Summer Transfer Window

[RoverKyle]

6 minutes ago, JoeH said:

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.

Well it would be 5 players in a match day squad. Let's not fall into semantics. The point is that if a team full of loans (5 in a match day squad) had the quality for us to challenge, who cares if we don't own the whole team.

Our recruitment in general is poor and we haven't got the best out of the loan market. It's definitely something we can improve on.

Edited August 11, 2020 by RoverKyle

[Richard Oakley]

5 minutes ago, JoeH said:

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.

How about 5 loan players and who would you pick?

You watch the U23s regularly.How far away from the first team do you reckon Lewis Thompson is?

[Bigdoggsteel]

2 hours ago, 47er said:

As per usual. Why will it change?

Probably wont, but I think we have to be optimistic (deluded) to support Rovers 

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 hour ago, JoeH said:

No, just a glitch in system, someone else said that, not me.

I got that  Was joking 

[Dreams of 1995]

12 minutes ago, JoeH said:

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.

That is a slanted view on things.

Had our loan goalkeeper have been better we may have seen better results; had our loan left back not suffered a terrible injury we'd have seen more of him. It is all ifs and buts, but the idea that 2-4 good loan signings can't take this team into the top 6 is unjustified in my eyes.

The simple answer is the loans haven't been as successful as we require them to be generally. Some of them have been unfortunate, others just not good enough.

A perfect example of a good use of the loan market is Marcus Antonsson. He wasn't good enough for us really, but in his first few months he scored some very important goals in league 1, a poor end to the season followed and rather than be stuck with an asset we have to service, pay and eventually try to offload we walked away from our financial liability and had only paid for the service he had given us.

There are of course a bad loan move for every good loan move but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to use the market. 

[Dreams of 1995]

8 minutes ago, RoverKyle said:

Well it would be 5 players in a match day squad. Let's not fall into semantics. The point is that if a team full of loans (5 in a match day squad) had the quality for us to challenge, who cares if we don't own the whole team.

Our recruitment in general is poor and we haven't got the best out of the loan market. It's definitely something we can improve on.

You only need to look at teams like Villa who, in recent years, got promoted on the back of their good loan signings. They bought a couple of them after too.

[RoverKyle]

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

You only need to look at teams like Villa who, in recent years, got promoted on the back of their good loan signings. They bought a couple of them after too.

One of our better signings of recent years signed up permanently after a loan spell. It can work if you go for the right players. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

Loans like every signing can be great, just most of them aren't. Some are so good teams get promoted on the back of them. The set up at the club needs to be good to facilitate this though and I think having a realistic chance at promotion helps too as the player thinks they may have the opportunity to stick around if you win promotion. 

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, RoverKyle said:

One of our better signings of recent years signed up permanently after a loan spell. It can work if you go for the right players. 

Brereton?  

[Richard Oakley]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

Brereton?  

Armstrong,Chapman or Gallagher.

[RoverKyle]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

Brereton?  

? we wish!

[RoverKyle]

Just now, Richard Oakley said:

Armstrong,Chapman or Gallagher.

Yeah sorry, not that recent at all. Danny Graham! Armstrong is a cracking example though too. 

[Stuart]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

If he’d have said ‘post War Rovers’, then that’s a true statement (though we still spent large parts of the 1960s, 1990s and 2000s in the top flight) and arguably more relevant, but the facts are we have spent most seasons of our history as a top flight club.

Imagine cherry picking the facts to make Rovers current slump times seem like something to be proud of.

No. Nay. Never.

Ten years after Jack passed away we were a top flight team. We are here now because of Venkys.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Stuart

[JacknOry]

David Bentley too

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, JacknOry said:

David Bentley too

The best in my memory 

[roversfan99]

@JoeH whilst I understand your skepticism in regards to loans, its a little simplistic to say that any team that finishes mid table may aswell do it without any loans. That would imply that you are settling for mid table before you start the season. Swansea got into the play offs having loaned Brewster and Gallagher, but failed to get promoted. Ultimately they are back to square one but again, they were successful signings still.

Adarabioyo for example, I think we would have been better off getting Bauer as he would have been permanent and an equally competent Championship centre back. But once that deal was allowed to slip through our fingers, Adarabioyo came in as the best we could have got and indeed was a successful signing, even though I take your point about being back to square one now. Even if it hadnt worked, we could have just played Williams with Lenihan, not ideal but competent.

Goalkeepers are a seperate issue though for me, a totally different issue to the discussion on loaning players in general.

When you loan in a kid as keeper, you are most likely doing so under the promise that he is coming to play, not sit on the bench. You are also probably going to have a second choice goalkeeper as an alternative to him.

