TO MANY LOANS

[Time to go Delia 0]

Just where ia all this so called quality ?? i can only see one signing that might remotely turn out to be quality and that Hoolahan and at the moment he is probably no better than Hucks would have been . I really think some of you would say we had brought in quality if we signed the complete Ipswich reserve team , no doubt the results will be the proof in the pudding and i fully expect to be 3 down by half time Saturday .

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="canaryjock"]

Didn''t Stoke get promoted last season with a multitude of loans? Where would you rather be - promoted to the Prem with a team of loanees or stuck in the Championship (or worse) with mediocre permanent signings because of a small budget.

No brainer if you ask me.

[/quote]This would be the same Stoke who have also bolstered their squad with the following players during 2008?Danny Pugh - £500,000 from Preston North EndAndy Griffin - £300,000 from Derby CountyLeon Cort - £1,200,000 from Crystal Palace(additional £200,000 if promoted to Premier League)Ryan Shawcross - £1,000,000 from Manchester United(additional £750,000 on appearances and £250,000 on club success)Glenn Whelan - £500,000 from Sheffield Wednesday-After promotion-Dave Kitson - £5,500,000 from ReadingSeyi Olofinjana - £3,000,000 from WolverhamptonThomas Sorensen - No fee but likely in the region of £1m per year wages over 3 yearsMost of the above perm signings were made after Christmas in the Championship, when they kick off in the Prem they will so far have only three new players on the pitch.Yes they used the loan system more than anyone else last season probably but all the while they were simultaneously building the nucleus of a team to compete in the Prem.We make much ado about the costs involved in loaning players, can you see our Board funding a team of perms and loanees this season whilst concurrently stumping up another £15m to build a team for the Prem because I can''t.

[AndyJR 0]

I''m looking forward to Canary Call:" Thas a taem full a Loon''s Nael "" Hoo mani Loon''s can we av one taem Nael? "" Loon''s Loon''s and more Loon''s Nael "Going to be a marvelous Canary Call season.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"]This would be the same Stoke who have also bolstered their squad with the following players during 2008?Danny Pugh - £500,000 from Preston North EndAndy Griffin - £300,000 from Derby CountyLeon Cort - £1,200,000 from Crystal Palace(additional £200,000 if promoted to Premier League)Ryan Shawcross - £1,000,000 from Manchester United(additional £750,000 on appearances and £250,000 on club success)Glenn Whelan - £500,000 from Sheffield WednesdayMost

of the above perm signings were made after Christmas in the

Championship, when they kick off in the Prem they will so far have only

three new players on the pitch.Yes they used the loan system

more than anyone else last season probably but all the while they were

simultaneously building the nucleus of a team to compete in the

Prem.[/quote]I see...So given the choice between Hoolahan

and Griffin you''d rather have Griffin? How about Bell or Pugh? From

what I''ve seen and heard, I''d also rather have Clingan than Whelan.They spend £1 million on a young defender, we instead spent about half that for a PROVEN premiership defender in Stefanovic.Being

fair as well, how many of those signings do you genuinely feel are

Premiership standard? Despite being good enough defenders at this

level, chances are Shawcross and Cort will get taken apart by most

Premiership strikers.What your point actually demonstrates is

that Stoke either bought or loaned the players they needed to try to

get out of this league, but clearly need to get much better to stay

there, hence the signing of players like Kitson. Had Stoke not brought

in the quality players they did from the Prem on loan, they''d have had

no chance of going up as they were instrumental in their success.Roeder

is doing virtually the same thing as Stoke, however he seems far more

able to attract a higher calibre of player, and is also able to make

the perm signings at the right price. Give me players like Lupoli and

Bertrand on loan any day, over very average perm signings like Griffin

and Pugh.

