The 2016 Official Silly Summer Season Transfer Thread

[Chutney]

Vydra on loan would be very disappointing, much rather us sign someone permanently.

[FinFFC]

I kind of understand people opposing loans compared to permanent signings. Multiple loans, if these players were to play important part in our team during the season, would leave us in a situation after this year, where we would have to find someone on their place next summer - again.

But what if we actually do get promoted? How many of the current crop of players would be good enough to play in the PL - and keep us up? Now, if we had, say 3-4 players of our this season's starting eleven / regular match day squad loaned, it would leave us in a situation, where we could

a) buy those players next summer, if we deem them good enough for PL (and their teams would let them go of course... and sure, they could cost us more if they helped us promote than they would cost, if we buy them now)

or

b) decide not to buy them, but use the increased income that PL status brings and buy much better players in their place --> we wouldn't have to worry about getting rid of them, since they would anyway go back to their own clubs leaving more money for us to pay salaries to those "better players"

And, if we can include buy-out clauses to the loan deals, we'd be in even better position, as we would pretty much have "best of both worlds" from the two options above.

[westcliff white]

I am not opposed to a loan as long as it is an upgrade on what we have and we have the option to buy. Loaning Vydra for me would not be ideal, he has a little pace thats for sure but if we wer elooking at Mounie then to me that iundicates we want a mobile bigger player and thats not Vydra.

but time will tell.

if we do not get any permanents in, that Slavisia wants as in not stats targets, then I would be very dissapointed.

[Chutney]

You can tell which signings are stats team based by watching Tony Khan's twitter, he only retweets certain signing announcements, presumably the stats ones.

I could be wide of the mark here but it is odd that he doesn't retweet them all.

[MJG]

I kind of understand people opposing loans compared to permanent signings. Multiple loans, if these players were to play important part in our team during the season, would leave us in a situation after this year, where we would have to find someone on their place next summer - again.

But what if we actually do get promoted? How many of the current crop of players would be good enough to play in the PL - and keep us up? Now, if we had, say 3-4 players of our this season's starting eleven / regular match day squad loaned, it would leave us in a situation, where we could

a) buy those players next summer, if we deem them good enough for PL (and their teams would let them go of course... and sure, they could cost us more if they helped us promote than they would cost, if we buy them now)

or

b) decide not to buy them, but use the increased income that PL status brings and buy much better players in their place --> we wouldn't have to worry about getting rid of them, since they would anyway go back to their own clubs leaving more money for us to pay salaries to those "better players"

And, if we can include buy-out clauses to the loan deals, we'd be in even better position, as we would pretty much have "best of both worlds" from the two options above.

This

[..FOF..]

You can tell which signings are stats team based by watching Tony Khan's twitter, he only retweets certain signing announcements, presumably the stats ones.

I could be wide of the mark here but it is odd that he doesn't retweet them all.

So only Jozabed?

[Mince n Tatties]

Dont really like loans, but how about a cheeky enquiry
for Chris Smalling who isn't fancied by his boss and is
down the pecking order at Manure...lol

[MJG]

Watford went up with lots of loans

One of our best signings ever in his first season was a loan (helped us win the title with Tigana)

[westcliff white]

AS i say MJG not aganist them as long as they add to us and that we have an option to buy, we seem to have a lot of good youngsters so would prefer them to have a chance.

For instance if we had loaned Garbutt this season Sess would not have got his chance, you dont know what they can do untill you see them. Humphrys hasnt played yet so would rather give him a go at some stage than sign a mediocre striker that doesnt improve us (I am not referring to Bydra for clarity), what about Adrinian he seems to have a bit about him as well.

So for me they have to be better than what we have and we should have an option to buy in most cases otherwise we go back to sqaure one next close season

[Mince n Tatties]

The thing I dont like about loans imo, is you dont know
If your getting all their energy and input.
Id rather have a signed player who wants to come to us
And plays for the shirt.
What happened at Watford doesnt mean it will happen here.
My opinion could change if the loanees were top notch, but
not run of the mill ones.

[MJG]

Dont get me wrong, I'd always prefer full signings and we only have Kalas on loan..anyone doubting his effort?
But no you dont want run of the mill loans, but if it's someone we could not afford fully I'd take that. And for me any loan should be looked at almost as a guaranteed starter in the XI. They need to be that important.

[Mince n Tatties]

Yes Kalas not doubting his effort.
The other side of the coin Garbutt last season, he
wasnt interested one bit imo.

[RaySmith]

You might expect a loan to give his all - to show  his value after not being first  choice at his parent club.

But agree, you want quality players for the  first team, rather than squad players, as loans. Someone we wouldn't otherwise  have much chance of getting.

[Slaphead in Qatar]

Sadly I think loans are what we will get in the remainder of this window - hope i am wrong.

[fulhamben]

Sadly I think loans are what we will get in the remainder of this window - hope i am wrong.

which would be a huge own goal for miss brookes, who rubbished a report that the ross money would not be used.

[hopper]

Loans with options to buy are surely a good thing though?

[westcliff white]

Dont get me wrong, I'd always prefer full signings and we only have Kalas on loan..anyone doubting his effort?
But no you dont want run of the mill loans, but if it's someone we could not afford fully I'd take that. And for me any loan should be looked at almost as a guaranteed starter in the XI. They need to be that important.

Kalas provesd the point of has to be better than what we have, and he certainly is. Maybe he is playing for a full deal as maybe he wants to leave chelsea and play regulally.

[Twig]

I don't see a problem with loans per se.  However at this point in time I would be desperately disappointed if that were all we signed, because we need a statement of intent from the owner.  No one would dispute that we are millions in the black on transfer dealings and wage reductions this year and we need to see a clear willingness to reinvest some or all of that surplus.  I am fine with the odd loan blended with 2 or 3 important signings.  Those signings will send a clear and positive signal, without them I fear we are just bunch of penny pinching, second rate mid table also-rans.

[colinwhite]

Totally agree Twig. If we dont spend any money ,sensible or otherwise, it still smacks of holding back the funds we have aquired  by selling our big name players.

[Roberty]

We had a statement of intent when he spent a bundle on Mitro - what good did that do us?

What we need is to recruit the right players - they don't need to be expensive if the face fits