Henderson a few years ago was the exception to the rule yet defenders of the fact that we may (or may not) loan in a kid in net always point to him, but its not accurate of what usually happens, and of how much it is a gamble. 

But you look at Virginia at Reading or indeed Muric who we have been linked with, who went to Forest. Both players really struggled at the start of the season, and both clubs were lucky that they had the resources and the time to realise so soon and get in very successful goalkeepers in Rafael Cabral and Samba. Why anyone on the back of me would defend a deal to sign Muric should it come about, and to clarify, thats all we are doing at the moment, discussing hypothetical links with players in the media, is beyond me. He is a kid with 5 senior League appearances, in which he made a few errors at this level and was dropped. Surely no one would want him to come here on the back of that thinking that he is the answer.

Then you look at Huddersfield who loaned in Grabara from Liverpool, highly rated but untested, he really struggled for half a season and they had to loan in Lossl in January but ultimately suffered losses of points in the first half of the season because they had no alternative.

And closer to home, we had Walton regularly costing us points. We had to suffer that because we had no alternative. 

I dont see any reason to advocate potentially loaning in a kid in that position. I am dead against the idea and will be very unhappy should we go down that route in that position. If we loan in one or two players who are upgrades/improvements in other areas to help us along? Totally different story and I am much happier with that.

The ideal situation is to get an experienced goalkeeper. If we cannot, at least someone like this Pears would be ours to develop, a goalkeeper at his/Iversens/Murics age is more prone to making mistakes due to inexperience and learning on the job. There is also little scope for a competent goalkeeper should you want to take the kid out of the firing line, with only a back up goalkeeper who himself is probably not going to be too good. The idea of having a kid in net costing us points then going back does not sit well with me, especially post Walton who compared to Iversen and especially Muric, had far more of a track record of senior football.

[Hi Mack]

4 hours ago, unsall said:

Sheffield United seemed to be ok with loaning a goalkeeper..

A GK that is fully expected to become an English international and is behind De Gea in the pecking order is different to signing a untested championship No.2 GK.

[phili]

If you think about it the decision to loan Muric cost Forest their play off place, without his errors in the first few games of the season they would have made the playoffs comfortably.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, phili said:

If you think about it the decision to loan Muric cost Forest their play off place, without his errors in the first few games of the season they would have made the playoffs comfortably.

Bit of a leap there. You can't point back to the start of the season and say "if x or y was different a team would have this many points". Too many variables. What cost them their play-off places was a shambolic collapse in the last few games, particularly the last one. 

[Dreams of 1995]

9 minutes ago, Hi Mack said:

A GK that is fully expected to become an English international and is behind De Gea in the pecking order is different to signing a untested championship No.2 GK.

He wasn't that calibre of player when Shrewsbury got him on loan.

[Bigdoggsteel]

1 minute ago, Hi Mack said:

A GK that is fully expected to become an English international and is behind De Gea in the pecking order is different to signing a untested championship No.2 GK.

Now he is. He was playing in League 1 when we were there. It's just one of those loan deals that worked out. 

[unleaded]

Rovers are in for big German striker Hofmann ....
 

scored 17 last season .. was at Brentford but didn’t happen for him ... 

[unsall]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

If he’d have said ‘post War Rovers’, then that’s a true statement (though we still spent large parts of the 1960s, 1990s and 2000s in the top flight) and arguably more relevant, but the facts are we have spent most seasons of our history as a top flight club.

Yeah you’re right should have said since I started watching Rovers, early ‘60s, but just trying to get over that we have had a lot of seasons in the second tier, don’t get me wrong I really want us to get back with the big boys, but am also realistic seeing how long it took Leeds and Sheffield Unt to return. 
Re transfers, like I said it’s a very unusual year coming up with the virus, but the plus side is that it’s the same for everyone.

Might even have to wheel and deal, something we haven’t needed to do the last 3 seasons, only sold 1 player for cash(Raya) Since TM arrived, but you can never second guess Venkys, no one really knows how much they are worth, but they have certainly took a hit with shares due to the current climate.

Keep the faith, we have some decent youngsters coming through, just need 2/3 experienced ones to add to the squad.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Just now, unleaded said:

Rovers are in for big German striker Hofmann ....
 

scored 17 last season .. was at Brentford but didn’t happen for him ... 

I love the sound of this one to be honest. 

Very good if we can get it done. 

[Hi Mack]

Just now, Bigdoggsteel said:

Now he is. He was playing in League 1 when we were there. It's just one of those loan deals that worked out. 

He was at Shrewsbury though at the time and was a huge success! He proved himself as a number 1 in League 1.

Sheff Utd knee they we’re getting a good GK with experience of playing 40+ games a season!