JANUARY TRANSFER WINDOW

[Mattyblue]

Fair enough!

Sounds a good gig.

[JHRover]

Seems Chelsea have done similar with Baker also from their academy. He was at Leeds until yesterday but barely featured for them so they recalled him before he was swiftly sent out to Reading, presumably where they expect him to get more game time.

To be honest the whole loan thing from Chelsea and to a lesser extent City and Liverpool disturbs me and in future I think I'd prefer it if we just steered clear of that area in our recruitment. On very few occasions has it actually worked out well for us and as Tomphil says it seems to me to just be a way to fill up squad places on the cheap without much risk. Chelsea happy to absorb most of the cost because they can afford to in exchange for one of their 'assets' getting regular Championship football and we don't have to committ to a contract or salary. Not for me thankyou. If we're looking at loans I'd prefer them to be with a view to a permanent or with a deal arranged in advance to exercise should we wish.

[jim mk2]

End of the day I thought Palmer looked a player and had ability if it could be harnessed properly . Perhaps the emergence of Travis has forced Mowbray's hand but Travis's impact has been such and so immediate it does beg the question why Mowbray has waited to long unleash him and signed Palmer when  he obviously wasn't needed. 

Bristol City have got themselves a good player but Palmer needs to play regularly.  

[SBlue]

2 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Seems Chelsea have done similar with Baker also from their academy. He was at Leeds until yesterday but barely featured for them so they recalled him before he was swiftly sent out to Reading, presumably where they expect him to get more game time.

To be honest the whole loan thing from Chelsea and to a lesser extent City and Liverpool disturbs me and in future I think I'd prefer it if we just steered clear of that area in our recruitment. On very few occasions has it actually worked out well for us and as Tomphil says it seems to me to just be a way to fill up squad places on the cheap without much risk. Chelsea happy to absorb most of the cost because they can afford to in exchange for one of their 'assets' getting regular Championship football and we don't have to committ to a contract or salary. Not for me thankyou. If we're looking at loans I'd prefer them to be with a view to a permanent or with a deal arranged in advance to exercise should we wish.

It's odd because players like Kane and Palmer are NEVER going to get in the first team picture there - what do the clubs have to gain? There must be some financial reason - hoping they get bought for a few hundred grand?

Players will soon get fed up of it. Those with their head's screwed on anyway - look at Davenport, he could have entered the loan cycle of doom but pushed for a move.

[blueboy3333]

11 hours ago, J*B said:

Not strictly true. We have all sorts on here, Rovers staff, Venkys staff, journos. I'd assume they know what's going on - then there's plenty of folk that get tip bits.

I'll rephrase. There's absolutely nobody on here who has posted any advance news of any transfers that have proved to be accurate since Mowbray came in. 

 

[roversfan99]

1 minute ago, blueboy3333 said:

I'll rephrase. There's absolutely nobody on here who has posted any advance news of any transfers that have proved to be accurate since Mowbray came in. 

 

Your original statement was correct.

[blueboy3333]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

Your original statement was correct.

I think we can all name at least 3 who desperately want everyone to think they are ITK but don't actually have a clue. 

[Beanie01289]

I think in some cases the loan fee increases if they don't play as well say you pay 25% of his wages/fee if he plays x amount compared to 50% if he does not play at all making it sensible to let him be recalled if the opposition so desire. 

[neophox]

Hope we try and get Josh Maja! Young and with potential, already 15 goals this season. Samuel nowhere near his standards.

[neophox]

Where Is Davenport?

[SBlue]

Just now, neophox said:

Where Is Davenport?

Probably on loan ?

[jim mk2]

3 minutes ago, neophox said:

Where Is Davenport?

 

Having a beer at home. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

5 minutes ago, neophox said:

Hope we try and get Josh Maja! Young and with potential, already 15 goals this season. Samuel nowhere near his standards.

