Summer Transfer Window 2019

[Dreams of 1995]

Just to debunk this whole loan vs permanent signing fiasco.

When Bournemouth got promoted from the Championship their first choice goalkeeper was Artur Boruc, on loan from Southampton.

When Watford got promoted they had at least 5 players on loan, all of them first team regulars.

Aston Villa were a defensive shambles before they recruited Hause and Mings, both on loan, in which Mings formed a defensive partnership with Taunzebe, obviously on loan, which lead to a 13(?) game winning spell and ultimately promotion.

When Brighton got promoted their top goalscorer was Glenn Murray - a loanee.

Then we can go into teams like Derby, in which Mount, Wilson, Fimori all came in on loan to guide them to a play off final. Although the "lampard effect" meant they could get them players.

The truth about it is that whether the incoming goalkeeper or defender is a loanee or permanent signing is irrelevant. As long as they play for Rovers, come in the first team and improve it it doesn't matter. Certainly loaning a player isn't evidence "the budget has been mismanaged" at all. If the right players become available via loan I'd much rather have them than buy a player that isn't as good simply because they're our players.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Hoban is decent, but he is far too injury prone. Feel sorry for him. I wouldn't be surprised if he retired soon. 

[DE.]

Loans are fine as long as the bulk of the team isn't made up of them. You don't want to be over-reliant on loan players as they won't have the same motivation to succeed for the club as players who are signed permanently (usually, there are exceptions, see D. Murphy, B. Orr, D. Etuhu, etc). Ideally if you're bringing in a loan it's either a player you hope to be able to buy at a later date (Josh King and Tom Cairney are good examples of this) or players that you realistically aren't able to sign permanently, but are significantly better than what you already have. 

I think we'll sign a permanent GK, but if we got in a really good loan CB and LB I'd be happy with that. 

[Miller11]

Just now, The Mighty Chaffinch said:

If we are flirting with the idea of bringing in out of contract midfielders like Butterfield and Adam then why not apply the same logic to defenders. Tommie Hoban has been released by Watford, he's still only 25, knows a lot of the lads and when fit (not often sadly) he looked decent. I'm not suggesting he should be our first choice centre back but he certainly adds to the pool of established players like Mulgrew, Lenihan and Williams. He might turn out a dud but I wouldn't imagine he'd cost the earth 

I predicted a while back we would go for him. After the window closes. With the caveat he isn’t going to be ready for months.

If this, or similar, is our only defensive addition I’ll be furious. If it’s in addition to some ready made first teamers, happy enough with it.

[RoversClitheroe]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

You seem to be saying something that doesn't relate to what you quoted from me. Can you be clearer? 

You said a keeper would sort the major of our issues out. Where I don't think that's where the issue lay at all.

[JacknOry]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

Just to debunk this whole loan vs permanent signing fiasco.

When Bournemouth got promoted from the Championship their first choice goalkeeper was Artur Boruc, on loan from Southampton.

When Watford got promoted they had at least 5 players on loan, all of them first team regulars.

Aston Villa were a defensive shambles before they recruited Hause and Mings, both on loan, in which Mings formed a defensive partnership with Taunzebe, obviously on loan, which lead to a 13(?) game winning spell and ultimately promotion.

When Brighton got promoted their top goalscorer was Glenn Murray - a loanee.

Then we can go into teams like Derby, in which Mount, Wilson, Fimori all came in on loan to guide them to a play off final. Although the "lampard effect" meant they could get them players.

The truth about it is that whether the incoming goalkeeper or defender is a loanee or permanent signing is irrelevant. As long as they play for Rovers, come in the first team and improve it it doesn't matter. Certainly loaning a player isn't evidence "the budget has been mismanaged" at all. If the right players become available via loan I'd much rather have them than buy a player that isn't as good simply because they're our players.

All teams loan players at this level. If we got promoted you could say that we did so with Harrison Reed playing a good portion of our games or under Coyle, we had DG on loan who was our top scorer. 

