Summer Transfer Window

[Dreams of 1995]

Just now, MarkBRFC said:

There isn't prize money in the championship for league placing, so finishing 7th or 20th doesn't make any difference apart from how pretty it looks on a league table.

You learn something new every day 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

As has been repeated several times - loans do not = bad as a general rule of thumb

Where loans are successful:

• Clubs lower down trying to avoid the drop. Bring in some quality but inexperienced players on loan for a fraction of their cost to help you achieve the goal of staying up in the division you're playing in. (Eg. Liam Balagun at Wigan Athletic on loan from Brighton).
• Clubs at the top of a division trying to get promoted. Bring in some quality, maybe more experienced Premier League youngsters, for a fraction of their cost to help you achieve the goal of getting promoted from the division you're playing in. (Eg. Jack Harrison at Leeds United on loan from Man City)

Where loans are pointless:

• Clubs in the mid-table race, with bang average squads, not good enough for promotion but not bad enough for relegation. Bringing in players who don't help the club achieve a specific goal (staying up or going up), but simply cost a set amount of money and leave at the end of the season, with the club itself in the exact same position it was in before they arrived.

I like @rigger's point on entertainment. I think Harrison Reed is a good example of this. Not everything is about money. I think he was nice to watch and had a good relationship with the fans, and there's a perfectly valid argument to say that attractive and entertaining football is worth the loan fees alone. 

I completely agree @Dreams of 1995 that not all loan = bad deal. I think that multiple loans at mid-table quality sides is a bad idea, as at the end of the season it hasn't achieved anything tangible. We don't have the backbone to be able to say, okay, one or two loans and we've got a Top 4 side there. 

I take on people's points and I do agree that sometimes it's not all about money, but I think loans are much better suited personally to clubs that are clearly set out to achieve certain goals in a season, ie. Luton Town's, Leeds United's. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by JoeH

[Exiled_Rover]

7 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

The funny thing is, none of what you are saying is making business sense.

If we don’t have the money to outright purchase that player (asset) then it is common place in business to use a loan system (rental). It happens in all industries - you use free lance professionals to plug a hole because it is risk free in the sense you pay for what you get. Once the contract is up you walk away without any further financial liability (usually). 
 

That is essentially what a loan is. It allows teams to afford players they couldn’t otherwise afford, or plug holes in their squads they couldn’t afford to plug otherwise. It also takes away the risk of depreciation, as is the case with Cunningham had we signed him permanently. 
 

The prize money we received by finishing 11th over 18th probably paid for a portion of them loan players. 
 

As has been repeated several times - loans do not = bad as a general rule of thumb. There are a lot more variables to consider, especially if you are talking financially as opposed to team cohesion or whatever. 

As there's often a loan fee involved, and contract stipulations about the number of games / position a loanee plays, they're not great.

 

I'm ok with a loan being used to push a team over the top. I'm not ok with a loan being used to cover up your mediocre reruitment.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

5 minutes ago, rigger said:

I totally agree on the business side of things, but The Rovers is not just a business, it is also an entertainment 

You mean it used to be entertainment. After watching some of the games over the last year or two I'd rather knock nails through the back of my hand.

[MarkBRFC]

2 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

You learn something new every day 

Crazy when there is an extra £2million on offer for every place you finish higher in the Premier League.

[RoverKyle]

Considering the damage they've done to the club is self inflicted, does anyone actually care about the financial argument over paying another club to loan a player or signing a player permanently. All this "waste of money" talk is irrelevant whilst Venky's are in charge and to a lesser extent Mowbray. We waste it by the millions on a monthly basis. That isn't likely to change while they are here. 

All that matters is that we sign players that are good enough to improve the first team. At this juncture I personally don't care if we have a first team full of loan players, as long as they're good enough to achieve the goal of getting us back to the Prem. Football is all about entertainment and progression. If you're not providing either or aren't interested in trying, then you may as well pack it in and let someone else have a go. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by RoverKyle

[rigger]

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

You mean it used to be entertainment. After watching some of the games over the last year or two I'd rather knock nails through the back of my hand.

At my age I only remember the good bits.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

40 minutes ago, JoeH said:

To say a player is an EXCELLENT signing after seeing him play for just 10 apps tells me you are desperate to see a decent player?

Vladdy Gresko looked an half decent left back on initial inspection, it was only later on we realised he was bobbins.

[Angry_Pirate]

6 hours ago, Paul Mani said:

The ideal here is that you buy a Benrahma, mbeumo or Watkins every year for peanuts and sell high but that is the million dollar answer to football recruitment. It’s the exception rather than the rule.