And then you woke up and realised you'd been dreaming.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

56 minutes ago, Proudtobeblue&white said:

I thought he was a talented player. Why hasn't he (agent?) found a move to somewhere he can play regularly......like Ewood?

I can't say I was impressed. I wouldn't swap him for Nyambe for instance.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, HowieFive0 said:

A loan is a loan Rev. 

Its a two way thing  we are paying part of the players wage and want as much out of that player just as Chelsea would want experience for that player, But if he's not upto scratch ..poor in training or kept out of the team by better performing players then that's how it should be regardless of parent club.

Again a two way thing and we re well within our rights not to play  the player for whatever reason TM and Co. see.

Palmer now onto his fourth loan club ..and still no takers.

I disagree slightly, to me the whole point of loaning a player from a PL Club is that you're getting the use of a player you could never afford to acquire permanently. The parent Club might be getting a loan fee but they're passing up on the chance to get a permanent transfer fee for the player and they're not paying most of his wages and sending him out to fill up the bench somewhere else, they want him playing so they can assess whether he might be any good for them at some point, or so his value can be enhanced for a sale.

I'd have thought the unwritten understanding between the clubs would normally be that the player would be a regular starter if fit.

[RevidgeBlue]

36 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Seems Chelsea have done similar with Baker also from their academy. He was at Leeds until yesterday but barely featured for them so they recalled him before he was swiftly sent out to Reading, presumably where they expect him to get more game time.

To be honest the whole loan thing from Chelsea and to a lesser extent City and Liverpool disturbs me and in future I think I'd prefer it if we just steered clear of that area in our recruitment. On very few occasions has it actually worked out well for us and as Tomphil says it seems to me to just be a way to fill up squad places on the cheap without much risk. Chelsea happy to absorb most of the cost because they can afford to in exchange for one of their 'assets' getting regular Championship football and we don't have to committ to a contract or salary. Not for me thankyou. If we're looking at loans I'd prefer them to be with a view to a permanent or with a deal arranged in advance to exercise should we wish.

Am I right in thinking that the authorities are trying to restrict the number of players Clubs can have out on loan to 7 or 8?

That would stop Clubs like Chelsea stockpiling players and having 40 + players out on loan and rightly so.

[Sparks Rover]

I always thought John Brayford looked solid and useful when hes played us. Hes 31 and would add a bit of know how.

[HowieFive0]

15 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I disagree slightly, to me the whole point of loaning a player from a PL Club is that you're getting the use of a player you could never afford to acquire permanently. The parent Club might be getting a loan fee but they're passing up on the chance to get a permanent transfer fee for the player and they're not paying most of his wages and sending him out to fill up the bench somewhere else, they want him playing so they can assess whether he might be any good for them at some point, or so his value can be enhanced for a sale.

I'd have thought the unwritten understanding between the clubs would normally be that the player would be a regular starter if fit.

Its a two way thing though Rev. Yes we may get the chance of taking a player on loan we may never be able to buy outright but at the same time the parent club is passing the player onto another club to see if he makes the grade. If the player was as good as they thought he d be in their first eleven or clubs would be putting in bids to make a permanent transfer ..but not happening on both counts for Palmer. 

We surely have the right to play our best eleven on a weekly basis  regardless of whether they re signed to the club or simply on loan ? BRFC comes first.

[4000Holes]

Just as an aside and to Chuck the muck in the nettles.  Should there be a loan market at all?  

Its all very well for the likes of Chelsea, City, United et al to keep mopping up young talent and then send them on loan with the hope they will come good but is it good for the game?  I think not.  If no loans where available then these youngsters may just think again when joining these clubs with another 100 youngsters at the same time and the result may be a more realistic or equal base for all clubs.

[the original david brent]

1 hour ago, Sparks Rover said:

I always thought John Brayford looked solid and useful when hes played us. Hes 31 and would add a bit of know how.

I also thought he was a decent player 2-3 years ago. However his career must have stalled; he’s at a mid table league 1 team who have just been walloped 9-0!  