[renegade tootsie 0]

Don''t avoid the point by trying to make out they are all unfit to grace our team.  What it proves once and for all is that this myth built up about winning things with loans is NONSENSE.  We did not go up based on loans and neither has anyone else.Regardless of what you argue about the signings Stoke made, they have built a permanent team that knows each other and got them promoted.  Since promotion they have spent a decent sum to try an retain that status this season.This is a MILLION miles away from our barrel-scraping exercise currently taking place, and anyone hoping on hoolahan or clinging to Clingan is in for a rude awakening.I''m sorry, but I am beginning to find this blind optimisn sickening.  I will be there every home game same as a lot of you (and I went to most pre-season''s as well, something a lot of the opinionated on here failed to do) and I say that we are not looking like a UNIT, we are short of QUALITY, MUSCLE and LEADERSHIP and we cannot SCORE.  Those are fundamentals that are not going to suddenly snap into place.

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"]This would be the same Stoke who have also bolstered their squad with the following players during 2008?Danny Pugh - £500,000 from Preston North EndAndy Griffin - £300,000 from Derby CountyLeon Cort - £1,200,000 from Crystal Palace(additional £200,000 if promoted to Premier League)Ryan Shawcross - £1,000,000 from Manchester United(additional £750,000 on appearances and £250,000 on club success)Glenn Whelan - £500,000 from Sheffield WednesdayMost

of the above perm signings were made after Christmas in the

Championship, when they kick off in the Prem they will so far have only

three new players on the pitch.Yes they used the loan system

more than anyone else last season probably but all the while they were

simultaneously building the nucleus of a team to compete in the

Prem.[/quote]I see...So given the choice between Hoolahan

and Griffin you''d rather have Griffin? How about Bell or Pugh? From

what I''ve seen and heard, I''d also rather have Clingan than Whelan.They spend £1 million on a young defender, we instead spent about half that for a PROVEN premiership defender in Stefanovic.Being

fair as well, how many of those signings do you genuinely feel are

Premiership standard? Despite being good enough defenders at this

level, chances are Shawcross and Cort will get taken apart by most

Premiership strikers.What your point actually demonstrates is

that Stoke either bought or loaned the players they needed to try to

get out of this league, but clearly need to get much better to stay

there, hence the signing of players like Kitson. Had Stoke not brought

in the quality players they did from the Prem on loan, they''d have had

no chance of going up as they were instrumental in their success.Roeder

is doing virtually the same thing as Stoke, however he seems far more

able to attract a higher calibre of player, and is also able to make

the perm signings at the right price. Give me players like Lupoli and

Bertrand on loan any day, over very average perm signings like Griffin

and Pugh.[/quote]

[xxxx 0]

Just what has Lupoli ever achieved in his career to be classed as above average or as some would say quality ?

[The Fish Seller 0]

The Stoke model incorporates the use of loan players as well as purchasing permanent signings.The Norwich model incorporates the use of loan players instead of purchasing permanent signings.As a result when Stoke arrived in the Prem they only had to sign 3 players to give them a squad capable of ''competing''(arguably).If we arrived in the Prem next year we''d be nearer 8 or 10 players short of a squad capable of ''competing''(arguably).We would then need either considerably more money than Stokes £10m+ to compete~ UnlikelyorWe would buy less valuable/talented players than Stoke~ more likely.Neither is a guarantee of success or failure but the latter tips the scales considerably in favour of relegation.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I understand why we get loans in and don''t deny that a few well focused loans are a good thing. The Club''s view is that it helps us to get players we could not otherwise afford and that once we get up to the prem we will then have a budget to sign some of these players permanently. With the impact of Ched, Bertie and Taylor last season there clearly is some value in having the loans.

However i also agree that it is getting ridiculous. We enter next season with the prospect of up to 7 loan players plus our captain on a one year deal. Leaving aside the fact we can only play 5 anyway next summer we may therefore find ourselves having to replace 8 players and effectively starting from scratch again. With this strategy I just don''t see how we can have continuity or build the kind of squad/team over a 2 or 3 year period that I am sure I have heard Roeder talk about. It is short termism if you ask me but unfortunately that appears to be where we are at now and having heard ND speak on this point at the Caps forum it appears to be what we can expect for the foreseeable future unless we get promoted.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

Where is this Many Loans place, and why are we going there?

