I suspect, and I must emphasize that I don't know, that Enciso was sent on loan in Jan because a) he came back injured from the Olympics, b) he'd been desperately underwhelming in his brief appearances, c) he's well behind Pedro and Rutter in the #10 role and, d) because of all of the above, he didn't want to sit on our bench so now he's sitting on Ipswich's.What I don't understand is why we loaned out these players before we loaned out Gruda. At the weekend, we were basically screwed for a forward player and still didn't bring him on. Surely Facu and Enciso are further ahead and it should be Gruda sent off to a promoted side
Buonanotte needs match time. He had a decent season under RDZ (although the absolute dogs abuse he was getting on here for his performances in some quarters seems to have been retrospectively deleted from the collective memory), but probably played more than he was ready to on account of our injury list. The fact is, there must be a reason that he isn't playing in a side as bad as Leicester. Sure, we can all blame the manager, and that may be right, but none of us actually know other than RVNs comments that he's not doing the business in training.
All that said, I don't think the above two are related to Gruda not being sent on loan. Buonanotte went on loan 5 days before the Gruda deal was done and Enciso went because of the pre-stated reasons. When Enciso went, we hadn't lost Rutter for the season or Pedro for three games because he's a thick man-child