DoYouSpeakClingan?
New Member
One of the biggest reasons we dipped so badly last season was the lack of sufficient cover for our squad, especially in central midfield where we went from having 6 players in that position to effectively a single guy (Gunnar), due to players being injured and moved on. The reason touted for this failing was a lack of money being put up by SISU in the January window.
But based on the summer's shenanigans, and our playing of two 17 year olds fresh out of the Academy team, I can only assume the same situation applies: the club doesn't have enough money to go bonkers with loan signings... So, this leads me to two questions for those getting excited.
1. Who can we realistically bring in on loan? By realistically, I mean contribute a significant proportion of the loanee's wages, because after all, Leicester could afford in recent seasons to have a side made up predominantly of loan players because they were willing to pay the majority of a player's weekly wage. Also, there's the question of whether some clubs would be willing to let out on loan a player who's not a regular first team player but is considered decent enough to make an impact if called upon.
2. Would any of our potential loans actually contribute to the side? Would they improve the side if put straight into the starting XI? Would they encourage our current first-team players to significantly up their game by actively competing for a place in the line-up? Or would they just be ineffective bench-warmers? I can only think of two positive loan signings over the last few seasons I've been actively watching City at the Ricoh- Patrick van Aanholt and Jon Stead. On the other hand, there's Jack Cork, Danny Ward, Gary Madine, Leon Barnett (although he's playing Premiership football now! :facepalm
who it can be agreed failed. There's no reason we should bring in loanees in just to make up numbers- after all, we're going to struggle, we need all the quality we can get.
But is it there?
Discuss.
But based on the summer's shenanigans, and our playing of two 17 year olds fresh out of the Academy team, I can only assume the same situation applies: the club doesn't have enough money to go bonkers with loan signings... So, this leads me to two questions for those getting excited.
1. Who can we realistically bring in on loan? By realistically, I mean contribute a significant proportion of the loanee's wages, because after all, Leicester could afford in recent seasons to have a side made up predominantly of loan players because they were willing to pay the majority of a player's weekly wage. Also, there's the question of whether some clubs would be willing to let out on loan a player who's not a regular first team player but is considered decent enough to make an impact if called upon.
2. Would any of our potential loans actually contribute to the side? Would they improve the side if put straight into the starting XI? Would they encourage our current first-team players to significantly up their game by actively competing for a place in the line-up? Or would they just be ineffective bench-warmers? I can only think of two positive loan signings over the last few seasons I've been actively watching City at the Ricoh- Patrick van Aanholt and Jon Stead. On the other hand, there's Jack Cork, Danny Ward, Gary Madine, Leon Barnett (although he's playing Premiership football now! :facepalm
who it can be agreed failed. There's no reason we should bring in loanees in just to make up numbers- after all, we're going to struggle, we need all the quality we can get.But is it there?
Discuss.
