Transfer Window Summer 2025 Post Transfer Window Thread

[Carpy]

Transfers In/Out​

Player​	In/ Out​	Transfer Type​	Club​
Stuart Findlay​	​	Loan (Season)​	Hearts​
Ruben Rodrigues​	​	Permanent (w Fee)​	EC Vitoria​
Brian De Keersmaecker​	​	Permanent (w Fee)​	Heracles Almelo​
Idris El-Mizouni​	​	Permanent (w Fee)​	Leyton Orient​
Will Goodwin​	​	Loan (Season)​	Colchester​
Brodie Spencer​	​	Permanent (w Fee)​	Huddersfield​
Jordan Thorniley​	​	Loan (Season)​	Northampton Town​
Luke Harris​	​	Loan (Season)​	Fulham​
Nik Prelec​	​	Loan (Season w Option)​	Cagliari​
Will Lankshear​	​	Loan (Season)​	Tottenham​
James Golding​	​	Loan (Season)​	Crewe Alexandra​
Peter Kioso​	​	Loan (Season)​	Peterborough United​
Ben Davies​	​	Loan (Season)​	Rangers​
Filip Krastev​	​	Loan (Season)​	Lommel​
Elliott Moore​	​	Mutual Consent​	Free Agent​
Stephan Negru​	​	Loan (Season)​	Bristol Rovers​
Owen Dale​	​	Loan (Season)​	Plymouth​

 

[SteMerritt]

I don't understand the criticism of loan deals. You simple don't buy players like Lankshear for anywhere near the cost of his loan fee (which still wasn't cheap). You don't pay 100% of the wages for Ben Davies on a multi-year contract when you can instead pay around 50% of his wages for this season alone. You don't gamble on the signing Prelec, when you get an option to see how he adapts to English football first.

Loans are a hugely important part of all transfer strategies, and there can often be even greater competition to pick some of these players up. These are not cheap deals, but they are significantly cheaper than buying.

I'd rather spend money on real quality players for one season than the same on lesser quality players for multiple seasons. Stuart Findlay has cost the clubs more than we will pay for Ben Nelson last season and Ben Davies for this season.

We still need to buy players with re-sale value and to maintain long term stability. But we also need to get the best possible players that we can within the financial limits that apply. And loans play a huge role in helping us do that.

Kilmarnock Likes This.

 

[Carpy]

not bad for a 'sub-par' window

I think the poll at the top of this thread suggests that most didn't categorise the window as sub-par.

 

[Jaboysmith]

BDK is going absolutely nowhere next summer.

I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but we're no longer the tinpot little League One club that regularly had their pants pulled down by Championship clubs. We're a Championship club with lofty aspirations and BDK is a player that you build your team around, not sell at the first opportunity..

We don't need to sell, so we wont. We're not the same '2 steps forward and 1 step back' Oxford that many still think that we are.

That strategy is what catapulted us into the position we are now though. The years under MApp where we bought and sold allowed us to attract players who would not usually come to us.
If someone like a West Ham or an Everton come in for BDK and pay his release clause, or in the unlikely scenario that he does not have one, put 10/15 million quid down for him, we will be wishing him all the best, and using that money to fill out the rest of the squad.
If you are not a 'Big 6' side, or at this point Liverpool, Man City, Arsenal or Chelsea... you are a selling club.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

I don't understand the criticism of loan deals.

I'll have a go at this!

Before I ramble on though - because loans are a 'thing' then of course we have to use the system the same as everyone else. As you correctly say, it allows clubs lower down the food chain to have players in the team that they would never be able to afford otherwise. Not to take advantage of it would be to put the club at a significant disadvantage. So any criticism I make is of the whole loans system rather than OUFCs use of it.

The system encourages clubs at the top of the league structure to sign a ridiculous amount of young players. If they can loan the players out elsewhere (and potentially get some of their wages paid) then they can hoover up young talent and get other clubs to develop them / test them out. The amount that good young (especially English) players are potentially worth should they come good makes that a pretty good bet. The corollary of that is that the young players are of course likely to sign for those top clubs - they will be paid a very handsome wage for the period of their contracts and will probably get some senior football under their belts. So, overall, is that a bad thing? Well I would argue that it is. One of the ways that clubs down the divisions can make money is to sign, develop and sell young players - if not only the most promising but also those not so obviously outstanding are on the books of a Prem club, then that's out of the window.

