To loan or not to loan?

[sirpiechucker]

I don't confess to knowing the ins and outs of how we or any club do business but what I don't understand is why we bring some players in on loan and not others?

Buzsaky was brought in on loan as was Vine. Both were successful so we turned the loans into permanent deals. But why did we sign Agyemang or Hall permanently and not have the in on loan first? Same with Connolly, Helguson, Borrowdale or any other permanent signing for that reason.

Why did we bring Ledesma and Parejo on loan but not Alberti or Pellicori?

There doesn't seem to be any pattern that I can put my finger on. If we were signing all non-British based players on permanent deals (or loan deals) then fine but we've not done that. If we were signing all British based players on permanent (or loan) deals then fine but we aren't doing that either.

We now find ourselves in a situation where we are trying to offload the likes of Alberti and Pellicori because they have been deemed failures. When the same was said about Ledesma we cut short his loan so why did we sign Alberti and Pellicori on permanent deals and not loans?

[QPR1234]

i dont think the arguement is so much loan or not.. its fact that a squad full of other teams players doesnt do much for your teams future.. im all for loans if and when needed.. not as alternatives to actually buying some new blood for OUR team

[AgsQPR]

i dont think the arguement is so much loan or not.. its fact that a squad full of other teams players doesnt do much for your teams future.. im all for loans if and when needed.. not as alternatives to actually buying some new blood for OUR team

Got to say i disagree with you here. I think that long term loans like that of Simpson are a excellent way of seeing what you are getting before buying. At the end of the day if a player knows it is with a view to a permanent then they are basically playing for a contrat which is only a good thing. I think we got to be careful about short loans though, like you say players from another time will lack passion for who they are playing for.

[sirpiechucker]

I don't not agree with either of you as I have no problem with loans whatsoever. What I don't understand is why we didn't sign Pellicori on a similar deal to Simpson.

[AgsQPR]

Yeh i see what you mean is strange. I suppose that with him moving from abroad he negotiated that he wanted a long term contract.

[terry ball]

I don't confess to knowing the ins and outs of how we or any club do business but what I don't understand is why we bring some players in on loan and not others?

Buzsaky was brought in on loan as was Vine. Both were successful so we turned the loans into permanent deals. But why did we sign Agyemang or Hall permanently and not have the in on loan first? Same with Connolly, Helguson, Borrowdale or any other permanent signing for that reason.

Why did we bring Ledesma and Parejo on loan but not Alberti or Pellicori?

There doesn't seem to be any pattern that I can put my finger on. If we were signing all non-British based players on permanent deals (or loan deals) then fine but we've not done that. If we were signing all British based players on permanent (or loan) deals then fine but we aren't doing that either.

We now find ourselves in a situation where we are trying to offload the likes of Alberti and Pellicori because they have been deemed failures. When the same was said about Ledesma we cut short his loan so why did we sign Alberti and Pellicori on permanent deals and not loans?

Good question sirpie, i think Goddard's term of "scattergun" as to our dealings in the transfer market, can be used in some way to answering these questions.
Hopefully someone will come up with a logical reason

[writtler]

As I said on another thread SirPie - Buz was a loan to get round the transfer window - was always tempt to perm as opposed to loan to perm.

[qblockpete]

Alberti played a bit under Sousa, no-one else fancied him

Pellciori has gone (don't know why official has not confirmed it yet !!)

as for the loan rule, many clubs are doing it now. You can save millions.

[sirpiechucker]

As I said on another thread SirPie - Buz was a loan to get round the transfer window - was always tempt to perm as opposed to loan to perm.

But why did we sign Cranie and Mancienne on loan but buy Hall and Connolly outright?

[sirpiechucker]

Alberti played a bit under Sousa, no-one else fancied him

Pellciori has gone (don't know why official has not confirmed it yet !!)

as for the loan rule, many clubs are doing it now. You can save millions.

No problem with the loan rule. No problem with the club bringing in every player on loan first not to waste money. My problem is why do we sign some players on permanent deals without trying them out on loan first?

[ollyhoops]

To save money.

Although it doesn't lay much in foundations.

[stanistheman]

Perhaps it is because some were only available to loan Mancienne, Crainie, Parejo, Di Carmine, Simpson & Taarabt.

Whilst others like Connolly, Hall, Agyemang & Pellicori were only available to buy or on permanent deals.

Connolly, for example, was on a season long loan at Colchester, but because QPR offered to buy him, he was recalled in Dec and sold to QPR in Jan.

Preston wanted to keep Agyemang, but he wanted to leave because QPR could pay him more money.

I agree, if players are available to buy, a loan to see how they fit in, is a good way to do business.

[writtler]

I keep seeing Pete state that Sousa rated Alberti - did he or was it is simply the fact he had no-one else to play?

[sirpiechucker]

I keep seeing Pete state that Sousa rated Alberti - did he or was it is simply the fact he had no-one else to play?

The crazy thing about Alberti is that he actually looked like a decent player but no other manager has wanted to play him. Sousa saw something in both him and Ephraim which no other manager seems to have seen.

But what does Sousa know his team are only higher than us in the league with a perceived worse playing staff than ours.

[RussRanger]

I think the best permie you can get is Fellani.

Sorry if that goes over your heads. It certainly goes over his.