51 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

I'm happy with this signing, but since you ask...

1. Loanees are less invested, because they can easily start over the next season whatever happens.

2. The parent club can usually recall them in January anyway, leaving us hanging.

3. It is rare to loan a player two seasons in a row, so the likelihood is that next summer we need to roll the dice on another loan, as opposed to a permanent player who we can develop for ourselves instead of others.

4. A permanent signing will usually put roots down in the area, enabling them to settle better.

5. There have been known to be fines for not playing the loanee even if they don't find form (although I do think the Kent thing is a rarity).

That's without getting into the debate that the resale value thing is pretty important, especially with the FUP (FFP) rules and only limited investment from the owners (they cover debts but they don't release extra funds much).

Happy with the deal though, as long as we get a permanent winger/forward or two also.

All pure opinions which can be flipped dependant on your motives. 

1. Players are motivated by many different things. If Palmer bombs out with us, what chance does he have getting in Chelsea’s first team? Is that not motive enough?

2. The recall thing is either in or out of the deal. 

3. If we have a good season but don’t go up do you think many of our top players will still be here next season? Lenihan, Dack etc...will likely be gone. The money doesn’t mean anything to us because it doesn’t get reinvested with The Vs. So what’s the difference?

4. Yeah maybe.

5. Fines thing same as recall thing. Negotiated in the deal but not every time.

But what’s the alternative? Buy lesser talented players? Because we definitely couldn’t afford Kasey Palmers transfer fee...

You can’t have all loans but ones like these are the best we can hope for. I for one have no interest in us signing lesser but permenant players.

Just now, Oldgregg86 said:

I get your point regarding the players value to the team but isn't resale value the whole model of our humble club

Maybe to Venkys, but we as fans aren’t bothered about resale. We just want the best players possible playing for us, right?

2 minutes ago, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

I'm sure I don't need to point out the bleedin' obvious Bob.  It would be nice to see a permanent signing of this caliber. 

What??? A permenant signing of this calibre would cost us £7m - £10m....which we can’t afford.

But seriously, other than resale value, what is the difference for us? 

4 minutes ago, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

Except he's not 'our' player.

He’s going to be playing for us this season. So other than resale value, what’s the difference? More importantly, IF we were actually looking to purchase him he would be far too expensive. So isn’t loaning him actually an amazing option? We’re getting the services of someone who’s arguably better than Dack for a fraction of what he’s worth....how can anyone find a negative in that? ??‍♂️

2 minutes ago, Stuart said:

No, we’ve loaned one. Let’s see how he gets on when he kicks a ball for us.

A bit early to start saying he’s better than Corry Evans.

57 minutes ago, Stuart said:

Right on cue.

We’ve just signed a player who’s probably better than our best player pal - cheer up! 

50 minutes ago, Stuart said:

So all that fuss and build up this afternoon and the “big announcement” is a loan signing that Sky Sports announced last Saturday? Brilliant. Doesn’t bode well that they have built this one up as much as they have.

On the plus side, it’s a full season loan so at least we can plan. Let’s hope he’s as good as the hype.

Oh Eeyore, when are you ever going to lighten up!? ???

43 minutes ago, Stuart said:

To demonstrate that they are better, more loyal, fans because they support the manager, the club, the players, without question.

Those who do question, who demand better, are seen as pessimistic or negative, and usually made fun of.

That is honestly the biggest contradiction ever. Unbelievable.

I think the people complaining about the negative vibe on here are doing so because there’s nothing to be negative about really. Not until the window closes.

Rovers are in a positive place, the players are working hard, the manager is a great fit for the club and his message has never changed. He’s happy with the budget and has maintained he wants 4 permanent signings and a couple of loans. Yes, he hoped to do his business early on all managers do but that wasn’t meant to be. Maybe the prices were high and he expects them to reduce towards the end of the window. I can definitely see us doing a cut price deal for Armstrong on deadline day. He’s not wanted there and hasn’t even gone on tour with them. Similarly, I can still see us doing cheaper deals for Bauer and Chapman too who are into the last year of their contracts.