I am also not sure it does many of the young players much good either - certainly some loanees we have seen at our club develop a very entitled attitude, thinking they are too good for #clubslikeoxford, when in fact making it as a professional footballer in this country is in itself a success. It is as if even being signed by a top club means they have made it, when in fact that is very far from the truth.

But let's assume the loan system is here to stay - I would still say that allowing 5 loan players in a matchday squad is far too many. Because that many are allowed, many clubs will have up to the maximum. Even discounting the Prem, that is 72 clubs x 5 places = 360 loan players in matchday squads in the EFL, plus maybe more in the registered squads (because some are young enough not to count towards the limit) plus loans to the Conference, other Prem teams, overseas teams etc.

Finally, it restricts proper squad building for the clubs borrowing the players. In our case (as an example) Lankshear is looking really good. I don't know whether he could be recalled in January to go to a different team, but the chances of him being with us next season are very small indeed - even if he were for sale, you'd imaging bigger fish would snap him up at no financial advantage to us (because he is a loanee). So then we have to go through the same rigmarole again and again and again to look for a player in that position.

I suspect my problem is really with the 'loan system' more than any specific 'loan deals'.

 

[LeftSideBoy]

That strategy is what catapulted us into the position we are now though. The years under MApp where we bought and sold allowed us to attract players who would not usually come to us.
If someone like a West Ham or an Everton come in for BDK and pay his release clause, or in the unlikely scenario that he does not have one, put 10/15 million quid down for him, we will be wishing him all the best, and using that money to fill out the rest of the squad.
If you are not a 'Big 6' side, or at this point Liverpool, Man City, Arsenal or Chelsea... you are a selling club.

I appreciate your point, but that was 10 years ago, 2 leagues below, with the club operating within entirely different financial circumstances..

That model was necessary to get us where we are today, but in my opinion, at this stage, that’s not the right approach. We need to keep the core of the squad together and establish ourselves at this level.

It’s very unlikely that someone is going to offer us that kind of money for BDK next summer, and to my knowledge, there is no release clause.

If we were a selling club, we’d have sold Brannagan, Brown, Tyler etc when we had the chance. Of course, every player has a price, but now we’re at this level, we don’t need to sell. That’s the difference..

 

[Scotchegg]

I'll have a go at this!

Before I ramble on though - because loans are a 'thing' then of course we have to use the system the same as everyone else. As you correctly say, it allows clubs lower down the food chain to have players in the team that they would never be able to afford otherwise. Not to take advantage of it would be to put the club at a significant disadvantage. So any criticism I make is of the whole loans system rather than OUFCs use of it.

The system encourages clubs at the top of the league structure to sign a ridiculous amount of young players. If they can loan the players out elsewhere (and potentially get some of their wages paid) then they can hoover up young talent and get other clubs to develop them / test them out. The amount that good young (especially English) players are potentially worth should they come good makes that a pretty good bet. The corollary of that is that the young players are of course likely to sign for those top clubs - they will be paid a very handsome wage for the period of their contracts and will probably get some senior football under their belts. So, overall, is that a bad thing? Well I would argue that it is. One of the ways that clubs down the divisions can make money is to sign, develop and sell young players - if not only the most promising but also those not so obviously outstanding are on the books of a Prem club, then that's out of the window.

I am also not sure it does many of the young players much good either - certainly some loanees we have seen at our club develop a very entitled attitude, thinking they are too good for #clubslikeoxford, when in fact making it as a professional footballer in this country is in itself a success. It is as if even being signed by a top club means they have made it, when in fact that is very far from the truth.

But let's assume the loan system is here to stay - I would still say that allowing 5 loan players in a matchday squad is far too many. Because that many are allowed, many clubs will have up to the maximum. Even discounting the Prem, that is 72 clubs x 5 places = 360 loan players in matchday squads in the EFL, plus maybe more in the registered squads (because some are young enough not to count towards the limit) plus loans to the Conference, other Prem teams, overseas teams etc.