[Mercer]

2 hours ago, JHRover said:

Seems Chelsea have done similar with Baker also from their academy. He was at Leeds until yesterday but barely featured for them so they recalled him before he was swiftly sent out to Reading, presumably where they expect him to get more game time.

To be honest the whole loan thing from Chelsea and to a lesser extent City and Liverpool disturbs me and in future I think I'd prefer it if we just steered clear of that area in our recruitment. On very few occasions has it actually worked out well for us and as Tomphil says it seems to me to just be a way to fill up squad places on the cheap without much risk. Chelsea happy to absorb most of the cost because they can afford to in exchange for one of their 'assets' getting regular Championship football and we don't have to committ to a contract or salary. Not for me thankyou. If we're looking at loans I'd prefer them to be with a view to a permanent or with a deal arranged in advance to exercise should we wish.

The likes of Arsenal, Chelsea etc make a fortune from loaning out players ranging from those 'fringe' 1st team players right down to the younger lads in the U23's and academies.  It is extremely lucrative for them.

I have an understanding of some of the deals and fees involved and one club received £millions (>£5m, <£10m) in a fee for one player alone who was loaned out last season.  And this is not an 'exception'.

I would be very surprised if Rovers did not pay a loan fee for Palmer.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Mercer

[tomphil]

It's a right racket and no doubt it's all fanned by the middlemen making their percentages. Part of football these days is just one giant cattle market, maybe Rovers should get in on the act. Wonder if a league one clubs fancies loaning Brereton for half a million till the end of the season ?

[bluebruce]

23 minutes ago, tomphil said:

It's a right racket and no doubt it's all fanned by the middlemen making their percentages. Part of football these days is just one giant cattle market, maybe Rovers should get in on the act. Wonder if a league one clubs fancies loaning Brereton for half a million till the end of the season ?

Be lucky to find one that could just pay his wage in full. Maybe Sunderland, if they were even interested.

[RevidgeBlue]

1 hour ago, 4000Holes said:

Just as an aside and to Chuck the muck in the nettles.  Should there be a loan market at all?  

I don't think so. At least not in it's present form. Years ago loans seemed to be used a lot more sparingly to add the finishing touches to a squad or to cover an emergency when a couple of injuries left you without a keeper etc. Nowadays many teams try to cheat their way round the transfer windows by making loans the core part of their business rather than permanent transfers. I'd restrict buying Clubs to one loan and one emergency loan for a keeper if needed per season meaning the bulk of their business would have to be on a permanent basis. It would probably lead to a massive readjustment of wages downwards for players outside the Premier League but that wouldn't neccesarily be a bad thing. 

[JacknOry]

 

2 hours ago, 4000Holes said:

Just as an aside and to Chuck the muck in the nettles.  Should there be a loan market at all?  

Its all very well for the likes of Chelsea, City, United et al to keep mopping up young talent and then send them on loan with the hope they will come good but is it good for the game?  I think not.  If no loans where available then these youngsters may just think again when joining these clubs with another 100 youngsters at the same time and the result may be a more realistic or equal base for all clubs.

I think there should be a loan market but not as it is right now. A club like ours sending a small number of kids out to L1 and 2 is for the benefit of both clubs as the lower league club gets a cheap player for the season while we get to see how that kid develops.

Chelsea sending out 40+ per season is just bonkers and is surely killing off so much talent. They just mop up the best talent around and ruin at least half of it. The loan market should not be used for financial gain in my opinion. Some of their players like Hector and Kane are not even kids anymore, they're 25-years old having been shunted all over the country for their entire careers to date. 

I would scrap loan fees and keep it to a percentage of wages paid and limit the number each club is allowed to loan out each season. This would spread the talent around and would force Chelsea to release a few of these kids who would have a better chance of making it by being snapped up by a lower league club and having to show the ambition and ability to make their way up the football ladder.