[Beauseant 0]

While the loan debate will run and run,the only important issue at the moment is how the new squad performs.I agree with NCFCstar that the loan policy gives us much more flexibility,and if that''s the only way for GR to put together a squad of the requisite quality then so be it.The Cullum thing is over,so let''s all just accept it,move on and do what supporters are supposed to do,ie get behind the squad and manager!

[renegade tootsie 0]

Did anyone mention Cullum???  Perhaps you have the obsession with him??The loan policy gives flexibility but does it give 100% commitment?  THAT does impact on how a squad performs.

[quote user="Beauseant"]While the loan debate will run and run,the only important issue at the moment is how the new squad performs.I agree with NCFCstar that the loan policy gives us much more flexibility,and if that''s the only way for GR to put together a squad of the requisite quality then so be it.The Cullum thing is over,so let''s all just accept it,move on and do what supporters are supposed to do,ie get behind the squad and manager![/quote]

[Beauseant 0]

With the utmost respect,no-one needs to mention Cullum in this type of debate,because the assumption that, had he taken control,we would have money to buy players outright is always underlying,even if not openly articulated.

I actually don''t have any feelings for Delia and the current board,but nor do I feel terribly happy about someone who "negotiates" via the press and then,when put on the spot,fails to make an offer.My only concern is my team''s performance.Unfortunately on this forum there seems to be an assumption that you''re either a Cullum fan or a Delia fan.I''m neither,just a Norwich City fan!

As for loanees not giving 100% commitment,please explain your logic.If these players want to make it at their Premiership clubs,why would they risk getting a bad report from their loan club? These are professional footballers for Heaven''s sake.

[7rew 0]

[quote]Don''t avoid the point by trying to make out they are all unfit to grace our team. What it proves once and for all is that this myth built up about winning things with loans is NONSENSE.  We did not go up based on loans and neither has anyone else.Regardless of what you argue about the signings Stoke made, they have built a permanent team that knows each other and got them promoted.  Since promotion they have spent a decent sum to try an retain that status this season.This is a MILLION miles away from our barrel-scraping exercise currently taking place, and anyone hoping on hoolahan or clinging to Clingan is in for a rude awakening.I''m sorry, but I am beginning to find this blind optimisn sickening.  I will be there every home game same as a lot of you (and I went to most pre-season''s as well, something a lot of the opinionated on here failed to do) and I say that we are not looking like a UNIT, we are short of QUALITY, MUSCLE and LEADERSHIP and we cannot SCORE.  Those are fundamentals that are not going to suddenly snap into place.

