Jump to content

Transfer rumours, targets & new signings


Doha

Recommended Posts

Advert:


1 minute ago, valefan16 said:

Gamble but a good scoring record so worth a go. Lot of loans though isn’t ideal.

It's five now and that's the maximum number you are allowed in the matchday squad, so we can still include them all if we want to.

I wonder if that means that if the midfield signing will be a permanent one? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


4 minutes ago, valefan16 said:

Gamble but a good scoring record so worth a go. Lot of loans though isn’t ideal.

Strikes me as needs must.

Loans are a short term fix to a short term problem.

Injuries.

Build the squad again in the summer.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SFBT said:

I hope Cov stays.

Has alot to offer imo.

I'd tend to agree, I can't condone the sending off(2nd one especially) and who would but I thought the blokes command of his area and speed of distribution is generally excellent. His shot stopping had improved too.  The problem is if he's a bit arrogant and has shown no signs of learning from this mistakes perhaps it hasn't gone down well with Clarke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, SFBT said:

Strikes me as needs must.

Loans are a short term fix to a short term problem.

Injuries.

Build the squad again in the summer.

Absolutely and there's been lots of articles saying how tricky it is to get a permanent deal in January without paying massively over the odds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it a contradiction that people bang on about the 'long-term plan' and not 'short-term gambles' when it comes to not exceeding the wage cap of £1,850, when we've also got the maximum amount of loan players. They're the definition of a gamble and short-termism (completely understandably).

Not saying I'm against it, just that it's clear that the club is not operating in 'long-term mode' as we speak, as they shouldn't. 

Edited by Joe B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


We've got several loans in but we've also got several key players out injured in Proctor, Conlon, Gibbons etc. I can see the logic in that. We can't go out and match the wages of those three without a huge increase in the wage bill. We've got to balance the books.

What would have been odd would have been to go out and get half a dozen permanent deals in January which would have given us a massive and expensive squad.

Makes sense to get some players in just to cover the period the others are out. I would imagine that the likes of Hudd, Leeds and Newcastle are probably part-subsidising the wages of Cass, Harratt and Edmondson anyhow. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Joe B said:

I find it a contradiction that people bang on about the 'long-term plan' and not 'short-term gambles' when it comes to not exceeding the wage cap of £1,850, when we've also got the maximum amount of loan players. They're the definition of a gamble and short-termism (completely understandably).

Not saying I'm against it, just that it's clear that the club is not operating in 'long-term mode' as we speak, as they shouldn't. 

One is a financial gamble with long term implications.

The other is a player gamble that has an end point it backfires. 

My point only holds if you believe that one higher paid player can destabilise a dressing room. I appreciate that's not your view.

Its perfectly normal to have short term stopgaps in a long term strategy... A strategy that probably includes using the well established loan market when permanent players are overvalued in January.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, valiant_593 said:

Played a lot for them in the league above, Ipswich fans not exactly complementary but can’t be that bad to play 37 league games last year. Guessing stone / Covalon will leave now, probably stone on loan. 

Keep Stone and loan out Covalon after his antics.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robf said:

We've got several loans in but we've also got several key players out injured in Proctor, Conlon, Gibbons etc. I can see the logic in that. We can't go out and match the wages of those three without a huge increase in the wage bill. We've got to balance the books.

What would have been odd would have been to go out and get half a dozen permanent deals in January which would have given us a massive and expensive squad.

Makes sense to get some players in just to cover the period the others are out. I would imagine that the likes of Hudd, Leeds and Newcastle are probably part-subsidising the wages of Cass, Harratt and Edmondson anyhow. 

That's a far better way of saying what I was trying to say 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, PVFC764 said:

Keep Stone and loan out Covalon after his antics.

Keep Covolan who suits how we play better, better competition for Holy. Stone is young and is developing into a great keeper, would benefit from a loan more than Cov would.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advert:


5 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

Keep Covolan who suits how we play better, better competition for Holy. Stone is young and is developing into a great keeper, would benefit from a loan more than Cov would.

Depends if Covolan has learnt his lesson not to take out players that way.  Is he now 2nd in line and there by pushing Stone down to 3rd or is Covolan now 3rd goalie?  If Stone is 3rd then he would really benefit from playing all the time rather than just sitting on the stand seats watching the match.  DC to make that decision if he goes out on loan to get more experience.

Edited by PVFC764

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tin hat on….

Great another loan player… This tactic never works. If they play well they go somewhere else - that’s 5 loan players now. Too many imo and bringing back memories of the Michael brown era!!

Surely there are funds to sign players within the wage budget that DC and Flickers mentioned? 

Edited by valiant_593

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, valiant_593 said:

Tin hat on….

Great another loan player… This tactic never works. If they play well they go somewhere else - that’s 5 loan players now. Too many imo and bringing back memories of the Michael brown era!!

Surely there are funds to sign players within the wage budget that DC and Flickers mentioned? 

Ideally it wouldnt be loans.

But injuries have left us a massive hole that we need to fill and loans seem a sensible approach.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...