[Albion] Cole Palmer on loan?

[Bakero]

But if he was rubbish then nobody would have cared about him going back and being Chelsea's problem. He would have been as well remembered as Izzy Brown. It turns out that he's actually an excellent player who would strengthen our team and he's not our player. He's gone back to Chelsea who are very short on central defenders all of a sudden - so he's going to play throughout pre-season for them and probably start the season because they'll realise that he's actually excellent. That will lead to them offering him a new mega money contract which he'll sign and it's all over. Last summer I said that either he would be excellent and we'd be wanting to keep him and pay a high price to do so or he would get minutes in the team but not really progress and all we'd have done is stop JPVH playing minutes and being ready to play a full role this season. Well, he was excellent so he's a big loss and we have a JPVH with a handful of PL appearances rather than a dozen or two.

But if offered the choice everyone would rather take another Colwill than an Izzy Brown.

 

[Whitechapel]

I know we don’t like the buy back clause option (Livramento to Southampton instead of us) but I don’t really see the issue with them. Guaranteed profit if they do well. See Burnley buying Trafford for 15m, buy back set at £45m. To replace Trafford is not going to cost them £45m so surely a win win?

Take a look back at Xavi Simons at PSV. One of the most exciting young players in the world and they’re losing him for less than €10,000,000 because of a buyback clause.

It’s all well and good saying we’d be guaranteeing profit if he does well but the original club are only going to resign them if they’re worth more than the buy-back fee.

If we signed Cole Palmer for £15,000,000 with a £30,000,000 buyback then we’re “guaranteed” £15m profit. If he scores 1 goal and can’t hold down a position next season then City don’t pay for him back. If he goes and scores 20 goals & 20 assists next season then we lose him for a 1/4 of what we’d want because City have pulled our pants down.

They’re f*cking wank for the club taking the risk.

 

[Napper]

We have plenty of players coming through who can generate profit and fit our model.

I'm not against developing a player if it benefits us short time , ie Colwill / into Europa.

Palmer may have a similar outcome but this time may result in silver ware.

He looks like he would improve us in certain situations so not against it at all

Still would be surprised if it happens though

 

[BevBHA]

Take a look back at Xavi Simons at PSV. One of the most exciting young players in the world and they’re losing him for less than €10,000,000 because of a buyback clause.

It’s all well and good saying we’d be guaranteeing profit if he does well but the original club are only going to resign them if they’re worth more than the buy-back fee.

If we signed Cole Palmer for £15,000,000 with a £30,000,000 buyback then we’re “guaranteed” £15m profit. If he scores 1 goal and can’t hold down a position next season then City don’t pay for him back. If he goes and scores 20 goals & 20 assists next season then we lose him for a 1/4 of what we’d want because City have pulled our pants down.

They’re f*cking wank for the club taking the risk.

I see your point, but I ask you also consider this.

The buy back clause being inserted also makes the initial fee for us cheaper. Using your example fees. £15m may allow us to get Palmer permanently with a buy back clause because we give City that insurance policy.

However, remove the buy back clause we’re probably looking £25m to be ours outright. Now let’s say he doesn’t do well and gets one goal and one assist all season. With the buy back clause we don’t stand to lose much by the time we maybe salvage £5m by selling him.

However the £25m with no buy back clause and a bad season and we’re in trouble.

The way I see it, it’s an insurance policy for both sides, especially with a young, relatively unproven, player.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Leicester have lost Madison and potentially Harvey Barnes. They would make decent loan destination for Sarmiento.

I think Southampton would be ideal, as he could remain in Steyning, stay in touch with his mates and the club can monitor his progress easily.

 

[Beanstalk]

Take a look back at Xavi Simons at PSV. One of the most exciting young players in the world and they’re losing him for less than €10,000,000 because of a buyback clause.

It’s all well and good saying we’d be guaranteeing profit if he does well but the original club are only going to resign them if they’re worth more than the buy-back fee.