Finally, it restricts proper squad building for the clubs borrowing the players. In our case (as an example) Lankshear is looking really good. I don't know whether he could be recalled in January to go to a different team, but the chances of him being with us next season are very small indeed - even if he were for sale, you'd imaging bigger fish would snap him up at no financial advantage to us (because he is a loanee). So then we have to go through the same rigmarole again and again and again to look for a player in that position.

I suspect my problem is really with the 'loan system' more than any specific 'loan deals'.

The loan system is just an additional way to operate that can benefit players and clubs, but can also be misused by some.

Over the years we have benefitted mainly from bringing in players on loan that we wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford. But we have also seen the value in sending Currie out for last season, or squad flexibility in being able to loan out those who are no longer in contention this season.

The system is far from perfect, but whilst it exists we need to maximise it for our own benefit. After a recent run where some of our loanees have been hit and miss, it feels like this season has more hits.

 

[Ewes]

I'll have a go at this!

Before I ramble on though - because loans are a 'thing' then of course we have to use the system the same as everyone else. As you correctly say, it allows clubs lower down the food chain to have players in the team that they would never be able to afford otherwise. Not to take advantage of it would be to put the club at a significant disadvantage. So any criticism I make is of the whole loans system rather than OUFCs use of it.

The system encourages clubs at the top of the league structure to sign a ridiculous amount of young players. If they can loan the players out elsewhere (and potentially get some of their wages paid) then they can hoover up young talent and get other clubs to develop them / test them out. The amount that good young (especially English) players are potentially worth should they come good makes that a pretty good bet. The corollary of that is that the young players are of course likely to sign for those top clubs - they will be paid a very handsome wage for the period of their contracts and will probably get some senior football under their belts. So, overall, is that a bad thing? Well I would argue that it is. One of the ways that clubs down the divisions can make money is to sign, develop and sell young players - if not only the most promising but also those not so obviously outstanding are on the books of a Prem club, then that's out of the window.

I am also not sure it does many of the young players much good either - certainly some loanees we have seen at our club develop a very entitled attitude, thinking they are too good for #clubslikeoxford, when in fact making it as a professional footballer in this country is in itself a success. It is as if even being signed by a top club means they have made it, when in fact that is very far from the truth.

But let's assume the loan system is here to stay - I would still say that allowing 5 loan players in a matchday squad is far too many. Because that many are allowed, many clubs will have up to the maximum. Even discounting the Prem, that is 72 clubs x 5 places = 360 loan players in matchday squads in the EFL, plus maybe more in the registered squads (because some are young enough not to count towards the limit) plus loans to the Conference, other Prem teams, overseas teams etc.

Finally, it restricts proper squad building for the clubs borrowing the players. In our case (as an example) Lankshear is looking really good. I don't know whether he could be recalled in January to go to a different team, but the chances of him being with us next season are very small indeed - even if he were for sale, you'd imaging bigger fish would snap him up at no financial advantage to us (because he is a loanee). So then we have to go through the same rigmarole again and again and again to look for a player in that position.

I suspect my problem is really with the 'loan system' more than any specific 'loan deals'.

One point to add to this - I believe there is a Gentleman’s Agreement’ which operates when a player previously out on loan somewhere is sold on for a profit by their contracted team. So if Lankshear continues to do well and is recalled by Spurs and sold for, say, £10M, Spurs normally reimburse Us for the loan fee and wages for the period we developed him.

I don’t think this ‘agreement’ is written down in the rule book but I understand it does operate. If so I think it’s a good thing.

 

[Whingit]

BDK is going absolutely nowhere next summer.

I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but we're no longer the tinpot little League One club that regularly had their pants pulled down by Championship clubs. We're a Championship club with lofty aspirations and BDK is a player that you build your team around, not sell at the first opportunity..

We don't need to sell, so we wont. We're not the same '2 steps forward and 1 step back' Oxford that many still think that we are.

In order to realise our lofty ambitions, we will have to sell players to be able to increase the budget and then make sure we do it again before 3 years so that the budget doesn't have to be cut back. PSR, the lack of commercial revenue and inability to create revenue from the stadium mean that we have to sell in order to grow at this time, otherwise the budget will be stagnant.

