[Albion] Cole Palmer on loan?

[The Fits]

Think we are being a bit starstruck because he plays for City. Colwill signing was totally different. Obviously someone we'd identified and we had NO left footed CB and at that point (IE during the Cucu negotiations) no left footed defender at all.
Palmer plays in a position covered by most of our most exciting young prospects and João Pedro, Mitoma and March.

 

[Reddleman]

Sarmiento is going nowhere. Breakthrough season beckons.

According to Naylor he’s going out on loan.

 

[Farehamseagull]

According to Naylor he’s going out on loan.

He also said in that article that we want Pamer permanently. Would be an outstanding capture if we can do it.

 

[Badger Boy]

I am not in favour of developing another clubs player for them. We have our own players. I have no interest in Palmer, however good he is - it's bad business to be so short-termist with loan signings with no hope of a purchase. It stops a player of our own from developing and puts you in a position in a year's time where the player is gone and you're looking to replace them. The Colwill situation has worked out in the exact worst case scenario.

 

[Farehamseagull]

I am not in favour of developing another clubs player for them. We have our own players. I have no interest in Palmer, however good he is - it's bad business to be so short-termist with loan signings with no hope of a purchase. It stops a player of our own from developing and puts you in a position in a year's time where the player is gone and you're looking to replace them. The Colwill situation has worked out in the exact worst case scenario.

Read above - we want Palmer permanently.

And I totally disagree with your view of loanees and that this is the worst case scenario with Colwill. We had an excellent season from him where he helped us qualify for Europe and we now have a chance of signing him permanently which we didn’t have last summer and wouldn’t have this summer without that loan spell.

 

[Heart and Soul]

I am not in favour of developing another clubs player for them. We have our own players. I have no interest in Palmer, however good he is - it's bad business to be so short-termist with loan signings with no hope of a purchase. It stops a player of our own from developing and puts you in a position in a year's time where the player is gone and you're looking to replace them. The Colwill situation has worked out in the exact worst case scenario.

Helped us to top 6... can't say its the worst thing ever really.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Wonder what level Sarmiento would be loaned too? Surely too good for the Championship? La Liga? Bundesliga?

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Getting Palmer on loan. I hate the idea. Sarmiento the better player right now in my opinion. Let's develop our own players.

Buying Palmer. It would be a notable purchase to take a player City would rather keep, he's obviously a player with promise. If he's now our player let's develop him along with our other exciting youngsters

Buying Palmer with a buy back. The devil would be in the detail of the deal. If it's a glorified loan then let's not bother.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I can't for the life of me understand why City would sell Palmer having just got rid of Mahrez.

But...if we run with the Naylor angle that we want Palmer in and will loan out Sarmiento then this could suggest:

1. De Zerbi wants to bring Buonanotte infield to a Lallana / MacAllister-type role and
2. He also recognises Mitoma was being doubled up on last season, reducing his effectiveness. The best way of counteracting that is to have an equal threat on the right because sheer numbers means the defence can't double up on both wingers without leaving themselves short in central midfield.

Having Ferguson up top with Mitoma, Enciso and Palmer in behind will make it hard for defences to double up everywhere, leaving at least one man free to run at his marker.

 

[Deadly Danson]

Sarmiento "could" not "will" be going out on loan. I think the thinking is he just needs a run of games to get him fit. I think he's very much our player for the future so may be beneficial to let someone else develop him in the short term.

 

[Badger Boy]

Read above - we want Palmer permanently.

And I totally disagree with your view of loanees and that this is the worst case scenario with Colwill. We had an excellent season from him where he helped us qualify for Europe and we now have a chance of signing him permanently which we didn’t have last summer and wouldn’t have this summer without that loan spell.

If we can do a permanent deal on good terms then of course we should and we would. But a loan would be too heavily in Man City's favour than ours in my opinion.

We will have to pay a huge fee to sign him this summer, or sacrifice part of a fee we could get for Caicedo. It's not good business and it's not the business which has built our squad and reputation in the last few years' transfer windows. We've developed a player for Chelsea's benefit whilst restricting gametime for JPVH. As good as Colwill was for us, we strengthened Chelsea's hand and that's the opposite of what's made us successful in the market. I appreciate others disagree on this point, but that's my take.

Helped us to top 6... can't say its the worst thing ever really.

Good thing that nobody said it was, then.

 

[The Fits]

Makes a lot of sense on a permanent. Man City definitely aren't frightened of selling young players. Buy back clause.
Get a few of our younger players decent loans.
Lovely stuff.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

According to Naylor he’s going out on loan.

Disappointing IMO if true.

 

[Bakero]

If we can do a permanent deal on good terms then of course we should and we would. But a loan would be too heavily in Man City's favour than ours in my opinion.

We will have to pay a huge fee to sign him this summer, or sacrifice part of a fee we could get for Caicedo. It's not good business and it's not the business which has built our squad and reputation in the last few years' transfer windows. We've developed a player for Chelsea's benefit whilst restricting gametime for JPVH. As good as Colwill was for us, we strengthened Chelsea's hand and that's the opposite of what's made us successful in the market. I appreciate others disagree on this point, but that's my take.


Good thing that nobody said it was, then.

But you said "The Colwill situation has worked out in the exact worst case scenario." Colwill being utter rubbish would've been worse imo. We needed him during those periods when Webster was injured.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

According to Naylor he’s going out on loan.

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

 

[The Fits]

For Sarmiento a loan would be the best thing right now. He's a player yet to really nail down a position or run of games. A really decent season loan could be the making of him.

 

[Badger Boy]

But you said "The Colwill situation has worked out in the exact worst case scenario." Colwill being utter rubbish would've been worse imo. We needed him during those periods when Webster was injured.

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.

 

[Mellotron]

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.

 

[dazzer6666]

I am not in favour of developing another clubs player for them. We have our own players. I have no interest in Palmer, however good he is - it's bad business to be so short-termist with loan signings with no hope of a purchase. It stops a player of our own from developing and puts you in a position in a year's time where the player is gone and you're looking to replace them. The Colwill situation has worked out in the exact worst case scenario.

Which young player did the Colwill loan stop developing (and who would still have helped us to 6th) ?

Regardless of what happens now, club plugged a gap we didn't believe we had a good fit for, with excellent results. Loans absolutely have their place in the overall squad structure and within our sensible and sustainable business strategy - and sometimes the loan will plug a gap for a year whilst our own player develops (or we find someone suitable in the market), no ? Colwill helped us as much we we helped him - the fact he appears to have seen there is life away from Chelsea permanently (like Lamptey did) is to our credit.

 

[BevBHA]

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?