We’re really not signing anyone are we

[WD40 726]

Popped over to BBC Sport page to see a thriving list of updates of all the business going on around the league and it hit me we haven’t had a single transfer rumour. Not one. Has that ever happened to us in any window?

[Nexus_Canary 1,206]

Who, what position?

I honestly think the bunch we have at the moment can do the job given the right management. Would you rather drop another 10m on a gamble?

[cambridgeshire canary 7,797]

No. Webber said so.

[ricardo 8,033]

2 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

No. Webber said so.

Some didn't  believe him.

[WD40 726]

18 minutes ago, Nexus_Canary said:

Who, what position?

I honestly think the bunch we have at the moment can do the job given the right management. Would you rather drop another 10m on a gamble?

Until the next injury crisis. There’s no depth. We’re short in midfield quite clearly. We still need a DM, even a younger player with potential to mould in champs.

[hogesar 10,761]

With Normann and Gilmour now back, PLM playing better and Sorensen proving himself as an option, there's no way we'd throw money at another midfielder unless there was an obvious upgrade available. 

With Idah performing better that elusive competition for Pukki looks harder to find (who'd be an improvement on Idah).

Personally, I'd have been happy for Gilmour or Kabak to be sent back with different players coming in but only if we could get better / better suited players in. There's really not been that much action this window, so that feels unlikely.

[TheGunnShow 7,376]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

With Normann and Gilmour now back, PLM playing better and Sorensen proving himself as an option, there's no way we'd throw money at another midfielder unless there was an obvious upgrade available. 

With Idah performing better that elusive competition for Pukki looks harder to find (who'd be an improvement on Idah).

Personally, I'd have been happy for Gilmour or Kabak to be sent back with different players coming in but only if we could get better / better suited players in. There's really not been that much action this window, so that feels unlikely.

Exactly this, not to mention part of our problem has been cobbling a team out of a lot of new parts, so adding yet more new parts to it only complicates matters, unless they are clear upgrades. Realistically, you're looking for a clear Sörensen upgrade for little money, ideally a physical presence with decent Premier League experience.

Good luck with that.

[canarydan23 4,758]

I'm not annoyed at the lack of signings. I am a bit miffed that we didn't bin off the loanees and have a stab at getting in a couple of different ones.

[king canary 8,750]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

I'm not annoyed at the lack of signings. I am a bit miffed that we didn't bin off the loanees and have a stab at getting in a couple of different ones.

That depends on the terms of the loan I guess- may not be as simple as just saying 'not for us, take them back.'

[kirku 1,358]

12 minutes ago, king canary said:

That depends on the terms of the loan I guess- may not be as simple as just saying 'not for us, take them back.'

Even if it were possible, it'd only be Gilmour and Kabak that we'd think about getting rid of?

Kabak might be risky as Zimbo is only just back and unlikely at the right level and Andy O still has a relatively long term injury

[Naturalcynic 817]

Of course we’re not.  Webber made it clear that there were no funds unless we sold someone first, which looks increasingly unlikely.

[Bovril 264]

With players returning from illness/covid/injury, we actually have a bloated squad and need to get rid of a couple before we bring anymore in. 

As all the official channels have started, only expect to see an IN if we get a major OUT (e.g. Cantwell) and that is looking slim right now. The back to back wins have taken some of that pressure off for now. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

21 minutes ago, king canary said:

That depends on the terms of the loan I guess- may not be as simple as just saying 'not for us, take them back.'

But it is surely as much in the loaning clubs' interests for the loan to be successful as it is ours, I find it hard to believe there would be substantial obstacles in the way that prevent us sending a player back during an unsuccessful loan. What would the loaning club gain from that?

I agree with @canarydan23, I'm disappointed we don't seem to have made an effort to change out Gilmour and Kabak. Neither player would be missed if they were to go (even without a replacement tbh), so why not roll the dice and try something? 

After half a season it doesn't look like they're going to work out here, and I'd rather give a fresh face a try rather than continuing to force the issue. Gilmour's inclusion has actively hindered our functionality and I'm not looking forward to him playing again ahead of the likes of Sorensen and others now he's getting back to fitness.

