Will Lennon be given funds?

Purple & Green

Radge McRadge
Administrator
Flag Owner
Radge Donator
Player Sponsor
Jun 27, 2002
12,002
185
73
Gourock
www.hibeesbounce.com
#21
Our recruitment policy is light years away from those days. Light years.

Which loans didn't contribute recently?
Dylan?
Efe?
Flo?
Jamie?
Rocky?
Barker?
Allan?

The only one I can think of is Rherras?
Rherras was an unplanned signing after the injury to Andrew Blake, was not expected to play but was required as short term cover. I think he did that?
 

Smurf

Private Member
Registered
May 15, 2003
36,004
218
68
Suburbia
#22
I’m not arguing that we’re where we were, bud, I’m just noting that the similarities in approaching loans is something I don’t like. What did Anier or Jake Sinclair really achieve? What about Islam Feruz or Feycal Rherras, who I’d forgotten until you mentioned him? Andrew Shinnie didn’t set the heather alight, either, yet we probably paid them all competitively for a combined total of what? Twenty games?

It’s money down the drain, in my view.

But, yes, it’s magnitudes away from the Matt Done or Danny Haynes days. Fucking Richard Towell. Holy shit.
And thankfully we didn't sign those players permanently so in they instances a loan arrangement worked.
 

Chris G Whyte

Radge Donator
Registered
Jan 16, 2008
1,916
142
73
The Netherlands
www.twitter.com
#24
We're never getting 100% success rate in our return for any group of players. That's not how it works but if the duds are loanees a) we hand them back and are not stuck with them drawing a wage and us getting nowt and b) the parent club pays some of that wage.
I see this suggestion a lot, but I'm not convinced of its truth.

The reason I'm not convinced is because we're not dealing with these guys on permanent deals, hence the reason we pick them up on loan. If we're unsure about a player, and are simply taking a chance that he might be good, then that's exactly where we are with our youngsters. Shaw and Porteous are in the "loan player" category at the moment, but they're our lads and we get all the benefits of developing them. I'd perhaps suggest that they're in a better position, because their time with the club will help them to understand our ethos.

With loanees, we're taking all of the risk; this is understood by our transfer policy makers, and therefore promotes a hugely risk-averse signing policy.

If a player isn't good enough for a permanent deal, promote your youth players. That's a much more sensible policy as far as I can see, with next to no pitfalls.

And I'm not sure how many loanees we've had that we've actually gone on to sign. At the moment, I'm only coming up with three (Kamberi, Stokes and McGivern) and two of them ended up being flops. The jury is still out on Kamberi of course but, FWIW, I've no doubt he'll be a success.
 

wrighty

Registered
Newbie
Jan 7, 2015
25
13
8
York
#25
I cant get too excited about "How much" Lennon gets to spend, I am happy that he seems to know what he want s and the club then go at get the player or type of player he is after.

I can remember far to many year when we have demanded players be signed and the club has brought in dross, just to keep the fans happy.

I think we have a solid club with good prospects which can tempt the payers we need. More importantly we have a good manager and Chief Exec who are strong and stick to a plan.

I also like to have a we laugh at people who quote Clayton Donaldson and a poor signing. I saw him a few times before he was with Hibs and he scored goals wherever he went, even at an arguably higher level. The only place he never delivered was at Hibs, which was a symptom of the state of our Club not the player.
 

SKII

Administrator
Radge Donator
Lewis Flag Donator
Monthly Radge
Oct 26, 2004
17,435
612
118
Right here, right now
#26
I see this suggestion a lot, but I'm not convinced of its truth.

The reason I'm not convinced is because we're not dealing with these guys on permanent deals, hence the reason we pick them up on loan. If we're unsure about a player, and are simply taking a chance that he might be good, then that's exactly where we are with our youngsters. Shaw and Porteous are in the "loan player" category at the moment, but they're our lads and we get all the benefits of developing them. I'd perhaps suggest that they're in a better position, because their time with the club will help them to understand our ethos.

With loanees, we're taking all of the risk; this is understood by our transfer policy makers, and therefore promotes a hugely risk-averse signing policy.

If a player isn't good enough for a permanent deal, promote your youth players. That's a much more sensible policy as far as I can see, with next to no pitfalls.

