Villa

[Statto]

There is of course also the fact that there are several parties involved. In some cases the option to buy may not be on the table in the first place (for any type of even semi-realistic price at least), either because the selling club or the player in question is not interested in making the loan permanent. If that is the situation surely the short term gain (how much better is this player than any potential alternatives that may be easier to get on a permanent) has to be weighed against the potential longer term negative impact of not being able to keep the team together. As always, it is not necessarily very straight forward.

True... but the difference is very stark: in 17/18 we didn't have options on any of Piazon, Kalas, Targett, Mitro or Norwood (0 out of 5) whereas in 19/20 we have options on all of Cavaliero, Knockaert, Reid and Reed (4 out of 4).

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that is purely down to the selling clubs' positions, ie purely a coincidence that this year all the other clubs were amenable. Clearly there's been a significant change in our approach.

Either we weren't trying at all to get options to buy in 17/18, or we weren't trying anywhere near as hard as we tried this summer.

This is reinforced by TK in the video, where he talks about persuading clubs to agree this sort of structure. 

[Sting of the North]

There is of course also the fact that there are several parties involved. In some cases the option to buy may not be on the table in the first place (for any type of even semi-realistic price at least), either because the selling club or the player in question is not interested in making the loan permanent. If that is the situation surely the short term gain (how much better is this player than any potential alternatives that may be easier to get on a permanent) has to be weighed against the potential longer term negative impact of not being able to keep the team together. As always, it is not necessarily very straight forward.

True... but the difference is very stark: in 17/18 we didn't have options on any of Piazon, Kalas, Targett, Mitro or Norwood (0 out of 5) whereas in 19/20 we have options on all of Cavaliero, Knockaert, Reid and Reed (4 out of 4).

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that is purely down to the selling clubs' positions, ie purely a coincidence that this year all the other clubs were amenable. Clearly there's been a significant change in our approach.

Either we weren't trying at all to get options to buy in 17/18, or we weren't trying anywhere near as hard as we tried this summer.

This is reinforced by TK in the video, where he talks about persuading clubs to agree this sort of structure.

I agree. and didn't mean to come of as though I didn't really.

[Roberty]

There is of course also the fact that there are several parties involved. In some cases the option to buy may not be on the table in the first place (for any type of even semi-realistic price at least), either because the selling club or the player in question is not interested in making the loan permanent. If that is the situation surely the short term gain (how much better is this player than any potential alternatives that may be easier to get on a permanent) has to be weighed against the potential longer term negative impact of not being able to keep the team together. As always, it is not necessarily very straight forward.

True... but the difference is very stark: in 17/18 we didn't have options on any of Piazon, Kalas, Targett, Mitro or Norwood (0 out of 5) whereas in 19/20 we have options on all of Cavaliero, Knockaert, Reid and Reed (4 out of 4).

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that is purely down to the selling clubs' positions, ie purely a coincidence that this year all the other clubs were amenable. Clearly there's been a significant change in our approach.

Either we weren't trying at all to get options to buy in 17/18, or we weren't trying anywhere near as hard as we tried this summer.

This is reinforced by TK in the video, where he talks about persuading clubs to agree this sort of structure.

The other change is that we are not developing younger players for PL clubs but loaning experienced players who could reasonably expect time on the pitch for most matches and who we would probably have purchased if FFP was not an issue

[toshes mate]

There is of course also the fact that there are several parties involved. In some cases the option to buy may not be on the table in the first place (for any type of even semi-realistic price at least), either because the selling club or the player in question is not interested in making the loan permanent. If that is the situation surely the short term gain (how much better is this player than any potential alternatives that may be easier to get on a permanent) has to be weighed against the potential longer term negative impact of not being able to keep the team together. As always, it is not necessarily very straight forward.

True... but the difference is very stark: in 17/18 we didn't have options on any of Piazon, Kalas, Targett, Mitro or Norwood (0 out of 5) whereas in 19/20 we have options on all of Cavaliero, Knockaert, Reid and Reed (4 out of 4).

I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that is purely down to the selling clubs' positions, ie purely a coincidence that this year all the other clubs were amenable. Clearly there's been a significant change in our approach.

Either we weren't trying at all to get options to buy in 17/18, or we weren't trying anywhere near as hard as we tried this summer.

This is reinforced by TK in the video, where he talks about persuading clubs to agree this sort of structure.

I agree. and didn't mean to come of as though I didn't really.

It's one area where we may contemplate that TK has indeed learned his trade and perhaps understood how his previous errors (shared with others) have impacted upon the success of the Club he co-owns.  It is another reason why clubs always benefit from savvy negotiators on their side.

[Statto]

The other change is that we are not developing younger players for PL clubs but loaning experienced players who could reasonably expect time on the pitch for most matches and who we would probably have purchased if FFP was not an issue

Fair point, the loanees' average age must be higher this time around. It may also be that we never pushed for options in 17/18 because we just didn't think players like Norwood, Piazon and Kalas would ever be good enough for the PL. But whatever the explanation, it was still a mistake, still shortsighted, still something that increased the player turnover and disruption when we were promoted, and still something TK has clearly and deliberately changed this time around.

Also just realised I forgot Arter in my previous post.