Transfer Rumour Mill - Summer 2010

[Sluffy]

We have been linked to Cleverley, yes.

Don't get me wrong Jimbo, I'd welcome some quality loan signings.  The trouble is that it does nothing for the future of our squad and just reduces the value of those players who are knocked out of the 11 by the loanee.

We can only fill TWO places with loanees from other Premiership clubs.

Last season Wilshire took the place of who really - McCann or Gardner? - hardly reduced their value!

Weiss - didn't really feature to any great extent.

[Sluffy]

There is a difference between loaning a player with a view buying them and just loaning them to develop them for another side.

I think the loan's were more pragmatic than developing other teams players - the loans were to help us to survive in the Premiership.

[azreal88]

I think the loan's were more pragmatic than developing other teams players - the loans were to help us to survive in the Premiership.

Absolutely.  And as i said to Jimbo I'd welcome more, because I agree with pragmatism.  The trouble is that it is only beneficial in the short term and the lack of playing time for players at the club reduces their development and their value and thus the long-term effects are not universally positive.

[azreal88]

We can only fill TWO places with loanees from other Premiership clubs.

Last season Wilshire took the place of who really - McCann or Gardner? - hardly reduced their value!

Weiss - didn't really feature to any great extent.

Last season is not this season.  Last season we were bringing in these players in what was effectively a crisis situation.  Was the overly dramatic exclamation mark really necessary?

[Sluffy]

Last season is not this season.  Last season we were bringing in these players in what was effectively a crisis situation.  Was the overly dramatic exclamation mark really necessary?

Absolutely.  And as i said to Jimbo I'd welcome more, because I agree with pragmatism.  The trouble is that it is only beneficial in the short term and the lack of playing time for players at the club reduces their development and their value and thus the long-term effects are not universally positive.

Obviously I am not making my point clear – therefore I apologise and will try again.

Taking last season for an example, we had three loan players – Klasnic for the season and Wilshere and Weiss for the last half of the season (well we had Robinson as well – but that was some dodgy dealings rather than a true loan situation!)– therefore according to your line of argument they displaced three Bolton players – and reduced their ‘development’ and ‘value’ as you claim – but who were these three Bolton players effected?

Klasnic in place of Riga or Vaz Te perhaps?
Wilshere in place of McCann?
Weiss in place of Gardner?

Do you really think regular playing time would have developed Riga or Vaz Te – would the value of McCann and Gardner risen over the season – the answer to me is clearly not – hence my exclamation mark which you found “overly dramatic”.

Would it have been more beneficial to go through the season with Riga, McCann and Gardner in our starting eleven?

Would we have finished higher than fourteenth if we did or would we have finished lower at £700,000 per place – what would that have cost the club?  May we have even have ended up relegated perhaps?

We loaned players to survive simply because there was no one at the club good enough to plug the holes in the side that we needed - not to develop other clubs players.

I hope I have made myself understood a little bit more clearly this time.

[azreal88]

You were very clear, you just missed the point.  Firstly, we are not talking about Robinson and Klasnic as they were basically here with a view to buying them.  There is a major difference between bring in a player to see if they can have a long-term benefit and bringing in a player for a few months with no long-term plan for them.  Secondly, we are dealing with this season, not last.  So what I am trying to look at is who would be effected now.  The player who would likely miss out are Mavies and Holden and it is hard to argue that their development would not be hindered if they were not playing; due to their age/lack of experience at this level.

The value of the players is just one aspect of a wider issue.  Loaning players like Wilshere, with no hope of signing them, is short-sighted; though it obviously has benefits.  I would still welcome Wilshere to the club, purely for the short-term benefit; but the point was one of ideals, rather than pragmatism.

[Sluffy]

As I said in my very first sentence said -

To idealistic for me.

There is nothing to suggest that Mavies or Holden are even going to be in the starting eleven even if Wilshere does not come on loan with us - if they can't get into the Wilshere less team - then it is hardly going to damage their development and value long term then if Wilshere actually did sign on loan.

I thought I'd dealt with the reason of benefitting the club in bringing in someone like Wilshere who will almost certainly not sign permanently with us 'short term' than go for a lesser player we could afford - do we really think a permanent Gavin McCann type player would be better for the club than a transient Jack Wilshere - I don't.

