That had better mean a change of formation...

Serious?

Quick trip to specsavers should sort you out.

Giles wasn't in the lineup first posted on here. It was 10 men listed and I hadn't noticed as I'm multitasking. I feel more comfortable now.

Has to be injured if he isn't even on the bench.

I'm not so sure that's what he has done. No LB named. I'm guessing 4-3-3 with Wharton LB. Either that or Buckley is playing LWB.

I'm not sure STDs will be of any help in our promotion campaign, whether at the front or back.

I think Buckley, on the other hand, has been a fairly important part of our counter attacking. Dropping him for a defensive minded replacement reduces our ability to counter attack, meaning we risk just sitting back, with little ability to retaliate, potentially until our walls crack. If Dolan is fit enough for 90, he could be the most sensible replacement. Tbh I expect Buckley will start though.

I think Buckley should probably sit out this game, but putting Johnson in his place doesn't set us up for counter attacking whatsoever. He's far slower, can't nick the ball like Bucko can in the final third to start counters that are already next to the goal, and doesn't have as high quality range of passing to start counters. Not saying that makes him the wrong choice (he wouldn't be mine though), but he really isn't of benefit over Buckley specifically in the sense of counter attacking.

I don't even recall the name Tre Pemberton whatsoever.

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.