Ideally though, and in the words of TM himself, you shouldn't be building a team around loans. Sure, use them to bolster the squad if good enough or plug a gap for a short period of time but we really do need to be bringing in someone of the required quality permanently. In my opinion, it would be a bit of a mismanagement of funds if we're buying yet another multi-million pound striker but then not bringing in a CB. It is the position that should have been priority and not filled but some last minute loan.

I hope we're working on something as has been said by Sharpe but if it ends up being an untested kid from the PL, i wont be happy tbh. 

[Miller11]

Loan signings who slot straight into the starting 11 and contribute are good. Loan signings who remain on the periphery of the first team squad with the odd sub and league cup appearance here and there are a waste of time.

We seem to have had more of the latter recently.

[DE.]

Just now, JacknOry said:

under Coyle, we had DG on loan who was our top scorer. 

Actually somehow Coyle was the one who signed DG on a permanent. Maybe the only good thing he did for the club, along with signing Mulgrew. DG was originally a Lambert loanee.

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, JacknOry said:

All teams loan players at this level. If we got promoted you could say that we did so with Harrison Reed playing a good portion of our games or under Coyle, we had DG on loan who was our top scorer. 

Ideally though, and in the words of TM himself, you shouldn't be building a team around loans. Sure, use them to bolster the squad if good enough or plug a gap for a short period of time but we really do need to be bringing in someone of the required quality permanently. In my opinion, it would be a bit of a mismanagement of funds if we're buying yet another multi-million pound striker but then not bringing in a CB. It is the position that should have been priority and not filled but some last minute loan.

I hope we're working on something as has been said by Sharpe but if it ends up being an untested kid from the PL, i wont be happy tbh. 

This is all hypothetical of course but...

We could be bringing in a defender, but he'd be on loan. £5m in todays market is decent for Sam Gallagher. The opportunity came and we took it. You could argue that DGs options are limited and bringing in a replacement now is sensible business to allow him to settle in whilst DG still leads the line. Gallagher and Brereton are two good English players with resale value if they reach their potential.

On the contrary, a centre half may simply not be available for a reasonable price. We all criticise Mowbray for rushing through the Brereton deal and the last thing we want is an over priced, not quite good enough centre half costing us £5m+

I get the criticism that will be levelled if we don't sign anyone in any form. However I don't understand the chirps of mismanagement of a budget when we really have no clue about what has gone on behind the scenes, the true scope of the budget or what players/agents were ready to talk to us and accommodate a sensible transfer. Rather, you could argue that a loan signing is shrewd budget management, obtaining a player way above what we could afford for a season whilst we search long term. Everything seems to be "one way" on here when it comes to judgement of Mowbray, maybe a different perspective should be used at times.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Dreams of 1995

[JBiz]

Peter Whittingham is on trial at Rovers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tranmere.

[JacknOry]

Just now, DE. said:

Actually somehow Coyle was the one who signed DG on a permanent. Maybe the only good thing he did for the club, along with signing Mulgrew. DG was originally a Lambert loanee.

Ah sorry, yes you're right. Got the manager wrong haha.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, RoversClitheroe said:

You said a keeper would sort the major of our issues out. Where I don't think that's where the issue lay at all.

In my opinion it was a big issue. He made numerous big mistakes at crucial times. Kicking was consistently poor and it was obvious his communication didn't fill the defenders with confidence. Great shot stopper at times, but that will only get you so far at this level. 

Mulgrew was just as bad though. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, Biz said:

Peter Whittingham is on trial at Rovers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tranmere.

Didn't take him long to find a club 

[JacknOry]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

This is all hypothetical of course but...

We could be bringing in a defender, but he'd be on loan. £5m in todays market is decent for Sam Gallagher. The opportunity came and we took it. You could argue that DGs options are limited and bringing in a replacement now is sensible business to allow him to settle in whilst DG still leads the line. Gallagher and Brereton are two good English players with resale value if they reach their potential.

