Loans (again) (1 Viewer)

Hutch11 · Mar 18, 2025

Watching teams with a few loanees, Norwich, Watford, etc struggling to make the playoffs isn't it great that we're making such an effort without a single one?
What happens to the clubs that don't make it and they have to send the players that are not theirs back?
They have to fish around for more loanees as they haven't built a squad deep enough.
Say what you like about Doug King but his stance on loanees is admirable and beneficial to us in the long term

SBT · Mar 18, 2025

OLÉ OLÉÉÉÉ

(seriously, we need to stop using the word again in thread titles)

Mucca Mad Boys · Mar 18, 2025

We’ve added a lot of quality without needing loans. Besides, what people were calling for were hot shot young lads like Doyle back in 22/23.

We lacked experienced and leadership but since Kitching, Allen and Grimes have come in, the group looks fine for the time being.

Unless we were signing a Joe Worrall-type player, it wasn’t going to be the answer to our woes at the time.

Cally Fedora · Mar 18, 2025

Completely agree. Loans are a sticking plaster. Sometimes they are needed but by and large they don’t work.

Gibbo · Mar 18, 2025

Doyle McNally O'Hare Walsh Gyokeres Maatsen Sterling in 4 seasons

If we do get promoted we will need them because at least they are off the books when we get relegated the next season

Gibbo · Mar 18, 2025

Gibbo said:
Doyle McNally O'Hare Walsh Gyokeres Maatsen Sterling in 4 seasons

If we do get promoted we will need them because at least they are off the books when we get relegated the next season

Oh and Norton Cuffy was good too

Otis · Mar 18, 2025

Hutch11 said:
Watching teams with a few loanees, Norwich, Watford, etc struggling to make the playoffs isn't it great that we're making such an effort without a single one?
What happens to the clubs that don't make it and they have to send the players that are not theirs back?
They have to fish around for more loanees as they haven't built a squad deep enough.
Say what you like about Doug King but his stance on loanees is admirable and beneficial to us in the long term

You only have to look at Hull. Overloaded with loans last season and they very nearly made the play-offs, but now this season they have tanked.

covcity4life · Mar 18, 2025

Just few months ago posters were crying and moaning that we didn't have any loans lol

I wonder if some posters ever stop to think about their track record and how much stuff they get wrong?

Covkid1968# · Mar 18, 2025

covcity4life said:
Just few months ago posters were crying and moaning that we didn't have any loans lol

I wonder if some posters ever stop to think about their track record and how much stuff they get wrong?

Almost certainly not. But we all say daft stuff. That what makes a forum so entertaining.

Perennial Lurker · Mar 18, 2025

A lot of posters just seemed to want loans for the sheer sake of it . Don't think there was a player mentioned that could've improved us .

clint van damme · Mar 18, 2025

When people were calling for loans we were thin on the ground, and we've used them brilliantly (and admittedly not so brilliantly in the past), as have many other teams.

They have their place and always have had but currently most areas of the squad are pretty well stocked with players of our own which is always the preffered option.

Hypothetical now, but who would turn their nose up a RWB loanee as cover for MVE?

To be arbitarily be against loans is as crazy as saying you must have loans.

covcity4life · Mar 18, 2025

Covkid1968# said:
Almost certainly not. But we all say daft stuff. That what makes a forum so entertaining.

Some say it non stop though. At some point they should just stop and read instead

Shannerz · Mar 18, 2025

Hutch11 said:
Watching teams with a few loanees, Norwich, Watford, etc struggling to make the playoffs isn't it great that we're making such an effort without a single one?
What happens to the clubs that don't make it and they have to send the players that are not theirs back?
They have to fish around for more loanees as they haven't built a squad deep enough.
Say what you like about Doug King but his stance on loanees is admirable and beneficial to us in the long term

Like most things, flexibility is key.

You don't want a squad reliant on loanees, because you run the risk of a situation like Hull's.

Alternatively, supplementing your squad with an astute loan at the right time can be the difference between success and failure.

Does King have a firm stance on them? I know assumptions were made based on the January window last season, but that was conjecture, wasn't it?

lord_garrincha · Mar 18, 2025

I really do think that, if it was possible, the club would have signed a young Prem right back on loan.

But a club will not let a decent prospect sit on the bench for MVE, and the ones that would are probably not of the quality to come in.

Hard game sometimes.

ccfctommy · Mar 18, 2025

covcity4life said:
Just few months ago posters were crying and moaning that we didn't have any loans lol

I wonder if some posters ever stop to think about their track record and how much stuff they get wrong?

I think all of us have got quite a bit wrong this season.

I wanted us to sign Matty James haha

Gibbo · Mar 18, 2025

Perennial Lurker said:
A lot of posters just seemed to want loans for the sheer sake of it . Don't think there was a player mentioned that could've improved us .

