Srg Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Why is Bamford called a 'loan target'? Why not just a' target '? So people don't think we're signing him permanently when we aren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I'm not sure I'd want another loan player on our books. We run the risk of having too many loanees at present. We've been really fortunate with the current bunch but soon they'll be off to their parent clubs and we're left to fill their voids. This deal may just limit the chances of our younger players. I'm not an advocate of strengthening the squad as we're there or thereabouts. We're there because the current crop of players have got us there. If we can keep the current squad together for the remainder of the season, I'd be happy to leave things as they are. The only position we require cover for is left back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 It is apparent that Steve us looking to make sure there is depth, and he is looking for good quality, so if need be he can replace like for like for injury/suspension and also rotate, so if we push on and have a cup run, we have the squad to cope, also any cancellations over winter etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ketteringram Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 So what is the reason we do not want him permanently?? So people don't think we're signing him permanently when we aren't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 So what is the reason we do not want him permanently?? Because he signed a 5 year contract at Chelsea and they're unlikely to want part with him permanently? Is this a wind up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ketteringram Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Errm no.... I don't do wind ups. I'm just thick, OK? Just wondering why we would want a striker on loan. If we need a striker, let's just buy one. Because he signed a 5 year contract at Chelsea and they're unlikely to want part with him permanently? Is this a wind up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Errm no.... I don't do wind ups. I'm just thick, OK? Just wondering why we would want a striker on loan. If we need a striker, let's just buy one. Because you can often loan a striker of a much higher ability than you can buy - without spending several millions (see £6m for Rhodes etc). Most promoted clubs in the past years have all had key loan signings in there. It's just part and parcel of the game. It's cheaper for the club, you get a better quality of player, and if they don't work out then you haven't wasted a load of money. Especially in our case, if we were to go up, the calibre of player you look for would change again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawson Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Errm no.... I don't do wind ups. I'm just thick, OK? Just wondering why we would want a striker on loan. If we need a striker, let's just buy one. They would inflate the price as its January and hes not out of contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I'm being defensive because you've clearly misinterpreted my post and questioned my credibility as a fan of Derby. You've royally pissed me off and it's not the first time you've made a smug comment on one of my posts because your patrol the forum looking for anything that could possibly be perceived as "wrist slashing". Here - have a puppy. "http://i782.photobucket.com/albums/yy101/luckyeddie_photo/BlaSBIc_zps45b53852" alt="BlaSBIc_zps45b53852"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSD Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I do think Jacobs will be sold. I know Steve likes him but if the money's right then he'll go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Eddie - what the heck is going on in that photo???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Eddie - what the heck is going on in that photo???? Panoramic photo gone wrong. Try this one…. "http://i782.photobucket.com/albums/yy101/luckyeddie_photo/j8XDL9K_zpsc6d8d1db" alt="j8XDL9K_zpsc6d8d1db"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabber Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 OK thx, I was worried I was going to need another resolution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodleyRam Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Panoramic photo gone wrong. Try this one…."http://i782.photobucket.com/albums/yy101/luckyeddie_photo/j8XDL9K_zpsc6d8d1db" alt="j8XDL9K_zpsc6d8d1db"> This is clearly a still from 'The Feline Centipede' one of Alpha's latest film projects... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North_Stand_Ram Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Wolves will give a fair price. They paid 750k for McDonald for Sheff U and 700k for a full back from Barnsley. I'd demand 500k and put it in our kitty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srg Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 "QT7zMcW" alt="QT7zMcW"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I'm not sure I'd want another loan player on our books. We run the risk of having too many loanees at present. We've been really fortunate with the current bunch but soon they'll be off to their parent clubs and we're left to fill their voids. This deal may just limit the chances of our younger players. I'm not an advocate of strengthening the squad as we're there or thereabouts. We're there because the current crop of players have got us there. If we can keep the current squad together for the remainder of the season, I'd be happy to leave things as they are. The only position we require cover for is left back. Or maybe the board are thinking get promoted with loanees then we have plenty of riches to acquire our own players. To say we only need cover, based on our current position, is short sighted in my opinion. Think we are beginning to look tired and sloppy and need to mix up our options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I'd like him to pick us rather than Wigan so we can pay them back for Sammon picking them over us. Mind you, I think Wigan have owned us on that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 I'm not sure I'd want another loan player on our books. We run the risk of having too many loanees at present. We've been really fortunate with the current bunch but soon they'll be off to their parent clubs and we're left to fill their voids. This deal may just limit the chances of our younger players. I'm not an advocate of strengthening the squad as we're there or thereabouts. We're there because the current crop of players have got us there. If we can keep the current squad together for the remainder of the season, I'd be happy to leave things as they are. The only position we require cover for is left back. Probably a product of FFP.Transfer fees bring about amortisation charges against the FFP result for the length of the contract,whereas loanees only bring implications for the year in question.Like it or not,I can see them figuring more and more in the NPC.A permanent signing would be more of a threat to Mason's development (although I think promotion might form more of a threat,because of the constant need for results).Also,I think you have to balance a possible Bamford signing against a possible striker outgoing. If we fail to gain promotion,then I agree the loanees might create a void.On the other hand,should we gain promotion we are bound to bring in some better quality players (which may or may not include the conversion of loanees to permanents),thus filling any voids created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted December 31, 2013 Share Posted December 31, 2013 Or maybe the board are thinking get promoted with loanees then we have plenty of riches to acquire our own players. To say we only need cover, based on our current position, is short sighted in my opinion. Think we are beginning to look tired and sloppy and need to mix up our options. Never bring in a player as cover - always bring in a player with a view to playing them in the first team. They don't necessarily go straight in, but they should be there or thereabouts (e.g. Keane). In other words, always look to bring in players who are better than we have. You never know - we just might be in the market to buy them later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.