk so perhaps in his case another loan with the deal agreed might be a better solution.

He and Armstrong both settled really well last season so I have no worries that TM will be choosing any loans on a similar personality basis.

I have not said to get signings in that will double our budget over night. Other clubs have shown that there are sensible signings out there that we could have signed for less or about the same price as we got Dack. Many examples have been given already. Players for small fees that are young enough to have the potential to increase greatly in resale value.

The pyramid is getting steeper yes - average players now going for upwards of 7 million as in the case of Gallagher. We should be taking advantage of that. Maddisson for example, get him in for 2 million and within two years he could be worth 5x that in this division. That Eisa at a million would have been a good shout too, there are players there that could turn a healthy profit for the club.

Whether any profits would be reinvested is another thing but any big profits would at least reduce the outlay that the Vs have lost on this club and bring them closer to an amount they might consider writing off and leaving.

Plus Armstrong is available at 3 million, not 5. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by JacknOry

[Paul Mani]

32 minutes ago, meadows said:

Chelsea had 38 players out on loan last season. Off the top of my head I could have named about 5. Anyone who knows what the rule, or the exception to it, is must be pretty well researched. 

Sorry? You mentioned Todd Kane and I stated that Todd Kane (ie a player who has been with a club for 8yrs as a pro but has never made a first team appearance for them and been loaned out the whole time) - Is the exception to any rule. Surely?

[TruRover]

As the season approaches I actually think our squad is looking promising. This would be my starting 11 going into the Ipswich game.

Raya

Nyambe - Lenihan - Mulgrew - Williams

Smallwood - Evans

Samuel - Dack - Palmer

Graham

The defence know each other inside out and as a unit look pretty solid. Evans and Smallwood give us hard work and energy in the middle with Samuel and Palmer offering pace out wide with the latter alongside Dack giving us the needed flair. In Graham we have someone who can hold the ball up, link the play and finish chances which come his way.Players such a Travis, Davenport and Conway can all provide energy from the bench, while Rothwell has that bit about him and can carry the ball forward as an attacking midfieldier, Bell and Bennett give us pace and versatility to switch systems and Downing is solid enough back up to the centrebacks if needed.

There is one real issue tho with our squad. We lack attacking quality from the bench, in the form of a striker and a wide man. Graham offers a lot but his game dwindles out normally around the 60 minute mark and that's when we need a quality powerful striker to come on to give us abit more energy at the top of the pitch, preferably someone who is abit more dynamic than Graham and who could become our first choice striker over the season. Secondly we need a natural wideman with pace, because although I think Samuel has something about him he's not a natural wideman who can whip a ball in, in short a game changer from the bench who can push the starting 11 is needed, Chapman would of been ideal. I feel a winger and a striker are essential and could potentially be the difference with flirting with relegation and pushing towards a play off push.

 

 

 

 

[Waggy76]

6 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Keith Fear was the loaner of all time. No-one had any idea we had him till he appeared ready for kick-off at the Turd. 45 mins later he was famous. 20 mins after that he was infamous.

Very true , if only he had scored that penalty !!!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

10 hours ago, Waggy76 said:

Terry Shanahan my first loaner..

I think from Halifax Town !

He came from Ipswich Town although he later played for Halifax Town.

[Oldgregg86]

18 minutes ago, TruRover said:

Raya

Nyambe - Lenihan - Mulgrew - Williams

Smallwood - Evans

Samuel - Dack - Palmer

Graham

That's a bottom six 11 IMO. But it does match that ambition that the owners keep banging on about. That was the same players that got us relegated last time albeit Smallwood helped Rotherham on their way. Graham's a year older. Only Samuel and dack  weren't apart of a relegation that season and Samuel couldbt cut it at league 1 level.  Bar dack with no champions experience ( although he is easily good enough) and Palmer who signed yesterday it doesn't bode well if your factor in squad depth It's easy to over estimate our players after last season

Edited July 31, 2018 by Oldgregg86

[JBiz]

2 hours ago, Stuart said:

You must have been desperate to throw that one in as it has nothing to do with my post.

Course it does. Why do we need reminding that our owners or their reps went for Coyle instead? We all watched it happen the same as you did. As I said the other day, let’s try living in 2018 as opposed to re-dredging past mistakes in a response to every discussion. 

20 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

I have not said to get signings in that will double our budget over night. Other clubs have shown that there are sensible signings out there that we could have signed for less or about the same price as we got Dack. Many examples have been given already. Players for small fees that are young enough to have the potential to increase greatly in resale value.

The pyramid is getting steeper yes - average players now going for upwards of 7 million as in the case of Gallagher. We should be taking advantage of that. Maddisson for example, get him in for 2 million and within two years he could be worth 5x that in this division. That Eisa at a million would have been a good shout too, there are players there that could turn a healthy profit for the club.

Whether any profits would be reinvested is another thing but any big profits would at least reduce the outlay that the Vs have lost on this club and bring them closer to an amount they might consider writing off and leaving.

