Confirmed, mate.this can't be true surely we would be better keeping Watmore, reckon this must be BS
lol I am an idiot I thought were getting the old welsh versionConfirmed, mate.
I think it is believable. The tactic requires technical ability and keep hold of the ball. Jones ans watmore take more risks and it’s no surprise both are looking surplus to requirements
Love itwalloped in his walloper volley scorpio scissors skills smasher
Yes I think Scott stated the preference for permanent signing himself.Have we stated anywhere that the new model favours permanent signings over loans?
I personally think loan signings is a great tactic in this division. As mentioned above allows you to bring in better quality than you can afford and improves the overall quality of the playing staff.
Providing your recruitment department is decent, I'm not against it being a long term strategy to be honest. We'd all love to develop our own players but if they aren't coming through at the required level there's not much we can do. Hackney has been a revelation and I expect a future at the club for Coburn (again, the loan model working) but not heard a lot about the next cab off the rank so to speak.
that's obviously the long term aim, but that takes investment in the playing assets over a number of years. We are getting there though. In 12 months we have invested in Forss, Hoppe, Barlaser, Clarke, Lenihan and McGree with Hackney moving up from the youths. 7 players that are young enough to have value for a minimum of 5 years. You can add Coburn and Sol Brynn too, to take it to 9 new first team assets.Yes I think Scott stated the preference for permanent signing himself.
First 40 seconds of that is pure YouTube fluff lol, literally just him walkingProper number 10. Him and McGree will be competing for the same spot!
I think I read somewhere that he trained with the players beforfe signing to test his fitnessAnyone know if he is still injured. If injured how long to recovery?
I agree, I'd like next year to have no more than 3 loans regardless which league we are in. Season after no more than 1. We have had some great loans in the past that have added quality Geremi springs to mind, Zenden too. Psychologically it can be tough for those loan players to fully commit though and all the above about stopping opportunities for youth players. Hopefully we can get out of this cycle and have a better more sustainable model going forwardReally you have to look at the realistic aims and the long term strategy. Loans are expensive and they are short term. They should only really be used where they have to be and that is to add a bit of extra quality to an already good squad to challenge for promotion (or to save a squad from relegation). If you get promoted then you have spare cash and no squad player to replace with better quality players for the next league up. If you don't get promoted then you have half a squad to replace every transfer window. We have 6 loan players which are going to have to be replaced in the summer. It means a full rebuild every season which doesn't seem optimal.
The other thing that loans do is stop your own players from developing. We had Hackney in our squad but we brought in Mowatt. If Mowatt hadn't flopped we wouldn't have seen any of Hackney. If Muniz hadn't flopped we'd have seen little of Forss etc. There seems to be an obligation to play loan players when it would be better to develop our own players. The other benefit of developing your own players is that even if you aren't successful in getting promoted you are taking cheap players and then selling them for a profit. It's a far more sustainable model than developing other teams players so they can sell them on to you for over-inflated values down the line.
Do players even care about the club when they are on loan there? I would guess not in the same way as the permanent players do. How many of them actually work out? This season alone we only had 2/4 that could nail down a starting place (wait to judge at the end of the season on the other 2). That's big money to be bench warming. Last season's were all poor.
We all want to see better quality players playing for us so I'm not dead against loans. I just think a more sustainable model is the developmental route.
You can replace the above with if Wilder hadn't been sacked we'd have seen little/none of Hackney. If Wilder hadn't been sacked we'd have seen little of Forss.The other thing that loans do is stop your own players from developing. We had Hackney in our squad but we brought in Mowatt. If Mowatt hadn't flopped we wouldn't have seen any of Hackney. If Muniz hadn't flopped we'd have seen little of Forss etc.
Good analysis. Assuming we are in the Championship next season, then our likely first team as it stands isthat's obviously the long term aim, but that takes investment in the playing assets over a number of years. We are getting there though. In 12 months we have invested in Forss, Hoppe, Barlaser, Clarke, Lenihan and McGree with Hackney moving up from the youths. 7 players that are young enough to have value for a minimum of 5 years. You can add Coburn and Sol Brynn too, to take it to 9 new first team assets.
The only assets we have lost are Bamba, Peltier, Ikpeazu, Tav and Wood. First 2 were old and had little asset value, Ikpeazu was rubbish and was low value. Tavernier we cashed in on his value, Wood was the only management failure where we lost a talented player who could have had financial value. But that was brewing for 2 years as he wasn't given opportunities. So not really Scotts fault. Net value of the playing assets (in football not bookkeeping terms) must have increased.
Rinse-repeat and we will not need 5 or 6 loan players in future.