YAYYYYYYY another midfielder

just what we wanted.

 

Indeed, we're very light on the wings.

 

We were desperate for a winger.

Do all midfielders play the same position now?

 

Another loanee yippie. If we are playing ******** Bingo. Looks a talented lad to me. We desperately need to get the other 8/9 players in that we need but a good start.

 

Really....Hedges can't get a start and Hammill wasn't selected for the first game.....so taking the 'I want two players for every position and a squad of 22' we now seem to have a surplus when you consider we also have Potts and Isgrove....really don't get the point in these types of signings...can's see how it benefits us only the player and his parent club. If our lads in the academy don't have the potential to be first team players why keep them and deny them any chance whatsoever by bringing in a young kid to aid his development......someone please explain

 

absolutely matey.

 

Waste of time. Everyone backs hecky but these signings are getting ridiculous. I don't see his logic at all striker and defender job done

 

We sign some players on loan that we could not hope to attract. It's fair enough. We just sign too many of them.

 

By my rough calculations I get the current squad level to 24, assuming Yeardom goes and is directly replaced, not accounting for a new striker coming in and excluding Brown from the number. 2 out of the 4 have come in so we should have 26 and Hecky says he wants more. But lets say it is 26, therefore which 4 are moving out (Sessi, Payne, Jackson and a.n other?) amd where does the balanced squad come from when we only have one defensive midfielder in the form of a young kid on loan from Everton?

 

You can't compare to Huddersfield one bit. Yes they made loan signings but not just midfielders

 

Wasn't questioning the number of loans necessarily but how you arrive at the objective of having a balanced squad of 22 when we seem to be signing players where we already have cover. Hedges hasn't been given a chance and we don't know what he can do, so he ain't going to be too happy if a young kid get's selected ahead of him (let's hope there isn't a commitment to play him, Williams and Ugbo a certain amount of games as there was with Kent last year....as that definitely didn't benefit us).

 

Do you think our relative success last season was down to Kent and Armstrong? For me both were inconsistent with the occasional flash of what they can do
Don't see how we have benefitted but Kent now has a more lucrative contract with his parent club. If we develop our own players or sign a young player with resale value then I get it - just don't see the value in this approach and we were told previously lessons had been learned in this regard, a la Crowley, that we would only loan players we had a chance to sign permanently.

 

Because we cannot afford to recruit their (supposed) quality, simple as that.

 

Just not had much success so far.....plus no old heads or leaders around them....its like entering an U23 squad in a mans league.....surely for the plan to be effective it's primary benefit has to be that we can afford the next level of player by generating the finance (increased wages not necessarily transfer fees), otherwise what is the point?

 

Maybe, but I've understood for a long time that the point of the plan is not to subsidise the wage budget with transfer income.

 

That is contrary to what Hecky has said.....i.e. the money we get from transfers is to increase the wage budget but he is using it up with quantity rather than experience in key positions.....it will cost us IMO. I really hope I am wrong but tomorrows game is a good indicator against a club who are not as wealthy as many others in the league but who have taken a different approach. I am expecting another men vs boys experience

 

When has he said that?