All reports indicate most if not all our signings will be loans, at best maybe 1 or 2 cheap punts from abroad but largely it seems Premier League loans are the plan.
A sale is probably going to be included somewhere to so that the club can function.
Given our track record its likely all the loan signings will be straight loans, no option to buy, if we do have an option to buy it will likely be dependent on promotion, no promotion then no purchase.
So hypothetically we may loan Helder Costa, not for nothing, he will cost a few million at least in fees as will any loans of that ilk, we spent £5mil on last seasons loans and they weren't exactly top class loans so if we plan on loans of the class Villa signed for example then our board need to forget this idea of it being cheap, it wont be (which in itself is a concern because we have balked at paying the required price for the best loans before).
So aside from it not being cheap if you want the best loans, since any future purchase if one is available will likely be dependent on promotion then it is basically all or bust.
Think about Villa, say they didnt go up.
Last season they paid just for the loans.
Yannick Bolasie, all of his £70k wages for half a season.
Tammy Abraham-A good chunk of his £50k wages plus a small loan fee (£1mil is reported) and £2mil to keep him in January when Wolves came calling.
El Ghazi- £2mil loan fee and all of his £30k wages (Lille needed the money).
Tyrone Mings- £1mil loan fee plus his £25k wages.
On top of that there was Kortney Hause and Axel Tuanzebe
So if those fees are accurate thats about £12million give or take.
So Villa dont go up, all those players leave, 4 of those were first 11 players, Abraham, Tuanzebe, Mings and El Ghazi, Hause was a first choice 18 player to, so thats 5 out of 18 gone for a start and the club are £12mil worse off for nothing.
Then to raise funds they have to sell, so Grealish goes for example, thats 6 out of 18 gone. But Villa couldnt spend all the money from Grealish, they have a £12mil loan cost to cover first, then any other losses the club is making regarding ffp, they have to get that in order to.
So eventually all the money is swallowed up, the club is 6 first 18 players down on the previous season, so maybe they have to sell someone else to actually have some money to spend to get recruits in, thats 7 players down.
The reason i use Villa is we are rumoured to be after 4 loans to improve our first choice 18, Villa had come the end of the season about 4 loans in there first choice 18.
It worked out for Villa and maybe it would for us to, then happy days.
But the pessimist in me cant help thinking about the alternative for us, what if it doesnt work out?
We are left with huge loan cost to cover, we lose Bielsa, we have a lot of players if nothing changes from now out of contract next summer, Roofe, Hernandez, Klich, Dallas, Coyle, BPF, Jordan Stevens. And then just 12 months later Phillips, ALi, Douglas, Ayling, Cooper, Shacks, Clarke, Edmondson and more.
As we have seen this season, players will want wage rises especially if they are first choice players, Klich will want one, Roofe wants one, Hernandez will probably retire but BPF wants one, Stevens may feel he deserves some reward to and then we have the 12 month ones, all of them you would think have a case for wage rises.
The loan only policy imo is a horribly risky idea because it tends to be expensive (if you want the best loans which we should)and it is a 1 shot deal, if it goes wrong you fork out tons of money effectively for nothing and then you lose what may have been 3 or 4 first choice players and have to find a way to replace them, so you have to sell more first team players to do that.
And then we would have to find money to keep other first teamers who are out or nearly out of contract, if we dont then we have to sell those probably at reduced fees and replace them to.
This is a very long winded way of saying " i dont like straight loan deals" but that is really all i wanted to say