[Le God]

Well surely he wont go with fcuking Muamba and Davis in the middle.

Christ.

[aarons2009]

Well surely he wont go with fcuking Muamba and Davis in the middle.

Christ.

One can't pass for toffee and the other hasn't played a prem game in over a year, what could possibly go wrong?

[azreal88]

There is nothing to suggest that Mavies or Holden are even going to be in the starting eleven even if Wilshere does not come on loan with us

Nothing to suggest it?  The fact that aside from those two we lack forward-think midfielders would seem to "suggest" one would play, unless we make a signing.

I thought I'd dealt with the reason of benefitting the club in bringing in someone like Wilshere who will almost certainly not sign permanently with us 'short term' than go for a lesser player we could afford - do we really think a permanent Gavin McCann type player would be better for the club than a transient Jack Wilshere - I don't.

You often do this , Sluffy, and it's really not necessary.  The idea that anyone is suggesting the if we don't sign Wilshere this summer we must play Gavin McCann (or similar) is absurd.  There is no need to take the most ridiculous possible meaning from what is said, it just seems daft.  Wilshere playing may well be better for a season than playing Holden or Mavies, but it could equally affect their development and mean that we lose-out next season.

Clearly there is no guarantee of anything here, it is speculative.

[Sluffy]

Gavin McCann played in Coyle's first Bolton side - and had played most of the season up to that time to - but was injured in the match and never featured again for us.

It is not too difficult to speculate that IF McCann had been fit - he would have had to make way for Wilshere to play anyway - therefore McCann was the player to miss out with Wilshere's arrival last season.

IF his contact had not expired it would be a moot point if he would have been retained and even picked for Coyle this season - after all Coyle offered him a 'trial' this summer (even though his contract had expired).

Therefore my reference to a McCann type player.

As for the midfield starters next season – I’m sure Coyle will be better placed to judge than either of us but Mavies who as only ever made 8 starts for us and Stuart Holden who as never made a start for us at all are – I would suggest – hardly going to be the first two names who will be put on the team sheet.

[azreal88]

Holden has never made a start for us?  He's started two games, one league and one cup; you can hardly judge his role under Coyle from his games, given his injury.

Mavies was also injured for most of the time under Coyle.

[Didledee]

No Wilshere then, ah well! him not coming back leaves a hole, but I do rate Holden, I think he's got good technique and can pass a ball. Would really like us to go for a playmaker though, maybe Coyle will look to loan someone in replace of Wilshere.

[azreal88]

No Wilshere then, ah well! him not coming back leaves a hole, but I do rate Holden, I think he's got good technique and can pass a ball. Would really like us to go for a playmaker though, maybe Coyle will look to loan someone in replace of Wilshere.

Wilshere was a patch-job, covering a hole in our squad that has been there for a long time.  The lack of ball-playing quality in our midfield has been a major issue for a long time and it needs to be resolved.  Unfortunately we probably lack the funds to do it.

[Didledee]

Out who we have atm. Who would people choose to fill this gap.

Lee .. Muamba .. ? .. Petrov

Holden
Cohen
M.Davies
S.Davis
JOB

Edit: Forgot Cohen.

[azreal88]

Probably Holden.  I don't rate his play-making, but he retains possession well (from the little we've seen of him) and his passing is easily the best of those listed.  To say that Holden is our best passing midfield player probably says more about the lack of quality in that aspect of our midfield play than it does of Holden's ability on the ball.

[Sluffy]

Sorry I forgot the Wolves match (I wasn't counting cup matches).

Doesn't really change much though.

Even you said today - how badly Mavies played against Fleetwood (Fleetwood of the Conference that is!).

Wilshere, Mavies or Holden - which player would most people pick to play for us - loanee or not?


Didle - There is also Cohen and Taylor who will also be in contention for midfield places.

[Didledee]

I forgot about Cohen, he should have been on my list, he's contributed in games but can't say I rate him, as for Taylor I hope he doesn't start ahead of Petrov, but he's decent enough for the bench and has goals in him, I wouldn't like him used in midfield though.

We may even go with 5 in midfield with like Lee and Petrov either side of Davies when attacking like a 4-3-3/4-5-1. But with us going for a forward like Klasnic, I would say 2 upfront is what we are looking at, and what I would prefer.

[azreal88]

He played against Falkirk, he wasn't in the squad to face Fleetwood.