Plus Armstrong is available at 3 million, not 5. 

If you read back you’ll see that I tried explain to you why 2/3 loans might be a good thing, and to point out the issue with investing even 3/4m on one player - when your entire wage bill for the playing side is only 15m. I don’t disagree it would be nice to go out and spend a few million on each of these, I just can’t see how it’s affordable in our current structure. 

Someone baulked at Bolton getting players in before is.. they had the luxury of 3x our turnover for last season due to the addition of higher league sponsors. It’s depressing, but our turnover is pitiful atm.

There is an entire different debate about ownership financial backing that I simply cannot get involved in AGAIN, but if we are going on the premise the owners will only cover small costs and keep the facilities/academy top class, we will have to accept that x million pound signings can only come after x million pound sales. Would a big sale lead to repayment of debt? Who are we going to sell to raise 150m?

 

[RV Blue]

22 minutes ago, TruRover said:

Raya

Nyambe - Lenihan - Mulgrew - Williams

Smallwood - Evans

 Samuel - Dack - Palmer

Graham

You forgotten about Bennett? He’s the first name on the teamsheet.

[Wing Wizard Windy Miller]

3 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

There are some excellent permenant buys out there. Like Davenport for example who has potential after a great upbringing to improve and earn the club money. 

However, these players are usually limited to all positions EXCEPT forwards, who generally come at a premium. A premium that we cannot currently pay. 

There’s a reason why last season we loaned the likes of Antonsson, Armstrong, Chapman and even Payne. We needed their quality for less money. The situation with Palmer is no different.

I understand about the idea of quality we can't afford and agree to the logic to some extent.  For me though, this comes back to the club being honest about the situation.  As others mentioned, There have been attacking players out there that have gone for reasonable money.  What do you class as 'forwards' as we seem reluctant to buy wingers/strikers. Or anyone that can't play midfield or defence.

Last year (and this close season) we were told there is always the opportunity to pursue these players when the loan finishes (or words to that effect). Effectively, you are saying we could never afford them - in which case those statements are untrue.

Following this point, if the manager/directors claim to be happy with the budget (it's competitive etc) thrn surely that  budget should allow for the purchase of a permanent,  contracted forward as well as any loans? 

You would also think, that whilst attacking players are more expensive to buy, the rewards financially are much greater in terms of resale. The owners will have seen this through Gestede, Rhodes, Cairney and Dack's current value. You told us that Venkys have always been willing to spend.  So surely our model should be to pick up some of these higher value players along the way permanently?  - by this, I don't mean players over £5 million but good value -like Armstrong.  

Ultimately, there is still a lack of transparency at the club.  If we can't afford forwards, just say so.  No need to spin it or cover up what is becoming increasingly obvious.  Likewise you can't say the owners are willing to spend, as clearly there is a (low) limit on that.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Wing Wizard Windy Miller

[TruRover]

26 minutes ago, Oldgregg86 said:

That's a bottom six 11 IMO. But it does match that ambition that the owners keep banging on about. That was the same players that got us relegated last time albeit Smallwood helped Rotherham on their way. Graham's a year older. Only Samuel and dack  weren't apart of a relegation that season and Samuel couldbt cut it at league 1 level.  Bar dack with no champions experience ( although he is easily good enough) and Palmer who signed yesterday it doesn't bode well if your factor in squad depth It's easy to over estimate our players after last season

While I agree it is easy to over estimate our players after last season and I myself am culprit of it, I wouldn't say we have a bottom 6 squad. One of the main reasons we went down was due to Coyle, who was awful. Under Mowbray we looked liked a mid table teamin the championship which the results showed, potentially higher than that if we hadn't conceded 2 late goals in the Preston and Norwich games. I also think a lot of that relegated team have come along way in the last year or so, Nymabe, Raya, Lenihan the main ones. I also think Mulgrew has thrived on being captain and has stepped up his game. Along with that the majority of the squad has now experienced both relegation and promotion and that experience will come in handy this season. By no means do I reckon we will be looking at a promotion push, although Millwall proved last season it can happen, but I don't think we will struggle as much as people think.

Also regarding the comment on Bennett I would prefer him over Evans but until we get a couple more attacking options in we could use him from the bench as he gives us attacking versatility as he can play on the wing, which gives our bench more balance as the alterative would be to have Travis, Evans and davenport all on the bench, all who play the same position. If we get a wide man and striker in before Saturday I'd have him in over Evans.

Edited July 31, 2018 by TruRover

[CrouchingNunhiddenCucumber]

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Armstrong will be our buy that 'eclipses' the Dack fee - around the £1.25m mark.

Charlton aren't budging on Bauer and I suspect Big T will have thought he could get him for £500k give or take and in truth we have cover in that area. 

Hopefully we then get Chapman on loan as I can't see us buying him because of his injury record combined with our tiny budget. 

This is based on nothing more than a feeling after my morning coffee gave me a chance to have a proper think about the situation on the shitter.