Appreciate this will be perceived as negative at a time when there is reason for much optimism....the best for a long time. Ignoring the quality of the players in question I am puzzled and concerned about the signing of young players whom we have no chance of signing permanently. This can only benefit the parent club and potentially cause disharmony amongst the group. I will use Marley Watkins as an example. His post match interview after the Ipswich game was revealing in the sense of he felt (with some justification in my opinion) he should have stated that game. He is hardly going to be happy if Armstrong plays in his stead. My priority would have been to get Marley to sign a new contract as for me one of the others should play alongside him, rather than 2 out an out goalscorers playing together. I understand and support the buy potential and sell on for profit approach but I do not get the point of young loan signings to increase their value for the parent club.
I personally don't believe there is "no chance" we could sign Armstrong permanently. Yes right now it is unlikely, but say Newcastle run away with the league and a couple of their 8 strikers score 15-20 goals each, will they be itching to get Armstrong back in Jan or next summer? In the meantime we have had a solid season with a top half finish and Armstrong has played a big part in that. Why would Armstrong not want to stay at a club that actually wants him and has improved him as a player? I know all that is hypothetical, but my point is a lot can change in football. Also - with the new rules around loans we have to cover all basis before 11:30 tonight. Marley & Armstrong will both get plenty of game time between now and January, maybe even together..! Loans don't always work out for the long term, but if we could turn back the clock would you still sign Fletcher on loan?
You're working on the assumption Marley wanted to discuss a new contract. What's the point in having a priority you can't meet when Championship survival is the key aim? There's nothing to suggest Armstrong has been brought in to replace Watkins. At the moment, he's the first striker on the teamsheet and it's for the others to fight it out to join him in the team. At the end of the day we're getting good players that we couldn't afford in normal circumstances. In the same way that keeping Hourihane for the entire season is worth more to us than cashing in, having Fletcher and Isgrove on loan last season was the same. It allows us to bring on our own players gradually to make the grade whilst having a competitive team.
I disagree. I disagree that it can only benefit the parent club, we proved last season that we can use the loan market to our significant benefit. While Watkins might be unhappy with Armstrong starting in front of him, I don't agree with the idea that it matters that Armstrong is only here on loan. I'd expect Watkins to be unhappy with Armstrong starting in front of him even if we'd signed Armstrong permanently. It may be the case that Marley does start every game with one of the others beside him, it may be the case that we start with three up top, or only one. Armstrong gives us depth and flexibility, and that is only ever going to be a good thing.
Individuals with a career agenda playing as part of a team. Never going to be 100% rosy. He's a professional though and knows the score, he plays well he stays in the team. Job done
Good thread mate! I know what you mean your bringing negativity but its the truth and I never thought of in from that perspective I'm glad I'm not a manager. Hecky may be able to sort it because we have so many attacking threats right now but we need to keep Watkins because if winnall leaves and we will only have bradders and him. Of Watkins doesn't get in the team then its just a case of patients really its happened to me and if Armstrong gets in over the other attacking options then they will have to fight to get into the team. Half of the strikers at BFC want competition as well AND we've only got Adam Armstrong for 5 months and if we sign Adam in January then winnall will leave and I'd rather Watkins than winnall.
I get where you are coming from but we did unsettle Scowen whose contract fortunately wasn't due to expire, by playing someone who must have already agreed terms with another club. It would be a shame/mistake in my opinion to lose Watkins, or any other of our players, by bringing in a young player on loan who we have no chance of signing.
Also you need people need to understand why that's why parent clubs loan there young players out in hope of him achieving and most of the time it works! Although it didn't quite work for man u because fletcher left for FREE Lol.