If we signed Cole Palmer for £15,000,000 with a £30,000,000 buyback then we’re “guaranteed” £15m profit. If he scores 1 goal and can’t hold down a position next season then City don’t pay for him back. If he goes and scores 20 goals & 20 assists next season then we lose him for a 1/4 of what we’d want because City have pulled our pants down.

They’re f*cking wank for the club taking the risk.

They're glorified loans that help circumnavigate the restrictions around that whilst allowing some creative accountancy at the same time. They shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Heart and Soul]

But if he was rubbish then nobody would have cared about him going back and being Chelsea's problem. He would have been as well remembered as Izzy Brown. It turns out that he's actually an excellent player who would strengthen our team and he's not our player. He's gone back to Chelsea who are very short on central defenders all of a sudden - so he's going to play throughout pre-season for them and probably start the season because they'll realise that he's actually excellent. That will lead to them offering him a new mega money contract which he'll sign and it's all over. Last summer I said that either he would be excellent and we'd be wanting to keep him and pay a high price to do so or he would get minutes in the team but not really progress and all we'd have done is stop JPVH playing minutes and being ready to play a full role this season. Well, he was excellent so he's a big loss and we have a JPVH with a handful of PL appearances rather than a dozen or two.

So in short, you would have taken JPVH playing more games and ending up 8-9th rather than loan Colwill and finish 6th, which was what happened?

Strange priorities.

JPVH had a fantastic game against City but in both his other starts, against Leicester and Newcastle, his performances suggested we would not have qualified to Europe if he had played a substantial number of games.

 

[jcdenton08]

In my view people get too hung on this idea of loans being bad, because we are developing other team’s talents. It seems clear from Colwill that we’ll only loan if they can offer something immediate to the first team, which is better than what we already have at that moment in time.

Meanwhile, someone else is developing our talents, with a player who is better than what they have.

I have absolutely no problem with it. There’s no loyalty in football anyway, Colwill was no more or less “ours” than any other player from us fans POV anyway.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

This season (first in Europe) more than any other season since we've been in the Prem, loans make sense to me.

The last thing we want to do is hugely bolster the squad and lumber us with a Europe-level wage bill and then miss out on Europe next season and the season after etc.

That would cause big problems that loans really help to ease.

Frankly I find it bizarre how many people I've seen over the last couple of months saying how big/deep the squad needs to be, without taking into consideration what happens the year after, if we don't make Europe again. Very short-sighted.

It's because you can always reduce the size of the squad with players sales. It's not like we have overpaid donkeys who nobody wants

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

So in short, you would have taken JPVH playing more games and ending up 8-9th rather than loan Colwill and finish 6th, which was what happened?

Strange priorities.

JPVH had a fantastic game against City but in both his other starts, against Leicester and Newcastle, his performances suggested we would not have qualified to Europe if he had played a substantial number of games.

You've no way of knowing this is what would have happened.

JP did have a dodgy moment or two, but so did Colwill. It's just what happens when you bring through young players, they will make the odd mistake. The key thing is that with Colwill, if we can't buy him, he has made his mistakes in a Brighton shirt and will have learned from those by the time he dons a Chelsea shirt.

We could have given that time to Van Hecke. I don't have a problem with loaning Colwill in as he fulfilled a specific task in the squad which we didn't otherwise have. We certainly have players who can do what Palmer does.

 

[Simonf93]

I think Southampton would be ideal, as he could remain in Steyning, stay in touch with his mates and the club can monitor his progress easily.

would make a lot of sense, but thought he was findon, didn’t realise steyning…. either way, easy access to the A27.

 

[Mellotron]

It's because you can always reduce the size of the squad with players sales. It's not like we have overpaid donkeys who nobody wants

Sometimes. That's far more of a faff and carries much more risk than temporarily adding 2-3 players on loan for a year.

Plenty of times we've seen sides who have struggled with bloated, high wage squads after a year or two in Europe - Leicester and West Ham come to mind.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Take a look back at Xavi Simons at PSV. One of the most exciting young players in the world and they’re losing him for less than €10,000,000 because of a buyback clause.

