Hmm, good in some ways, but removes that jeopardy of having used all your subs. Also probably favours bigger clubs who can always bring on another good player if it's not going well.
But how many of those 18 months was he off injured, and how often was he playing for the rest of it? I welcome the return of Holland because I think he showed potential, but I think that things like his goal against Newcastle has given some a rose-tinted view of his time with us. That said, I welcome him back and hope he can show the glimpses of potential from a few years ago on a more consistent basis.
I think it slowed down too many matches, instead of injecting energy like you think it would. It's also a big get out of jail free card for a manager if they can sub off half their outfield when they get their tactics wrong, and many were only using the last 2 subs in the 85th+ minute anyway.
Holland - yes. I think Whyte will go to Wigan or Sunderland for more pay than we would be willing to expend.
www.westhamzone.com
My best guess - and it is a guess - is that the 'option to buy' mentioned is actually an obligation to buy assuming he makes a certain number of appearances for us between now and January. This will be exactly for the reasons you suggest and an insurance policy for us in case we cannot get a consistent run of games out of him. It's highly unlikely West Ham will want him back now even if he had a great season, otherwise they'd give him an extension ahead of his loan to us as their own insurance policy. He's on a free next year anyway (I think) so all things considered, it's likely to be an obligation to buy the player based on certain conditions being met.
I thought it would be him and Whyte, with Holland joining next week.
I think they brought in a lad on loan from Chelsea which was the end of Seddon. Not sure about their RB situation though, so maybe.
Would be a very Peterborough signing.Tomlinson to Peterborough apparently
