NUFC transfer rumours in the press

[Interpolic]

Don't care, still don't want him on loan. Rather sign that cunt McGeady for £2 million and at least own the player.

 

Wish we'd signed Damien Duff on loan.  And Alan Smith.  And Nicky Butt.

 

There is that positive to it.

[Teasy]

 

Howay man, this is Man Utd we're talking about and he was the most highly rated young British talent around 6 months ago.  God knows why he hasn't featured more for Man Utd, I couldn't tell you.  But there aren't many that would have turned their noses up at signing him in the summer.  Seems more like a Sturridge-type situation than anything else, Sturridge was looking very handy at a very young age for Man City (albeit for a short time) then had years of nothingness at Chelsea.

 

Don't think the side Man Utd had available to them against us was particularly great on or off paper and Zaha didn't get into the side.  Now perhaps Moyes is a bit of a Pardew, but I don't know that for sure.  Seems nobody else here does either.  The positive views on Zaha seem to be "he was great in the Championship and plays for Man Utd so he's sure to be quality in the years to come".  Well probably but if he isn't really good right now then I'm not interesting in bringing him in on a short term loan with no option to buy.

[Teasy]

Obertan's made 4 or 5 appearances for us in the last 6 weeks alone, if you don't think we'd have use for Zaha then fuck knas.  I understand the people that say it's a point of principle and at heart I completely agree, but again the owner is a tight cunt and we've gladly went without for the sake of saving a few quid previously.

 

But we already have far better players than Obertan sitting on the bench that should have come on instead of him anyway, bringing in better bench warmers isn't going to fix Pardews head.

[Interpolic]

Would you have been interested in him 6 months ago?

[Interpolic]

Obertan's made 4 or 5 appearances for us in the last 6 weeks alone, if you don't think we'd have use for Zaha then fuck knas.  I understand the people that say it's a point of principle and at heart I completely agree, but again the owner is a tight cunt and we've gladly went without for the sake of saving a few quid previously.

 

That would be a great argument if we didn't already have far better players than Obertan sitting on the bench, bringing in better bench warmers isn't going to fix Pardews head.

 

You need attackers on your bench to chase or close out a game, Cisse looks awful at the minute so suddenly one decent attacking option doesn't look great actually.

[Teasy]

Would you have been interested in him 6 months ago?

 

On a permanent move or loan with a fee agreed to buy?, yeah, but not on a short term loan.

[Hanshithispantz]

Canny baffled as to what the negatives of loaning the lad would be like, other than feeling a bit cheap and dirty.

 

 

[afar]

I just don't want to be fattening up other clubs players for them.

 

This. I hate it.

 

I have lost faith in players giving a f*** and showing any loyalty so if a good one who would improve our squad becomes available on loan I would be more than happy to take them. They will f*** off as soon as someone bigger/offering more money comes along anyway so why not improve us in the short term?

 

Would anyone have seriously turned their nose up at Lukaku on a season long loan?

 

Teams like Man Utd and Chelsea are more than likely going to be ahead of us long term so why not take advantage of their greed? A lot of the time these players don't stay at their parent club anyway.

we're supposed to be competing with these teams, not fattening up players because they have so many players through stockpiling them they can't play them all and they get pissy about it. The only kind of loan I can tolerate is a loan with a buy out clause, otherwise its just an admission that you really are just another small pathetic club and all that matters is the "sky teams"

 

Realistically we won't be competing with them, not in the long term so I don't see how improving our options is going to be a detriment to us. Its not like Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd etc... can't just go out and buy a shed load of talent whenever they please. These are clubs who have players struggling to get an appearance who would walk into our side.

 

As for fattening up, what does that really mean? If these players are good enough they will get loans anyway, why not improve the quality of our squad if we get the chance rather than letting them go to our real rivals while we have our 'pride'.

I'd rather hang onto pride and hope that with intelligent enough planning and leadership from top to bottom of the club that in time we could compete with them again rather than wave the white flag and admit we'll never be better than them because if thats the case then what the f*** is the point.

 

So because we are being realistic there isn't any point?

 

Fair enough, let your West Broms, Evertons etc.. loan the quality talent while we have Shola starting or Obertan a couple of injuries from starting

yes west brom, borrowed lukaku got a nice temporary boost and now they've crashed back down as that short term thinking left a large hole in their squad this season compared to last, they would have been better off taking a chance on some young player their scouting department think could be a good player.