 

[NorthWestOx]

One point to add to this - I believe there is a Gentleman’s Agreement’ which operates when a player previously out on loan somewhere is sold on for a profit by their contracted team. So if Lankshear continues to do well and is recalled by Spurs and sold for, say, £10M, Spurs normally reimburse Us for the loan fee and wages for the period we developed him.

I don’t think this ‘agreement’ is written down in the rule book but I understand it does operate. If so I think it’s a good thing.

Can't remember the player, but we had to pay a fee to a club for developing a loan player that we then sold to another club.

 

[JOHN BOY]

Look at all the promoted s

It’s fair comment, but twists the criticism more than a bit.

Most people, including me, who have been and still are critical of the window have recognised that Waldron/Mitchell look like they may have excelled in poor circumstances.

It wasn’t the plan, nor should it have been, to depend on loans and players that weren’t ready to play. It was more Spencers, more BDK’s. Of the loans, I think Lankshear is likely the only one we’d have still pursued - but that’s a guess based on his profile being one we typically like. Davies too, but the timing of that one suggests not.

I’m critical of the disorganisation that forced our hand, not how we played it, and I applaud (to a degree) what we managed to get in the circumstances and how quickly they look to be getting to speed.

I’ll happily confess I didn’t expect Prelec to be any good whatsoever, for one. Krastev stinks of a gamble, but looks a good one. L Harris looks lost, but for one to not work out? That’s not bad.

It should’ve been a season to kick on in a big way. But by far the most important thing is staying up for another season where hopefully we can do a better job next time, which we will have to do when these loan players exit and BDK gets bought. Next summer could be quite busy again, so we need to be far better prepared. But trust me, I am mightily relieved to see things coming together.

Ifes

The loan system is just an additional way to operate that can benefit players and clubs, but can also be misused by some.

Over the years we have benefitted mainly from bringing in players on loan that we wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford. But we have also seen the value in sending Currie out for last season, or squad flexibility in being able to loan out those who are no longer in contention this season.

The system is far from perfect, but whilst it exists we need to maximise it for our own benefit. After a recent run where some of our loanees have been hit and miss, it feels like this season has more hits.

Agree look at the promoted teams last year they all had loanees.

 

[Foley]

It’s fair comment, but twists the criticism more than a bit.

Most people, including me, who have been and still are critical of the window have recognised that Waldron/Mitchell look like they may have excelled in poor circumstances.

It wasn’t the plan, nor should it have been, to depend on loans and players that weren’t ready to play. It was more Spencers, more BDK’s. Of the loans, I think Lankshear is likely the only one we’d have still pursued - but that’s a guess based on his profile being one we typically like. Davies too, but the timing of that one suggests not.

I’m critical of the disorganisation that forced our hand, not how we played it, and I applaud (to a degree) what we managed to get in the circumstances and how quickly they look to be getting to speed.

I’ll happily confess I didn’t expect Prelec to be any good whatsoever, for one. Krastev stinks of a gamble, but looks a good one. L Harris looks lost, but for one to not work out? That’s not bad.

It should’ve been a season to kick on in a big way. But by far the most important thing is staying up for another season where hopefully we can do a better job next time, which we will have to do when these loan players exit and BDK gets bought. Next summer could be quite busy again, so we need to be far better prepared. But trust me, I am mightily relieved to see things coming together.

I really don't agree with you on some of that .
If we didn't plan to have top loanees in, I would be amazed.
Prelec ( who is a loan to buy), Krastev and Lankshear look potentially teriffic signings
Davies was presumably brought in due to the longer than anticipated injury to C Brown and it is far too early to judge L Harris.
The club suggested that they were looking at quality rather than quality. That is what appears to have happened.

 

[BrockBuster]

I don't understand the criticism of loan deals. You simple don't buy players like Lankshear for anywhere near the cost of his loan fee (which still wasn't cheap). You don't pay 100% of the wages for Ben Davies on a multi-year contract when you can instead pay around 50% of his wages for this season alone. You don't gamble on the signing Prelec, when you get an option to see how he adapts to English football first.

Loans are a hugely important part of all transfer strategies, and there can often be even greater competition to pick some of these players up. These are not cheap deals, but they are significantly cheaper than buying.

