Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Summer Transfer Window


Recommended Posts

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

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

Untrue. The financial disparity between finishing 11th over 18th is practically non-existent in this division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

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

But if they aren't going to help us achieve a goal, then we're simply signing them for the sake of signing somebody.

We don't need bodies to help us finish mid-table... again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Very true. I won't deny Harrison Reed his special place in Rovers fans heart. A player with great tenacity and one I'd love to have here. But the simple fact remains, he isn't our player, he didn't help get us promoted, and we could've achieved what we did (survival in the CH) without wasting a chunk of money on him.

From a simply business only sense, Harrison Reed and Kasey Palmer were effectively pointless for us. We'd have stayed up without them, so it was basically just a loss of funds for the sake of extra bodies. Obviously from a footballing sense I think Reed brought a lot to the table, but at the end of the season we achieved what we achieved, and I think we could've easily done the same without him.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

There's no big disparity in prize money for finishing 7th in the Championship or finishing 20th in the Championship. At the start of the following season both clubs start again in the same Championship division with 0pts.\

I'd rather Andy Fisher play in net and Rovers finish in the bottom half, than us get another Walton type on loan and us finish 11th again. There's no huge financial benefit to finishing higher in this division, but at least with the Fisher route we'd be improving one of our own.

I think signings like Stewart Downing show that we absolutely can add quality to this side on the cheap. I also know that signings like Sam Gallagher show we can add absolute dross to this side NOT on the cheap. Balancing act for sure but I don't think another set of loanee's helps the club whatsoever. Let our own young players get development time, for a fraction of the cost and the exact same reward.

But with Mowbray will they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeH said:

Untrue. The financial disparity between finishing 11th over 18th is practically non-existent in this division.

 

Just now, JoeH said:

But if they aren't going to help us achieve a goal, then we're simply signing them for the sake of signing somebody.

We don't need bodies to help us finish mid-table... again.

I don’t know for certain the prize pots but I’m going to assume there is at least £2m difference between 18th and 11th. If not, fair enough, but it doesn’t take away from the remainder of the post. 
 

They have helped us achieve a goal. They helped us finish higher than the season before, and their purpose was to temporarily fill holes in the squad. 
 

Again, the conversation was along the lines of loans being a waste of money and not financial sense, or at least my post was, and the statement that loans aren’t financially sensible isn’t true, as the points made by Herbie etc show 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dreams of 1995 said:

 

I don’t know for certain the prize pots but I’m going to assume there is at least £2m difference between 18th and 11th. If not, fair enough, but it doesn’t take away from the remainder of the post. 
 

They have helped us achieve a goal. They helped us finish higher than the season before, and their purpose was to temporarily fill holes in the squad. 
 

Again, the conversation was along the lines of loans being a waste of money and not financial sense, or at least my post was, and the statement that loans aren’t financially sensible isn’t true, as the points made by Herbie etc show 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by JoeH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by RoverKyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Tyrone Shoelaces
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

rfcs.thumb.png.8cdbe87bdbf084bd90af86b27732d711.png

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 by JoeH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by RoverKyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • J*B unpinned this topic
  • Herbie6590 unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.