Have you not seen the list above? And they are good for retaining. See callum and Vik who were both loans originally and have been the two best players over the last 5 years bar possibly Hamer

It's insane not to consider loans. We are lumbered with JDS when a good Premiership young left back with Bidders as back up would have been by far the best option. You just change them each year. See also central defence where one of Kitching and Thomas is ok but a back pair made up of both is just not good enough

SonofErnie · Mar 18, 2025

clint van damme said:
When people were calling for loans we were thin on the ground, and we've used them brilliantly (and admittedly not so brilliantly in the past), as have many other teams.

They have their place and always have had but currently most areas of the squad are pretty well stocked with players of our own which is always the preffered option.

Hypothetical now, but who would turn their nose up a RWB loanee as cover for MVE?

To be arbitarily be against loans is as crazy as saying you must have loans.

Hypothetically and in reality we wouldn’t find a club willing to loan us a player just as cover.

Mucca Mad Boys · Mar 18, 2025

Shannerz said:
Like most things, flexibility is key.

You don't want a squad reliant on loanees, because you run the risk of a situation like Hull's.

Alternatively, supplementing your squad with an astute loan at the right time can be the difference between success and failure.

Does King have a firm stance on them? I know assumptions were made based on the January window last season, but that was conjecture, wasn't it?

They’ve (Dean Austin and King) said it’s a difficult market because most players you sign on loan, especially from the Prem, expect to play. If they don’t, it impacts the player; parent club and the agent.

The takeaway for me was that if there’s a top player available who would definitely start, such as a Maatsen, Doyle or someone else out there, we will try to sign them.

Sky Blue Pete · Mar 18, 2025

Shannerz said:
Like most things, flexibility is key.

You don't want a squad reliant on loanees, because you run the risk of a situation like Hull's.

Alternatively, supplementing your squad with an astute loan at the right time can be the difference between success and failure.

Does King have a firm stance on them? I know assumptions were made based on the January window last season, but that was conjecture, wasn't it?

Yes

Alkhen · Mar 18, 2025

Its a symptom of our success I think. When it comes to youth loans our squad is at a level that its going to be hard for any loan to really elevate what we already have. We are expecting to be a top 6 team nowadays which is a whole other level than where we were scratching around to build a squad to get up from League one or surrvive in the championship. Its so much harder to justify handing the guaranteed game time that most parent clubs would expect or the time a young talent would need to get up to the pace of the championship now.

Does mean we potentially miss out on the likes of O'Hare and Gyok but we have to remember there was some real dross over the years too.

clint van damme · Mar 18, 2025

SonofErnie said:
Hypothetically and in reality we wouldn’t find a club willing to loan us a player just as cover.

We Got Esbrand from Man City and didn't use him every week. Think a lot depends on the player, what the parent club have planned for him and how the loan is,structured so appreciate its not straight forward but it's not impossible either.

Torquay Sky Blue · Mar 18, 2025

Shannerz said:
Like most things, flexibility is key.

You don't want a squad reliant on loanees, because you run the risk of a situation like Hull's.

Alternatively, supplementing your squad with an astute loan at the right time can be the difference between success and failure.

Does King have a firm stance on them? I know assumptions were made based on the January window last season, but that was conjecture, wasn't it?

On the flip side of this. Forest got promoted on the back of decent loans and look where they are now .

TomRad85 · Mar 18, 2025

You can 100% get a loan who would mainly provide cover/make sub appearances. Just depends on the player. Obviously their biggest talents the parent clubs will want to play as often as possible and will loan accordingly.

clint van damme · Mar 18, 2025

Torquay Sky Blue said:
On the flip side of this. Forest got promoted on the back of decent loans and look where they are now .

Indeed. My argument isn't you have to have loans, my argument is you shouldn't totally dismiss it as a means of recruitment, it has it's place.

Perennial Lurker · Mar 18, 2025

Gibbo said:
Have you not seen the list above? And they are good for retaining. See callum and Vik who were both loans originally and have been the two best players over the last 5 years bar possibly Hamer

It's insane not to consider loans. We are lumbered with JDS when a good Premiership young left back with Bidders as back up would have been by far the best option. You just change them each year. See also central defence where one of Kitching and Thomas is ok but a back pair made up of both is just not good enough

Yes and I agree to a point . The signings you mentioned were great at the time cause we were surviving/establishing ourselves back in the Championship.
The players we would need on loan where we are now would have to be of a very high standard to improve our squad , and they are very few and far between

wingy · Mar 18, 2025

Matty James, mmm, pretty sure I gave it to the owner over that one.

Robinshio · Mar 18, 2025

if we were going loans - we could have done with a couple of full backs
Now our MF is strengthened, defence is still the weak link

covcity4life · Mar 18, 2025

ccfctommy said:
I think all of us have got quite a bit wrong this season.

I wanted us to sign Matty James haha

I was alright with us resigning bright. That trumps Matty James!

