He was credited with the Khadra loan specifically. As in, direct recommendation. Old pals act it may be, but he does have a bit of pedigree, and I'm surprised TM didn't get his mate a cushy 3 year deal. Maybe he said, 'John, if I stay you stay, but I'm probably off at the end of the year and I'll get you a gig at the new place'

About 70% of it from Magloire, who put in the worst RB performance I've seen in a very, very long time and got butchered with impunity down the flank.

The last game against Blackpool wa surrendered at right back. If Nyambe doesn't play, I suspect this one will be too.

We appointed a head of recruitment on a one-year contract? Surely not? Recruitment is one of the areas that you need the most long-term planning. Short-term deals for the people in charge of it don't facilitate that.

I do think xG is a bollocks stat. Although one thing that rings true from that post is that we have been shite at finishing for a long while now, clearly missing a fully fit and in form Brereton. Before the New Year we were pretty clinical for a couple of months. Since then we have been missing penalties, sitters and all sorts of chances to win games. Not only has BBD been absent but the rest of the team have gotten worse at putting it away. I didn't need the xG stat to make that observation of course. No stat is meant to be taken in isolation as proof of how good or bad our form has been (apart from points of course, and even that doesn't paint the full picture until season's end, as refs, injuries and sheer bad or good luck can account for it short term). They are just there to help highlight strengths and weaknesses in our game, and should be used in conjunction with other stats and, crucially, human observation skills. Again though, I think xG is shite, and is a stat I pay no attention to.

The utter nonsense was, as usual, your response to me. Try actually reading posts you quote instead of skim reading and inserting your agenda. I never said anything about there not being a commitment to the academy. I talked about a hypothetical in which they reduced academy spending, in line with the claim in the post I was quoting, and how if they did, it would only be to save the owners money.

Short of complications in training, Brereton and Dack should both absolutely be starting this time. Anything else and I'm gonna want to hear a good explanation.

One of the standards is putting in a certain amount of money. Why would we put that money in, meet all the standards, then ask to be cat 2? Would achieve literally nothing.

Thank fuck for that.

If I'm remembering rightly, you have to be cat 1 to play in the development league we play in. So it would reduce the level of opposition we played. Academy spend is exempt from FFP (or P&S as it is now) calculations, so literally the only reason to willingly spend less on it is to save the owners money.

Is all the catering at the kiosks outsourced then? Yeh we have those other squads besides the seniors, but they would come under 'academy football players and management', attributed on there as a different section with a further 60 staff. Admin was also a separate section. So the 82 still seems awfully high. Although I had forgotten about scouts and data analysts. Admin was also a separate section.

82 seems a high figure for the number of senior football players and management. 20-odd players, sure, and what, maybe 10 or so footballing management team (gaffer, assistant and coaches). I guess this might include our meagre board, commercial directors etc, although I don't know whether they fall under 'Administration'. Seems to be almost double the figure I'd expect, who am I not thinking of? Where would kiosk staff come under? Stewards? I'd have thought maybe the last category, but it seems a bit small to include them as well as groundskeepers and maintenance staff etc. Perhaps they don't count as they're only employed on matchdays?

Certainly with the makeshift team we will likely have by the start of the season.

Thanks. 1-4 are all possibilities I acknowledged in my post (perhaps I wasn't clear enough), so it's reassuring we seem to be looking at the best case rather than the worst case. If it had been the worst case scenario though (which it seems it wasn't and I've misunderstood) then it would surely have been possible for them to make a tidy profit, on this transaction anyway, as they would have been the lender using money they already had, whereas it seems they are in fact a borrower, who then pass the borrowed funds on to us and deal with the interest themselves. It doesn't matter that they own both companies if they jettison us soon (other than that another 3 mill might have reduced appeal to buyers of course), and meanwhile a loss of about 3 million would have been added to the books over a 2 year period, which they would have hoovered back out to their own pockets directly (although if they keep covering the debts there wouldn't be much point). Thankfully it seems my fear was misplaced and it's the perfectly fine option that is correct, but for a heartbeat I worried asset stripping and dumping us on the first probably dodgy buyer they could find might be on the way.