 

It's a big issue for these clubs actually and one Everton will have next year, when Lukaku, Barry and the Barca kid go back. You are not building your squad on solid foundations. You are also stunting progression of your own products. Now if Everton get into the Champs League because of these loans, then it would end up being a big win for them, as the income will allow them to find suitable replacement.

 

For the first time recent memory we've benefited from the system too with Remy, where the hell would we be without his goals ? You could argue that Cisse may have been given more of a chance to play himself back into form, the likes of Campbell may be given more first team exposure and we may have been more aggressive in securing Gomis in the summer had we not brought him in on loan.

 

It really puts clubs in false positions though and allows these megabucks teams to just keep buying up talent. It's bad for the long term health of the game, great for some clubs short term needs though, but those clubs exploiting it are hurting themselves long term, they just don't see it right now.

[Teasy]

Canny baffled as to what the negatives of loaning the lad would be like, other than feeling a bit cheap and dirty.

 

You fill a hole artificially, nothing actually gets fixed you're just papering over cracks.  You spend time training someone who will be off in several months guaranteed with no renumeration (yeah I know our training probably isn't worth the grass its done on).  Oh and you're helping Man Utd which is obviously inherently a negative.  If that gets you a massive boost up the table then it could be well worth it.  But for a player who probably won't get into our starting 11 and might end up being good off the bench before he inevitably fucks off back to Man Utd?, don't want that at all personally.

 

If anyone believes he's a great player and he'll change our side then that's another thing entirely, but I don't think anyone believes that.

[Interpolic]

I just don't want to be fattening up other clubs players for them.

 

This. I hate it.

 

I have lost faith in players giving a f*** and showing any loyalty so if a good one who would improve our squad becomes available on loan I would be more than happy to take them. They will f*** off as soon as someone bigger/offering more money comes along anyway so why not improve us in the short term?

 

Would anyone have seriously turned their nose up at Lukaku on a season long loan?

 

Teams like Man Utd and Chelsea are more than likely going to be ahead of us long term so why not take advantage of their greed? A lot of the time these players don't stay at their parent club anyway.

we're supposed to be competing with these teams, not fattening up players because they have so many players through stockpiling them they can't play them all and they get pissy about it. The only kind of loan I can tolerate is a loan with a buy out clause, otherwise its just an admission that you really are just another small pathetic club and all that matters is the "sky teams"

 

Realistically we won't be competing with them, not in the long term so I don't see how improving our options is going to be a detriment to us. Its not like Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd etc... can't just go out and buy a shed load of talent whenever they please. These are clubs who have players struggling to get an appearance who would walk into our side.

 

As for fattening up, what does that really mean? If these players are good enough they will get loans anyway, why not improve the quality of our squad if we get the chance rather than letting them go to our real rivals while we have our 'pride'.

I'd rather hang onto pride and hope that with intelligent enough planning and leadership from top to bottom of the club that in time we could compete with them again rather than wave the white flag and admit we'll never be better than them because if thats the case then what the f*** is the point.

 

So because we are being realistic there isn't any point?

 

Fair enough, let your West Broms, Evertons etc.. loan the quality talent while we have Shola starting or Obertan a couple of injuries from starting

yes west brom, borrowed lukaku got a nice temporary boost and now they've crashed back down as that short term thinking left a large hole in their squad this season compared to last, they would have been better off taking a chance on some young player their scouting department think could be a good player.

 

It's a big issue for these clubs actually and one Everton will have next year, when Lukaku, Barry and the Barca kid go back. You are not building your squad on solid foundations. You are also stunting progression of your own products. Now if Everton get into the Champs League because of these loans, then it would end up being a big win for them, as the income will allow them to find suitable replacement.

 

For the first time recent memory we've benefited from the system too with Remy, where the hell would we be without his goals ? You could argue that Cisse may have been given more of a chance to play himself back into form, the likes of Campbell may be given more first team exposure and we may have been more aggressive in securing Gomis in the summer had we not brought him in on loan.

 

It really puts clubs in false positions though and allows these megabucks teams to just keep buying up talent. It's bad for the long term health of the game, great for some clubs short term needs though, but those clubs exploiting it are hurting themselves long term, they just don't see it right now.

 

That's when you compare loan successes to alternatives that would be somewhat successful, you might instead end up with a permanent alternative that ends up being turbo-shit or always injured or a relative success with a contract clause a la Ba who ends up moving for not exactly a fortune 18 months later anyway.  Loanees might also end up being shite or injured, in which case you get to send them back.  It's not always the Lukaku at West Brom situation, there are lots of permutations.  In this situation I'd take Zaha assuming we weren't forced to play him more than we wanted.