On the contrary, a centre half may simply not be available for a reasonable price. We all criticise Mowbray for rushing through the Brereton deal and the last thing we want is an over priced, not quite good enough centre half costing us £5m+

I get the criticism that will be levelled if we don't sign anyone in any form. However I don't understand the chirps of mismanagement of a budget when we really have no clue about what has gone on behind the scenes, the true scope of the budget or what players/agents were ready to talk to us and accommodate a sensible transfer. Rather, you could argue that a loan signing is shrewd budget management, obtaining a player way above what we could afford for a season whilst we search long term. Everything seems to be "one way" on here when it comes to judgement of Mowbray, maybe a little perspective should be used at times.

Lets see how it pans out but if its someone like the Jimmy Dunne kid coming in and nothing more, not sure how anyone can say we have 'yet again' not addressed our glaring issues at the back.

[rigger]

I will reserve judgement on whether its been a good or bad window till I see  the team perform in the league.

[tomphil]

5 minutes ago, DE. said:

Actually somehow Coyle was the one who signed DG on a permanent. Maybe the only good thing he did for the club, along with signing Mulgrew. DG was originally a Lambert loanee.

It was pretty much a done deal regardless is what I heard along with Coyle just being employed cheaply to coach the first team and literally nothing else. Would make perfect sense when you look at that window.

Other advisors were in favour I reckon especially when he reeled off the list of players HE wanted in the next window, we dodged some bullets.

Edited July 15, 2019 by tomphil

[Pedro]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

In my opinion it would be an overreaction.

If the player improves us, why would you be unhappy if he was signed on loan? Should it not be about how good the player is? 

 

My thoughts exactly. It's the quality of the player that matters. We got Berg back on an initial loan and alongside Berkovic, they were key to promotion.

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

In my opinion it would be an overreaction.

If the player improves us, why would you be unhappy if he was signed on loan? Should it not be about how good the player is? 

 

I already explained why I would be unhappy in detail, so why are you asking me why I would be unhappy? Treat my question there as rhetorical, you're obviously happy for us to go through the whole 'our defence needs rebuilding' saga again next year, I'm not, so there's no point us discussing that further.

Would you at least agree our defence needs more than one player as reinforcement?

[Paul Mani]

Just now, bluebruce said:

I already explained why I would be unhappy in detail, so why are you asking me why I would be unhappy? Treat my question there as rhetorical, you're obviously happy for us to go through the whole 'our defence needs rebuilding' saga again next year, I'm not, so there's no point us discussing that further.

Would you at least agree our defence needs more than one player as reinforcement?

The defence needs significant improvement in terms of personnel and tactics. I’m confident we have the creativity and forward options to challenge for the top 6. So solving the defensive problem is key to achieving that now

[Tugayisgod]

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/992755447?-11198:839

 

TM wants more faces

[Paul Mani]

Just now, Tugayisgod said:

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/992755447?-11198:839

 

TM wants more faces

I’ve said so many times on here that the order in which players are signed has nothing to do with the buying clubs priorities. They set up several deals and wait to see which one drops.

Downing and Johnson were out of contract and were obv keen to join so it happened around 1st July.

Gallagher was pushed to leave by Southampton who want to reinvest the money.

[bluebruce]

Just now, Tugayisgod said:

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/992755447?-11198:839

 

TM wants more faces

Just the usual for the most part, and we already knew he wants more faces...at least he is saying 'a few' though, which has to mean at least three. Personally I hope even if it's 4 that they are all goalies and defenders. We are amply stocked everywhere else.

[davulsukur]

Just now, Tugayisgod said:

http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/992755447?-11198:839

 

TM wants more faces

valar morghulis Tony Mowbray:

 

[PeteJD13]

Hoban retired in May

 

[roversfan99]

I don't think he was particularly good personally anyway.