Aaron Ramsey: Official

[The Real Buh 3,432]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Josh Martin is 1 year older and scored 4 goals, 3 assists in 19 games in League One last season.

 

Wtf is going on with this club?

[Canary dwarf 221]

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Josh Martin is 1 year older and scored 4 goals, 3 assists in 19 games in League One last season.

 

Yeah surely worth another chance , maybe deano needs too take off his claret and blue spectacles .😗

[cornish sam 951]

52 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

It's really simple, he's deemed better than what we already have, and 'our youngsters' get to go on loan themselves and play games. 

They must think he is going to help us get promoted otherwise he wouldn't be here. Basic stuff.

Not necessarily, we may actually think that one of our youngsters is better, but, would be better served going out and getting regular game time rather than sitting on the bench and getting the sporadic 15 minutes and starts in the cup. If Ramsey plays every game then yes, I agree with you, but looking at his stats it seems more like he's initially going to be here to make up the numbers and allow one of ours to go out on loan.

[Nuff Said 5,118]

10 hours ago, Yellow Wal said:

Skipp certainly helped get us promoted and the fact he did not play for us the next season was one of the major factors in getting us relegated.

And if we hadn’t gone up, we would now be without parachute payments. How would that be better than where are now?

Edited August 6, 2022 by Nuff Said

[ged in the onion bag 855]

50 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

So just to be clear, you are arguing it’s better to not be promoted?

If it means a repeat of last season then to be clear, most definitely!   

[Indy 3,297]

2 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

I wish him the best of luck 

but…

have we got no good 19 year olds in our academy?

that are actually our players?

Yes, don’t we learn from last season? Surely Gibbs should be that youngster to be given playing time! What’s the point of signing a similar player from Villa? 

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

It’s a slightly odd one that we don’t consider one of our own up to it, but Smith/Shakey are closer to it and better judges than we are.  The manager who had Josh Martin last season definitely queried whether he’d be good enough for the Champs, so for those moaning about him I think the guys in the game probably know best for where he’s ‘at’.

[WD40 720]

Webber has left Deano short so he’s got his black book out to bring in a kid with underwhelming stats in league 1 to improve creativity over what he’s seen from: Rasicha, Sargent, Cantwell, Dowell, Sinani, Hernandez, Nunez.

Plus our own youngsters thrown in desperately at end of last season.

Sad times. Webber out. 

[Nuff Said 5,118]

9 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

If it means a repeat of last season then to be clear, most definitely!   

 

9 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

And if we hadn’t gone up, we would now be without parachute payments. How would that be better than where are now?

 

Edited August 6, 2022 by Nuff Said

[Cantiaci Canary 556]

1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

What’s his position on paper? 

A Villa geek friend of mine says he's a number 10 who can play as a striker.

[Monty13 2,231]

8 minutes ago, Indy said:

Yes, don’t we learn from last season? Surely Gibbs should be that youngster to be given playing time! What’s the point of signing a similar player from Villa? 

Is he similar? 

[Cantiaci Canary 556]

1 minute ago, Monty13 said:

Is he similar? 

No Gibbs is far more conservative.

[ged in the onion bag 855]

32 minutes ago, chicken said:

Here's the thing, that's how loans work. When we signed Skipp, we loaned a young inexperienced player who had potential, no one quite knew whether that potential could be realised but Spurs felt he needed to go out on loan to "cut his teeth" as they say, and prove that their believe in his potential is realised.

Now. If Skipp was already known to be 100% the player he was last season for Spurs, they wouldn't have been loaning him out to a championship side. A promoted side would have wanted him as we did Gilmour last season, if Spurs felt he should be loaned out at all.

So he came to us. Regular games and competitive first team action developed him from a slightly raw, keen youngster at the start of the season, who was clearly still finding his way around a bit, to a player who could go back to Spurs and legitimately stake a claim for a first team squad position and start games for them.

It could have gone many ways. It went superbly well. The pro is that we had a player intrinsic to our promotion back to the premier league, the con is that we lost what became a top 6 premier league player. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

The con is also that we failed yet again to address the CDM position properly with players we don’t have to send back.   

The con is that we don’t have the finances to fill the void left after they go back.

The con is we don’t develop our younger players or bring in a new player to develop.

The con is we are less obliged to spend our budget on (in that case) a CDM. 

The con is we developed a player for another club who would then improve an opponent.     

The con is we aren’t good enough to go up and can’t afford to fill the void.   
 

 

[Indy 3,297]

2 minutes ago, Cantiaci Canary said:

No Gibbs is far more conservative.

Is he? Not Labour then?

[chicken 2,624]

4 minutes ago, Cantiaci Canary said:

No Gibbs is far more conservative.

CALM DOWN VINCE! 

[Monty13 2,231]

13 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

If it means a repeat of last season then to be clear, most definitely!   

We got last season badly wrong, without Skipp we likely wouldn’t have even been there. I think blaming his loan and subsequent departure for our relegation is just a strange way of looking at it.

[Monty13 2,231]

35 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Josh Martin is 1 year older and scored 4 goals, 3 assists in 19 games in League One last season.

 

He only played 720 minutes according to Transfermarket.

Villa fans I’ve seen are also suggesting he was played out of position and much deeper at Cheltenham.

Honestly I know nothing about the lad or how bad or good Cheltenham were but I don’t think just looking at his most basic stats with no context is going to tell us that much.

[GenerationA47 751]

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

What’s his position on paper? 

Read some so-called expert opinions about this on here. Truth is he's ambivalent on origami and never happier than when recycling.

[sonyc 5,509]

We'll be approaching Alex Neil territory if we are not careful...a team/squad packed with a load of midfielders. Or worse, the Roeder loanee years. I'm assuming there are more to leave (and even one or two more players to arrive judging by comments made)

Guess we wait and see him in action before writing him off.

Edited August 5, 2022 by sonyc

[VillaFan 118]

57 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

It astonishes me how ignorant Norwich fans are when it comes to loans and how important the use of the loan system is to all sides who operate in this division. I genuinely think some of them believe they would rather not have a player at all, and hamstrung ourselves out of a key tool managers have at this level, than accept that loanees have benefitted not just us, but the majority of sides promoted out of this league for some years. 

Last season, Forest won promotion with an absolute tonne of loanees. Bournemouth, 2nd of course, did so with their own cadre of loanees including, of course, Todd Cantwell. Fulham, who won the league at a canter, had Neco Williams for much of the second half playing at right back.

The season before, we did so with Skipp. No more discussion needed. Also up with us were Brentford - who had two loans in their side - and Watford who had James Garner and Glenn Murray.

The season before that, Leeds won promotion with Nkietah, Ben White, Ilan Meslier, Jack Clarke, Heldar Costa and Ian Poveda on loan. 

The season before that, we won promotion with Jordan Rhodes in the team. 

Teams that win promotion from this league tend to have used the loan system wisely. It's a key tool available to managers at this level irrespective of their aims, budgets and intentions. 

I haven't a clue about this lad. I'd have said that going from mid-table L1 to top end Champ is a big step, but he comes in with little to prove, a fresh face who hasn't been affected by the taint of last season, someone else who can push Todd back to his best and another who offers a bit more creativity and goal threat in a side which doesn't have much of that. If it works, great, if it doesn't, no big loss. 

Villa fan in peace...

When we got promoted we had Tammy Abraham, Mings, El Ghazi, Tuanzebe and a few others on loan that year. It was brilliant for promotion but a nightmare when we got up as we had half a team. However, we had PL football, a guaranteed 150m in revenue and a minimum of 2 yrs para payments to soften the blow and give us money to turn some into permanent signings and buy new ones. Loans are the way to get out of the Championship imo.

And as an aside, Aaron Ramsey is a very good player

[Unhinged Canary 375]

Amy chance of a CB or Striker next?

Dare I say it, I think we've got enough midfielders now.

[Monty13 2,231]

49 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Most of those clubs come back down though. The issue with the loans is the short term/short-sighted nature of them. Promotion or not, you have a hole in your side for next season.

We've been at promotion and staying up twice now and failed partially because come summer we have big holes to fill. Last season you could argue the loans to try and fill our previous holes didnt really pay off, so you need to keep spinning the wheel each time you do this. Gilmour contributed practically nothing and ultimately we would have been better with our own player in that position

It’s a catch-22 though, don’t loan good PL prospects and you probably don’t get promoted. Do and you’ll need to replace them on promotion. 

I do get the point, I just think it’s about doing better to keep progressing the quality of the players we do own from the promotion.

We benefit directly from this ourselves from the players we loan to other clubs that likely get far more competitive minutes than we could afford to give them. Tzolis is a case in point, he’ll probably play many more minutes on loan and hopefully rebuild confidence and progress in a less physical and more technical league. 

[Payno10 51]

2 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Wonder how long it will be untl he get's into the first team? Bit odd it's a loan, hope they don't have that Gilmour clause of 'must play a certain number of matches' as if he turns out to be gash..

The joy of him is that he doesn’t come with a reputation of Gilmour, so if he’s good brilliant if he isn’t doesn’t really matter(of course it matters but you know what I mean)

[ged in the onion bag 855]

40 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

We got last season badly wrong, without Skipp we likely wouldn’t have even been there. I think blaming his loan and subsequent departure for our relegation is just a strange way of looking at it.

I’m not blaming his loan for the relegation.   

Clearly his efforts created a void that we just could not fill.    That’s the problem with a successful loan.   Not his fault at all but the facts remain, we’ve now gone 4 summers without addressing the CDM position at all…and it’s a fundamental position that would enable us to free up full backs, screen the defence better and make us more difficult opponents.   In truth, we did not try to fill that void last time given the players we signed!

We still haven’t addressed it!    Hayden isn’t fit and if he does prove good enough but we don’t get promoted he won’t be signing for us anyway.    Where does that leave us?   No CDM again!

As for the unsuccessful loans well they speak for themselves and we now have a new untried midfield which may take many games to bare any fruit.

[Monty13 2,231]

1 minute ago, ged in the onion bag said:

I’m not blaming his loan for the relegation.   

Clearly his efforts created a void that we just could not fill.    That’s the problem with a successful loan.   Not his fault at all but the facts remain, we’ve now gone 4 summers without addressing the CDM position at all…and it’s a fundamental position that would enable us to free up full backs, screen the defence better and make us more difficult opponents.   In truth, we did not try to fill that void last time given the players we signed!

We still haven’t addressed it!    Hayden isn’t fit and if he does prove good enough but we don’t get promoted he won’t be signing for us anyway.    Where does that leave us?   No CDM again!

As for the unsuccessful loans well they speak for themselves and we now have a new untried midfield which may take many games to bare any fruit.

I think my point remains Ged that’s a recruitment issue. We arguably could and should have spent money last year on a true CDM, we choose not to for whatever reason. 

I’m not saying we could have replaced Skipp like for like, he’s proven himself a very good player. But we could have tried to fill the gap better and it seems, if I’m understanding your position correctly, you believe that too.

[ged in the onion bag 855]

36 minutes ago, VillaFan said:

Villa fan in peace...

When we got promoted we had Tammy Abraham, Mings, El Ghazi, Tuanzebe and a few others on loan that year. It was brilliant for promotion but a nightmare when we got up as we had half a team. However, we had PL football, a guaranteed 150m in revenue and a minimum of 2 yrs para payments to soften the blow and give us money to turn some into permanent signings and buy new ones. Loans are the way to get out of the Championship imo.

And as an aside, Aaron Ramsey is a very good player

There’s a thread here that relies on finance, that promotion you still spent in excess of £100m on new players.   In our last two seasons we had to sell you Buendia (I do so miss that lad) to finance any spend and we blew all of that!    

It’s ok to loan players if you can afford to buy them (we can’t) or buy replacements, again, we can’t.     

If we get promoted with this group the gaps to wide to bridge it, it’ll be the same farce again and we’ll get all these fans happy developing other teams players in uproar at the club!   

Good luck to the lad, just would prefer we looked after and developed our own.   After all, it’s all a gamble anyway!

 

[ged in the onion bag 855]

16 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I think my point remains Ged that’s a recruitment issue. We arguably could and should have spent money last year on a true CDM, we choose not to for whatever reason. 

I’m not saying we could have replaced Skipp like for like, he’s proven himself a very good player. But we could have tried to fill the gap better and it seems, if I’m understanding your position correctly, you believe that too.

Sorry if it’s not clear, he was that good it was always going to be difficult to replace him but yes, we needed players (IMO 2 at least to cover injury) and one to develop who are more about athleticism, power and tenacity just to be a screen and break up opponents play / anticipate danger.   Our U23s should have a couple with those traits too, but still we’ve nothing.    
 

