Jump to content
Stuart

Summer Transfer Window

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Dreams of 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by JoeH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by RoverKyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoeH said:

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

I got that :) Was joking 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sponsor
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Stuart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

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.