bluebruce

That's always a risk with any player. His legs going at some point is a risk with nearly any experienced signing too. Being nearly 37 increases that risk, but if his legs haven't gone yet, we only need them to hold out for a few more months. If they've already gone then it's a fucked signing of course. To be clear, I'm not particularly in favour of this one. I'd have wanted someone more in the 26-31 bracket on a permanent for a few years, but this signing might turn out fine for the short term. Personally I'm thinking that (aside from the usual cheap pockets rationale) this one is about not 'blocking pathways' and all that. Since we have Carter out and O'Riordan and Atcheson we'll be looking to develop. Given the gaffer wanted a CB before the window, then we lost Hill and had Carter injured, we're still not really where he wanted us to be though. I suspect we plan to go three at the back since apparently McFadzean is better in that role. A back 3 may also mitigate the risk of reduced pace.

There's a lot in here so I may have missed it, but we're accepting 1.5 mill for Dolan?? I've seen that Luton are interested but that's all.

That risk is heavily mitigated by only signing him until the end of the season though.

New transfer policy.

Was the allusion to a carthorse whilst talking about Gally intentional?

Depressing that with all this money coming in, there's still no talk of getting a keeper that's actually worth a damn.

Does he have to be on half a million a week for his not being here to save us wages?

Potentially though, he shines anyway because he's class, and being proven in the Prem now, is sold on even if they get relegated, for something in the region of double what Palace paid. If we have a decent sell-on clause that's probably about the best we can hope for.

Ordinarily, when a Prem club comes in waving a load of money for one of our star players, we have to hold out for a decent fee but accept the inevitable. The player will want the money and prestige of the Prem, and often their contract is at very best 2 years from expiring. More often 1 year, or even 6 months, under this lot. Realistically there's only so much holding out you can do. This time, we had the very rare opportunity of it being a boyhood fan of the club, with us for the vast majority of his life, and yet we've still had to just shrug our shoulders and accept a decent fee. In the January window with 2 days left, no less, whilst sinking into a relegation fight. And he was on a 4.5 year deal! Where was this willingness to sell when Rothwell and Brereton's deals had nearly expired?! The fact we held out then but not now further shows up the club's lie that the finances aren't that bad.

Yeh that's the EFL rules. UEFA's rules for continental competition are different, or they were last time I checked...ie, last edition of FM I played! FM20...it was always quite annoying that I'd be completely compliant in the league but have to drop someone from my European side, which they'd then moan about so sometimes I'd have to sell them. There was also a rule that your U21 players were free hits in your squad registration in the league, but in European comps they had to have also been at your club for 2 years or else you'd have to use a squad space...and loaning them out stopped them accumulating time at your club. Very annoying when you want to develop a player who isn't ready for your first team yet. The loaning out thing might just be a quirk of the game, but the rest I'm confident reflects the real rules as FM are very very good at that sort of thing. But it may have changed in the last 4 years.

Isn't it still the case that in Europe you need 4 players 'homegrown' from your club and 4 players 'homegrown' from your country? Homegrown actually meaning trained for 3 years in your club or country before the age of 21.

I'd have thought they'd want to replace their best midfielder immediately really. Sorry what's him coming through their academy have to do with it, isn't it an advantage under selection rules to have players from your own academy?

Wouldn't they also want a replacement then? Or is their squad quite well stocked already? I don't really follow the Prem much these days.

In the basement licking mold off the stones.

Just read one of the articles about the rumour, which said they'd let us loan him back til the summer. Which suggests they're not looking as a replacement for Gallagher.

I've not seen it mentioned here (probably was) but Chelsea were reported just yesterday as being willing to battle Palace for Wharton. Medical or no, I wouldn't be surprised to see Chelsea gazump them at the last minute with a bigger offer (assuming Adam is interested in warming their bench for more money). Would we be more likely to get a loan-back clause with them?

What does that mean, transferred against payment?

I'm highly confident it's a joke, yes. The player hasn't even moved yet, why would the DoF have done an interview saying we're retiring his shirt already? I also can't find any trace of it online.

Good point, totally forgot about that! I'd still expect CSKA to refuse to free his registration up then, as a bit of a 'fuck you' to the West for taking a player off them due to the war. Doesn't hinder them to keep hold, unless they're somehow still obliged to pay him in some way meanwhile, which I can't imagine since they have no right to use him. Anyway this is getting a bit off piste now I suppose.

How do you know it's his mum? Same surname and following MLS as well as us, so probably related to him, but could be wife, sister, cousin...?

Maybe, maybe not. But it didn't benefit them to give him to us permanently now, but does benefit us, so if they were sensible they'd have insisted on a token fee. I mean surely it's worth 50k to us to free up a loan spot if we think we might want to name more than 5 loanees on a matchday. Unless there's some special exemption for precontracts to take effect immediately if the player's registration has been suspended due to the Ukraine war.

To be clear I wasn't saying he hadn't signed a contract, I was clearly acknowledging he had. But I expected it was a pre-contract as I'd seen (and still haven't seen) any mention of an agreement with CSKA Moscow and his contract with them ran til the summer despite its suspension. It looks like he is already here permanently though, but I'm not clear on how since it was announced outside of the window. Makes no difference either way except that if it's just a pre-contract he still counts as a loan slot.

Looks like you're probably right, the club site isn't explicitly clear but doesn't mention it being in the summer, just about him signing a permanent contract (which a pre contract would also be). The implication is mostly that he's permanent now. As we didn't have the right to do that without CSKA's permission, I can only assume we paid them a tiny fee, or agreed to for when the window opened since you can't sign players in December. Or CSKA weren't bothered at all and said just take him (if I were them though I'd have asked for something like 50-100k knowing it would free up a loan spot for us..if we said no they haven't lost anything).

Technically I think that's still true yes. We signed him to a pre-contract but I didn't hear anything about CSKA agreeing to him leaving now. Can't imagine they'd want more than a token fee though to transfer him now (might be something a shrewd DOF would consider if we need to free up an extra loan space in the squad).

Reports are suggesting Cardiff have won the race to loan Nat Phillips.