bluebruce

It's a small sample, and for that reason it's hard to really say he is categorically the best. But looking at it purely in terms of the quality we got on a game-for-game basis, and purely since relegation to the Championship (impossible to compare with Prem days really) IMO Beck comfortably wins that. Whether he all-round is the best LB as an overall player we have had in that period is a different question that would have needed more time to say. I hope the distinction I'm making is clear. That said I do think he'll go on to have a better career than any of the others in that period (again, since relegation rather than 15/20 years). I'm not really counting the Olssons in any of this, as they were bought in the Prem era, I'm talking about players we signed since coming down. I accept it's a different convo again if you include them, and not what the original question was.

So you suggest giving him game time, potentially costing us points, and hoping it convinces him to sign, rather than boosting his profile, attracting the big fish even more, resulting in him buggering off ASAP like Finneran and Phillips? Truthfully we don't have a great hit rate with this. I'd want him to sign before I give him any guarantees of playing time (and tell him he'll get game time if he signs it). Once he's securely our asset for the next 3+ years I'm happy to give him extra game time to develop him. Until then I'd only want to play him when the situation merits it purely on his current playing ability.

He has quite a bit of experience for a 21 year old CB. Over 100 games. I'd expect him to be pushing on now.

I think you might read too much into the friendly selections tbh. Certainly in previous seasons they haven't always reflected who is first choice.

I think he was pointing out we only got 18 million plus the add ons, whilst you're pointing out we get 22 million including the add ons (if they happen...one is a competitive England cap and as far as I'm aware they have only capped him in a friendly so far...if they sell him first I don't believe we would get that).

He's not on a free unless he moves abroad (well, even then there is compo but it's fairly mininal). Where there is usually less money for wages.

The LT usually has a live updates page.

He doesn't appear to have had a very serious injury, at least not since he joined them last summer. Transfermarkt shows him as missing 4 games on 2 occasions, and only one of them shows as injury (the other says not in squad...though I presume that was still an injury as he was a top player for them). He has played since the injury. I think it's more a case of something showed up on a scan that is of concern and could develop into a serious injury. Now the cat is out the bag, his club may well be prepared to accept a deal a bit more like that. Other buyers will be aware of the risk and we were already the best bid. They only paid 250k Euros for him last summer so I wouldn't be surprised if they'll take a bit less guaranteed. I believe the earlier rumours about this renegotiation suggested we were going back to the club to talk the fee down.

More than linked to, pretty sure we were close to signing him if memory serves.

I dunno, 2 years with a 1 year option doesn't sound too bad. I'd probably have preferred 3 years with a 1 year option knowing how we do things with renewals, but at low cost and aged 28, I don't think it's all that odd.

No I don't care. He is under salary and we should play him until a deal is struck. Sick of always letting players have all the cards whilst being paid generously. And if he is professional and wants a good deal when he moves on in January or the summer, he will have to play well.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but some of the relegation odds are out. William Hill, SkyBet and Paddy Power, as far as I can see. The most generous (as in lucrative) odds offered are 6-1, which in a table of most generous odds puts as the 8th most likely team to be relegated. Sheff W are most likely at 1.62 to 1, and at the other end of the spectrum are Ipswich at 101 to 1. So whoever in this thread was saying we were 350 to 1 couldn't be more wrong. A glance around tells me more bookies than that are giving odds, like Betfred, offering 5.5 for us, but this is just what shows on Oddschecker. Looks like the bookies fancy us to struggle this season despite finishing 7th, and I'm sure most of us can see why. Personally I'm very confused at why everyone thinks Ipswich are most likely to win the league, but hey. I guess it's because of Leicester's likely points deduction and Southampton having such an awful season last year, making Ipswich theoretically the best of the three relegated...but personally I doubt they finish top 2.

Any of our players could get injured. That's what happens when you play football. Oh but we will lose the transfer income? That we have been told won't be reinvested? Yeh I don't give a shit.

It was completely bogus.

The point of playing him tomorrow is that if nobody makes an adequate bid, we will have to keep him and get him fit. It also signals to prospective buyers that we are willing to keep him if they don't pay enough, which helps get a proper price.

What point are you making? That's not a good thing. Nor does it impact what I was saying in my post at all.

Not because we released them. Because we wanted to keep them but failed to give a decent contract offer. We lost them to Derby.

More likely to be Harry Leonard than Harry Pickering.

We didn't release them. We lost them.

Hang on, that clause in the regulation is saying he will receive the higher of the points he is eligible for, not that he will receive both sets of points he is eligible for in table 2. So it isn't 12 plus 4, it's just 12. Am I missing something? Is the 12 for league quality and the 4 is for actual minutes played, so they're in two different tables?

They certainly don't seem to want the money back as things stand. However, if they got into financial trouble, or sold the club, I certainly don't believe they would treat it as though it doesn't exist. Otherwise, they'd have written it off, as Jack used to do (pretty sure Wilsden is indeed remembering that correctly). They absolutely won't get it all back (not unless by some miracle they turned us back into a steady Prem club maybe), but I bet they'd try to extract as much of it as possible. Maybe even leave some on the club's back if sold on, with loan repayments arranged.

Apologies, think I got mixed up with some other club. There's that much yo-yoing goes on from this league to the Championship, nearly everyone else seems to have done it at some point since we came down. They have however been in the playoffs twice since Venkys came, which we haven't done once since relegation.

Getting what they paid for us back would be child's play if they wrote off their debt to us. They could probably get double that if they were interested in entertaining bids. The money in the game has changed significantly. Crappy Derby County were bought for 33 million when in administration last year, but 55 million really as they also bought their stadium for 22 mill. There is a claim that Sheff W turned down 75 million dollars last month.

Hull and Sheff W haven't had a 15 year nightmare with little sign of ending. Hull have been in the Prem in that period. Yes, under different owners I believe, but that's the thing about awful owners, they usually burn out and leave. Ours stick around and the purgatory continues. Chances are, Hull and Sheff W will both get to the Prem again before we do, under new owners. Coventry used to be one of those cautionary tales of what could happen with other owners, look where they are now.

I'd say he usually comes off second best in most debates he has on here. Has his moments though. But if he argues with the poster you quoted, he's basically arguing with himself.