It’s all well and good saying we’d be guaranteeing profit if he does well but the original club are only going to resign them if they’re worth more than the buy-back fee.

If we signed Cole Palmer for £15,000,000 with a £30,000,000 buyback then we’re “guaranteed” £15m profit. If he scores 1 goal and can’t hold down a position next season then City don’t pay for him back. If he goes and scores 20 goals & 20 assists next season then we lose him for a 1/4 of what we’d want because City have pulled our pants down.

They’re f*cking wank for the club taking the risk.

I think with buy backs, they can be negotiated to be a good deal for the buying club, but there's a huge variation in the T's and C's. If it was, we're buying him for £10m and there's a buy back for £60m, that's probably a good deal.

I'd say most Saints fans would say they are happy they've taken on Livramento despite the reported existence of the buy back clause. It all totally depends on the details of the deal negotiated.

 

[BevBHA]

Sometimes. That's far more of a faff and carries much more risk than temporarily adding 2-3 players on loan for a year.

Plenty of times we've seen sides who have struggled with bloated, high wage squads after a year or two in Europe - Leicester and West Ham come to mind.

Wonder if we’re looking at loans until January maybe with an option to extend full season. League cup, league, Europa groups all before Jan. As well as the notorious game every few days around Christmas.
We could be out of Europa and the League cup by Jan leaving only the FA cup and the league so we wouldn’t need the extra bodies.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Sometimes. That's far more of a faff and carries much more risk than temporarily adding 2-3 players on loan for a year.

Plenty of times we've seen sides who have struggled with bloated, high wage squads after a year or two in Europe - Leicester and West Ham come to mind.

I just think though. What does it say to all these South American / Romanian etc etc etc youngsters we're marketing ourselves to? Our only chance to keep persuading this talent is if they think there will be a pathway to PL football and eventually a top club.

The more Chelsea and Man City players we sign on loan the harder it is to keep that production line going

 

[Shins]

People are knocking an imaginary buy back back figure, that may or not be part of a deal, that may or not happen. If get him permanently with a buy back clause, it'll be a figure that the club feel is acceptable value for the time spent with us (and City might not even ever use it!). Isn't that good enough?

So many people on here go ott on this stuff.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Leicester have lost Madison and potentially Harvey Barnes. They would make decent loan destination for Sarmiento.

And that's the thing. I don't agree with people who say loaning IN players is a bad idea and it only benefits the parent club. It's a massive part of the Albion's business model, so it must make sense!

I'd have little issue with Jezza S going on loan somewhere because, in the long term, it could massively improve our own team! THEN how would people feel about the loan system?

 

[Mellotron]

I just think though. What does it say to all these South American / Romanian etc etc etc youngsters we're marketing ourselves to? Our only chance to keep persuading this talent is if they think there will be a pathway to PL football and eventually a top club.

The more Chelsea and Man City players we sign on loan the harder it is to keep that production line going

I'm talking 2-3 loans. Not loads. We have a unique where for (possibly/probably) one season, we need a bigger squad.

I fully expect our production line to continue strengthening, as more and more players are seeing the benefits of being with us if they are a young, talented player.

In the specific case of Colwill, I would be delighted to see him return for another season-long loan. At the end of that, he'd only have a year left on his Chelsea contract and I think our chances of getting him on a perm from there would be very high.

 

[GT49er]

So in short, you would have taken JPVH playing more games and ending up 8-9th rather than loan Colwill and finish 6th, which was what happened?

Strange priorities.

JPVH had a fantastic game against City but in both his other starts, against Leicester and Newcastle, his performances suggested we would not have qualified to Europe if he had played a substantial number of games.

Young player only fantastic in one out of three of his first ever games in the PL. Wow! That's shocking!

 

[Icy Gull]

Using the NSC rule of thumb - 30 minutes is enough to decide if someone is world class or shitehouse - I thought he looked bloody good when he came on for City against us, so as long as there is no buy back, a purchase or a loan gets a thumbs up from me