When Robins takes Premiership players on loan he is *****ing money up the wall and they are really expensive. When Hill does it they don't cost anything and we're being really frugal and managing to a really tight budget. Yes?
The club have had zero choice though have they? They were relying on the Butterfield monies (IMO) to strengthen the squad with. And tbh, we only have 2 loanees - these 2 newbies. Hardly an expensive motley crue like Mark had 12 months ago
Forum rule number 1245: All loan signings must be prefixed with the word "expensive" unless they were made in the current season.
were talking 2 loan players who have been forced upon us. not almost an whole team. I doubt these 2 combined are costing as much a harewood
I liked MR but a big difference to me between him and KH is that now it feels like a necessity & they are here to plug gaps until a cheaper alternative can be found in the summer. Under MR the loans didn't feel like we were building a team, but more like a long term strategy. Could be wrong, but its not the impression I get.
I remember lots of objection to short term loans over permanent transfers. Tongue replaces Drinkwater effectively as a loanee and really Addison was part of the Shackell deal to balance squad numbers and is likely costing us nothing in weekly wages. Hill has a much better perspective on the loan market than Robins and also, he is prepared to go shopping in places Robins wouldn't. Saying that, I think one or two were well worth the trouble. Trippier for sure and the ginger lad from Hull, Mc Shane - that's it.
Not sure if we were paying for Addison up to New Year or not but we will have this month I should imagine. Robins didn`t need to and wasn`t brought in to shop at bargain basement though, the club had a different outlook on things at that time. Shotton, Dickinson according to most on here, Harewood 4 goals in ten. There were rumours Davies was coming here before Robins got the sack. Have to admit Nouble and one or two others I couldn`t see the reasoning and thought that other players being put further down the pecking order was not a good thing for the club.
The one just after the isolated word Yes? So the question is 'yes?'. I would still say No, although theres a variety of anwers than can be given to your preamble. To join in the debate though i think that the context is different. Robin's did bring in some good loanees but perhaps they were expensive and i would suspect added up to a lot of money in compasiron to our permenant squad members. Seems like Hill has a more prudent approach to loanees, governed in part by the task he was asked to do. We have seen less and i would suspect as a consequence a cheaper outcome.
To be honest it all boils down to budget. If Robins asked for x number of loan players and the board said yes then how can Robin's be criticised? During the close season the board's position seemingly changed (for the better in my eyes) and they felt they wanted to progress without the same reliance on loan players, and made that clear to Robins. No criticism of the board there, and no criticism of Robins for deciding he didn't want to operate on that basis. Hill was aware he had a budget to operate within and as far as I know he is doing that. Tonge certainly doesn't appear to be a frivilous acquisition given the current void left by injury and Leicester purchasing Drinkwater, and I imagine there is a posibility it could be a permenant option if things go well. As for the full back I'm less certain as to how that fits a wider plan. I take Tyketical's wider point that Robins' critics used loan signings to criticise him and are now praising Hill for doing the same thing. Ultimately neither manager are to blame. They are entitled to ask the board for whatever or whoever they want. It is down to the board to make the fiscal decisions as to whether they want to spend the money. I do get the impression however that Robins budgetry situtation was a fluid position (not Robins fault), whereas Hill has clearer, less moveable, constraints. Luckily he is delivering within these parameters.
We aren't wasting cash bringing in Tonge as he will only be replacing Drinkwater's wages we have saved. If Mark Bobins was still in charge he'd have still wanted Tonge even if Drinkwater hadn't moved on, and that would have been wasting money.
You don't know that at all. Why bring a right back in when we have at least four players who can play there?
Korey Smith is a central, box2box midfielder, that due to his versatility, engine, and quick-feet (so am told) has played at RB too
Korey Smith isn't seen as a right back. Anyway I endorse any signings of defenders because our own defence needs an overhaul in the summer.