[quote]This would be the same Stoke who have also bolstered their squad with the following players during 2008?Danny Pugh - £500,000 from Preston North EndAndy Griffin - £300,000 from Derby CountyLeon Cort - £1,200,000 from Crystal Palace(additional £200,000 if promoted to Premier League)Ryan Shawcross - £1,000,000 from Manchester United(additional £750,000 on appearances and £250,000 on club success)Glenn Whelan - £500,000 from Sheffield Wednesday[/quote][/quote]I''ll make some points that aren''t that they aren''t fit to grace our team - leaving aside that as they showed playing at stoke that many I wouldn''t want hoofing it about here.Shaswcross was initially a loan player in august who was signed in January when it was looking likely they would be atleast in the playoffs. Would he have signed if they weren''t in that position, would they have signed him.   Would our current players sign in Jan if we are likely to go up?  I don''t know - I''d guess Kennedy, Lupoli and Koroma would be the most likely to.As I am now intreaged, here are Stokes total transfers last season:19/6 Adam Vass [Stoke - Brescia] Free20/6 Jon Parkin [Hull - Stoke] £250,0004/7 Martin Paterson [Stoke - Scunthorpe] Tribunal29/7 Darel Russell [Stoke - Norwich] Undisclosed2/8 Richard Cresswell [Leeds - Stoke] Undisclosed3/8 Stephen Wright [Sunderland - Stoke] Loan7/8 Carl Hoefkens [Stoke - West Brom] £750,0009/8 Ryan Shawcross [Man Utd - Stoke] Loan10/8 Robert Duggan [Stoke - Stafford] Free14/8 Matthew Hazley [Stoke - Stafford] Loan18/8 Jody Craddock [Wolves - Stoke] Loan29/8 Danny Higginbotham [Stoke - Sunderland] £2.5m31/8 Adam Rooney [Stoke - Chesterfield] Loan14/9 Ryan Shotton [Stoke - Altrincham] Loan27/9 Robbie Garrett [Stoke - Wrexham] Loan1/11 Danny Pugh [Preston - Stoke] Loan2/11 Leon Cort [Crystal Palace - Stoke City] Loan9/11 Adam Nowland [Preston - Stoke] Loan22/11 Peter Sweeney [Stoke - Walsall] Loan10/12 Salif Diao [unattached - Stoke]10/1 Peter Sweeney [Stoke - Leeds] Free14/1 Leon Cort [Crystal Palace - Stoke] £1.2m15/1 Danny Pugh [Preston - Stoke] £500,00016/1 Clint Hill [Stoke - Crystal Palace] Undisclosed18/1 Ryan Shawcross [Man Utd - Stoke] £1m31/1 Glenn Whelan [Sheff Wed - Stoke] £500,00031/1 Paul Gallagher [Blackburn - Stoke] Loan31/1 John Eustace [Stoke - Watford] £250,0008/2 Adam Rooney [Stoke - Bury] Loan8/2 Anthony Pulis [Stoke - Bristol Rovers] Loan19/2 Jack Watson [Stoke - Leek Town] Work experience19/2 Kenny Keys [Stoke - Leek Town] Work experience19/2 Dean McCormick [Stoke - Leek Town] Work experience29/2 Chris Riggott [Middlesbrough - Stoke] Loan4/3 Carlo Nash [Wigan - Stoke] Loan7/3 Russell Hoult [Stoke - Notts County] Loan14/3 Jay Bothroyd [Wolves - Stoke] Loan27/3 Stephen Pearson [Derby - Stoke] Loan27/3 Shola Ameobi [Newcastle - Stoke] LoanSource - BBC tansfer pages by month.the gaps shown are when windows open and close.Here are the raw figures:PermenantIn: 7 from clubs + 1 unattachedOut: 9LoanIn: 12Out: 8 + 3 on "work experience", some players are in this category twice (Rooney).Other potentially important bits and pieces:Loans In eventaually signed: 3 (Shawcross*, Pugh, Cort)Loans on 31/8: 3 (Shawcross, Craddock, Wright)Expenditure (known): 3.7m (6 transfers)Income (known): 3.5m (3 transfers)In (Undisclosed): 1 - CresswellOut (Undiclosed): 3 - Russell, Hill, Paterson (Tribunial)In (Free): 1Out (Free): 3*Shawcross is different from Pugh and Cort as was loaned during a transfer window when sale was possible, Cort and Pugh weren''t.I am also interested in the sentance in bold - given we are at the start of the season and have not been promoted, we don''t know about the second part (except that we didn''t last time) and the part about the first team of stoke isn''t looking so true given the actual totality of the transfers from the season.I''m not so sure it is a million miles from what we are doing - yes we have more loans know, but at least we haven''t loaned Jody Craddock from Wolves.It also seems likely that we have spent more (net) on transfers this season than stoke did last season, although with undisclosed fees we can''t actually tell.  If we buy a target man then we will certainly have spent more.I would say that stoke''s use of the loan system certainly had a major

affect on their season given 3 of the major signings were on loan first.As to your final sentance, I do find blind optimism sickening, but not as much as blind pessimism or unthinking critism, I don''t think you are, but I expect your pessimism is affected by others optimism, but its still not that bad. As to us:not looking like a UNIT, this one will happen as the team gels, as stoke proved large numbers of transfers don''t mean it will short of QUALITY, I''m not so sure we are, not everybody is top quality, but does any team in this league have top quality players everywhere?short of MUSCLE, certainly compared to stoke but we play differently, and in our team mostly upfront is where we lack this.short of LEADERSHIP, not sure about this, the new guys may need time to assert themselves, or it may be a problem.unable to SCORE, possibly, but we haven''t seen a fully fit Lupoli or Bell (at all) or Koroma (at all) or Mr X (the targetman glenn wants) play yet.Those are fundamentals that