I'd rather spend money on real quality players for one season than the same on lesser quality players for multiple seasons. Stuart Findlay has cost the clubs more than we will pay for Ben Nelson last season and Ben Davies for this season.

We still need to buy players with re-sale value and to maintain long term stability. But we also need to get the best possible players that we can within the financial limits that apply. And loans play a huge role in helping us do that.

It's almost some people here are commenting on our recruitment strategy without having played Football Manager first. Do your homework folks!

Loans are imperative for low budget clubs at any level.

 

[Steve Gilbert]

I do enjoy this forum some days.
We have people suggesting it is bad that we have loans in as they are short term and then we have people suggesting that we will sell BDK at the first offer after just 1 season!
I would say this window has been pretty good. Out of all the new signings there is only 2 players with question marks over them, Larris who we haven't seen much of yet so don't know how good he will be and Davies with his fitness.
Every single signing though is competing for a first team place and is an upgrade on the players that have gone out.

 

[Carpy]

I'll have a go at this!

Before I ramble on though - because loans are a 'thing' then of course we have to use the system the same as everyone else. As you correctly say, it allows clubs lower down the food chain to have players in the team that they would never be able to afford otherwise. Not to take advantage of it would be to put the club at a significant disadvantage. So any criticism I make is of the whole loans system rather than OUFCs use of it.

The system encourages clubs at the top of the league structure to sign a ridiculous amount of young players. If they can loan the players out elsewhere (and potentially get some of their wages paid) then they can hoover up young talent and get other clubs to develop them / test them out. The amount that good young (especially English) players are potentially worth should they come good makes that a pretty good bet. The corollary of that is that the young players are of course likely to sign for those top clubs - they will be paid a very handsome wage for the period of their contracts and will probably get some senior football under their belts. So, overall, is that a bad thing? Well I would argue that it is. One of the ways that clubs down the divisions can make money is to sign, develop and sell young players - if not only the most promising but also those not so obviously outstanding are on the books of a Prem club, then that's out of the window.

I am also not sure it does many of the young players much good either - certainly some loanees we have seen at our club develop a very entitled attitude, thinking they are too good for #clubslikeoxford, when in fact making it as a professional footballer in this country is in itself a success. It is as if even being signed by a top club means they have made it, when in fact that is very far from the truth.

But let's assume the loan system is here to stay - I would still say that allowing 5 loan players in a matchday squad is far too many. Because that many are allowed, many clubs will have up to the maximum. Even discounting the Prem, that is 72 clubs x 5 places = 360 loan players in matchday squads in the EFL, plus maybe more in the registered squads (because some are young enough not to count towards the limit) plus loans to the Conference, other Prem teams, overseas teams etc.

Finally, it restricts proper squad building for the clubs borrowing the players. In our case (as an example) Lankshear is looking really good. I don't know whether he could be recalled in January to go to a different team, but the chances of him being with us next season are very small indeed - even if he were for sale, you'd imaging bigger fish would snap him up at no financial advantage to us (because he is a loanee). So then we have to go through the same rigmarole again and again and again to look for a player in that position.

I suspect my problem is really with the 'loan system' more than any specific 'loan deals'.

So I hear you, but I think the detail might surprise you, there are actually squad limits on youth squads to stop these clubs just hoovering up anyone that looks like they can kick a ball. I believe it's 20 per age group so that goes some way to preventing the hoarding.

The only thing I would like to see is that clubs of all sizes cannot recall loan players from a season long deal unless the loaning club has failed to play the player in within say 10% of the agreed game time that was agreed as part of the loan or the loaning club request the cancellation of the loan and the parent club agrees.

 

[Northernyellow]

So I hear you, but I think the detail might surprise you, there are actually squad limits on youth squads to stop these clubs just hoovering up anyone that looks like they can kick a ball. I believe it's 20 per age group so that goes some way to preventing the hoarding.

The only thing I would like to see is that clubs of all sizes cannot recall loan players from a season long deal unless the loaning club has failed to play the player in within say 10% of the agreed game time that was agreed as part of the loan or the loaning club request the cancellation of the loan and the parent club agrees.