I'm just on about the people that constantly have views that are shown up. I just wonder if anyone ever takes a step back and realise they don't know much about football and adjust accordingly and try to improve etc

Sky Blue Goblin · Mar 18, 2025

covcity4life said:
I was alright with us resigning bright. That trumps Matty James!

I'm just on about the people that constantly have views that are shown up. I just wonder if anyone ever takes a step back and realise they don't know much about football and adjust accordingly and try to improve etc

Personally I just double down

Mucca Mad Boys · Mar 18, 2025

Gibbo said:
Have you not seen the list above? And they are good for retaining. See callum and Vik who were both loans originally and have been the two best players over the last 5 years bar possibly Hamer

It's insane not to consider loans. We are lumbered with JDS when a good Premiership young left back with Bidders as back up would have been by far the best option. You just change them each year. See also central defence where one of Kitching and Thomas is ok but a back pair made up of both is just not good enough

Context is everything. We picked up COH when we were in L1 and Vik in our first season in the Championship after a bad first half season at Swansea. Neither player was brought in to be starters initially, especially Vik who was behind Biamou, Godden and maybe even Walker in that first season.

We expect to be in the Top 6 so players were looking at top end players who will come in and be match winners. Those players don’t come cheap and if they do well for us, probably out of our price range.

After selling Hamer and Vik, another 12-15 players left that summer and we had to replace a lot of players. We went out and signed 14 players to build a solid foundation rather than plugging gaps with 4-6 loanees each year.

We even signed Binks and Ayari. The latter has gone on to be a decent Prem player for a top half team despite two failed Championship loans this season. Which proves how difficult it can be.

covcity4life · Mar 18, 2025

clint van damme said:
Indeed. My argument isn't you have to have loans, my argument is you shouldn't totally dismiss it as a means of recruitment, it has it's place.

Of course it does.

You mentioned no club has ever been promoted without a loan so I assume that's a way of saying we must have a loan though?

Kinda how it came across at the time. Completely agree with what you have posted on this thread though. They can help alot. They are not a must. But it's also no bad thing to have them either sometimes.

Perennial Lurker · Mar 18, 2025

Mucca Mad Boys said:
Context is everything. We picked up COH when we were in L1 and Vik in our first season in the Championship after a bad first half season at Swansea. Neither player was brought in to be starters initially, especially Vik who was behind Biamou, Godden and maybe even Walker in that first season.

We expect to be in the Top 6 so players were looking at expected to be top end players who will come in and be match winners. Those players don’t come cheap and if they do well for us, probably out of our price range.

After selling Hamer and Vik, another 12-15 players left that summer and we had to replace a lot of players. We went out and signed 14 players to build a solid foundation rather than plugging gaps with 4-6 loanees each year.

We even signed Binks and Ayari. The latter has gone on to be a decent Prem player for a top half team despite two failed Championship loans this season. Which proves how difficult it can be.

Exactly this . The sort of loans we would need now would be almost ready to start in the Premier League or one of Europe's top league which would make their parent clubs reluctant to let them go out on loan .

Sky Blue Goblin · Mar 18, 2025

On loans there’s just not many who wouldn’t either have a high cost or high playing demands who would take us to the next level to throw the money away.

Not going to say there are no loan players we could have benefited from but they are hardier to bring in which is what Austin was saying at the press conference.

Hard to trust the process at times especially with some of the shite you hear but imagine benefit of the doubt will be on some minds next year as so far Doug was right on top six and Lampard.

Mucca Mad Boys · Mar 18, 2025

clint van damme said:
Indeed. My argument isn't you have to have loans, my argument is you shouldn't totally dismiss it as a means of recruitment, it has it's place.

The assumption of many on here is that it has been dismissed out of hand when it clearly hasn’t. We sign 2 loanees last season and one player was written off as terrible last season is doing well for Brighton this season.

The first order of business after 22/23 was to rebuild the team and we did that by prioritising signing players on long term contracts. We spent £45-50m and the value in the team is probably going to be £60-75m. Once you’ve built a strong foundation, then you can add loans to supplement the team. This summer, if we don’t go up, we probably will look to pivot to 2-3 loanees to take us up one gear.

The team now isn’t complete but there’s a solid foundation for us to build on.

clint van damme · Mar 18, 2025

Mucca Mad Boys said:
The assumption of many on here is that it has been dismissed out of hand when it clearly hasn’t. We sign 2 loanees last season and one player was written off as terrible last season is doing well for Brighton this season.

The first order of business after 22/23 was to rebuild the team and we did that by prioritising signing players on long term contracts. We spent £45-50m and the value in the team is probably going to be £60-75m. Once you’ve built a strong foundation, then you can add loans to supplement the team. This summer, if we don’t go up, we probably will look to pivot to 2-3 loanees to take us up one gear.

The team now isn’t complete but there’s a solid foundation for us to build on.

Read the OP.
Their assertion is clearly that its a conscious decision by King which they say he deserves credit for

If you don't think its correct, take it up with them.

Loans (again) (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency