One of the Brazilian lads coming in with Mumba money ?

[Soldier on 168]

Was pretty obvious Wagner didn’t plan to use him. Interested to see if this put wheels in motion for a signing .

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

Can't imagine he is on a big wage and we've not spent a penny of transfer fees, so why would it?

[Ken Hairy 3,782]

Not going to get a lot with £800k

[Branston Pickle 3,698]

I’m pretty sure we had expected a signing this week - Wagner had said he hoped we’d have one in for the Austrian trip - so doubt it was Mumba- dependent.  Things generally have been a bit slow, but will presumably pick up.

[RobJames 892]

Why do a few still persist with this myth about us only buying once money has been raised by sales. Utter nonsense

What would happen if the Aarons & Rashida sales were not concluded until late on the window closing evening ?

Oh look, Sky are going to broadcast another of our home games, so we can bring in another promising youth. Or put a deposit on  a PL loanee, or buy a leg of a proven goalscorer.

[Capt. Pants 4,294]

Absolutely no point in replacing a player who is either not deemed good enough or ready for first team football with a South American who may need most of the season to settle in.

I can see the money being used on a Premier League loan, like the Binners.

[Terminally Yellow 2,485]

James Maddison just brought in much more money and we've not seen that reinvested. I think we're holding off on signings out of concern no one will come in for Rashica and Aarons and we might have another year of large salaries. 

[canarybubbles 1,947]

2 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Absolutely no point in replacing a player who is either not deemed good enough or ready for first team football with a South American who may need most of the season to settle in.

I can see the money being used on a Premier League loan, like the Binners.

Yes, that makes sense. Although I suspect it'll be someone from a 'big-name' club (Webber's ego will demand it) who turns out to be either crocked or useless or both. And it'll be written in the agreement that we have to play him a certain number of times even if it's to our detriment.

[Capt. Pants 4,294]

2 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

Yes, that makes sense. Although I suspect it'll be someone from a 'big-name' club (Webber's ego will demand it) who turns out to be either crocked or useless or both. And it'll be written in the agreement that we have to play him a certain number of times even if it's to our detriment.

Yeah, although it's likely to be a highly rated youngster or an end of life seasoned veteran in the final year of his contract. Trouble is they might not be as good as what we have now. We did well with Ramsey but not so with Marquinhos, although there's a better player there than what we saw.

[Terminally Yellow 2,485]

5 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

Yes, that makes sense. Although I suspect it'll be someone from a 'big-name' club (Webber's ego will demand it) who turns out to be either crocked or useless or both. And it'll be written in the agreement that we have to play him a certain number of times even if it's to our detriment.

Christ after praising you for your previous post you then come out with this absolute state. 

We've never signed a loanee with guarantees of playing. Hence why we've had some loanees under Webber which have been absolute bangers (Skipp and Reed) and some which have been absolute garbage and never featured (the lad from Spurs, Marcus Edwards was it?). 

[canarybubbles 1,947]

Just now, Terminally Yellow said:

Christ after praising you for your previous post you then come out with this absolute state. 

We've never signed a loanee with guarantees of playing. Hence why we've had some loanees under Webber which have been absolute bangers (Skipp and Reed) and some which have been absolute garbage and never featured (the lad from Spurs, Marcus Edwards was it?). 

Do you know that? My question is not meant aggressively. I freely admit I have no evidence for what I said and you might be right that it was garbage, but how would we know if this kind of agreement did exist?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,865]

10 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

Do you know that? My question is not meant aggressively. I freely admit I have no evidence for what I said and you might be right that it was garbage, but how would we know if this kind of agreement did exist?

Has such an agreement ever existed, for any loanee at any club? Clubs are not allowed to influence the team selection of other clubs, so I doubt it's even legal.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,453]

What is this based on btw? Are we in for a Brazilian player? 

[Soldier on 168]

We were heavily linked with a young Brazilian right back and a winger not so long ago that’s all

[BSEYELLOW 36]

Some loan deals are structured in that the more games they feature, the less the club pays for their loan.  It incentivises playing the lad and improves development.  It's not a clause that says they have to play, but it encourages it.