are not going to suddenly snap into place - well one will and the others may if/when a target man is signed.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Dictator Smith"]Just what has Lupoli ever achieved in his career to be classed as above average or as some would say quality ?[/quote]I suppose coming through the youth system at Parma and notching 45 goals in 22 games was a good start. Then being snapped up by a manager with a proven track record of identifying great young talent - Arsene Wenger. A manager who went on to state that Lupoli was one of the best natural finishers of the ball he''d ever seen.Lupoli himself wanted first team football, hence his loan to Derby where he scored 7 in 34, a good return considering over half those games were either from the bench or played on the wing.It was again Lupoli''s desire to play first team football which prompted Wenger''s reluctant agreement to allow him to move on then sparked a flurry of action from half of Italy, including arguably the two largest teams in Italy - Inter and AC Milan, however Lupoli accepted an offer from Fiorentina for a strong 5 year deal.His one weak showing has been on loan at Treviso, but considering he only played 17 games, and also taking into account the horribly poor quality of their squad and inability to make the most of his attributes, it''s somewhat understandable.He''s also a regular in the Italian U21 team, and is regarded by many managers as a real prospect who will only get better over the next few seasons.Perhaps you could now clarify exactly which of these points (aside from a few games at Treviso) is disappointing, and actually indicates a very average player?[quote user="JC"]Don''t avoid the point by trying to make out they are all unfit to grace our team.  What

it proves once and for all is that this myth built up about winning

things with loans is NONSENSE.  We did not go up based on loans and

neither has anyone else.Regardless of what you argue about the

signings Stoke made, they have built a permanent team that knows each

other and got them promoted.  Since promotion they have spent a decent

sum to try an retain that status this season.This is a MILLION

miles away from our barrel-scraping exercise currently taking place,

and anyone hoping on hoolahan or clinging to Clingan is in for a rude

awakening.I''m sorry, but I am beginning to find this blind

optimisn sickening.  I will be there every home game same as a lot of

you (and I went to most pre-season''s as well, something a lot of the

opinionated on here failed to do) and I say that we are not looking

like a UNIT, we are short of QUALITY, MUSCLE and LEADERSHIP and we

cannot SCORE.  Those are fundamentals that are not going to suddenly

snap into place.[/quote]Since promotion they have signed 3 players, 2

of which are proven Premiership quality in Kitson and Sorensen (who was

gone downhill in recent seasons), and 1 of which is an above average

CCC player. The only reason it seems like they have spent a decent sum

is because Kitson cost £5.5 million.

Funny how it''s seen by you as good business from Stoke to bring in

players on a free - Sorensen, yet when we do the same (clingan) it''s

classed as ''Barrel Scraping'', add in the fact that had Hoolahan not had

the release clause he did, it''s more than fair to suggest that he''d not

have left Blackpool for less than a million.

There is no blind optimism in this, it''s an educated opinion based on

player knowledge and trust of a good manager. You strongly point out

that we are not looking like a unit, but is that surprising considering

the number of players who have been brought in, and the limited playing

time they''ve had together? You cannot expect a team to instantly gel in

such a short space of time, it''s unrealistic and shows a huge level of

short-sightedness. Wenger gives new players a minimum of 6 months to

settle in and adjust to their training and style of play, and you want

half a team to do this in 6 weeks!

You are right in saying that things will not instantly snap into place,

but you need to be far more realistic in your expectations of how and

when this will happen.

[quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"]The Stoke model incorporates the use of loan players as well as purchasing permanent signings.

The Norwich model incorporates the use of loan players instead of purchasing permanent signings.

As

a result when Stoke arrived in the Prem they only had to sign 3 players

to give them a squad capable of ''competing''(arguably).

If we arrived in the Prem next year we''d be nearer 8 or 10 players short of a squad capable of ''competing''(arguably).

We would then need either considerably more money than Stokes £10m+ to compete~ Unlikely

or

We would buy less valuable/talented players than Stoke~ more likely.

Neither is a guarantee of success or failure but the latter tips the scales considerably in favour of relegation.

[/quote]Absolute piffle.

