Hart
Jenkinson Johnson (C) Song Armero
Moses Nocerino Lanzini Tore
ZaZa Calleri
Subs – Borriello, Emenike
By DazP@Kirtonhammer
As we are now 19 days into the transfer window and only rumors to go on, I would like to look at the positives and negatives of Loan and Permanent signings.
For me, loan signings have always been something that struggling sides do or clubs that have no money.
Does West Ham fall into these categories?
Struggling side where relegation is possible?
May be but with the last few results and league position then surely we should be looking up rather than down.
Club with no money?
Definitely not, taking into account the promises given for the move and the low net spend compared to other clubs and the TV money available.
How often do you see the clubs at the top of the table sign players on loan – not very often.
So why does our board seem to like the loan option?
-They don’t trust the Manager or Scouts judgement.
-Don’t trust their own judgement or as its know – Sullivan Special’s
-Player is a risk rather than being proven
-Short term fix
-Player does not want to commit to the club
-Do not believe the manager will be longer term
You can make the case that most of the above reasons being a benefit to the club taking a player on loan.
But the argument would be why have those circumstances in the first place.
If we look at the last 5 seasons, we have had 13 players on loan if I haven’t missed any.
Joe Hart 2017-18
Simone ZaZa 2016-17
Jonathan Calleri 2016-17
Gokhan Tore 2016-17
Emmanuel Emenike 2015-16
Victor Moses 2015-16
Manuel Lanzini 2015-16
Alex Song 2014-15 & 2015-16
Car Jenkinson 2014-15
Marco Borriello 2013-14
Roger Johnson 2013-14
Pablo Armero 2013-14
Antonio Nocerino 2013-14
I must admit I can’t even remember a couple of them and I did try to make a team out of them at the start of this blog and had to make Roger Johnson captain due to his superb back peddling skill.
With the likelihood of us signing Joe Hart permanently being low then out of 13 players only one was signed after the loan period – Manuel Lanzini
Lanzini being the stand out player on the list during his loan period.
The rest would probably be classed as failures with perhaps the exception of: –
Victor Moses who was replaced by Antonio but a player that I really would like to have in the RWB role now
Alex Song probably did a job at the time then struggled.
Carl Jenkinson started well then faded
I accept that not all the players were taken on loan with the expectation to move to permanent but if they would have had a good season I’m sure the fans would have been screaming for it.
So if loan signings have not really been a success, why especially in this window does it seem like all our targets are loans options?
-An easy option because of no longer term planning?
What benefits do permanent signing have over loans?
– The club are committing to the player showing faith in their ability.
– The player is more than very short term to aid planning for the next season.
– Shows the Manager & Scouts have a plan and can be judged on it.
– Players can be brought in to improve the current team each window giving constant improvement.
– Shows investment by the owners. (if only)
There are negatives also but these are built around the club making mistakes in the first place.
– Not choosing the right players to fit a system
– Not having the right manager
– Changing the manager or system
For me, if the club has a longer term plan on how they want to plan, the type of players needed for that plan then surely having a steady flow of quality permanent signing that improve the team and squad is the best option.
If I’m right then where have we been going wrong since the Upton Park move?
Simple – No Plan – No Investment