When you look at the team we fielded against Everton, that team is good enough to finish mid table in my opinion. The reason we’re loaning these lads is because there’s no way we could afford them. 

And as the window has not shut and TM hasn’t suddenly come out saying they’re not signing anyone else and he’s having to sell his best players then most of us are happy, if not a little impatient.

51 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I cant remember when we had "fantastic games" under it to be honest, and statistically we were better playing as a four, as it suits our players better. 

I personally think we will start the season in a 4-2-3-1, and I hope it offers us the same success that it did last year.

Its a myth that there are no wingers out there who like to get chalk on their boots. I provided a list of wingers at this level who like to get wide and stretch the play.  We would be in a minority if we went into the season without a natural winger. I felt that Chapman was always more of a threat on the right personally, when he was on the left his pace could be nullified more easily. 

Again, I appreciate the comments about fluidity within attacking positions. And also about the different roles the wider attacking midfielders can play, in particular in the 4-2-3-1 that I hope we play, due to previous successes. Naturally more central attacking midfielders such as Palmer (and Payne last year), natural strikers such as Samuel (and Armstrong and Antonsson last year) and also more defensively minded wingers such as Bennett. (who I think needs to do a lot more going forward than he did last year, when he didnt offer enough)

However, having said all that, I feel we will be missing a lot by not having 1 or 2 natural wingers within our armoury. There will be plenty of times when a combination of 2 of Palmer, Rothwell, Samuel, Bennett and Conway will lead to us being predictable. 

 

I would actually agree with you. I like old fashioned wingers too, I just don’t think TM does. As I mentioned earlier, even when he has a winger in his ranks he plays them on the opposite flanks...lets see

49 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

It's all very well if your wing backs are good attacking players and can do the job. If they're  just trundlers you've got a problem. I like Nyambe but he's not a great attacking player. Enough said about Caddis. Williams isn't much better going forward and I haven't seen enough of Bell to form an opinion. Bennett is good out there but he's good in other positions also.

Absolutely, but surely he’d play Bennett and Bell...who would fit that mould perfectly. 

I think it’s pretty clear that TM would love to play three at the back. (3-4-1-2) But systems depend on context. Three at the back is perfect if you are having to defend and then break on teams. Your three becomes five with two sat in front of it. Then when you attack, the wing backs get forward and you can overload the opposition in midfield with forward runners. Sheff United play this perfectly. The main problem last year was that we had too much possession and teams sat back which leaves you susceptible to the counter attack when you have three at the back. Hence why teams like Man City don’t play it.

I do feel that those who are desperate to see ‘natural wingers’ are likely to be disappointed as neither system (3-4-1-2) or (4-2-3-1) utilises wingers in a traditional way.

Even the likes of Chapman and Conway who could be classed as ‘natural wingers’ were used on the left instead of the right. This is because ‘wide’ players are now expected to sit 15yrds off the byline in ‘the hole’ between fullback and cb. Their roles have changed from getting chalk on their boots to forwards who are encouraged to drift out to inside the box as oppose to the traditional in to out. This leaves space out wide for the fullbacks to attack in order to create an overload. Mowbray played Armstrong, Samuel, Antonsson and Payne in those wide attacking positions last season. None of them are considered wingers. 

I agree that we need players who can carry the ball with pace in those attacking areas (hence the Palmer signing). But ultimately I think he wants fluidity in those attacking roles not out and out wingers.

33 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Think theres a unanimous verdict that hes a good player at this level who will add a lot to our attacking options, probably from out wide.

Comments about the length of his potential deal are fair. As are those commenting on his natural position not being wide or up front where we need him. Quite a few including myself feel uncomfortable with players who "can do a job" in a position. Square pegs in round holes. Thats why I also want a natural winger.

Fair enough...

The length of his deal is what it is. The truth of the matter is that it allows us to punch above our weight as we could not afford to buy Palmer or pay his full wages.

From everything I’ve read he can play on either wing or through the middle but I’m not sure it really matters these days. I don’t think there are any ‘natural’ wingers out there anymore. Even the ones who used to be considered ‘natural’ now play on opposite wings and in ‘the hole’. 