It can't be that much of an exception if one club can do it multiple times though, can it? 

Mbuemo cost like £6m so he is the exception, however Benrahma and Watkins (combined) cost less than we paid for Leon Best, 8 feckin years ago.

If only we had Brentfords owners, management and scouting, (not to mention GK coach from the last few years).

We're not chasing a white whale here, we're just living in the dark ages with absent (bill paying) owners and Tony the Timid.

[Parsonblue]

15 minutes ago, JHRover said:

All true but if we are discounting or diluting seasons or achievements pre WW2 then we must do so across the board. 

We can also apply similar approaches to so-called Big clubs outside the top division at the moment. 

Such as Forest. We can say that they had a golden era during the late 70s and 80s but apart from that nothing since way back when.

The point I suppose is whilst I agree we aren't entitled to a place in the top division, we should certainly not feel any less deserving or worthy than anyone else because from what I can see our pedigree both pre WW2 and post WW2 is as impressive as anyone else's around this division. Sheff Wed similar in having the majority of their success way back. I dont think it is any more or less relevant than say Wolves being good in the 50s or Leeds in the 60s. 

Even if it were true that we spent most of our time in the 2nd division that still puts us in a bracket above most at this level who have been regulars in the 3rd and 4th divisions. So even if we accept that we are a regular 2nd tier club that still puts us top end in this league.

I would agree with much of that.  I think if we are playing in the second tier then we ought to be challenging at the top end more seasons than not.  

[Parsonblue]

Just now, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Vladdy Gresko looked an half decent left back on initial inspection, it was only later on we realised he was bobbins.

I still take him before Bell or Williams.

[Guest]

Just now, RoverKyle said:

All that matters is that we sign players thay are good enough to improve the first team. At this juncture I personally don't care if we have a first team full of loan players, as long as they're good enough to achieve the goal of getting us back to the Prem

But they aren't good enough to achieve that. If there was three slots now for loan players that are actually plausible signings, I don't think it's physically possible for three loans to make us a promotion worthy team. 

So why bother wasting money on loan signings when you could buy younger players for cheap fees that actually belong to us long-term and *could* improve?

A permanent Aynsley Pears over a PL Loan Keeper any day of the week for me personally. Neither are good enough to help us achieve promotion but if its one or the other surely we take the permanent option?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 minutes ago, rigger said:

At my age I only remember the good bits.

I was only thinking earlier weren't the close seasons great in the early to mid sixties when you shut up shop in early May and came back in August with exactly the same team ? No incoming and only the young lads or old timers leaving, and absolutely no speculation about transfers !

What Chaddy would have made of it all I shudder to think.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Tyrone Shoelaces

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

I still take him before Bell or Williams.

I'd have Callum Davidson or " Ankle Tag Boy " who's name I've already forgotten before those two.

[G Somerset Rover]

5 minutes ago, Parsonblue said:

I still take him before Bell or Williams.

100% we need a serious upgrade on these two at LB if we're two do anything next season - irrespective of who comes in as our GK.

[Richard Oakley]

32 minutes ago, Theaxe15 said:

There's also being realistic and recognising when you would be wasting your time...

Not wasting our time at all. Put in a bid. Talk to the player and present our case. It is a priority position. He's available at a bargain price.

[Guest]

I'd rather be a Preston, finishing 9th without wasting wages on loan players, than a Reading, finishing 14th with a plethora of loan players wages wasted.

You can see here the levels of loans for the teams around us from 8th to 14th. We're not the worst for it, but it would be nice to be able to finish 9th without relying on other clubs players too heavily like Preston North End managed to achieve. To bring in four loan players this window and be no better off for it in Summer 2021 seems silly to me. Luckily it's not just us in the same predicament, most clubs around us are set to lose players back to their parent clubs. 

Left Axis, amount of players on loan at club in 2019/20
Bottom axis, clubs who placed 8th to 14th in the 2019/20 Championship

Edited August 11, 2020 by JoeH

[RoverKyle]

11 minutes ago, JoeH said:

But they aren't good enough to achieve that. If there was three slots now for loan players that are actually plausible signings, I don't think it's physically possible for three loans to make us a promotion worthy team. 

So why bother wasting money on loan signings when you could buy younger players for cheap fees that actually belong to us long-term and *could* improve?

A permanent Aynsley Pears over a PL Loan Keeper any day of the week for me personally. Neither are good enough to help us achieve promotion but if its one or the other surely we take the permanent option?

