Permanents, or loans.

[Boyo 0]

As we have seen since Roeder has taken charge, he likes a loan or two.  And in the January transfer window, we got in quite a few players, apart from, only one was permanent, and the rest were all loans.  That made alot of people angry, because we didn''t sign anyone that could a job for us this season and next, we got loans which can only do a job this season, unless we get them back.  And I think most of them will go back to their parent club, and we will need alot of good spending in the summer, but to have good spending we you need good money.  So I just wonder as Mr Doncaster has said there wont be millions to spend in the summer, which is what we need, will we have another transfer window full of loans?

I dont want that to happen, but I can see it happening.

[Chabal 0]

The problem is, it''s a hell of alot easier to get loans in January than it is in August. Managers are unlikely to let players leave unless they have their own squads sorted, which will often not be until 31st August when the transfer deadline arrives. Alot of managers also keep their young players for the Carling Cup too.

[Matt Juler 161]

I can see us starting the season with a couple of season long loans. Hopefully one will be Bertrand, out of contention at Chelsea but one they want to hold on to. I could also see someone like Pearce coming back for another full season, and obviously I''d like to see Ched too, but think we''d have to be looking to sign him instead of another loan deal.

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

Unless Doomy''s pulling a late april fool we''re looking at loans again.

[Branston Pickle 3,727]

Is it so bad to have loans?  I think they are a fact of life nowadays - Stoke are living proof that they can work wonders (as are we - you surely don''t think we''d have survived this season without them), an ordinary squad has been transformed into near promotion certainties with the right loans in place; West Brom have plenty too, most of whom have played a pretty big part in their success (Bednar, Danek, Moore (much less so), Cesar, Kim), and I seem to recall that Derby and Sunderland had plenty in their squads last season as well.

The thing is have a mixture, and to get it right.  So far I''d have to say that Roeder has done pretty well with his transfers, so perhaps we should give him a chance to see what he can do. 

[Boyo 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]

Is it so bad to have loans?  I think they are a fact of life nowadays - Stoke are living proof that they can work wonders (as are we - you surely don''t think we''d have survived this season without them), an ordinary squad has been transformed into near promotion certainties with the right loans in place; West Brom have plenty too, most of whom have played a pretty big part in their success (Bednar, Danek, Moore (much less so), Cesar, Kim), and I seem to recall that Derby and Sunderland had plenty in their squads last season as well.

The thing is have a mixture, and to get it right.  So far I''d have to say that Roeder has done pretty well with his transfers, so perhaps we should give him a chance to see what he can do. 

[/quote]

Yes but the thing with loans is, if the player plays really well at his loan club, his parent club are going to want him back, but if you have that player on a permanent deal and he plays really well you know he is definatley yours and he is going to stay. 

So I prefer permanent deals.

[Mello Yello 2,312]

How about a ''loan'' board of Directors and Chief Exec? If they don''t pull their weight......send ''em back.....