I’m starting to wonder a little bit about the thinking behind the club’s transfer policy at the moment.
We are about halfway through the window and thus far we have completed the deal for Deon Burton as expected, signed Matt Spring permanently and have taken Graeme Murty on a one month’s loan.
Parkinson has been quoted today (and this has been picked up by Nigel W) that Tom Soares is close to signing another one month loan deal.
On the face of it, I cannot understand that we are looking at one month loans. They will generate constant upheaval to our line-up and deplete the squad at key moments. Surely at this point in time, we should be looking at securing players until May?
If a player is only an option for four weeks then presumably we should be moving on to somebody else.
Murty has openly said that he has come to Charlton to get fit and hopes, at least, to go back to Reading. Tony Pulis has today been quoted as saying Soares needs ‘a bit of match practice’.
So, are we bringing in the likes of Murty and Soares on these deals to see how things go and if we don’t make a decisive move towards possible safety in the next 4-5 games, we can then let them go back to their parent clubs in early/mid February and then effectively accept our fate?
After all we only need our gap at the bottom to grow by two or three points in the next month to be virtually dead in the water.
That way Murray and Chappell wouldn’t have to fork out salaries, perhaps of 10K a week or so for two or three separate players, over 10-12 weeks chasing a lost cause? That could amount to more than 300K…
But if we DO improve our results and show some fight, then we can either attempt to extend these deals or, if we can’t, we can look at other comparable players when the loan window is open.
With money so tight, this might be the only way the Board will be prepared to commit additional funds?
If we can get some positive results very soon, then our squad could see some real comings and goings in the next month or two as these loans are juggled. We will hopefully also sign some players on longer deals but clearly PP is also quite happy to contemplate these very short-term solutions too.
Some posters on here are none too impressed by constant loan signings, but this 'may' be a key part of Parky/Murray’s strategy moving forwards. As Len Glover said, last week, beggars can’t be choosers.
0
Comments
Some of the points may have arisen elsewhere but I don't recall the suggestion being made before that loans are a deliberate coherent policy to enable us either to junk them if it fails or expand on them if it works.
Could be wrong though.
I'm flattered you read my posts so closely Henry - though I am not surprised if I am totally honest ;-)
Yes, I have mentioned my concerns about loans, in general, elsewhere once or twice BUT you are wrong regarding my main point here I'm afraid.
This is to do with WHY we are happy to look at one month loan deals right now and why that might be the case i.e. Board level strategy/financial implications.
That I've not mentioned before. Indeed, it only occurred to me this morning and why was that???
Because the details on the Tom Soares deal 'appear', in the media, to have changed from a 93 day loan last night to a one month deal today - Parkinson is quoted in the SLP describing it thus.
So, while I mentioned my concerns about loans in general last night - which you actually replied to - today brings a potentially altered scenario.
Hence my post and my opinions on what we might be doing...
This isn't an especially subtle point, or distinction, so I'm sure you can get your head round it my old mate!!
After all you worked out the Darren Ambrose quiz all by yourself last night :-))
Spot on Len!! I'm glad you easily picked up on the main thrust of my argument here...
Cheers for that!
LOL. I can just see Derek Chappell in a Laura Ashley dress saying that at a Board meeting...
Len obviously read it all the way through ; - )
You are quite right Sailor that is an additional point but didn't someone else point out previously that being able to have a look at a player and then send them back if not suited is one of the advantages of loans ; - )
I did wonder if the post might have been a bit long for you Henry - so sorry about that!
Again, you have missed the main point of my post, but not to worry. :-)
Which can boil down to taking semi-fit players on what is in effect a trial, bunging them in the first team and seeing if their legs hold out and if they're still as good as they were before injury/dropping down the pecking order at their parent club ... Is there really time for that approach when we've got 19 games left and we need to win around nine of them?
Even if these four week loan signings turn out to be brilliant and help us win a couple of games, the chances are that after a month they're off again saying 'thanks for the match practice and helping me get fit' just as our season enters its crucial phase....
In principle we should be looking for greater stability in our transfer strategy rather than short term fixes because we're not going to get anywhere with a team that's in constant upheaval. Of course, that may not be possible. Beggars can't be chosers, as someone said...
RUNAROUND...NOW!!!!
Nigel, I think when Henry wrote the words above I don't think he gave due consideration to the many problems attached to the arrival and departure of numerous loans signings for any club, let alone one cut adrift at the bottom of its division with less than half the season remaining. This might be OK for a team nestled in mid-table or seeking a boost to get into the play-off places but we are in the last chance saloon.
A slump in performance for a spell of just 2-3 games, due to the sudden loss of a player or two, could extinguish any final hopes for survival. But if the Board need to consider the finances as the number one priority at this time, then we just have to accept the policy and hope for the best.
The required stability could be achieved via permanent signings, or even season-long signings, and we'll have to see if some arrive - I believe they will, with luck, but perhaps with the Murtys and Soares of this world, due to their salary demands, we may have to feel our way first, as we cannot simply afford to take them on for four months straight off.
Thanks for that Stilladdicted. You may well be right that the policy might well fit into the 'matrix' system and I also share your concerns that the policy 'could' come unstuck. For example, as the receiving club, we have little control over the player's departure date and if we try to juggle several balls at once, there is always the danger we'll drop a couple.
Our previous record in the loan market, in the past two years, has been pretty poor and to rely on either extending short-term loans at a later date or finding a suitable replacement, if we can't, is a high-risk strategy but perhaps the only one we can consider due to the limited budget. It's pretty grim for us and this is life for a club struggling on and off the pitch.
He doesn't want to leave reading, he has tuned down sheff utd, and reading want a perm deal. Although charlton is a lot closer than sheffield...
I truly cannot see this specific deal happening. I think we have made our interest known and Lita knows we are out there. 'Shot in the dark' is possibly on the money.
Someone else said in another thread that perhaps we'll have a chance in the loan window if he is out of the Reading team and no permanent deal has occurred. If Gray leaves permanently maybe our chances will rise slightly, who knows...but we need a striker well before February.
Yeah that's all it is. Worth asking though, never know it might happen. Very unlikely though.