Again, I am not saying Wilshere isn't a better player; I am saying that it is a long way from ideal to borrow players to fill a hole that has been in our side for years and will continue to be for years if we go down the road of short-term loans (with no permanent option) to cover major flaws in the squad.  If Coyle really has the level of belief in Holden that he claims to, then he should trust that and play him; to develop his game.  If Coyle is talking him up for his confidence but knows he isn't good enough to be relied upon, then we have a serious issue.  Either way, loaning a kid from Arsenal isn't a long term solution and we need to start thinking about stability in the squad and partnerships.  At this rate we will have a centre-back partnership who may be incapable of playing together and a strike partnership with no future to it because both are aging (if we sign Klasnic).  The centre of midfield gives us an opportunity the get a partnership in the core of the side that can give stability to the team to help with the massive changes that are obviously needed.

Football is about the team, and at the minute we are disjointed and lacking in understanding.  Bringing in a player for 6 months or a year, in a crucial position, prevents Muamba forming a partnership with a more permanent player and that player developing his own game and an understanding with Fab.  The striking situation is also a major issue, with Davo getting to an age where he will simply run out of legs to do the constant running thing and his potential partners either a player who has one year left and will not have a deal of his size renewed or an injury-prone 31 year old who will probably be able to play at this level for 2 more seasons at the out side.

We need stability where we can get it, and the only place we seem able to get it right now is midfield.

Cohen offers nothing to improve our passing from the middle of the park and Taylor is not a central midfield option.

[Sluffy]

Football is about short termism - that's why players are only given 2 or 3 year contracts (with options), that is why good player in their prime never stop with us - Anelka who we bought or Wilshere who we loaned.

Players are subject to injury, loss of form, even glandular fever. 

They are young millionaires who have every temptation - women (including team mates wives), drugs, gambling and the occasional roast or two - off the pitch - and I am sure plenty goes on that affects their performance on it.

We simply don't have the money to plug all the gaps we need - a goal scorer, creative midfield, another full back or three!

So we have to use the loan market wisely to eke out what we have.

I'm sure Mavies, Holden et al, will be gutted not to be on the pitch playing if Wilshere did come on loan - but they can always go home and count their £15,000 per week or whatever they are on to console themselves.

Football these days are about squads - large squads - and hence the reason for the recent 25 player limit to them. 

Clubs like ours will all have similar amounts of players and talents - so to get an opportunity to have real class in or ranks - albeit fleeting through the loan system - as to be grasped with both hands.

Holden is an American international player - hardly anonymous on the world's footballing stage - but there didn't seem to be a queue of clubs trying sign him was there?

Wolves might have been gutted we took Mavies from under their nose - but he was only doing good things in the third division at the time we signed him.

We've taken a calculated gamble with both players - it may / may not pay off - but to spurn a chance to take Wilshere just in case one or other of them came good - would just be pure madness.

[azreal88]

Football is played better by teams that have partnerships within them who have developed relationships.  You can go on about players being paid x-amount and being distracted by this and that, it doesn't affect the fact that teams that lack continuity tend to do badly in leagues.  If you really think that settled partnerships don't matter in football then fair enough, but then there is no point continuing to talk about this.

[Darequam]

Hence the Question
......Do we need a new midfielder ?
Even if its not going to be Wilshere!!!

[Jebus]

I thought this before the Arsenal vs Milan game, but having seen that...I'd say there is a 1% chance we'll see Wilshere back with us this season.

He's clearly in Wenger's plans...he gives them more than just skill, he has a bit of aggression and puts more into the team than just tippy tappy passing.

Apparently Wenger has said he's keeping him now anyway!

[Darequam]

....I heard somewhere, Rabiu Ibrahim was released from lisbon. He is rated here, once tag the next Jay Jay(not d one posting here )
.....Am not sure he'll be good enuf for us or if a work/permit would be easy to attain. But, he also plays from the midfield and is a great prospect like Wilshere.

[mattya93]

....I heard somewhere, Rabiu Ibrahim was released from lisbon. He is rated here, once tag the next Jay Jay(not d one posting here )
.....Am not sure he'll be good enuf for us or if a work/permit would be easy to attain. But, he also plays from the midfield and is a great prospect like Wilshere.

knowing us we will tie nigel reo coker down to a 5 year contract.