(That long since we've had any, couldn't find the thread)

Alan Nixon: "Top Liverpool starlet Cameron Branagan will Ben allowed out on loan in Jan.

Bolton lead the race for the 20 year old midfielder"

Edited December 11, 20169 yr by Ratwhite

2 minutes ago, Zico said:

I doubt Sharon cares how they go about building the squad as such

as in she will work with the board to determine how much can be spent on the squad

and will the trust them to do what they think is best in terms of the loans / permanents / frees / fees

I disagree with the point that was made about loans being bad for business though, we need them to challenge and then get out of L1

Christ it was a bit of a throw away line to be honest, I never imagine folk would need to tell me that the clubs principal owner and long time Chair of the Board Directors would involve herself in loan deals.

The point I was making was that there clearly are reasons why nearly all clubs (if not every club) in the league uses the loan system to supplement their squads.

I know people are entitled to their own opinions and I was simply facetiously telling that poster if he was so cocksure of himself that loans are "bad business" then he better start telling clubs they are wrong in doing so (ie starting with Sharon)

I really should not need to have to explain myself over a clearly sarcastic quip of mine.

I know I'm not Mr popular on here but by now even my greatest detractors should realise that I do have a modicum of intelligence about me and should not have thought I believed the poster was correct and was urging him to tell Sharon urgently, or whatever folk did think.

Nevertheless I thank you and jmjhb for going to the trouble for your good intentions in attempting to set me straight.

It was appreciated and made a pleasant change from being moaned at by people who can't even bother to read my posts because they have too many words in them...

6 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

The point I was making was that there clearly are reasons why nearly all clubs (if not every club) in the league uses the loan system to supplement their squads.

I don't disagree...my point is we need to reduce our absolute reliance on it and use it as a 'cherry on top' essentially.

Otherwise we'll end up in an endless cycle of having to sign 10-12 players every summer.

Edited Wednesday at 00:402 days by jmjhb

13 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

I don't disagree...my point is we need to reduce our absolute reliance on it and use it as a 'cherry on top' essentially.

Otherwise we'll end up in an endless cycle of having to sign 10-12 players every summer.

Mate if clubs like Barcelona (Rashford), Spurs (Kolo Muani), Everton (Grealish), Villa (Sancho) and Coventry who were loaded with loan players from Brighton, Palace, Brentford and Spurs, then no, it isn't the "cherry on the top" and no it doesn't mean we will end up in having an endless cycle of having to sign 10-12 players every summer.

Loans are a means to an end, to bring in quality where it is needed and the clubs are not in a financial position to either buy them or take on their wage demands for the next 3 or 4 years if they signed them instead of loan them.

I've explained our current financial position (and no one shot me down this time!) and we aren't flushed with money, I suspect most of what we have will go on a striker and/or winger and we will out of necessity plug the other holes with free transfers, nominal fees and loan players who bring with them more quality than we can find and afford otherwise.

That's how it works for us and most other clubs too.

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

I really should not need to have to explain myself over a clearly sarcastic quip of mine.

yeah, in hindsight I should've been suspicious of the brevity of your post

At least with loans you're not saddled with shite that can't get you where you need to be if it goes pear shaped.

Like when Evatt left us loaded with Randall and a big set of fannies all on big contracts.

It's there to be used. For a club like us its essential.

Loans can suit both clubs and a player, we've done well recently in the loan market, Duberry, Kenny, Burstow etc, not every loan will work out though, Forss and Apter, we probably wouldn't have gotten promotion last season without our loans.

I like the idea of a loan with a right to buy at the end of the loan. Both the club and player can look at each other for 6 or 12 months and then the player either signs or returns to their parent clubs.

We are taking a gamble mainly to see if a player can take a step up.

54 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

I like the idea of a loan with a right to buy at the end of the loan. Both the club and player can look at each other for 6 or 12 months and then the player either signs or returns to their parent clubs.

We are taking a gamble mainly to see if a player can take a step up.

