January 2022 Transfer Thread

[Alan]

Would you say no to Phil Foden in the same logic?

I would.

When we were in the Championship I'd have taken a pure loanee on account of how much more valuable Prem football is (not to mention I can actually watch us when we're in the Prem vs once in a blue moon when we were lower league). Getting there at any cost would have been fine by me (within the rules, obv).

But as a Prem side, I don't want us doing any favors for other clubs. We're not in danger of going down, we don't need a shot in the arm that way. And to bring in a player to help us achieve Europe, only to have him not here the next season regardless... I don't like it.

Granted, I'm not making the calls and I wouldn't be upset if we brought someone like that in, but it would bug me a little.

Also it just doesn't seem like it fits Fosun's strategy to suit up a player we can't monetarily profit from later, IMO.

 

[AndyWolves]

If we are paying his wages, developing him as a player and then giving him back to Chelsea to start all over again……

Then yes - absolutely - I would say no to Conor Gallagher on loan, with no purchase option.

100%.

Fair enough, I would. I think he would mean we have a better season.

I'd agree that we shouldn't be loaning players who don't improve our first XI

 

[Alan]

No need to laugh, Del, you and I both know I'd never make it as a football exec.

Got years of anchoring the PTG table to prove it.

 

[NicholasG1973]

Would you say no to Phil Foden in the same logic?

But it wouldn’t be logic.

Because we would never be offered Phil Foden (or anyone remotely close to having his world class footballing ability) on loan.

 

[Johnny75]

No need to laugh, Del, you and I both know I'd never make it as a football exec.

Got years of anchoring the PTG table to prove it.

It's a crackers thought process though Alan. Why wouldn't you want to have better players so the team finished higher and potentially wins more?

If rules would allow it then I'm sure somebody would try planning an entire squad on a short term basis to get to where they want to be. It's cheaper for the owner and less punitive if it doesn't work out.

 

[Johnny75]

But it wouldn’t be logic.

Because we would never be offered Phil Foden (or anyone remotely close to having his world class footballing ability) on loan.

I bet we could get Cole Palmer on loan of we promised to play him every game.

I think what Del meant was if we could get Foden 2 years ago when he wasn't a household name would you still have turned him down?

 

[NicholasG1973]

Fair enough, I would. I think he would mean we have a better season.

I'd agree that we shouldn't be loaning players who don't improve our first XI

It might this season.

I wouldn’t have taken the Connor Gallagher that played for WBA on loan (even with a buy option) - he was absolutely average.

And, obviously, there is always that element of risk when loaning players.

Unless, of course, you’d be lucky enough to loan Phil Foden.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Would you say no to Phil Foden in the same logic?

Phil Foden is unlikely to be available on loan any time soon whereas Gallagher is the epitome of a Chelsea squad player who plays for anyone but Chelsea. It isn't a proper comparison.

I was watching Hull on TV recently who have Tom Huddlestone and I remember his short stint on loan with us 15/16 years ago wishing we had a chance to get him permanently. I think that is the same season we had the "mercurial" Jeremie Alidiare too. Instead we got Darren Anderton, Rohan Rickets and the pole without a goal Frankowski. (Although we did also get the sublime Jackie McNamara too).

If we can't buy them, don't bring them.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

You don't want to overdo loans, look at Albion last season. Had to wang basically all their budget on players they already had on loan in the Championship, so suddenly they'd not moved on at all and yet didn't have anything to spend.

To be honest with Puig - Barca still need money, I'm sure, they might end up Coutinho back on their wage bill in a few months which causes a load of problems - not having an option set in stone wouldn't bother me too much. He's better than what we've got (ie Donck), we need numbers there regardless because we're two absences away from doing God knows what. It's 18 games (plus the cup) and both parties can see how they go. I'd be ok with that.

Case by case thing innit.

 

[Jinky]

Picture of chiquinho in our shirt sat in the North Bank and also doing his medical doing the rounds. It’s done I guess.

His agent loves to leak a pic, it seems. Here he is having his medical.

 

[Alan]

It's a crackers thought process though Alan. Why wouldn't you want to have better players so the team finished higher and potentially wins more?

If rules would allow it then I'm sure somebody would try planning an entire squad on a short term basis to get to where they want to be. It's cheaper for the owner and less punitive if it doesn't work out.

If we could be given a guarantee that "player of X caliber will definitely sign if we make Europe", that would change things for me, tbf.

Loans have always been a weird thing to wrap my head around (I imagine similarly to what NFL free agency must look like to you guys); if someone is wearing a Wolves shirt I will prefer they be collecting their paycheck from us rather than some other club that they're beholden to. I just don't like it on an instinctive level, I guess.

Don't think I have any right to say we'd be wrong to do so, just wouldn't be my favorite thing in the world for the club to do.

And, as with Josh Allen, if we bring in a pure loanee and it works out fabulously, I'll be more than happy to eat crow.

 

[Del Woppio]

I bet we could get Cole Palmer on loan of we promised to play him every game.

I think what Del meant was if we could get Foden 2 years ago when he wasn't a household name would you still have turned him down?

I did mean now tbh, though somewhat facetiously. I disagree with the reason for not using short term loans to improve the squad and was just stretching the logic to find out where the lines are.

I don't understand why anybody would turn down Gallagher (or Puig) or anybody that improves our team for half a season when we're fighting for Europe and in the FA Cup, and we're massively understaffed in central midfield

 

[Alan]

View attachment 4914
His agent loves to leak a pic, it seems. Here he is having his medical.

Christ alive, the calves on footballers!

Should never have given up the game (when I was 7). I'd be hot!

 

[Lupo]

 

[Keef]

Actual signing shocker!
Do we have to thank pogo danderfluff/Jeff now?

 

[Alan]

Just watching some highlights and it looks like Estoril play him centrally? May need Lycan to confirm.

 

[Jinky]

I did mean now tbh, though somewhat facetiously. I disagree with the reason for not using short term loans to improve the squad and was just stretching the logic to find out where the lines are.

I don't understand why anybody would turn down Gallagher (or Puig) or anybody that improves our team for half a season when we're fighting for Europe and in the FA Cup, and we're massively understaffed in central midfield

And what’s to say that player wouldn’t then sign for us anyway, if we do qualify for Europe and become a much more attractive proposition. The squad seem like a proper decent group of lads, so I reckon if someone comes in, does well and we can afford them (which I would say is likely with a player like Puig), there’s a good chance they’d sign anyway.

 

[The Bion]

I have no recollection of watching Puig play but I do remember a year or two back (pandemic memory, it's all blurred into one) it seemed like he was on the verge of breaking into the team as a regular, fair bit of hype but it didn't really happen and now he seems stuck without playing much.

A quick google suggests he's been turning down loans in Spain already (depending on what you believe, of course) - I can't really see it happening as he's not going to walk into the XI here (unless we change to 5-3-2) so from his POV it probably wouldn't be much of an improvement, if at all.

I've been surprised before but I don't think there's a lot of mileage in this one personally.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I suppose he might think Moutinho is 36 early into next season (if he's still here, he doesn't actually have a contract for next year as it stands) and therefore he's bound to get games if he settles here and does well. Joao is nearly superhuman but not quite.

Players don't necessarily move just for now, I'd say he would play more here than he would for Barcelona, either this season (even if that would mainly be as a bench/rotation option, he isn't even getting that where he is) or next and beyond.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

So that’s why there is no option then. Settle in well and we can pick him up for a free unless Barcelona offer him new terms?