Those 3 players you mention in the last line of your post were all "chucked in" for our win at West Ham so it doesn't have to be a case of holding the white flag aloft.

We would have to prove loss - which would be difficult.

The manager must prioritise the game on Saturday over this one which should mean several fringe players are selected - as they were for the win at West Ham.

Will he know yet what budget the owners want him to work to ?

No, the statement says the deal keeps him at the club "until at least June 2024" which could be interpreted to mean that there are provisions in the contract to keep him longer. Perhaps I have missed something but I can't see anything in the club's statement above that contradicts that as a possible interpretation.

I think it is based on the statement that he is with the club until at least June 2024 which does imply that there is an option for longer.

If he's here until 2025 if we want him to be there's hardly any rush and why distract him now with contract negotiations when he should be focused on his football. Leave it until the end of the season.

I doubt if we would have anything like £10m available in the transfer market nor would we be able to put together a remuneration package that would match anything like he's on at Forest in the Premier League.

But Forest is the only indicator in his career so far by which to judge his Premier League contribution. There are a lot of players who are good enough to get their club promoted to the Premier League but not good enough to keep them there.

Would we want him on promotion ? Is he good enough for the Premier League ? Forest took only 6 months to decide they wanted to move him on.

JRC started in just 20 of the 92 league games in the last 2 years - with 4 sub appearances - so it is hardly the case that the manager was always shoehorning him in to the team.Nyambe started 64 of those games and came on as a sub in 5.

Very good win. Pleased to see how the younger players like JRC, Buckley and Carter have come on, and Brittain,Hyam,Szmodics and Thomas pointed to the recruitment skill of Broughton. Every chance of a play off position with this team.

Interesting to read in the White Paper that prospective new owners are required to furnish the Regulator with a business plan which incorporates their plans for dealing with contingencies that result in a downturn in the club's finances - such as relegation. If it is true that Venkys bought the club without knowing that the club could be relegated from the Premier League they might have gone about things in a different way.

Back in the playoffs ! 8 games unbeaten since the game at Rotherham including 4 clean sheets.

Thought so !

Nor is your sense of humour.

First time in history that Mick McCarthy will have been called pretty.

But with no transfer fee on a move he'll surely be looking for a decent signing on fee which, even if his transfer valuation is now no more than £5m, could be in the region of £2m which when added to whatever wage he would be offered would be a much better deal than £1.5m a year.

Obviously you would prefer the definition of stakeholder to be limited to those with a direct financial interest in the organisation concerned. That is up to you , but in the modern world the definition is extended beyond that and in the context of a football club fans are regarded as stakeholders.

The Fan led Football Governance Review published in November 2021, and which will likely form the basis for the forthcoming legislation for regulation and supporter involvement, does include fans within its definition of stakeholder.

But why would Brereton sign a £1.5m contract if he is worth £15m in the transfer market ? He can negotiate both a significant signing on fee and a higher salary.

Qatar are looking to buy it as an exercise in "sportswashing". The other potential buyers will be looking to make money but the international appeal of United is so great that they don't need to be in a European Super League to achieve that.

You may be right, but told by whom ? Normally the party wanting to be paid is the one that has to take the case to court. Having said that, our "case" was ridiculous since, as I recall, the club's argument was that despite Shaw being the club's chief executive he was acting ultra vires when he agreed the relevant clause in Berg's contract which entitled him to be paid.

The German clubs are effectively run by the fans due to the 50% + 1 ownership rule; so they won't agree to it. The English clubs won't agree to it because it is not necessarily the case that they will earn more money, the government will oppose it and once the "golden share" rule is introduced supporters will be able to veto it.

I thought it was Berg/the LMA who took out the law suit against the club ?