Just bumped into Mladen...I've changed my opinion of him.

Like you say if the quality is there and it improves the team then why not, it also gives us more time to move on our unwanted contracted players.

 

I've no issue with loans if the player improves the squad.

Similarly with free transfers. Frankly, that's the level of expectation I have given our financial incontinence. Unless we generate huge transfer profits, it's still very likely Parekh et al will have to put their hands in their pickets again.

My issue has been the size of squad and the lack of balance. It's likely going to take us another season after this to get rid of players we wished we'd not signed. My hope for this season is we play a higher intensity style and by the end we look better than when we started. Top half would be good.

 

Two signings, both season long loans, is this a sign that Mladen doesn't trust his own judgement, he can send them back at the end of the season?

Wonder if there's any agreement to buy?

 

Over-reliance on loans does perpetuate the vicious financial cycle though, as we restrict the opportunities for our own Academy prospects to develop, and consequently become saleable assets. Patrick Cryne was a regular user of the phrase, "I'd rather we develop our own players, rather than someone else's."

There's a place for loans within the squad, but I'd prefer this to be at the more experienced end of the spectrum, and are typically beyond our means as a permanent signing. Matty James was a great example of someone who added so much to the squad, but was never going to be a permanent signing due to his wages. When these are partly funded by the loaning club, then we get much more bang for our buck in wages outlay than we do for the younger targets being loaned to us to gain experience (e.g. Slonina).

I'm less concerned that the first two signings we've announced being loans suggests we don't have much of a transfer budget to play with than I am with the fact that it signals short-term thinking only, with no eye on the ability to generate significant transfer income further down the line.

 

I'd say it's a sign that we don't have a pot to p!ss in.

 

I certainly agree with you on the calibre of loan player required. It's much too early to see yet if the two we've brought in are much better than what we have, or, if they are the start of a new approach going forward and we have too many. And I hope that some of the young players we blooded late last season aren't blocked off.

I'd also say strategically (and we have no inclination how long or how much Parekh is willing to subsidise) we could have a short term pinch point where we have to ride the wage costs of players we can't shift yet want to change the shape and style of the team. I suspect we'll try to loan these players out but still have a large portion of their salaries to pay if we succeed.

I can't say I'm thrilled by the first two signings, but we'll see how they go next season by which time we'll have full view of how well the transfer window has gone.

 

Perhaps they are confident that in a years time younger players at the club will be ready to step up?

 

Or good enough for League 2 - managed decline.

 

no vindaloo?

 

To those with eyes (or ears, or both) we don't need that signposting.

 

Ahh poor Mr Waring, he never did get his drinks lol.
And I know its the same thing, but didn't he ask for a scotch and water.

 

Outgoings needed before any permanent id guess

 

Did he happen to say why the high press is paramount and who has decided that it is?

 

So you’ve changed your opinion on him, because we’re going to improve the academy? Got it.

 

You got through some topics.

 

Please excuse me for saying..its got F...All to do with Sormaz what style of play we produce..wish Sormaz would get the hell out of Barnsley...

 

Indeed. It's like late mother Trotter on her death bed. She didn't half say alot on her death bed.