We are never signing this new lad so what’s the point…. Put one of ours in (probably mainly sub anyway) and let them develop…. Much easier in a team thriving as we tend to do at this level than a team struggling (EPL).

No chance this squad is going to worry the EPL next season without serious changes which in itself creates problems but we just don’t have the funds for that kind of rebuild….. don’t forget Pukki will be 34 ish and Hugill and Sargent are absolute pants!      Some of our fans are in cloud cuckoo land if they think getting promoted will be different next time!   It’s not just a little bridge, it’s a massive one!   

Edited August 5, 2022 by ged in the onion bag

[chicken 2,624]

1 hour ago, ged in the onion bag said:

The con is also that we failed yet again to address the CDM position properly with players we don’t have to send back.   

Hayden? 

[ged in the onion bag 855]

7 minutes ago, chicken said:

Hayden? 

Really!    Is he ours?   What if we don’t get promoted and he goes back?    Who do we have at CDM then? 
 

Is he playing tomorrow or any time soon ….. no and whose playing instead?    Probably McLean!    So no, we haven’t addressed the CDM position!   Excepting for that loan, (not purchase) what have we done for backup or competition?  
 

Whether Sorensen or Gibbs will be good enough we will find out but they’ve not shown much faith in Sorensen so far!   
 

But I gave you a list of cons, you just ignored them!   But they are definitely fair points. 

Edited August 5, 2022 by ged in the onion bag

[chicken 2,624]

5 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Really!    Is he ours?   What if we don’t get promoted and he goes back?    Who do we have at CDM then? 
 

Is he playing tomorrow or any time soon ….. no and whose playing instead?    Probably McLean!    So no, we haven’t addressed the CDM position!   Excepting for that loan, (not purchase) what have we done for backup or competition?  
 

Whether Sorensen or Gibbs will be good enough we will find out but they’ve not shown much faith in Sorensen so far!   
 

But I gave you a list of cons, you just ignored them!   But they are definitely fair points. 

We have an option to buy, but it's not based upon promotion, so yes, we could choose to keep him. Before, you were moaning that we wouldn't keep a player upon promotion and said we had done the same this season.

As for your cons, the others rely on the first, but anyway.

1 hour ago, ged in the onion bag said:

1)The con is also that we failed yet again to address the CDM position properly with players we don’t have to send back.   

2)The con is that we don’t have the finances to fill the void left after they go back.

3)The con is we don’t develop our younger players or bring in a new player to develop.

4)The con is we are less obliged to spend our budget on (in that case) a CDM. 

5)The con is we developed a player for another club who would then improve an opponent.     

6)The con is we aren’t good enough to go up and can’t afford to fill the void.   

1) see above, addressed.

2) This is based on the player being so successful that the parent team wants  to retain them. It is worth noting that just because there is no option to buy, that there isn't an option to buy at the end of the loan. We also could afford to bring in someone to play that DM role in our team, as Monty said, it didn't work out, but we did bring players in to fill that void.

3) This is so demonstrably false it's bad. In the case of a specific position - we may not have a youth player ready to step up, or even good enough to step up to that position. Not sure where we are at here... if we are speaking about DM, Ramsey is not a DM. Rowe is out injured for a considerable length of time. If you are talking about DM we have Sorensen and Hayden, the latter is due back in a couple of weeks and his recovery is currently on track.

4) Not sure I get you? Are you saying we loan players so we don't have to spend money buying them? If so, sure. There is a limited budget, a loan allows money to be focused on some positions whilst ensuring we have players to play all positions needed. Otherwise you'd have to spread that money thinner over the squad which means signing players of less quality or who are older and are on the decline. So yes, one of the Pro's to loans is that they actually allow you to invest in better players by focusing money better.

5) Wow, that's a big leap. Skipp would improve us, and he certainly is able to hold down a first team place at Spurs, but do you really think that Spurs are so drastically improved by his return that it mean our odds of getting results from them we so drastically changed? Do you think we were looking to realistically compete with a top six side upon promotion.

6) Not at all. Do you think Skipp was so pivotal that we would not have been promoted without him? He was an important part of our side, but Pukki, Buendia, Cantwell, Gibson, Hanley, Aarons and Krul at least, were all just as important if not more so.

No. It's not a big con like you'd want it to be.