I can’t believe we’ve been waiting for transfer news for weeks, only to get news of a potentially fantastic addition which is followed by 5 pages of discussions about...QPR!! ???

29 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Oh come now BDS, we are veritably swimming in an ocean of piss. Fortunately I brought swimming shorts rather than a nappy. You can always let yourself leak in the sea in those anyway, nobody notices. Especially in a sea made of other grown men's 6-month-loan-of-a-kid urine.

Or ya know, maybe people are just fairly pleased we are borrowing a very highly rated youngster in a key area of the pitch, but expressing their reservations about the length of deal and the need for permanent additions.

I can't quite tell which is reality.

I know something. I just want quality. Kasey Palmer is exactly that. He’s MUCH better than Chapman, Armstrong, Wildschut, Edwards or any others that have been linked and may or may not have gone anywhere else...so whether he plays 20 or 200 games for us he’s an improvement on what we have. 

I’m happy with that. 

Just now, OJRovers said:

Can he play as one of our middle 2?

Hopefully spells the end for Evans, especially with Travis coming through.

He’d be more likely to play in one of those three attacking midfield positions (In a 4231).

iv seen him play live and on the tv. He’s direct, quick, skilful - miles better than anything we have other than Dack. Miles better than Chapman, Payne, Antonsson etc.

The Derby fans are bereft. Don’t know what’s happened there but general consensus is that he’d walk into their team!!

Kasey Palmer is CLASS! Wow!

46 minutes ago, Roverthechimp said:

Must disagree here. 4/5 starters - who is for the chop?

My post refers only to staying up and the team (not squad). I agree entirely that options are thin and the squad needs more quality but first 11 should be good enough for survival.

I think we should be looking to replace the wingers and DG with better players from the start.

But I agree that we need another couple of starters for the following reasons. 

CB - in case we play 3 at the back.

ST - to create competition. I don’t think you can have too many goal scorers in your squad

5 hours ago, Sparks Rover said:

It's not.  

I like mowbray but the lack of activity is alarming for me. Conway I don't understand, surely a younger quicker player could have his wages.  If we lose either CM or DL we've got nothing to cover.  Graham will revert back to looking lathargic......we need an injection of 4/5 starters 

Agreed re the quality of players needed.

Just now, Ewood Ace said:

All those sides would probably say the same about us though. The year we went down there were teams that on paper that we should have finished above and the current squad is only marginally better than the one that went down. 

The team that went down would’ve finished mid table at the ratio it was collecting points under TM. I think it would have enough to survive in the Championship.

Having said that I’ll be gutted if we don’t sign the forwards we need. 

Just now, meadows said:

No but we’d believe you believe it

Haha - sound!!

FYI - It’s true btw, check it with any of the ‘real’ ITK’s and they’ll tell you the same.

Just now, Wing Wizard Windy Miller said:

That's the bit I recall.  Which would imply they were willing to chuck money at it.

If I told you that several people (who have met with / worked for) the owners have told me that Venkys are ALWAYS willing to spend more would you believe me? 

Just now, imy9 said:

What I find slightly odd is that we have no trialists playing for us during pre season. Surely if we were not confident of signing players then that is where we would go? 

The lack of pace is alarming. We need at least 3 winger/strikers 

Interesting point. But you wouldn’t need to have trialists if you knew specifically what you wanted...

31 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

 

How rich. You've spent the last 45 pages jumping down the neck of people who have vented their concerns (ergo opinions) and telling them how wrong they are. 

At what point have I passed my opinion off as fact? And when have I jumped down peoples necks? I have tried to apply some context by suggesting that it would be better to wait until the end of the window to judge it...in fact that the worst thing Iv said is that there is a ‘general negative rhetoric’...haha

Meanwhile, I have been called a ‘happy clapper’ a ‘weirdo’ as well as been mocked in terms of the relationships I have in football.

I’m a Rovers fan to my core. I won’t be dragged into the negativity on here and because of that I don’t fit in. 

9 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Jack Byrne was a better player than the midfielders we coped with that season. That is a fact.

No pal, that’s an OPINION. You really struggle with this stuff hey?