Which is worrying in the extreme for next season, but irrelevant this season for now, as we are still technically in a playoff race. We absolutely have to play our best team until we are fully out of it. (I'm not sure if you were suggesting otherwise, but just in case)

If we improve as much after him as they did, I'll take it.

'The accounts state: “Since the balance sheet date the company has entered into transfer agreements amounting to net transfer fees receivable of £9.2m.” ' It also looks like 9.2 million is the up-front fee we received for Armstrong (hopefully that's after Newcastle got their chunk). But again I'm not sure if this is inclusive of fees received from old transfer deals (I'm guessing not since it describes them as transfer agreements 'since' the balance sheet date) or of fees paid out this summer (Edun, loan fees etc). I'm sure someone can clarify though.

They add: ‘In June 2021 the company sold the Senior training ground and related property for £17.3m to Venkateshwara London Limited, a subsidiary of the ultimate parent company, Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Lrd. The proceeds are due for settlement by June 2023 and carry interest at four per cent above the State Bank of India base rate and interest arising on the loan in the periods was £13,603. “The company has entered into a lease to continue to use the Senior training ground and rent of £6,827 arose for the periods to June 30 2021.” Am I understanding this correctly? That sounds to me like we have to pay back the 17.3 million by June 2023 (impossible with our financial situation, and means nothing was achieved for us other than kicking the can down the road a bit), AND that there is interest on it at State Bank of India base rate PLUS another 4 percent, and that we are also paying rent (lease) in the meantime?!? Because that sounds a whole lot like this exercise will shaft us and give Venkys a tidy profit. That said, the figures for interest and rent don't seem to add up (the rent, maybe, as it's hardly sky high so it could be a token gesture to make it pass FFP scrutiny). Just 4% (ignoring the SBOI interest on top) comes to £692,000 a year. I'm assuming from the wording of it in the bit after, that 'the interest arising on the loan in the periods was £13,603' means the loan for the first month since the sale, which I extrapolate to around 163k per year. That's a serious discrepancy even before we add the SBOI base rate (which appears to be a whopping 7.2% for a 2 year loan, though my quick google result may be wrong). Even if the rent was considered part of the figure it's a huge void. Perhaps 'the proceeds are due for settlement by June 2023' means that's when all of the funds will arrive with us from Venkys? The rent and interest figures concern me though. Adding the 7.2% base rate if that's the right figure means another 1.245 million, for a total of about 1.408 million a year in interest, and another £81,924 in rent per year. Meaning it would cost us just under 3 million in the two years, and then we need to find another 17.3 million from the back of the sofa by June 2023 to get our ground back? I'm not a financial expert, so I'm hoping someone will tell me what I'm misunderstanding here. Because if I'm getting it right, that's concerning business IMO. Maybe it means Venkys will pay that interest on the money they've borrowed to give us these funds for the ground, and maybe the June 2023 remark is about when they get their funds to us, or when they have to repay the lender. (Apologies if I did any of the sums wrong, I'm pretty tired)

Well that's a fucking kick in the teeth. A win today in this fashion could have really reinvigorated us, with our talismans returning, but that blow at the end won't have the same effect. Fuck.

He gave us some dumbass yellows and let them get away with quite a bit, but the two critical decisions went in our favour (arguable if the penalty made any difference though as they scored just after and may not have done so if they'd already scored).

GET THE FUCK IN!!!!!!!!!! Did NOT see this coming at half time one bit!!

Hedges coming on. The only reasonable question now is 'Why the fuck?'

Wow at the ref just standing there a couple of metres away whilst the players squared up to each other. Never seen that before. Control it you dumb tosser! And if I'm being honest, Wharton should've been off for that. Shite ref.

Far, far, far better half, but it has the feel of one of those where, if we don't take a chance soon, we will get a sucker punch at the other end.

A red on many.