So far we have permanent signings in Hoolahan, Bell, Clingan,

Stefanovic and Nelson, so that''s five permanent signings already.

Roeder does insist that another striker will be coming in permanently,

and regardles of who this is, that takes us up to 6 perm signings. We

are not using loans instead of signing players permanently, we ARE

using loans to bolster the squad and complement our perm signings.

I''m also baffled as to why you think Stoke need to sign less players to

stay up. Players like Pugh, Whelan and Griffin will not keep them up,

neither will Cresswell, Parkin, Wilkinson, Dickinson, in fact most of

their squad. The only real Premiership quality they have IMO is in

Lawrence and Kitson. I''d suggest that they need at least another 5-6

quality players to come in to really try to guarantee safety, and this

being the case, just like we would be doing, they''d need to sign 8-9

players.

The key difference however is that we won''t have average CCC players

unnecesarily sat on our bench and wage bill if we go up, and in theory

can therefore offer more to incoming players.

[we8wba 0]

for gods sake people listen for once

our loans not similar to stoke city! why? because stoke loaned 3or4players with view to purchase them and thats what they did with shawcross, griffin and cort! they also didnt loan 25loans at once always had two or three at time

next...

what should we do with the loan system?

im happy with few of the loans i.e lupoli and this omunuzi looks promising also bert as we know. but its the average prem youngsters we now drafting in last season in gibbs and bates etc... this year some other hopeless wannabe who will be no more than a sub

if they going play in 1st team great loan them but very much doubt all these players on loan will get more than a carling cup match run of games in 1st team

 

[xxxx 0]

If we go up lol , this lot will stuggle to get out of the bottom half .We must be the only Championship club that had no transfer kitty this summer , oh how we should be grateful to Delia and her chums for getting us a few cheapies ,freebies and loans in all paid for out of their own pockets .Frankly its much like the woman herself sickening .

[7rew 0]

Having done all that - the BBC transfer pages managed to miss 13/01/08 off entirely, which is the day the Griffin transfer went through.So add him in - I more premenant that wasn''t on loan first (he was on loan at stoke the previous season and started his career there), 300k to their transfer spending and one more to their permenant transfers making 9.sorry all - but I believe my points still stand. the net 500k is still less than our admitted spending [650k for bell and Hoolahan].

[we8wba 0]

[quote user="Dictator Smith"]If we go up lol , this lot will stuggle to get out of the bottom half .We must be the only Championship club that had no transfer kitty this summer , oh how we should be grateful to Delia and her chums for getting us a few cheapies ,freebies and loans in all paid for out of their own pockets .Frankly its much like the woman herself sickening .
[/quote]

to be fair we have spent a little money on hollahan and bell how much your reckon 250k and 400k so we spent 650k which lot more than alot in our league

my worry is that we are spending fee''s on year loan when we should be building our own squad. yes the squad may not be perfect this season but we could build it for year after

but this time next summer norwich city will still be in the same position

[7rew 0]

[quote user="billy bunter"]

for gods sake people listen for once

our loans not similar to stoke city! why? because stoke loaned 3or4players with view to purchase them and thats what they did with shawcross, griffin and cort! they also didnt loan 25loans at once always had two or three at time

[/quote]no they only had 12 loans in the whole season and 1 of them was Jody Craddock.  They loaned a total of 9 players who didn''t./haven''t signed for them.Would you rather players from Chelsea, Portmouth, Celtic, Tottenham, Fiorentina (all in europe) + Fulham, or rejects from Wolves and Preston, as Stoke loaned and sent back?

[Buncey 1]

To Loan or not to Loan, that is the question.It''s one that we can''t answer till after the season has got under way.

[First Wizard 0]

How the hell can you rebuild a squad when all you seem to do is keep signing loan players Roeder?

Thats not rebuilding.........thats a bloody patch and mend job!

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

[quote user="Dictator Smith"]Just what has Lupoli ever achieved in his career to be classed as above average or as some would say quality ?
[/quote]

Was very highly rated at Arsenal and did a fantastic job at Derby (playing wide!!).  His career stuttered in Italy but he is still very young and has a very real chance of making the grade.  In laymans terms, he has great potential, lets hope that unlike Chris Martin he reaches his full.