And I'm not sure how many loanees we've had that we've actually gone on to sign. At the moment, I'm only coming up with three (Kamberi, Stokes and McGivern) and two of them ended up being flops. The jury is still out on Kamberi of course but, FWIW, I've no doubt he'll be a success.
Efe, Dylan, Rocky...And I could go on. All loanees we then signed.
What point there is in referring to recruitment teams gone by, I'm not certain? It's Leeann's recruitment team that is delivering now.
They didn't exist when the Donaldsons and McGiverns of this world signed.
 
Likes: Smurf

wrighty

Registered
Newbie
Jan 7, 2015
25
13
8
York
#27
And I'm not sure how many loanees we've had that we've actually gone on to sign. At the moment, I'm only coming up with three (Kamberi, Stokes and McGivern) and two of them ended up being flops. The jury is still out on Kamberi of course but, FWIW, I've no doubt he'll be a success.
You have got me confused. I assume the two failures are Stokes and McGivern?

McGiven was always a Donkey regardless of his contract, he always seemed to try for the Club but was just not good enough
I don't think we can say Stokes was a failure, he was a nutter, regardless of whether he was loaned or signed

Poor players will always be poor whether they are loans or have been signed on a Perm basis. The Pat Fenlon days saw us sign the likes of Soares who I think would have been poor under any arrangement. I don't see Lennon doing that.
 
Likes: SKII

Purple & Green

Radge McRadge
Administrator
Flag Owner
Radge Donator
Player Sponsor
Jun 27, 2002
12,002
185
73
Gourock
www.hibeesbounce.com
#28
Lennon has been given funds and backing, that’s why the squad is of the quality it is.

It’s about 22 players, not chucking the funds received on 1 player who left on 1 player coming in.
 

Green Sleeves

Radge Donator
Private Member
Registered
Jun 14, 2007
2,673
48
53
In the early days of a better nation
#29
Our recruitment policy is light years away from those days. Light years.

Which loans didn't contribute recently?
Dylan?
Efe?
Flo?
Jamie?
Rocky?
Barker?
Allan?

The only one I can think of is Rherras?
Spot on. Dylan, Efe, Kamberi & Rocky all became permanent. Proof that loan deals have worked brilliantly for Hibs. Bizarre anyone thinks otherwise given the reality.

That said I'd spunk a chunk of the McGinn money on Ryan Christie plus a marquee signing to challenge or cover Slivka & Mallan. Then we'd be ready for everything and everybody.
 
Likes: hibbybilly

Two Headed Boy

Radge Donator
Registered
Jan 2, 2010
1,929
64
58
36
Glasgow
#30
Spot on. Dylan, Efe, Kamberi & Rocky all became permanent. Proof that loan deals have worked brilliantly for Hibs. Bizarre anyone thinks otherwise given the reality.

That said I'd spunk a chunk of the McGinn money on Ryan Christie plus a marquee signing to challenge or cover Slivka & Mallan. Then we'd be ready for everything and everybody.
Getting Christie might be tough with the whole Celtic/McGinn saga fallout.

I still think Kamara at Dundee is the obvious one. Quality playmaker, probably won't command as much of a fee as anyone from Celtic, we could offer Dundee Swanson as a sweetener and they would likely be pleased with that.
 

Hibee Kev

Radge Donator
Private Member
Registered
Nov 2, 2006
3,484
44
53
Gloucester
#31
Getting Christie might be tough with the whole Celtic/McGinn saga fallout.

I still think Kamara at Dundee is the obvious one. Quality playmaker, probably won't command as much of a fee as anyone from Celtic, we could offer Dundee Swanson as a sweetener and they would likely be pleased with that.
I agree on Kamara. Watched a video of his "best bits" from last season and there was plenty of him spinning away from opponents in tight situations in a SJM-fashion.
 

C4MMY

Private Member
Registered
Ladies Player Sponsor
Gray Boot Sponsor
Feb 9, 2016
1,417
42
53
Edinburgh
#32
kamberi loan signing was a gamble that was clearly well thought out. Someone seen the potential and got him on basically a 6month trial with an agreed fee before anyone even took notice of him.
 
