• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Summer 2022 Transfer Window

NicholasG1973 said:
Good.

Absolutely zero point developing another teams player, only to give him back and go back to square one.

Connor Gallagher was great for Palace. Didn’t ultimately get them anywhere though, other than having to trawl through sone crap leagues to try and find a replacement.

Chelsea, meanwhile, get their player back with a years Premier League experience under his belt and loads of confidence.

Totally glad we don’t entertain that bullshit.
Click to expand...
You mean exactly the same as Silva is with Anderlecht?

Players suit certain circumstances at certain times. I'd certainly take Nico, Broja and Gallagher on a season long loan even if it wasn't to buy.

It buys time for next season where we might find a better player to do the job and have added financial resources to do it.
 
Last edited:
If Gallagher plays a significant role in Chelsea's season I will find a hat and eat it.
 
The Bear said:
Same
Click to expand...
Johnny75 said:
You mean exactly the same as Silva is with Anderlecht?

Players suit certain circumstances at certain times. I'd certainly take Nico, Broja and Gallagher on a season long loan even if it wasn't to buy.

It buys time for next season where we might find a better player to do the job and have added financial resources to do it.
Click to expand...
That’s why a forum exists, wouldn’t do for us all to have the same opinions.

I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t take any of them on loan - honestly don’t see the point. We’re not in a Brentford/Ericksen situation where we need a bit of magic to keep us up.

Don’t mind us loaning a player as long as there’s a buy clause in there and it basically benefits us (like us finding out that Trincao was shit and giving him back) - if not, I just don’t see why we’d be interested.
 
If somebody improves us, even if it's only for a year, surely that's a god thing? If we loaned, say, Broja and Gallagher even for a season, it would put us higher in the table, give us more money, maybe even Europe. But if we can't have them permanently it's best to not have them at all? Even if it means Donk and Hwang get 70 starts between them?
 
NicholasG1973 said:
That’s why a forum exists, wouldn’t do for us all to have the same opinions.

I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t take any of them on loan - honestly don’t see the point. We’re not in a Brentford/Ericksen situation where we need a bit of magic to keep us up.

Don’t mind us loaning a player as long as there’s a buy clause in there and it basically benefits us (like us finding out that Trincao was shit and giving him back) - if not, I just don’t see why we’d be interested.
Click to expand...
Are you ok with loaning Silva out?
 
Broja couldn't get in a rubbish Southampton team towards the end of his time there, I'm not sure at all about him.

Would obviously take Gallagher in a heartbeat, he's everything we need if we go 4-3-3.
 
Johnny75 said:
And you can't see the hypocrisy in that?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course I can.

I always want every deal to benefit us and be in our best interests - that’s why I don’t want to develop other clubs players, increase their value while paying their wages.

For example, I wouldn’t have loaned Adama and I (certainly) wouldn’t have loaned Coady.

But, of course, more than happy to let Anderlect develop Fabio at their cost and effort.

And if you disagree……guess what…..it’s cool 👍
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
Broja couldn't get in a rubbish Southampton team towards the end of his time there, I'm not sure at all about him.

Would obviously take Gallagher in a heartbeat, he's everything we need if we go 4-3-3.
Click to expand...
Broja is still only 20, he’s one of those that needs games a bit like we’ve done with Fabio. He’s a bit of a unit which helped him last year but physically it told at the end of the season. For that reason I wouldn’t take him though.

Gallagher would be a brilliant signing but it looks like he’s going to get a crack at Chelsea.
 
NicholasG1973 said:
Yes, of course I can.

I always want every deal to benefit us and be in our best interests - that’s why I don’t want to develop other clubs players, increase their value while paying their wages.

For example, I wouldn’t have loaned Adama and I (certainly) wouldn’t have loaned Coady.

But, of course, more than happy to let Anderlect develop Fabio at their cost and effort.

And if you disagree……guess what…..it’s cool 👍
Click to expand...
In an ideal world every loan we do incoming would have an option to buy, whereas loans out would depend on circumstances (young player you who you have i future plans no option, players who have no future an obligation) but we don’t live in a perfect world.

I’d happily take a player on loan with no option if it improves us. If it was a toss up as to whether they would, or it’s only a marginal benefit at the expense of playing a young lad, not so much.

Example being if we loan a CM of cundle level, or there or there Abouts then it’s a pointless exercise IMO
 
NicholasG1973 said:
Yes, of course I can.

I always want every deal to benefit us and be in our best interests - that’s why I don’t want to develop other clubs players, increase their value while paying their wages.

For example, I wouldn’t have loaned Adama and I (certainly) wouldn’t have loaned Coady.

But, of course, more than happy to let Anderlect develop Fabio at their cost and effort.

And if you disagree……guess what…..it’s cool 👍
Click to expand...
That's an interesting stance to take.

Not for me as you can probably tell.
 
Carsy said:
In an ideal world every loan we do incoming would have an option to buy, whereas loans out would depend on circumstances (young player you who you have i future plans no option, players who have no future an obligation) but we don’t live in a perfect world.

I’d happily take a player on loan with no option if it improves us. If it was a toss up as to whether they would, or it’s only a marginal benefit at the expense of playing a young lad, not so much.

Example being if we loan a CM of cundle level, or there or there Abouts then it’s a pointless exercise IMO
Click to expand...
I always thought it was a fool's errand in the Championship having 4-5 loan players who weren't nailed on to join in the event of promotion, because you either have to replace half the team that got you up, or end up spending a load of money to stay exactly where you are and improvements have to be paid for on top. Pretty sure Fulham got stung that way one year and it's why Forest have had to make a daft number of signings this summer.

Doesn't matter so much in the Premier League as we can only have two players from other PL clubs (and only one from any single club, like we couldn't have Broja AND Gallagher). I'm ok with that, providing we're not paying silly money to get them (can't remember who it was now but Chelsea wanted something like £10m just for a loan with no option for someone 2-3 years ago, ridiculous).

Might be different if we were still the 6th/7th best team in the league and able to attract players on our own, but we aren't there any more.
 
A couple of years ago when we were on the way up and I thought we were possibly going to break the Top 6 I would have been where Nicholas is. Develop your own players to grow as a team together and only take others with an option. Now we are in a stay in the league phase I'd take anyone who made us better
 
Last edited:
He's the one GFFH mentioned a few weeks ago. Does it say a fee?
 
Cheers, falls into the first team squad, but not first team starter bucket at this stage of his career then probably
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top