[Hanshithispantz]

We spend every day training up a handful of no-hopers so I doubt an extra addition to the squad would be too taxing. Worst case scenario is, as you say, he flops and we send him back to Man Utd, the same worst case scenario possible for every single transfer that has ever been made, only we don't have to keep him after the end of the season.

 

I would prefer we bought a decent winger, obviously. If we don't though I cannot see any reason to be against loaning one unless it was costing stupid money. It's just 1 more player temporarily in the squad

[afar]

I just don't want to be fattening up other clubs players for them.

 

This. I hate it.

 

I have lost faith in players giving a f*** and showing any loyalty so if a good one who would improve our squad becomes available on loan I would be more than happy to take them. They will f*** off as soon as someone bigger/offering more money comes along anyway so why not improve us in the short term?

 

Would anyone have seriously turned their nose up at Lukaku on a season long loan?

 

Teams like Man Utd and Chelsea are more than likely going to be ahead of us long term so why not take advantage of their greed? A lot of the time these players don't stay at their parent club anyway.

we're supposed to be competing with these teams, not fattening up players because they have so many players through stockpiling them they can't play them all and they get pissy about it. The only kind of loan I can tolerate is a loan with a buy out clause, otherwise its just an admission that you really are just another small pathetic club and all that matters is the "sky teams"

 

Realistically we won't be competing with them, not in the long term so I don't see how improving our options is going to be a detriment to us. Its not like Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd etc... can't just go out and buy a shed load of talent whenever they please. These are clubs who have players struggling to get an appearance who would walk into our side.

 

As for fattening up, what does that really mean? If these players are good enough they will get loans anyway, why not improve the quality of our squad if we get the chance rather than letting them go to our real rivals while we have our 'pride'.

I'd rather hang onto pride and hope that with intelligent enough planning and leadership from top to bottom of the club that in time we could compete with them again rather than wave the white flag and admit we'll never be better than them because if thats the case then what the f*** is the point.

 

So because we are being realistic there isn't any point?

 

Fair enough, let your West Broms, Evertons etc.. loan the quality talent while we have Shola starting or Obertan a couple of injuries from starting

yes west brom, borrowed lukaku got a nice temporary boost and now they've crashed back down as that short term thinking left a large hole in their squad this season compared to last, they would have been better off taking a chance on some young player their scouting department think could be a good player.

 

It's a big issue for these clubs actually and one Everton will have next year, when Lukaku, Barry and the Barca kid go back. You are not building your squad on solid foundations. You are also stunting progression of your own products. Now if Everton get into the Champs League because of these loans, then it would end up being a big win for them, as the income will allow them to find suitable replacement.

 

For the first time recent memory we've benefited from the system too with Remy, where the hell would we be without his goals ? You could argue that Cisse may have been given more of a chance to play himself back into form, the likes of Campbell may be given more first team exposure and we may have been more aggressive in securing Gomis in the summer had we not brought him in on loan.

 

It really puts clubs in false positions though and allows these megabucks teams to just keep buying up talent. It's bad for the long term health of the game, great for some clubs short term needs though, but those clubs exploiting it are hurting themselves long term, they just don't see it right now.

 

That's when you compare loan successes to alternatives that would be somewhat successful, you might instead end up with a permanent alternative that ends up being turbo-s*** or always injured or a relative success with a contract clause a la Ba who ends up moving for not exactly a fortune 18 months later anyway.  Loanees might also end up being s**** or injured, in which case you get to send them back.  It's not always the Lukaku at West Brom situation, there are lots of permutations.  In this situation I'd take Zaha assuming we weren't forced to play him more than we wanted.

 

It's even worse when it's not a Lukaku type of player the loaning club get, they don't even get the short term fix. Sunderland I think have suffered a lot from it in recent years, they've exploited the system but brought in questionable talent, or a least talent that hasn't matured enough. Wellbeck, Johnny Evans, Bendtner, Rose, Nedum Onuoha and Djibril Cissé are just some of their many on loan signings in recent years, with varying degrees of success but none have had the impact big enough to pull the dirty mackems away from the lower reaches of the PL. Now their squad is a mess, they've had wholesale changes on numerous occasions, it's not all because of the loan system of course, but it's had a big part to play in stunting the progression of their squad building.

