So predictable, also explains the nominal links to Drameh and Cooney as replacements not back-ups

A good CB can play until they are 40 as long as they stay mostly fit, look at Thiago Silva. Batth should have been given a deal that he would resign instantly and we can build from there, he is/was our best CB. Instead they've undoubtedly low-balled him again while Eustace will have offered a 2-year deal at Derby.

It was certainly the case in the early days with all the Kentaro boys, if it still goes on they do a better job of hiding it now.

Must be, can't see how we could afford him otherwise, the other defender at Saint Etienne, Nade, will be in the same boat you'd think.

I wasn't sure if this was a typo, the use of "However" implies that the interest has not developed rather than that it has.

I was just wondering the same, they may try push out the boat this summer in the hope that fan unrest dies down and Suhail can return to the shadows.

Batth or Hyam would have to go presumably, they might try swing Hyam for the cash instead of renewing him, Batth ought to be cheaper too.

LT claims we are in advanced talks for Modibo Sagnan, a left-footed CB from Montpellier. I would've thought he would be out of our price range looking at past transfer and value, but I know nothing about him so who knows.

Club PR about "trying" to negotiate deals is pathetic, why not just you know agree a deal and announce it? Until they sign on the dotted line it is utterly meaningless and a non-story. Mind you even after that we will sell the player on the cheap if we can...

I suppose in a blind optimism Drameh could be back up to Brittain, as Ismael's style needs 4 healthy wing/fullbacks. He may also want to switch to 3-4-3.

LT reporting Drameh interest too, worrying as to what it means about Brittain.

Waggot seems to have leaked to press that he wanted to bring in external investment to wonens team rather than bin it. Clearly not happy at copping all the blame for Suhail.

This is the key, Suhail has to go.

Weimann was a great signing but at 34 off an injury I'm not too bothered if he goes. Can put wages towards a younger guy with resale, and give Tyjon chances in first team.

"Cannot be sustained under current financial framework" aka our billionaire owners can't afford to increase the budget for the women's squad from £100-150k to £400-600k by their own estimates. Utterly pathetic by the club, especially when they bigged up the Lionesses who came through our ranks.

I mean the accounts show they sent across £5-10m at a few points since the court-case to keep the lights on so-to speak, but it is clear they have been unwilling to do so unless it endangered bankruptcy of day-to-day operations. Certainly they have not invested what Suhail/Waggot claim and almost none of it has gone to improving the club, facilities or players.

This is what makes me think that accounting wise they have set a very specific figure to fund the club through the loans, which they refuse to budge on, hence the guarantee manifestly impeding investment in the club. As to why they cannot/will not budge who knows...

Interesting, is there potentially a way to leverage the shareholders in the company against the mismanagement of the company asset/investment then? Or do Venkys own too many of the shares?

My point would be that that is still contradictory to Suhail and Waggott's statements as to there not being an impediment. If their legal appeal is that the guarantee is an impediment to funding the club then we as fans have a right to argue that as well, and therefore Suhail did lie when he said there is no impediment (technicalities notwithstanding). And the yearly accounts clearly show the drop of in funding as a consequence of the court case being brought against Venkys. As to whether the removal of the guarantee would increase our funding, that also seems unlikely... As I said above, they ought to be able to afford £40m a year to continue the alleged £20m funding and the matched £20m bond, unless they are in serious financial difficulty.

I'm sure they could try and claim that technically they can send funds if they match the guarantee, but that would presumably undermine their legal argument that the guarantee/court case is an impediment to sending money to the club. If we assume they have set aside £20m in liquidity each year to fund the club (as so often alleged by Suhail et al), their argument would be that if half of that goes into the Central Bank bond rather than the club it is an impediment, and for whatever reason they cannot or will not match a guarantee that would require £40m to be set aside just for the club (including the guarantee). The court would probably rightly argue that the guarantee should not be an impediment to a billion dollar corporation who are alleged to have avoided tax. Either way Suhail was still lying when he was talking about "no impediment/restriction" to funding the club as it is demonstrably not the case, and they are arguing in court that there is an impediment. As a further point, rewatching the 3 amigos interview, Suhail mentioned that the £300m is a loan from the owners, not a liquid injection. Does anyone have an explanation why they might be doing this for tax/business purposes?

More ammunition for Glenn and the coalition... We had all worked it out by the lack of investment, yearly accounts, and sudden change when the court case started, but really daft for Suhail and Waggott to try and claim "no impediment". They can't even claim a technicality or that it was just the lawyer arguing as it would undermine the legal case they are pursuing, ergo it can only be a lie to the fans.

So Venky's own lawyer is arguing there is an impediment to funding the club; good work Waggott/Suhail... another lie for the list

Hedges is limited in an attacking sense (too slow, can't dribble etc) but he is very solid defensively and helps his FB to shut down a side of the pitch, it's why managers like him that he works so hard defensively and in the press. He also adds a bit of experience to the winger group which is otherwise untested once we let Dolan leave. I wouldn't start him but he is a useful guy to have in the squad and to come of the bench when defending a lead/draw. People are quick to call for a more exciting attacker like Markanday but then slam him for being lazy defensively; ideally a player should do both (Dolan on one of his good days is close in that regard). Also we know any replacement would just be cheaper and worse...

When does the League publish the lists? End of May?

Barrett deal is a strange one, I think people are right to guess that he will be the 3rd keeper for the first team. It does point to selling Pears and bringing in an older back-up to Toth I think, but it is us so who knows. Michalski I have high hopes for and I would think a starting role in a L2 side would be more use for his development than hanging around the u21s with us. Many fans place blame at Benson's feet for ruining/miscoaching our keepers, so arguably more time he spends away from us the better.