A 'right to buy' implies a right NOT to buy.

It also implies a right not to sell, by the owners, or to sell elsewhere. Or for the player to not sign.

So, all in all, they're meaningless words which somehow make a loan look more than it is.

Viz. Cissoko.

Edited Wednesday at 07:552 days by Dr. Feelgood

Who else's opinion would it be?

9 hours ago, Sluffy said:

In YOUR opinion.

1 hour ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

A 'right to buy' implies a right NOT to buy.

It also implies a right not to sell, by the owners, or to sell elsewhere. Or for the player to not sign.

So, all in all, they're meaningless words which somehow make a loan look more than it is.

Viz. Cissoko.

No they are not meaningless words. Preston and Spurs agreed just that 12 months ago and Preston now have just signed a player that is worth double and upwards of what he is worth....If he had flopped last season he would have just gone back to Spurs

8 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Mate if clubs like Barcelona (Rashford), Spurs (Kolo Muani), Everton (Grealish), Villa (Sancho) and Coventry who were loaded with loan players from Brighton, Palace, Brentford and Spurs, then no, it isn't the "cherry on the top" and no it doesn't mean we will end up in having an endless cycle of having to sign 10-12 players every summer.

Loans are a means to an end, to bring in quality where it is needed and the clubs are not in a financial position to either buy them or take on their wage demands for the next 3 or 4 years if they signed them instead of loan them.

I've explained our current financial position (and no one shot me down this time!) and we aren't flushed with money, I suspect most of what we have will go on a striker and/or winger and we will out of necessity plug the other holes with free transfers, nominal fees and loan players who bring with them more quality than we can find and afford otherwise.

That's how it works for us and most other clubs too.

Those premier league/International players are loaned for one reason they have baggage off the field. Clubs take a look at them to see if they will settle.

That has nothing to do with why us and other EFL clubs loan players

36 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

Those premier league/International players are loaned for one reason they have baggage off the field. Clubs take a look at them to see if they will settle.

That has nothing to do with why us and other EFL clubs loan players

9 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Loans are a means to an end, to bring in quality where it is needed and the clubs are not in a financial position to either buy them or take on their wage demands for the next 3 or 4 years if they signed them instead of loan them.

14 hours ago, Zog1 said:

Or all we end up doing is being sucked dried developing other peoples talent, and never making anything from it.

Well, other than promotion, no.

2 hours ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

A 'right to buy' implies a right NOT to buy.

It also implies a right not to sell, by the owners, or to sell elsewhere. Or for the player to not sign.

So, all in all, they're meaningless words which somehow make a loan look more than it is.

Viz. Cissoko.

Loan agreements are contracts.

Contracts can be legally enforced.

It depends on what terms and conditions are agreed between all parties are written into the contracts to what happens after the term of the contract has been completed.

(For instance it was widely reported that Barcelona had to pay a £5m penalty to Man U if they refused to sign Rashford on the completion of his loan deal).

Or if all parties are agreeable they can waive any or all of the terms and conditions.

dunno why the contention between loans or permanent signings

we've had some very good loan signings in L1, and some duffers

we've had some good signings who we've made a profit on, like GT, charles, dapo and broke even on Collins

and we've made made some bad uns, we won't make money back on the likes of mcatee, randall and schon

last season and this we've had freebies and under 1m signing on longer deals

it's a proper mixed bag

not sure how you can determine the best way to go

some signings work out, some don't

32 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

  1 hour ago, masi 51 said:

Those premier league/International players are loaned for one reason they have baggage off the field. Clubs take a look at them to see if they will settle.

  9 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Loans are a means to an end, to bring in quality where it is needed and the clubs are not in a financial position to either buy them or take on their wage demands for the next 3 or 4 years if they signed them instead of loan them.

So Barcelona could not afford Rashford?

The reason the likes of Rashford, Grealish, Sancho are loaned out is because of what they are doing away from football and has little to do with money

5 minutes ago, masi 51 said:

So Barcelona could not afford Rashford?