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

[quote user="JC"]Did anyone mention Cullum???  Perhaps you have the obsession with him??

The loan policy gives flexibility but does it give 100% commitment?  THAT does impact on how a squad performs.


[quote user="Beauseant"]While the loan debate will run and run,the only important issue at the moment is how the new squad performs.I agree with NCFCstar that the loan policy gives us much more flexibility,and if that''s the only way for GR to put together a squad of the requisite quality then so be it.The Cullum thing is over,so let''s all just accept it,move on and do what supporters are supposed to do,ie get behind the squad and manager![/quote][/quote]

The commitment thing is a good one for debate.  I think almost definately yes, most of the lads we have got in are on the verge of their respective first teams.  All are at an age where they need to start stamping their mark on the professional game.  If playing top flight professional football in one of the most competitive leagues in the world is not an incentive then I dont know what is.

[AndyJR 0]

Not sure why people are calling them ''Loans'' in any case, in Norfolk their clearly ''Loons''.

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

[quote user="Dictator Smith"]If we go up lol , this lot will stuggle to get out of the bottom half .We must be the only Championship club that had no transfer kitty this summer , oh how we should be grateful to Delia and her chums for getting us a few cheapies ,freebies and loans in all paid for out of their own pockets .Frankly its much like the woman herself sickening .
[/quote]

But we did have a transfer kitty you twonk, irrespective of whose pocket it came from.  Are we any different from QPR, did Stoke as a company fund all their signings, do Chelsea fund their signings or Roman Abramovich.

You harp on about what is happening at Norwich City as being abnormal.  I think your scenario is probably more pie in the sky than you think.

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

He has signed players though, hasnt he Wiz.  Its going to be gradual thing, why cant you grasp that.

[xxxx 0]

You call what we have spent a transfer kitty , little Bistol and newly promoted Forest spent more on 1 player , Delia should go sit on their Boards for a bit and learn about running a football club .

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Old Shuck"]

Roeder said there were plenty of "bad players" he could easily sign

[/quote]

Isn''t that another way of saying "with the pitiful budget at my disposal that''s all I can afford"?

Lights blue touchpaper and retires.  Cue the usual suspects . . .

 

[renegade tootsie 0]

Thanks for the considered responses.I dont expect us to have gelled - my point was that because we have been forced into a position of not having a gelled team due to the number of players coming in.  We should never have gotten into this position at all.The fact we are having to have a discussion about ''being realistic'' (read - we aint getting near a play off place this year) only makes the point more firmly that as a club we should never have gotten into the position we are in.A decent striker will help, but again its a player thrown in who could take months to get fit and gell and start to score. 

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Dictator Smith"]Just what has Lupoli ever achieved in his career to be classed as above average or as some would say quality ?[/quote]I suppose coming through the youth system at Parma and notching 45 goals in 22 games was a good start. Then being snapped up by a manager with a proven track record of identifying great young talent - Arsene Wenger. A manager who went on to state that Lupoli was one of the best natural finishers of the ball he''d ever seen.Lupoli himself wanted first team football, hence his loan to Derby where he scored 7 in 34, a good return considering over half those games were either from the bench or played on the wing.It was again Lupoli''s desire to play first team football which prompted Wenger''s reluctant agreement to allow him to move on then sparked a flurry of action from half of Italy, including arguably the two largest teams in Italy - Inter and AC Milan, however Lupoli accepted an offer from Fiorentina for a strong 5 year deal.His one weak showing has been on loan at Treviso, but considering he only played 17 games, and also taking into account the horribly poor quality of their squad and inability to make the most of his attributes, it''s somewhat understandable.He''s also a regular in the Italian U21 team, and is regarded by many managers as a real prospect who will only get better over the next few seasons.Perhaps you could now clarify exactly which of these points (aside from a few games at Treviso) is disappointing, and actually indicates a very average player?[quote user="JC"]Don''t avoid the point by trying to make out they are all unfit to grace our team.  What