I see where you are coming from, but don't agree. We are probably pd off with the loan system as we have often had loanees withdrawn, but as we are now moving towards being a loaning (as in. we loan them out) club, there is a different perspective. As an example, if Golding and/or Negru do very well in L2 this side of Christmas, and we have L1 clubs interested in a loan from January, then you can be certain we would recall them from L2 and send them to L1.

 

[Carpy]

I see where you are coming from, but don't agree. We are probably pd off with the loan system as we have often had loanees withdrawn, but as we are now moving towards being a loaning (as in. we loan them out) club, there is a different perspective. As an example, if Golding and/or Negru do very well in L2 this side of Christmas, and we have L1 clubs interested in a loan from January, then you can be certain we would recall them from L2 and send them to L1.

And I don't agree with it, if we commit to a season long loan and the loaning club are keeping to their word in terms of playing time, we should honour the deal. We will be equally pissed off if Lankshear goes to a team higher up the league in January.

 

[The Voice Of Reason]

I see where you are coming from, but don't agree. We are probably pd off with the loan system as we have often had loanees withdrawn, but as we are now moving towards being a loaning (as in. we loan them out) club, there is a different perspective. As an example, if Golding and/or Negru do very well in L2 this side of Christmas, and we have L1 clubs interested in a loan from January, then you can be certain we would recall them from L2 and send them to L1.

Disagree also ....
Going up a division doesn't guarantee game time or growth. You send out for both i.e. Currie
Think Beadle is going backwards with his constant flip flopping.

 

[Swaby39]

I really don't agree with you on some of that .
If we didn't plan to have top loanees in, I would be amazed.
Prelec ( who is a loan to buy), Krastev and Lankshear look potentially teriffic signings
Davies was presumably brought in due to the longer than anticipated injury to C Brown and it is far too early to judge L Harris.
The club suggested that they were looking at quality rather than quality. That is what appears to have happened.

There will of course have been intent to loan players and I don’t know why it’s been seen as a criticism of all loan players anywhere, ever. That wasn’t the point I was making but it’s been done to death what was wrong with the window.

We’re underway now. The window is closed and gone, and if what we’ve got keeps us up for another go then I’ll sleep easily.

 

[Swaby39]

BDK is going absolutely nowhere next summer.

I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but we're no longer the tinpot little League One club that regularly had their pants pulled down by Championship clubs. We're a Championship club with lofty aspirations and BDK is a player that you build your team around, not sell at the first opportunity..

We don't need to sell, so we wont. We're not the same '2 steps forward and 1 step back' Oxford that many still think that we are.

I sure hope so, but a player like that will have ambition and he’s good enough that a potential suitor will put the money down.

Would love to see him here 2 or 3 seasons in current form.

 

[Northernyellow]

Disagree also ....
Going up a division doesn't guarantee game time or growth. You send out for both i.e. Currie
Think Beadle is going backwards with his constant flip flopping.

Maybe. Beadle is an odd one. I thought he was fantastic. Am really surprised he can't get into the Brum First XI...

 

[Northernyellow]

And I don't agree with it, if we commit to a season long loan and the loaning club are keeping to their word in terms of playing time, we should honour the deal. We will be equally pissed off if Lankshear goes to a team higher up the league in January.

No. I don't agree with it. But basically, all pro clubs are selfish when it comes to their players...

 

[Northernyellow]

BDK is going absolutely nowhere next summer.

I'm not sure if you've noticed this, but we're no longer the tinpot little League One club that regularly had their pants pulled down by Championship clubs. We're a Championship club with lofty aspirations and BDK is a player that you build your team around, not sell at the first opportunity..

We don't need to sell, so we wont. We're not the same '2 steps forward and 1 step back' Oxford that many still think that we are.

Money talks, I'm afraid...if (and I accept it's a big if) BDK keeps on performing like this we'll be getting bids of £10M+ in the summer. And we won't be turning that down. Not least because BDK's agent will agitate for a move...

 

[Isle of Wight Yellow]

A few people on here at the time defended Brighton for taking Beadle off us when they did, but I think it’s pretty clearly been shown to have been a bad idea.

