Charlie Lakin

[ChrisBx]

Just announced on Twitter. Loan until the end of the season.

[donnievic]

Suppose the moaners will now moan about DS telling porkies about not bringing anyone else in now

[Spilsby Red]

Welcome. There will be some that won’t be happy. Good luck

[pib]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

[Spilsby Red]

Perhaps they couldn’t find the right players for permanent players so covering positions in the loan players which is better than being light in positions

[Batleyred]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

My guess is better permanent players will be available in the summer.

[roversdude]

Or these are loans with a view to buy in the summer

[Batleyred]

He has a 100 games under his belt. Plenty of experience good luck to the lad.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

Define heavy reliance. I think you know the difference. In the first half of the season, quite often the starting XI included all permanent players.

It was a resource that we've now tapped without saddling ourselves with more players who might not make the grade.

Hopefully a couple of these loans will be in the 'try before you buy' category whilst the spine of the team remain contracted players.

In my view, it's shrewd.

[KC_DRFC]

Suppose the moaners will now moan about DS telling porkies about not bringing anyone else in now

Think they're mainly unhappy about it being another loan deal...

[ChrisBx]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

In fairness to the club, when you change manager part way through the season then you probably do become more reliant on shorter term signings for the remainder of that season.

My expectation is that we'll see more permanent signings in the summer.

[donnievic]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

My guess is better permanent players will be available in the summer.

exactly always gonna pay over the odds in Jan window for players,plus it could also be take you on loan with a view to a perm deal,tbf we still haven’t got that many loans anyway really

[vaya]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

In fairness to the club, when you change manager part way through the season then you probably do become more reliant on shorter term signings for the remainder of that season.

My expectation is that we'll see more permanent signings in the summer.

We brought multiple players in last January. Safe to say not all of them have worked out. It's not a great time to do business.

We're also looking at potentially replacing a dozen players in the summer. Committing ourselves to players now is not likely to aid that process.

[Sammy Chung was King]

You can’t make many long term plans in January. Hopefully as said it’s with a view to a permanent deal. We are in the market where we have to catch them early before they cost too much.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Hope this lad becomes a Darling Bud by May!!

[scawsby steve]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

I don't see how 4 loans out of a squad of 20 odd players can be described as a heavy reliance.

[roversdude]

He signed a contract summer 21 so is he out of contract this summer

[pib]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

Define heavy reliance. I think you know the difference. In the first half of the season, quite often the starting XI included all permanent players.

It was a resource that we've now tapped without saddling ourselves with more players who might not make the grade.

Hopefully a couple of these loans will be in the 'try before you buy' category whilst the spine of the team remain contracted players.

In my view, it's shrewd.

Fair points made, but I will push back on the "try before you buy" comment - how many examples of this have we actually had in recent years that have been any good? Whiteman, Anderson and John aside I can't think of any (which is not many when you consider we've loaned 30 players in the past 3-and-a-bit years!). If they excel, most of them end up getting a better permanent move than coming to DRFC which you can't blame them for.

As for a definition of "heavy reliance" - I think you know what I mean, but you can ask GB for his definition at MTO as he's admitted that we've been too reliant on them, and he's the CEO, that's not just coming from me.

[pib]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

I don't see how 4 loans out of a squad of 20 odd players can be described as a heavy reliance.

Almost half our transfer business since 2019 has been loan players:

https://twitter.com/tombiltcliffe/status/1619009896128839681

And don't just take my (or Tom B's) word for it, our own CEO thinks we have been over-reliant at various points in the last 3 years:
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers/doncaster-rovers-how-many-loanees-club-hope-have-future-819617
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/football/international-football/doncaster-rovers-aim-to-be-great-entertainers-with-a-permanent-cast-3250143

I think it's a valid concern to raise. If you don't then we'll agree to disagree.

[ForsolongaRover]

He signed a contract summer 21 so is he out of contract this summer

Wiki reports a 3 year deal with Burton (indicating Clough saw him as a good prospect) from August 2021 which would run out in 18 month’s time. Is that incorrect?

[roversdude]

Pib different recruitment team now - with the exception of T Miller they aren’t from Prem teams, these are players who need to prove their worth

[ncRover]

https://www.burtonalbionfc.co.uk/news/2021/august/3108-lakin/

Not out of contract until the end of next season.

[pib]

Pib different recruitment team now - with the exception of T Miller they aren’t from Prem teams, these are players who need to prove their worth

Aye, I'd be interested to know what their strategy is genuinely.

At the moment it looks like the pool we're looking at is players that share an agent with Schofield. Let's hope there's a bit more flesh on the bones than that when we need to seriously rebuild in the summer.

Also FWIW, Nelson is from the PL too.

[steve@dcfd]

Perhaps they couldn’t find the right players for permanent players so covering positions in the loan players which is better than being light in positions

Yo maybe right because the funds that we had available and two players leaving then 4 loans and a free transfer should not have used all those funds. We only have to hope they are better than the ones we brought in last January.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

Define heavy reliance. I think you know the difference. In the first half of the season, quite often the starting XI included all permanent players.

It was a resource that we've now tapped without saddling ourselves with more players who might not make the grade.

Hopefully a couple of these loans will be in the 'try before you buy' category whilst the spine of the team remain contracted players.

In my view, it's shrewd.

Fair points made, but I will push back on the "try before you buy" comment - how many examples of this have we actually had in recent years that have been any good? Whiteman, Anderson and John aside I can't think of any (which is not many when you consider we've loaned 30 players in the past 3-and-a-bit years!). If they excel, most of them end up getting a better permanent move than coming to DRFC which you can't blame them for.

As for a definition of "heavy reliance" - I think you know what I mean, but you can ask GB for his definition at MTO as he's admitted that we've been too reliant on them, and he's the CEO, that's not just coming from me.

Just to add to other poster comments above. Things aren't that black and white. As said, I hope you can tell the difference between the over reliance GB referred to when DM left with loan players in key positions. This is entirely different with loan players supplementing the established first team squad.

Of course not all loan players convert into permanent signings. There's a number of categories.

1. Stocking fillers
2. Development players destined for bigger things
3. Try before you buy, although that may also depend on us achieving a promotion for example or not being relegated.
4. Those that don't perform.

[Campsall rover]

Only played twice this season for Burton. 20 odd games last season.

I would suggest he has been brought in as cover. Don’t see him being 1st choice.

[pib]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

Define heavy reliance. I think you know the difference. In the first half of the season, quite often the starting XI included all permanent players.

It was a resource that we've now tapped without saddling ourselves with more players who might not make the grade.

Hopefully a couple of these loans will be in the 'try before you buy' category whilst the spine of the team remain contracted players.

In my view, it's shrewd.

Fair points made, but I will push back on the "try before you buy" comment - how many examples of this have we actually had in recent years that have been any good? Whiteman, Anderson and John aside I can't think of any (which is not many when you consider we've loaned 30 players in the past 3-and-a-bit years!). If they excel, most of them end up getting a better permanent move than coming to DRFC which you can't blame them for.

As for a definition of "heavy reliance" - I think you know what I mean, but you can ask GB for his definition at MTO as he's admitted that we've been too reliant on them, and he's the CEO, that's not just coming from me.

Just to add to other poster comments above. Things aren't that black and white. As said, I hope you can tell the difference between the over reliance GB referred to when DM left with loan players in key positions. This is entirely different with loan players supplementing the established first team squad.

Of course not all loan players convert into permanent signings. There's a number of categories.

1. Stocking fillers
2. Development players destined for bigger things
3. Try before you buy, although that may also depend on us achieving a promotion for example or not being relegated.
4. Those that don't perform.

It's absolutely not that black and white. In fact I would posit that you're viewing it in a more cut-and-dry sense than I am. You suggest we're no longer looking at a situation where we're filling key positions with loans, yet we've just replaced an outgoing right-back and outgoing central midfielder with loans. Both pretty key positions.

And not only that, Brown is our only real recognised RB (Seaman has been playing RWB recently I grant you, but was nowhere near the team before KK stated his intention to leave and isn't proven), and Lakin is the only real cover of any note we've got for our two first choice central midfielders. No slight on them but I'm not counting unestablished prospects like Ravenhill and Degruchy here. So I suspect those two loanees will see a fair bit of game time. As will Nelson and T. Miller I'd imagine, as we need them to be able to come in and compete for those positions they play in.

I guess my concern isn't with one particular signing or another, but more with the umbrella question of: what is the strategy? I've seen suggestions that several of the signings also share the same agency as DS, which would add to my concern. We've just done a re-structure but what is the plan and how will it serve us better going forward than the way we've operated previously? I'd be interested to find out.

[roversdude]

Pib different recruitment team now - with the exception of T Miller they aren’t from Prem teams, these are players who need to prove their worth

Aye, I'd be interested to know what their strategy is genuinely.

At the moment it looks like the pool we're looking at is players that share an agent with Schofield. Let's hope there's a bit more flesh on the bones than that when we need to seriously rebuild in the summer.

Also FWIW, Nelson is from the PL too.

Age thing - sorry forgot about him

[scawsby steve]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

I don't see how 4 loans out of a squad of 20 odd players can be described as a heavy reliance.

Almost half our transfer business since 2019 has been loan players:

https://twitter.com/tombiltcliffe/status/1619009896128839681

And don't just take my (or Tom B's) word for it, our own CEO thinks we have been over-reliant at various points in the last 3 years:
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers/doncaster-rovers-how-many-loanees-club-hope-have-future-819617
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/football/international-football/doncaster-rovers-aim-to-be-great-entertainers-with-a-permanent-cast-3250143

I think it's a valid concern to raise. If you don't then we'll agree to disagree.

No, I don't disagree with you at all about the need to move away from an over reliance on loans, which we clearly had under Moore. I just think that only having 4 loans now shows that we're on the right path.

Let's face it, no club at our level can afford to have no loans whatsoever; it's just not doable.

[pib]

Not knocking the player as I don't know much about him (or knocking anything at all really) but a genuine query - I thought the club were trying to move away from a heavy reliance on loans? It's been said on here before from those more ITK than most that the club were aware of the way the core squad had been decimated by an over-reliance on loans previously.

Would I be misguided to point out that that policy seems to have lapsed very quickly, with now 4 loans and 1 permanent joining in this window, considering since the summer window closed we have lost three permanently contracted players who were all regulars in the first team?

I don't see how 4 loans out of a squad of 20 odd players can be described as a heavy reliance.

Almost half our transfer business since 2019 has been loan players:

https://twitter.com/tombiltcliffe/status/1619009896128839681

And don't just take my (or Tom B's) word for it, our own CEO thinks we have been over-reliant at various points in the last 3 years:
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/sport/football/doncaster-rovers/doncaster-rovers-how-many-loanees-club-hope-have-future-819617
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/football/international-football/doncaster-rovers-aim-to-be-great-entertainers-with-a-permanent-cast-3250143

I think it's a valid concern to raise. If you don't then we'll agree to disagree.

No, I don't disagree with you at all about the need to move away from an over reliance on loans, which we clearly had under Moore. I just think that only having 4 loans now shows that we're on the right path.

Let's face it, no club at our level can afford to have no loans whatsoever; it's just not doable.

Absolutely. I'm not advocating 0 loans either.