[Interpolic]

I agree you shouldn't go as far as the mackems have done but if it's a promising young player who has to gone to the biggest club in the country for £10m-15m 6 months previous, brought in to add a bit of depth to the squad in attacking positions when your owner won't spend any money then it's something to consider IMO.  The reason I brought up the likes of the Lukaku at West Brom and Sturridge at Bolton situations is that leaving your squad short is a worse alternative than filling the gap in some way - Ashley seems to spend a few quid every now and then but nowhere near often enough to ensure our squad's competitive enough much of the time.  I'd like to think we'll plug these gaps eventually in the way that Bolton and West Brom didn't, but it takes us forever to do so given how stubborn we are with transfers.

[afar]

I agree you shouldn't go as far as the mackems have done but if it's a promising young player who has to gone to the biggest club in the country for £10m-15m 6 months previous, brought in to add a bit of depth to the squad in attacking positions when your owner won't spend any money then it's something to consider IMO.  The reason I brought up the likes of the Lukaku at West Brom and Sturridge at Bolton situations is that leaving your squad short is a worse alternative than filling the gap in some way - Ashley seems to spend a few quid every now and then but nowhere near often enough to ensure our squad's competitive enough much of the time.  I'd like to think we'll plug these gaps eventually in the way that Bolton and West Brom didn't, but it takes us forever to do so given how stubborn we are with transfers.

 

Again short term fixes (and in this case questionable fix, if it further reduces HBA's first team opportunities, personally I think that's have a huge negative impact on us long term). Need to resist stuff like this IMO.

[Interpolic]

OK, let's continue bringing on Obertan when we could be bringing on Zaha instead.  You're also ignoring the fact we've been exceptionally fortunate with injuries this season so far.  That won't last, and there'll be shite in our first team and not shite that will improve but shite that is there to fill the numbers in our squad.

[ponsaelius]

Still daint want the cunt.

[afar]

OK, let's continue bringing on Obertan when we could be bringing on Zaha instead.  You're also ignoring the fact we've been exceptionally fortunate with injuries this season so far.  That won't last, and there'll be s**** in our first team and not s**** that will improve but s**** that is there to fill the numbers in our squad.

 

Obertan as an impact sub, is something I would prefer to see ahead of Zaha tbh, at least it's our player, maybe increasing his value. But who are you kidding, it's HBA that'll be impacted most. It's been HBA coming off the bench in the last few games not Obertan.

[Interpolic]

We have no injuries to attacking players at the moment,  I might as well just keep repeating the point since it's not registering.

[Dr.Spaceman]

I hate the idea of loaning players, really glad we don't do it. Much rather see one of our own players get game time before some cunt like Zaha. Fuck it, I'd rather we recalled Gosling or Amalfitano tbh.

[David Icke - Son of God]

I don't see a point loaning a player to sit on the bench. I'd rather give Sammy a go.

[Guest]

Yeah, unless it's with the view to buying, I hate the loan system.

[Cronky]

Pardew has strong Palace connections and it looks like he's keen to land Zaha, fuelled by recommendations from there.

 

Zaha's game seems to be going backwards at the moment. He built an early reputation, which then slipped, and too often now he tries to do something spectacular with the ball, just to prove himself. He's playing far too much as an individual.

 

I still think Sammy has what it takes and Zaha would only block his chances. No thanks.

[Toonpack]

I don't see a point loaning a player to sit on the bench. I'd rather give Sammy a go.

 

That could be a problem. Without an option to buy as part of the deal, I doubt he would be a benchwarmer I suspect any straightforward loan deal would have a "if fit, he plays" clause in it and if that was the case you're dropping your own players (who let's face it are performing well) down the pecking order for the benefit of bringing on someone else's player.

 

I'd rather give Sammy a go, when/if needed, as well.

 

I absolutely HATE the loan system.

[loki679]

Loans within the same division are stupid.  I can see the value of sending a young player out to a lower division side where he can get games and experience but loans between two teams in the same division need to be banned.

[Hanshithispantz]

Whether the loan system needs to be banned or not I don't see the problem with us taking advantage of it whilst we can. As for Sammy, we're blocking his progress by not loaning him out ourselves, the same as a few others.

 

He's not good enough for us at the moment and he probably never will be when he's having a 5-10 minute appearances from the bench every now and then. So bringing in Zaha wouldn't really be a problem, it could actually be beneficial to Sammy's progress if we play it right.

 

Gerard Deulofeu has started 2 games for Everton fwiw, I don't think this "must play" clause really exists.