What's The Matter With Some On Here?

I can't get all these whingeing barstewards on here complaining about loan players.

FFS we're a small club in reduced circumstances, trying to find our way back to the Championship. The appeal of our club as a permanent home for up and coming players from higher leagues to hitch their star to is somewhat limited. If a loanee or five helps us do that, so be it. Sure, we'd like to have a dozen marquee signings dropping a league and willing to put their blood on the line to get us promoted. However this is the real world. If we can somehow fight our way out of this league then we can rebuild on a more permanent footing. But hey - didn't even Man City have a rather helpful loan signing last season?

Get a life, folks!

 

Here here......... I rest my case at times!

 

Staggering hypocrisy.

 

Because it's the same season after season.

No long term strategy, a massive turnover of players with no connection between players & fans & an over reliance on loans, a team that rarely looks like there's any chemistry in it, loan signings that for the most part have been disappointing & only delayed our own youngsters development.

Our longest serving player is Paul Digby who's probably not even got 30 appearances.

I want some Hassell's, Foster's & Steele's in the team. Not world beaters that will do one as soon as possible but solid dependable players.

Not a midfield consisting of 3 loanees that's for sure.

 

They don't need to be marquee signings to be a success. We've had a few players in recent years who've not been marquee signings but who've done well.

 

The season hasn't started yet.

Get behind em.

 

And what if our youngsters aren't good enough?

 

I understand that we couldn't afford the extra 5-6 loan players wages etc on a 1-2-3 year contract. That's understandable and the right decision financially. I really get that and the fact most other teams have the same number of loans for the very same reasons.......

But.........,

We've heard for a while now under different managers/leaders/head coaches that we wouldn't go
down 'the loan' route. Even LJ has said that. Now we've a threadbare squad bolstered with 5 loanees?!?

 

I've been following The Reds for more than 50 years. I've never thought it gave me the right to dictate how the club is run. It sounds very much to me like you think you have that right. Maybe I'm mistaken............

 

It's a forum, we share ideas, beliefs, opinions etc

This isn't against you btw. But I'd love folk like you to post yours more frequently to get a more diluted view on all things BFC. Come join the 'circus' and dilute the aforementioned

Ps if thas done 50 years thal be retired or approaching , be soon to become a miserable fecker, the ideal place is this

 

Then we move them on but at least we'll know.

One of my biggest gripes is that we never give / gave Digby, Rose, RNL etc a chance but we're happy to bring in wasters like Shea, McCourt, Frimpong, Proschwitz etc & give them plenty of chances.

 

One of the highest attendance's in the league according to mansford. One of the highest incomes in the league too according to him. Ergo we should actually be able to afford one of the best squads in the league yet instead we are releasing players left right and centre, making cut backs and filling the squad with short term loan deals

 

As much as it pains me........ a bit of that ^^^

 

Spot on. Not moaning for its own sake but seems accurate to me.

 

Hmm "most teams have the same number of loans"

Barnsley: 4.
Gillingham 2.
Crewe: 1
Swindon: 2
Chesterfield: 0
Southend: 0
Burton: 3
Fleetwood: 1
Colchester: 0
Rochdale: 0
Port vale: 2
Blackpool: 2
Walsall: 0
Shrewsbury: 1
Bury: 1
Oldham: 0
Doncaster: 0
Coventry: 1
S****horpe: 0
Bradford: 1
Millwall: 0
Peterborough: 0
Sheffield united: 1
Wigan: 2

More loans than anyone else in league 1.
4 loans for us and only 20 loans between the other 23 clubs.

Barnsley loans: 4
League one average not including us: 0.87

 

ST that's Reyt research! If it's true that's top work. I was thinking abart upto Jan really when most teams have a 'full quota' of loanees. Some don't granted.

I'd love a full tarn XI. But...... I think we all love Pearson here. Could we afford him?!? Is it good to have him & others here??

Ps - we've a 'top 6' budget, so does that mirror the fact that we can afford these loans, can't imagine some of the clubs you've detailed been able to attract the ones we've sorted?!?

 

That's where I see a difference though. By January you've worked out where you have holes in your squad and you've used the loan market to full them short term. What we have done is we've started off with the loans and left ourselves with nowhere to go in October when our left back gets crocked or Davies gets suspended for 3 matches.

I can't remember every loan but in those other 20 there were loans from Liverpool, arsenal and Chelsea. The info is from transfer market.co.uk which is generally pretty accurate and is so up to date that it has crowleys loan listed

 

You can get more loans and leave others out. Blackpool got promoted with 13 loans in the season under Holloway.

 

Really?!?

 

So have we forgotten that Lee Johnson said it would take three 'windows' to get the squad where he wants it? What's he meant to do in the meantime - just sit it out with a substandard squad? To compare him with the Rochdale wrecking balls is tripe, to my way of thinking. And if the likes of Digby, RNL and Rose aren't good enough it's no use ploddong along with them for the sake of it.