on recent performances, but we are still a long way from where we need to be. I think the most concerning thing about yesterday's performance was that the two best players were loanees. We have no realistic chance of signing Pearson so we can't build a side around him as we will come up short like we did when the Berk lost Drinkwater. I think it would be in the best interests of both players to stay until the end of the season. Not sure it's in the best interests of BFC. Nor does it fit in with supposed strategy. That said, I'm quite confident of a victory on Tuesday.
To be honest, I don't see it too concerning as if we can keep them until the end of the season, we should be able to find adequate replacements for them in the summer. By that time we should have managed to get rid of a bit more deadwood. Our home form seems to have turned for the better. Our back 4 seems to have improved. We need to keep picking up points at home.
We can't keep doing this though - bringing in players, realising they aren't much cop, patching the team up with loan signings then having another go in the summer. That's not a long term strategy as far as I'm concerned.
Season ticket fir 19 years sorry i dont no who we have on tuesday!! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Berk (totally agree on calling him this) didn't lose Drinkwater. His parent club sold him to Leicester while we had him on loan. Not much The Berk could've done really.
Come on then......explain you comments im sure you have a valid reason for what u said! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No I know. What I was meaning that it was daft to build a team around a player you could lose with 24 hours notice or one you would not be able to sign on a permanent basis.
Don't worry i had forgot who we were playing Saturday until i got to pub and asked mates. You are not alone. Genuinely been feeling like a chore going to games recently.
On the other hand, if Drinkwater and Butterfield had not ripped Leicester apart, Drinkwater may have stayed for the rest of the season, which would have given Keith the summer to find a replacement that he could afford. If Butterfield had not received his injury, he too would have left in the summer, but at a much higher fee. If Vaz Te had not scored the hat-trick against Leeds, when he replaced the injury stricken Butterfield, his agent may not have been able to offer his client to WHU at a knock down fee. If all of these things had not happened, we may have finished in the top half and have been able to convince better players that we were on the up. In fact none of it happened. Keith was unlucky. But that does not mean that he was wrong to loan a player that he could not possibly afford if there was a chance of success. Risk and reward is a balance that all managers toy with, but my guess is that every single one would have taken Drinkwater in Keith Hill's place.
I don't think it's Danny's intention, sometimes it just doesn't work out for certain players at certain clubs. In an ideal world, the 12 or so signings we made in the summer would all be good players, in an ideal world. At least we've got shut of Brown and Treacy now (Lita could easily follow) to pave the way for others. As far as I'm aware, we're interested in bringing in 2 more permanent signings, to add to Williams, Scowen and Lalkovic who we've brought in on permanent deals this window. Okay we've got 3 more loanees too, (albeit Kiwomya rumored to be leaving) but we've been less reliant on it in this window as opposed to previous windows, surely that's some sort of progression?