Loan or Sign?

[Rethinking the future 0]

With budgets being tight, and the requirements for cover in certain positions, should we sign players or get them in on loan?

Some have suggested trying to get Callum Davenport on loan for a season while others have suggested we try to buy him. You can argue that loans save our transfer budget, while others will question the loanees commitment to the club and are just here for the wages.

Huckerby was a very successful loan player who we were able to sign, but Crouch was also played well but went back to Villa. The club were generally acknowledged as being ambitious for bringing these players here.

If we had signed Earnshaw on loan with the success he enjoyed, you could have argued it was a good deal. The fact that he had signed for us, gave 18 months of service, and that we sold him at a profit [albeit smaller than we would have liked] then people have argued the club got it wrong.

Do we buy players to where needed or get loans?

[ron obvious 0]

Obvious answer really, but, it all depends. If there''s a loan player available who would really improve the squad, whose attitude is good, whose wages aren''t too hig, then why not? Of course, if you can buy better, then buy.

I think the difficulty involved in getting quality players in, loaned or bought, is far greater than many people here think. Generally speaking, if you can get one in on either system without breaking the bank, then do it.

Very tired now.

[Gingerpele 0]

i think if we loan a couple pf decent players, then mabey loan a ouple of 6 mounthers (tilll january) wiht a view to buy

[FilletTheFishWife . 0]

for every Huckerby and Crouch there''s a Rehman and Lisbie.

However even the players we buy turn out to be loans in all but name!