The reason the likes of Rashford, Grealish, Sancho are loaned out is because of what they are doing away from football and has little to do with money

Really?

Can the Most Indebted Team in Global Soccer Fix Its Finances?

F.C. Barcelona’s liabilities have reached 2.5 billion euros, the result of financial mismanagement and vaulting ambition.

January 2 2026

Can F.C. Barcelona, the Most Indebted Team in Global Soccer, Fix Its Finances? - The New York Times

3 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Really?

Can the Most Indebted Team in Global Soccer Fix Its Finances?

F.C. Barcelona’s liabilities have reached 2.5 billion euros, the result of financial mismanagement and vaulting ambition.

January 2 2026

Can F.C. Barcelona, the Most Indebted Team in Global Soccer, Fix Its Finances? - The New York Times

Barcelona are a basket case

big signings one minute

de registering players the next

rashford on loan one season

Antony Gordon for £70m the next

as for rashford

off the pitch rumours were he was well off the rails at utd, on the piss, gambling debts, and on sleepers

they want rid

does great at villa and Barcelona on loan

now back at utd with two years left on his contract

there's no point in trying to make sense of it

2 minutes ago, Zico said:

Barcelona are a basket case

big signings one minute

de registering players the next

rashford on loan one season

Antony Gordon for £70m the next

as for rashford

off the pitch rumours were he was well off the rails at utd, on the piss, gambling debts, and on sleepers

they want rid

does great at villa and Barcelona on loan

now back at utd with two years left on his contract

there's no point in trying to make sense of it

United quite rightly wants Rashford's wages off its books.

He's not performed at United since he signed his 'big' contract.

Emery at Villa was smart enough to risk taking Rashford on loan with United paying much of his wages to strengthen his team but with no intention of taking on his full wages for the duration of his existing contract.

I'm not really a football follower outside of BWFC but I believe it all worked out at Villa, Rashford showcased himself again (putting himself in the shop window) Villa had a good season and United saved something on his wages and now had a more saleable asset again.

More or less the same happened the following season when he went to Barcelona, again Rashford did ok, Barcelona also and United saved a bit more off his wages.

It's pretty clear though that Barcelona don't want to take on Rashford's full wages and presumably Rashford won't take a pay cut to remain at Barcelona (if that was one of the options open to him?)

It is clear that Villa and Barcelona still rate him as a top player (Tuchel also, that's why he's started games in this world cup) so even though Rashford may have personal issues in his life, people believe they can manage that, so the issue is more likely to be financial (otherwise he would have flopped at Villa, unlikely to have gone to Barcelona and not in Tuchel's squad).

Barcelona may have accommodated Rashford and taken him off United's hands for a knockdown fee but they clearly are not prepared to take on Rashford's wages at a reported £325k per week for the remainder of his existing contract - hence why I imagine they've gone for Gordon who is four years younger - they most see better value in him than Marcus.

Goodness knows what will happen to Rashford, maybe another loan year somewhere perhaps?

Maybe he ends up scoring a hat trick in the World Cup Final.

Who knows?

(tbh I don't really care myself).

2 hours ago, masi 51 said:

No they are not meaningless words. Preston and Spurs agreed just that 12 months ago and Preston now have just signed a player that is worth double and upwards of what he is worth....If he had flopped last season he would have just gone back to Spurs

I think you're arguing against your own point here.

11 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

(tbh I don't really care myself).

me neither

16 hours ago, tomski said:

I hope you don’t find him mate. He was a prick😂

arent they all?

Still no pictures of people holding scarves yet..

12 hours ago, Zico said:

yeah, in hindsight I should've been suspicious of the brevity of your post

Edited Wednesday at 14:412 days by Barnstoneworth White
Copied quote twice

2 hours ago, Ratwhite said:

Still no pictures of people holding scarves yet..

Can't afford scarves as well as players.

They'll be asking for boots next.