Loan or buy

[Top Robin]

Just thinking that we could get a quality proven player on loan and pay their wages for a season or we could buy a decentish player for around £5 million. Surely it is better to get a quality loan player in as he is likely to be a better player and therefore improve the team as well as costing us less.  I know a loan isn't an appreciating asset to a club but a couple of quality players brought in temporarily could just be the difference to us having a successful next season or not. There are so many players in premier league sides swollen squads who we could take on loan who we clearly couldn't afford to buy. Just a thought.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

But then they go home and you have to replace them the next season, so there’s an element of swings and roundabouts.   Seems there are four main types of loan players available:  young players who need development; older players returning from injury who need game time; players who are just not rated by the parent club; and bad apples who the parent club want rid of.  All strike me as a gamble and we’ve had examples of all at Ashton Gate, but how many have really been successful?  Tammy, of course.  Tomlin and, to a lesser degree, Odemwingie two seasons ago?  You can’t build your future development on loan players.  They’re a short-term fix but it’s permanent signings that count.

[1960maaan]

Problem with loans , and a good quality proven player would be as rare as hens teeth, is they are still a risk. Forgetting the money side , you can get an unproven player an he turns out a gem, Tammy. Or you can but s player who has had a good year in a lower division promotion side, who then scores goals to keep them in the top flight, gets transferred to a top club for £9m, Diony.
The stats say the 2nd one, and I know some will defend him and say he never got a run etc, which may be true. But the unproven player did work for us.
If he is quality , and proven , why would he be available for loan ? I know occasionally you might get one , but as I say , rare. 

[cidercity1987]

5m for one season or 5m for a 3 year contract and a possibility to sell for a profit. Hmmmm.

[Top Robin]

Just now, cidercity1987 said:

5m for one season or 5m for a 3 year contract and a possibility to sell for a profit. Hmmmm.

Yeh but that '£5million for one season'  player is likely to be more quality and give us more chance of success. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

5m for one season or 5m for a 3 year contract and a possibility to sell for a profit. Hmmmm.

Continuingly selling your assets gets you no-where apart from back to where you started and looking for another. How can we make the jump up if we don't go for it.

When we keep our best and add to them with proven players we might move forward.

[Chairman Mao]

Spend the £5m on the academy and produce 5 £5m players in the next 10 years.

As comrade Zhou Enlai said of the French Revolution; how can we judge? It is too early to tell what it's outcomes are.

[cidered abroad]

Loan players are a real hit and miss approach. Rarely do we get a Tammy. Mostly it's a Dinning or Tomlin who perform until signed permanently. 

Or a Kent, Diony, Bates, McManus. 

Or a Vokes, Rodrigues, who get injured in first twenty minutes and never plays again for us. 

 

[Lanterne Rouge]

Apologies but this is a real bugbear of mine and I can`t let it go but it`s a pity they can`t just go back to the old rules after ******* them up by changing them to season/half season ones only.

Clubs now just stockpile players `just in case`, most of which will never play a minute for the first team, and the development of young players in particular is stifled and often results in good, talented lads drifting out of the game due to lack of opportunity.

If you look at us and take, say Jonny Smith as an example, we send him to Fylde and he tears it up there for two months so we decide that he needs a step up to maybe League 2. In the old days we could recall him and re-loan him out at a higher level. Now he has to stay there for at least half a season.

It wasn`t broken so why did they feel the need to `fix` it?

[Davefevs]

If we just exclude the Tammy loan for a mo’....that was a big gamble that “paid” off.

To my mind you want to loan a player who’s probably gonna not quite fulfil his Prem league potential (possibly not due to ability, but through lack of chances), and agree a price to buy him at if its a success.  You don’t want to pay large loan fees or penalties either.

A few examples;

Cauley Woodrow - England u21 player - not getting minutes at Fulham.  In theory exactly the type of loan you want, fee agreed up front.  It didn’t work out here.  I still think he’s a good player.

Ryan Kent - the kind of deal that Liverpool like which in effect fleeced us.  I know I support them, but I wouldn’t deal with them under their current regime.  Same with Canos, who they wanted 1st choice buy-back at a low price.  I’d never buy from Peterborough either, as you always pay top-whack.

Tammy Abraham - great as a short term goal scoring option, but I bet he didn’t come cheap, and all in favour of Chelsea, developing a player who they are never gonna sell at that point in his career.  Thanks Bristol City, you’ve just added £5-10m to the loan we’ll get the season after.

Aaron Mooy - very unlikely to break into Man City’s midfield, young, get him on loan, agree a price....the rest is history.

Kieron Trippier - see Mooy, but at Burnley a few years back.

Of course, there are the short-term fix loans where you bring in an experienced player to cover a hole, but that’s a different dynamic / deal.