And Kabak is currently out 4th choice CB, Sorensen can fill that spot considering our CMs are coming back in (and he will be well out of favour no doubt) and then Zimmerman can represent another back up option.

What's the point in keeping these players around? Every additional week we pay their wages is more money wasted IMO.

[hertfordyellow 462]

Not a lots gone on tbh https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/?saison_id=2021&s_w=w&leihe=1&intern=0&intern=1

[hogesar 10,761]

15 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

But it is surely as much in the loaning clubs' interests for the loan to be successful as it is ours, I find it hard to believe there would be substantial obstacles in the way that prevent us sending a player back during an unsuccessful loan. What would the loaning club gain from that?

 

Typically, a loan fee and wages paid for. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

26 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Typically, a loan fee and wages paid for. 

Is that what Chelsea care about? Getting a couple of £mil in loan fees and saving Gilmour off their wage bill? No, that's a drop in the ocean to Chelsea...

I can see those fees being more beneficial for Kabak and Schalke given their financial struggles, but it doesn't mean they couldn't immediately find another suitor for these players on loan, does it? DITTO Chelsea and Gilmour. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by Hank shoots Skyler

[Uncle Fred 526]

Lack of ambition dot com 

[wcorkcanary 4,781]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

Some didn't  believe him.

Some don't believe  anything from the Club  even when it's underwhelming and quite probably  true. It's a default  position. 

[wcorkcanary 4,781]

4 minutes ago, Uncle Fred said:

Lack of dietary self control dot com 

😇😉👍 !!Sorted

[Capt. Pants 5,005]

Had we sold Todd or Max for serious money then I would have been surprised had we not got someone in. As it stands I don't know how we can really improve the squad without taking a huge gamble. Despite our recent improvement I think the jury is still out on the quality of the summer signings, but that's not a good reason to spend even more money.

Good morale and squad unity will be equally important, as well a period of consistency in terms of having all players available - we don't seem to have had that luxury for ages.

[Samwam27 605]

Gilmour is a strange one. For half a season, and for all to see (well apart from pundits) it hasn't worked out here, and he doesn't really fit the system we're playing. Why pursue that, especially after back to back wins.

Surely Smith would be better to return and look for a player that better fits how he wants them to, as he inherited him from Farke's reign 

[Midlands Yellow 4,682]

One for the future in the last hour of the window is my prediction. 

[Nuff Said 5,959]

17 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

One for the future in the last hour of the window is my prediction. 

Well, if we bought one for the past, that would be disappointing.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,215]

Just now, Nuff Said said:

Well, if we bought one for the past, that would be disappointing.

Well that's what Watford did when they bought Danny Rose................... 🙂 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 2,035]

I genuinely think we'd have been better off recalling Hernandez and loaning to Birmimgham Placheta or Tzolis for the rest of the season

Edited January 28, 2022 by GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary

[Midlands Yellow 4,682]

46 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Well, if we bought one for the past, that would be disappointing.

To be fair we’ve bought a few for the past in the past. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

4 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I am a bit miffed that we didn't bin off the loanees and have a stab at getting in a couple of different ones.

All of them?

Normann and Williams area really good though?

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

2 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Had we sold Todd or Max for serious money then I would have been surprised had we not got someone in. As it stands I don't know how we can really improve the squad without taking a huge gamble. Despite our recent improvement I think the jury is still out on the quality of the summer signings, but that's not a good reason to spend even more money.

Good morale and squad unity will be equally important, as well a period of consistency in terms of having all players available - we don't seem to have had that luxury for ages.

Yeah I've got a feeling that a Cantwell departure was the only chance we had of a transfer budget in this window unfortunately, and nobody wants him.

[canarydan23 4,758]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

All of them?

Normann and Williams area really good though?

 

Just the domestic ones.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,328]

8 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Just the domestic ones.

I'd send back Gilmour, but keep Williams.

I know that we have a good Greek left back, and could potentially bring back McCallum to deputise, but Williams has played exceptionally well in the past few games and it doesn't make sense to me to let go of a player in good form.

Gilmour out if there is a good domestic defensive midfielder or striker available for loan, that's a big "if" though.