Loan with option to sign?

chris_dunn59 · 21st January 2011, 07:14 PM

Should we only be loaning players with a clause underwriting a chance of a permanent move for a pre-agreed value? After realising we can't sign Welbeck, such successful loans clearly represent false progress. A club with our ambition shouldn't be nurturing players for the so-called big 4. Personally I was against loaning Welbeck but i've been proven wrong to such a degree that we've been told to eff off from signing him.

jsdftm04 · 21st January 2011, 07:15 PM

iirc we tried to sign welbeck first but he wasnt for sale, only a loan so we took it.

OohBaldyBally · 21st January 2011, 07:16 PM

False progress is still progress.

I hoonestly have no issue with us nurturing players for the big 4 (or anyone else if it's in our best interests).

Even if the lad doesn't kick another ball for SAFC I'm pleased he was here for a while. If we didn't bring him in, we'd have had to buy another forward last summer. Bruce was no doubt looking (with Jones out, Gyan in, etc.) and decided that Welbeck on loan was a better option, for whatever reason. I'm happy enough with that.

DurhamBoy · 21st January 2011, 07:18 PM

No, Welbeck's been an important part of the side this year, we wouldn't have got him on a deal with an option, and we'd be lower down in the league than we are now if we hadn't. Of course, it'd be nice if all the players were ours, but loans provide a useful option for clubs in our position.