Who's not good enough? The players we've been linked with on loan? You're writing off a whole transfer market because it doesn't fit your argument. 

Just from memory the following 3 loan signings would've IMO got us closer to the play offs than we managed. All attainable given they were all playing in the Championship last season.

Lossl (GK) Loaned to Huddersfield from Everton

Adarabioyo (CB)

Brewster (ST) Loaned to Swansea from Liverpool

That's without properly looking at the Championship teams last season. I'm not having that we couldn't afford those. Lossl would've been instead of Walton. Brewster instead of signing Gallagher.

Edited August 11, 2020 by RoverKyle

[JacknOry]

Just now, Richard Oakley said:

Not wasting our time at all. Put in a bid. Talk to the player and present our case. It is a priority position. He's available at a bargain price.

He would be told to fight for his place ahead of Bell and Williams...will then sign on the dotted line for Milan.

[Dreams of 1995]

26 minutes ago, Exiled_Rover said:

As there's often a loan fee involved, and contract stipulations about the number of games / position a loanee plays, they're not great.

 

I'm ok with a loan being used to push a team over the top. I'm not ok with a loan being used to cover up your mediocre reruitment.

That depends on the loan agreement. A loan being used to cover up recruitment doesn't make it mediocre, it just means you require a further look in 12 months.

I am only looking at it from a financial point of view. In terms of "building a team" it doesn't make much sense except adding quality you can't otherwise afford - and those are the arrangements which usually come with fees / stipulations.

Again it is all about balancing the financial risks of owning a player vs wanting to own them. In all walks of life you want your assets to increase in value, at least increase in line with the market, but in football to do so you usually need to lay down cash up front for such an asset. In our position we are loaning players that a) we otherwise can't afford or b) risk free temporary contracts that we can walk away from if it is not working in our interests.

It is a balancing act financially, one which we aren't privy too, but I'm certain that most clubs in the Championship use the loan market not because they want to but because financially it makes sense for them to do so. However which way you view it  is down to yourself, but the key to all of it is ensuring that the players you do get on loan are better than the players you already have. 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Dreams of 1995

[Guest]

Just now, RoverKyle said:

Who's not good enough? The players we've been linked with on loan? You're writing off a whole transfer market because it doesn't fit your argument. 

 

I didn't say that... you're arguing a straw man. I said the loan players we've had clearly aren't good enough to make our side a promotion worthy side. The original comment I was replying to claimed that if the loan players help us achieve promotion then they're good enough - I simply stated they weren't good enough to help us achieve a promotion. I'm making a blanket statement that I don't believe the best three possible loan players out there make our side a Top6 side. That isn't a knock on the loan players ability, more just the quality we have already at Ewood...

Come on, don't resort to changing what's been said  

Edited August 11, 2020 by JoeH

[phili]

11 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Vladdy Gresko looked an half decent left back on initial inspection, it was only later on we realised he was bobbins.

Wasn't it more his injury that was the issue. I thought up until that he played very well for us.

[RoverKyle]

Just now, JoeH said:

I didn't say that... you're arguing a straw man. I said the loan players we've had clearly aren't good enough to make our side a promotion worthy side. The original comment I was replying to claimed that if the loan players help us achieve promotion then they're good enough - I simply stated they weren't good enough to help us achieve a promotion.

Come on, don't resort to changing what's been said  

And if you actually read my post, you'll notice that I never mentioned anything about loan players we've had before. I quite clearly stated that if we were to sign a team of loan players that were good enough to challenge at the top, I'd be happy with that despite the club not owning them.  

I agree with your point that the loan players we've had haven't been good enough for us to challenge at the top. Our recruitment is way off the mark. We have of course had exceptions over the last couple of seasons, but those were in isolation alongside poor permanent signings.

[Richard Oakley]

2 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

He would be told to fight for his place ahead of Bell and Williams...will then sign on the dotted line for Milan.

You wouldn't be suggesting that Mowbray would make the same mistake as he made with Bauer, would you? Considering he did the same with Harrison Reed, you make a valid criticism.Were I the owner,I'd be telling Mowbray to sign the player and promise him that he'll start.

[Guest]

Just now, RoverKyle said:

I quite clearly stated that if we were to sign a team of loan players that were good enough to challenge at the top, I'd be happy with that despite the club not owning them.  

But that is simply impossible, so a bit of a non-starter in terms of a genuine discussion. You can't loan a starting XI and the past two years has shown that 2-4 loan players isn't enough to drag this team into the Top 6.