[Worthy Nigelton 1,077]

14 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Christ after praising you for your previous post you then come out with this absolute state. 

We've never signed a loanee with guarantees of playing. Hence why we've had some loanees under Webber which have been absolute bangers (Skipp and Reed) and some which have been absolute garbage and never featured (the lad from Spurs, Marcus Edwards was it?). 

Reed was absolutely not a 'banger'. Bang average, yes.

[Ulfotto 644]

I would imagine it MIGHT be that the club expected to have shifted Aarons and Andrew O already.

Next week or thereabouts the best loan players will be available and to compete for them we need cash for loan fees. That’s maybe why Mumba has gone so quick.

[dylanisabaddog 5,015]

15 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Has such an agreement ever existed, for any loanee at any club? Clubs are not allowed to influence the team selection of other clubs, so I doubt it's even legal.

They are allowed to charge more if the loanee doesn't play. Liverpool openly admit to it. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,865]

6 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

They are allowed to charge more if the loanee doesn't play. Liverpool openly admit to it. 

Yup, I've heard of those agreements, but never one where a player is contractually obliged to play a certain amount of minutes or games.

[Branston Pickle 3,698]

1 hour ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

Reed was absolutely not a 'banger'. Bang average, yes.

Is that the Reed who has played 100-odd times for Fulham? Thought he was pretty good, and still is.

[pete 320]

Best loans coming then, whereas those completed up to now have been absolute rubbish.  Other teams wasting any money invested, can't wait for us to snare these choice players.  Our record to date not particularly brilliant even when we could offer a potential PL shop window. 

[Terminally Yellow 2,485]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

Is that the Reed who has played 100-odd times for Fulham? Thought he was pretty good, and still is.

Given the rave reviews he got pretty regularly for us I'd consider him a hit.

I remember Michael Bailey was luke warm on him. Back when he reported on Norwich.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Terminally Yellow

[Branston Pickle 3,698]

1 hour ago, pete said:

Best loans coming then, whereas those completed up to now have been absolute rubbish.  Other teams wasting any money invested, can't wait for us to snare these choice players.  Our record to date not particularly brilliant even when we could offer a potential PL shop window. 

We’ve done fine with loans, but have also had some duds.  You need to be a little bit fortunate as can’t be sure how it’ll pan out (presumably the reason the player is available in the first place). Sheff U and Burnley certainly made good use of them last season, with their regular first XIs including more than one.

[Mark .Y. 352]

w

[Ken Hairy 3,782]

12 minutes ago, Mark .Y. said:

w

x

[Mason 47 1,403]

1 hour ago, Ken Hairy said:

x

Why?

[horsefly 4,318]

19 hours ago, canarybubbles said:

Do you know that? My question is not meant aggressively. I freely admit I have no evidence for what I said and you might be right that it was garbage, but how would we know if this kind of agreement did exist?

I don't believe any club can demand their loaned player is selected irrespective of their form. I think that what does sometimes happen is that contracts include clauses such as ones that require the player to be returned if he is not played, or a higher loan fee is payed if a certain number of appearances is not achieved etc.

[yellowrider120 793]

20 hours ago, RobJames said:

Why do a few still persist with this myth about us only buying once money has been raised by sales. Utter nonsense

What would happen if the Aarons & Rashida sales were not concluded until late on the window closing evening ?

Oh look, Sky are going to broadcast another of our home games, so we can bring in another promising youth. Or put a deposit on  a PL loanee, or buy a leg of a proven goalscorer.

I dont think it is a myth. The club set this particular stall out a while ago as far as paying transfer fees is concerned. Now that does not necessarily mean we would have to be 100% certain of..........'getting the money in' for the likes of those you mention before we spent any of it ourselves but I think we would have to be pretty damn sure we could rely on that cash coming in. Perhaps that's' precisely why our signings so far have been on a 'free' (as regards transfer fees, certainly fees of any note that is)