it proves once and for all is that this myth built up about winning

things with loans is NONSENSE.  We did not go up based on loans and

neither has anyone else.Regardless of what you argue about the

signings Stoke made, they have built a permanent team that knows each

other and got them promoted.  Since promotion they have spent a decent

sum to try an retain that status this season.This is a MILLION

miles away from our barrel-scraping exercise currently taking place,

and anyone hoping on hoolahan or clinging to Clingan is in for a rude

awakening.I''m sorry, but I am beginning to find this blind

optimisn sickening.  I will be there every home game same as a lot of

you (and I went to most pre-season''s as well, something a lot of the

opinionated on here failed to do) and I say that we are not looking

like a UNIT, we are short of QUALITY, MUSCLE and LEADERSHIP and we

cannot SCORE.  Those are fundamentals that are not going to suddenly

snap into place.[/quote]Since promotion they have signed 3 players, 2

of which are proven Premiership quality in Kitson and Sorensen (who was

gone downhill in recent seasons), and 1 of which is an above average

CCC player. The only reason it seems like they have spent a decent sum

is because Kitson cost £5.5 million.

Funny how it''s seen by you as good business from Stoke to bring in

players on a free - Sorensen, yet when we do the same (clingan) it''s

classed as ''Barrel Scraping'', add in the fact that had Hoolahan not had

the release clause he did, it''s more than fair to suggest that he''d not

have left Blackpool for less than a million.

There is no blind optimism in this, it''s an educated opinion based on

player knowledge and trust of a good manager. You strongly point out

that we are not looking like a unit, but is that surprising considering

the number of players who have been brought in, and the limited playing

time they''ve had together? You cannot expect a team to instantly gel in

such a short space of time, it''s unrealistic and shows a huge level of

short-sightedness. Wenger gives new players a minimum of 6 months to

settle in and adjust to their training and style of play, and you want

half a team to do this in 6 weeks!

You are right in saying that things will not instantly snap into place,

but you need to be far more realistic in your expectations of how and

when this will happen.

[quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"]The Stoke model incorporates the use of loan players as well as purchasing permanent signings.

The Norwich model incorporates the use of loan players instead of purchasing permanent signings.

As

a result when Stoke arrived in the Prem they only had to sign 3 players

to give them a squad capable of ''competing''(arguably).

If we arrived in the Prem next year we''d be nearer 8 or 10 players short of a squad capable of ''competing''(arguably).

We would then need either considerably more money than Stokes £10m+ to compete~ Unlikely

or

We would buy less valuable/talented players than Stoke~ more likely.

Neither is a guarantee of success or failure but the latter tips the scales considerably in favour of relegation.

[/quote]Absolute piffle.

So far we have permanent signings in Hoolahan, Bell, Clingan,

Stefanovic and Nelson, so that''s five permanent signings already.

Roeder does insist that another striker will be coming in permanently,

and regardles of who this is, that takes us up to 6 perm signings. We

are not using loans instead of signing players permanently, we ARE

using loans to bolster the squad and complement our perm signings.

I''m also baffled as to why you think Stoke need to sign less players to

stay up. Players like Pugh, Whelan and Griffin will not keep them up,

neither will Cresswell, Parkin, Wilkinson, Dickinson, in fact most of

their squad. The only real Premiership quality they have IMO is in

Lawrence and Kitson. I''d suggest that they need at least another 5-6

quality players to come in to really try to guarantee safety, and this

being the case, just like we would be doing, they''d need to sign 8-9

players.

The key difference however is that we won''t have average CCC players

unnecesarily sat on our bench and wage bill if we go up, and in theory

can therefore offer more to incoming players.[/quote]

[Yellow Submarine 0]

[quote user="Dictator Smith"]You call what we have spent a transfer kitty , little Bistol and newly promoted Forest spent more on 1 player , Delia should go sit on their Boards for a bit and learn about running a football club .
[/quote]

And where exactly did you get your degree on how to run a football club?

The club needed a complete overhaul, which Glenn has now done (and which grant failed to do). But you can''t measure a clubs ambition on how much money they spend! I think the rebuilding is going to be a gradual process over the next three seasons! I can''t believe people can berate our team before seeing them play!