Likes: Forzahibs

Two Headed Boy

Radge Donator
Registered
Jan 2, 2010
1,929
64
58
36
Glasgow
#33
I agree on Kamara. Watched a video of his "best bits" from last season and there was plenty of him spinning away from opponents in tight situations in a SJM-fashion.
Aye, he can do the accurate crossfield ping thing SJM was good at too. Good eye for a pass all round really. I've been very impressed with him every time I've seen him on highlights.
He isn't as much of a goal threat mind you, but with our forward line I don't know how much of a problem that would be. The only barrier I can see is Dundee having a decent price slapped on his head.
 
Likes: Hibee Kev

Green Sleeves

Radge Donator
Private Member
Registered
Jun 14, 2007
2,673
48
53
In the early days of a better nation
#34
Getting Christie might be tough with the whole Celtic/McGinn saga fallout.

I still think Kamara at Dundee is the obvious one. Quality playmaker, probably won't command as much of a fee as anyone from Celtic, we could offer Dundee Swanson as a sweetener and they would likely be pleased with that.
Kamara would be excellent if he was available.

I'm not sure there's any animosity or problems between Hibs and Celtic boards. Problem seems to be between their manager and their board.

I'd guess Hibs were courteous with their KBs simply responding to them their bids didnt meet the club's evaluation. Just normal business correspondence.

Wouldnt imagine it will affect any future deals. Except they'll know now they cannae fanny Hibs about with low bids.
 

Forzahibs

I'm a Radge Donator
Flag Owner
Radge Donator
Private Member
Registered
Monthly Radge
Jul 3, 2002
31,091
200
78
56
Glenrothes
#35
Kamara would be excellent if he was available.

I'm not sure there's any animosity or problems between Hibs and Celtic boards. Problem seems to be between their manager and their board.

I'd guess Hibs were courteous with their KBs simply responding to them their bids didnt meet the club's evaluation. Just normal business correspondence.

Wouldnt imagine it will affect any future deals. Except they'll know now they cannae fanny Hibs about with low bids.
More a supporter thing I'd say, can't see it being a big problem
 

NW

Registered
Monthly Radge
Jun 19, 2003
657
14
23
In a yellow submarine
Visit site
#36
Kamara would be excellent if he was available.

I'm not sure there's any animosity or problems between Hibs and Celtic boards. Problem seems to be between their manager and their board.

I'd guess Hibs were courteous with their KBs simply responding to them their bids didnt meet the club's evaluation. Just normal business correspondence.

Wouldnt imagine it will affect any future deals. Except they'll know now they cannae fanny Hibs about with low bids.
Kamara is available. His valuation will be the issue.
 

Chris G Whyte

Radge Donator
Registered
Jan 16, 2008
1,916
142
73
The Netherlands
www.twitter.com
#37
What point there is in referring to recruitment teams gone by, I'm not certain? It's Leeann's recruitment team that is delivering now.
They didn't exist when the Donaldsons and McGiverns of this world signed.
And... And that's the point I made in the very first post.

Honestly, I'm not sure what we're actually arguing about here.

You have got me confused. I assume the two failures are Stokes and McGivern?

McGiven was always a Donkey regardless of his contract, he always seemed to try for the Club but was just not good enough
I don't think we can say Stokes was a failure, he was a nutter, regardless of whether he was loaned or signed
Stokes was a failure after we signed him following his loan, in my view. He grossly underperformed given his ability, and caused dressing room unrest that no team needs to be dealing with.
 

SKII

Administrator
Radge Donator
Lewis Flag Donator
Monthly Radge
Oct 26, 2004
17,435
612
118
Right here, right now
#38
And... And that's the point I made in the very first post.

Honestly, I'm not sure what we're actually arguing about here..
Weird. I didn't realise we were.

However, I'd say you've forgotten more about the positive outcomes of recent loans.

If loans done well, as of late, yields trophies and Europe, then I've no problem with it.
 
Likes: Smurf

southfieldhibby

Private Member
Registered
Player Sponsor
Lewis Flag Donator
Oct 12, 2002
11,151
175
68
EH15
#39
Weird. I didn't realise we were.

However, I'd say you've forgotten more about the positive outcomes of recent loans.

If loans done well, as of late, yields trophies and Europe, then I've no problem with it.
Think we’d all want an 11 of players born in EH6 but it’s unrealistic. Loans have a part to play, alongside our own players.