If they’d left him where he was and then (assuming we’d still gone up) loaned him to us again, they’d have a settled, happy player, living near family, getting regular minutes as a Championship number one, who’d grown organically from a season in League One to a season in the Championship.

As it is, his development has clearly been stunted and he can’t get a game, and hasn’t been for a while, all for a quick jump for a few Championship games. It was incredibly short-sighted and a lot of people recognised that at the time, to be fair (although I’m not complaining as it brought us the wonderful Mr Jamie Cumming!)

 

[Northernyellow]

A few people on here at the time defended Brighton for taking Beadle off us when they did, but I think it’s pretty clearly been shown to have been a bad idea.

If they’d left him where he was and then (assuming we’d still gone up) loaned him to us again, they’d have a settled, happy player, living near family, getting regular minutes as a Championship number one, who’d grown organically from a season in League One to a season in the Championship.

As it is, his development has clearly been stunted and he can’t get a game, and hasn’t been for a while, all for a quick jump for a few Championship games. It was incredibly short-sighted and a lot of people recognised that at the time, to be fair (although I’m not complaining as it brought us the wonderful Mr Jamie Cumming!)

Yup. The point I was trying to make (not very well!) is that the parent club will generally always try to move their loan player up the pyramid. In the case of Beadle, I agree. I thought it was a daft move by B&H at the time. Am really, really surprised Beadle is stuck on the bench at Brum tbh. I thought he was a huge talent.

 

[dickwalton1964]

I do enjoy this forum some days.
We have people suggesting it is bad that we have loans in as they are short term and then we have people suggesting that we will sell BDK at the first offer after just 1 season!
I would say this window has been pretty good. Out of all the new signings there is only 2 players with question marks over them, Larris who we haven't seen much of yet so don't know how good he will be and Davies with his fitness.
Every single signing though is competing for a first team place and is an upgrade on the players that have gone out.

I’d say there’s a very real possibility BDK only spends a season here. If he keeps this level of performance up then he’s off next summer, simple as that.

 

[Steve Gilbert]

I’d say there’s a very real possibility BDK only spends a season here. If he keeps this level of performance up then he’s off next summer, simple as that.

Why is he? He will still be under contract so unless the club get an offer they can’t refuse then I’d imagine he will still be here.

 

[BicesterU]

Money talks, I'm afraid...if (and I accept it's a big if) BDK keeps on performing like this we'll be getting bids of £10M+ in the summer. And we won't be turning that down. Not least because BDK's agent will agitate for a move...

I don't know if he'll need to agitate for anything. I seem to remember getting the distinct impression from his welcome interview that we were viewed very much as a means of getting in to the UK leagues.

And that's not a criticism, because if we're receiving big bids for him it means he's performed very well for us. Can't say fairer than that, really.

 

[Northernyellow]

I don't know if he'll need to agitate for anything. I seem to remember getting the distinct impression from his welcome interview that we were viewed very much as a means of getting in to the UK leagues.

And that's not a criticism, because if we're receiving big bids for him it means he's performed very well for us. Can't say fairer than that, really.

Ah. Didn't know that. Sounds about right. There was a really interesting article about Virgil Van Dyke a few years ago. Also a late developer in the Eredivise. The agent wanted to get him in the EFL, but only got offers from low end Championship clubs. So, they moved him to Celtic. The reasoning was that the SPL was poor, but very physical - and VVD would be an immediate standout, and would then get PL offers. He was and Southampton came in for him. So if we are viewed as an entry point to the EFL for BDK, then that's fair enough.

 

[TobyDavis34]

What iffing a current player is crazy. We have him for now and he’s clearly excellent - let’s enjoy that and see what happens.

If he performs well and we stay up and get millions then wonderful. If he performs well and we stay up and keep him then wonderful.

It’s all good

 

[londonyellow]

What iffing a current player is crazy. We have him for now and he’s clearly excellent - let’s enjoy that and see what happens.

If he performs well and we stay up and get millions then wonderful. If he performs well and we stay up and keep him then wonderful.

It’s all good

Exactly. For a 'team like Oxford' an indicator of our success in recruitment and on the field will be losing our best players...hopefully for huge amounts of £££. Let's enjoy BDK while we have him, however long that may be.