I make it 100 loanees Rocastle, Walters, Turnbull, ward, Murphy, davies, caig, chopra, Turnbull (again), Johnson, watt, nix, eckersley, Jones, nyatanga, rajcski, mannone, wallwork, Reid, knight, Warner, nyatanga (again), nardiello, nyatanga (again), tininho, Silva, working, nyatanga (yet again), mifsud, Whaley rigters, teale, hammill, cureton, teymourian, teixeria, Rodriguez, trippier, Lund, halfredsson, shotton, Doyle, Dickinson, bialkowski, harwood, mcshane, nouble, mellis, trippier (again), O'Conner, wood, hayes, arismendi, smith, tonge, nouble (again), Collins, Addison, Drinkwater, park, ranger, higginbotham, button, tunnicliffe, delap, O'Grady, Sinclair, tudguy, buzsaky, greening, fox, butland, tudguy (again), pollitt, Ramage, hunt, McLaughlin, pedersen, Shea, proschwitz, Cole, O'Sullivan, Williams, Ramage (again), trotta, Pearson, waring, kiwomya, ibehre, dudgeon, Stewart, John, wildsmith, Crowley, Townsend, smith, Pearson (again), rothwell, Harris, wilkinson And I may have missed one or two. For me that is a huge part of why we are where we are and why we are struggling now. P's sorry for any autocorrections and spelling mistakes.
I think the two facts are not linked. I think it's just a feature of today's game and our place in it. I'm probably wrong like
Nowt much to say about it, but I did count a very generous 15 or so who I thought were very good additions who did well for us at the time. It was easier than counting the dross.
It is, without question, but even in the current environment I wouldn't be surprised if we'd had more loan players than most in that time. Although I could be completely wrong, I've no figures to back that up.
Who is Working? Matt Hill and Grant Mccann can be added to the list. Unless I've missed them Some decent players in there.
Judging by the players around his name and the fact I cant see him but remember typing him I think it must be Werling. Damn autocorrect went into overdrive on a few. You're right about hill and McCann too. I agree about there being some good players but I just think that the amount of times we have had to replace loanees must have set us back. How often have we got to the halfway point and seen our season go downhill fast (usually because loanees have gone back) or given everyone a month or two head start while our players fell, again because we have had to replace a host of loanees.
I've no idea on the figures for other clubs but I'll try to find some kind of average figure from somewhere
This seasons loans so far, by L1 club: Barnsley - 7 Blackpool - 2 Bradford - 3 Burton - 4 Bury - 0 Chesterfield - 1 Colchester - 1 Coventry - 3 Crewe - 3 Doncaster - 2 Fleetwood - 0 Gillingham - 2 Millwall - 1 Oldham - 3 Peterborough - 2 Port Vale - 3 Rochdale - 0 Scnuthorpe - 1 Sheff Utd - 2 Shrewsbury - 2 Southend - 2 Swindon - 5 Walsall - 0 Wigan - 5
the club is up for sale and has been for some time,but no buyer is coming forward so loanees offer a low risk outlay for Pattsy Cline,maybe he doesnt want to risk splashing out on players who simply arnt good enough,look at some of the loanees we've had,its a good job he hadnt bought them.
I think that the idea of taking players on loan, with a set figure to buy, is a good one. If they fit, fine, if not, send them back. Good business sense to me.
I did ask the Sheik here if he wanted to donate to Barnsley rather than to the migrants but he declined to answer
We've converted one of the loans, to be fair, and may well do with others. Not that I would based on performances so far.
I fear we'll just replace any loans we sign with more loans. It's only my opinion but I think we have too many.
Okay so I worked out that Working must be Werling (although I didn't think he was a loanee) but I can't for the life of me worked out/remember who Lund is? Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
Think we had him on a 6 month loan and he was supposed to sign for us after. Can't remember if he did or not. I remember some controversy around it which involved Ipswich. Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk