New Signing - Matt Palmer Confirmed

I’ll be honest, I know next to nothing about Palmer, so will have to take the opinions from others until I’ve seen him. Supposedly good set-piece delivery and creative, yet only has 6 assists in his last 4 seasons.

I’m open to persuasion but those stats don’t look great

 

We have donaldson, doyle and Vaughan on the books. We haven’t topped up the budget (apparently).....loans are the only realistic way to improve our squad unless dropping luck with a trialist.

Very good loan for a player rated at Rotherham - they just have stronger options. Very happy.

 

Don't know if anyone saw but found this an interesting tweet on Matty's profile from David Sharpe. Just wondering why he commented when Matty never played for Wigan.

 

He's got an agency now and I think Palmer is a client.

 

I like the recall clause because if he isn't fitting in or is playing sheite then we can send him back and get another in. Can't we?

 

But if he’s doing so well then we have benefitted too. If they don’t consider recalling him it means he might not be doing well.

 

My issue with the loan system is the amount of players in teams squads, especially higher up. Teams don’t use loans to fill in temporary gaps like the days of old but to be main players for 30% of their first team

 

I look at Portsmouth last year and when they had midfielder Ben Thompson on loan from Millwall. He was recalled in January and they didn't replace him, they went from top of the league to losing in the playoffs. Now that wasn't the only reason, but it impacted them massively and in the end they didn't benefit from the loan agreement at all. This could easily happen to us in January and if Palmer performs well for us I'm certain it will happen, as even if Rotherham don't want him they will look to get a fee (even a small one) from another club and we get nothing.

 

I can see where you are coming from and I agree with everything you say. Like someone mentioned earlier see it as a 6 month loan. The difference with some other loans. He’s not being loaned as a youngster to gain experience. He’s being loaned because they don’t rate him and want him off the books. Mind you they may recall him to then sell him. Loans do allow you to potentially get a better player than you might permanently so they aren’t always that bad

 

Agree loans aren't always bad but this recall clause nonsense benefits nobody but the parent club.

 

You mean the club that pays the majority of his wages (probably) and paid a fee for him?

 

On the other hand our best player last season was a loan and two of our best players in recents seasons Cullen and Burke were loans. Like it or not it’s the way of the world in lower league football, and as long as we don’t fill the team with them it is a good thing

 

And they were all full season loans, not six month rubbish.

 

Yes and that's how they would view it and from their perspective its a perfect deal for them, but from our perspective as the receiving club, what's in it for us other than using a player for a few months and then bring up shit creek (should he be good) when he leaves midway through the season.

 

No!!

 

If we’re in the auto spots in January and they recall him ,i can see Rupp stumping up cash to keep him. At the end of the day Rupp needs us promoted to protect his investment, and if Palmer is pulling the strings in the midfield I can’t see us wanting to lose him at any cost.

 

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/cullen-joins-bradford-on-loan-again/view/news/259991

 

Burke was a one month loan, extended on a monthly basis 'til the october, november he was injured and was treated at WHU, then returned to City on loan 'til January, then a six month loan.
Different rules then

 

Cullen was Feb, 1 month loan, extended in March to end of season
Second season was initial 5 months, followed in Jan renewal to end of season