Both Great Harwood born, and Derbs was at Darwen and Great Harwood before joining Rovers aged about 17.

I'm not sure we've learned from that because of this. It's not like we never tied up a decent player on a contract before. We will have learnt from Nyambe/Lenihan/Rothwell if we keep at least two of the three.

Ormerod never played a game for us.

The only mistake with the loaning out was sending Carter away.

Think what you want, CBA.

It's like you didn't read the board during the window (maybe you didn't) as this argument was debunked quite thoroughly and repeatedly.

It's actually staggering anybody could fail to see this. Be a long time before we are in this position again.

Pretty sure you're wrong and it works just like a pre-contract normally would. Ie, signed and a legal obligation for both parties unless they both consented to change or end it. Don't think Elliott signed one at Fulham. Which makes sense, as he was playing for the first team as young as 15 so will have had many eyes on him and have been aware of the interest well before.

Wow, great news, really wasn't expecting this until at least the summer, if at all. Eases the burden a bit with all these deals we need to get signed. Just need some of our contract rebels to get on board.

It's not a silly example. It highlights how silly your statements are. If we value the kid in the multimillions, we aren't going to sell him for half a mill, because it would be nowhere near our valuation. The point is that, like we won't with BBD, we won't sell an asset at a paltry fraction of our valuation just because the player wants out. It all depends what the club values him at at this stage, and given how highly he is being talked about I'd be gobsmacked if we sold him for less than 2-3 mill even if he wanted out, and our valuation is likely a lot more. Moreover those top clubs have more than enough money to pay millions and if they see him as the next big thing won't simply stop bargaining once 500k doesn't work. We would be utter morons to accept that kind of offer.

If the price isn't even close to met, absolutely. It happens all the time Sparks, come on. You honestly think if for example Diaz wants to go in the summer, and no club will pay more than 1 million, we would sell him for 1 million? Because you're just wrong.

And if we want 10 million and they're offering 500k, I'm 100% confident the club wouldn't give a fuck what his parents want. At least not until the offer is far, far closer to the demand. It won't go to tribunal for years, as, again, he is under contract. Youth contract for now, pro contract agreed to start as soon as he is 17. Fletcher moved to Manure when he was 13. It's a completely different scenario. Far easier for players to move at that age.

I don't think there is any possibility of the club selling him for half a million any time soon. We aren't obliged to sell cheap just because somebody wants him, if he is under a lengthy contract.

Won't have done himself any favours last night though...

I'm sceptical (but waiting to see) on the merits of signing Hedges. But I don't think it's accurate to say he was bought at the expense of signing a CM. He only cost 200k and we were still bidding for Dembele after which shows there was money left over (yet again). We didn't sign a CM (although Giles may be intended for there when Pickering is back) because TM decided either that he didn't need one, or those available weren't value for money, because he still uses pricing from 5-10 years ago. Or of course, they rejected us.

And just like that, we are one CB injury or suspension away from having to change formation or put a non-CB there. Again, sending Carter out was a mistake, even if he grows from it.

Yep, this season since Fulham we are generally excellent at defending a lead. Problem is we aren't taking any. Hope this serves as a wakeup call because we have to address this quickly or even the playoffs will be a pipe dream.

Ah, checked the score after posting that and yeh, that's much more like what I expect, sadly.

I can't watch this one (except the first 20 ish), but I sure wish for once we could score a late goal to turn a game around. It's a completely absent part of our game now. I have no faith at this stage of any matches, guess the players might not either.

Buckley is terrible at shooting. Those who talk about him adding goals to his game so we have another threat there need to stop dreaming.

Please explain how playing 90 minutes and (potentially) playing 20 are the same thing?

Entirely depends on the nature of the knock. It's annoying to see this notion be trundled out all the time that if they're fit for the bench they're fit for the full 90. It's entirely illogical. 20 minutes off the bench (or only being on the bench as an emergency resort, and ideally not coming on at all) is absolutely not the same thing as a full game of football. Not having a go at you at all, just that it doesn't add up but someone has to say it every time someone who normally starts but who isn't 100% fit makes the bench.

It is, but it's a bit limited for midfielders. Only really Johnson, who I'm always nervous about coming on. Where is Davenport? We really should have recruited some guile in this area. I assume Giles is seen as cover there once we have a LB again.

The problem with relying on crosses is Khadra is hardly going to get on the end of any so it's all down to BBD. If we plan to pump the box with crosses again, well we saw how that worked out even with excellent delivery from Giles.

I did think that might be the only change he would make to what most would probably consider the optimum XI right now. I disagree with it, unless there is a slight injury concern with Nyambe so he isn't being risked for the full 90, with us having another game soon. I suspect though, it may be more to do with Mowbray thinking we expect to attack more being at home.