You've lost me. Do we or do we not have 3 games in the span of a 7-day period? A week is a 7-day period. I sense you're referring to the beginning and end of a week as the calendar shows it, but that's not the only use of the term 'week', and is immaterial in the sense it is clearly being used here (that 3 games in 7 days is taxing for barely fit players).

If not having a head of recruitment for 5 months doesn't affect our recruitment, it's not a very worthwhile job.

Nope.

When you factor in transfer fees, would those players be cheaper than adding say another 2k per week (100k a year) to the contract offers for players we already have? For me, we need to get these contracts over the line. Obviously if their demands are totally ridiculous, there is always a limit, but within reason, I expect that even if we still sold the players, in the summer say, the increase in fees we could command would compensate for wage increases and loyalty fees in new deals, especially given the wage increases then wouldn't be over the full length of a contract. Yes there are risks to signing players onto decent lengthy contracts, but it's not like all 3 are realistically going to get crippling injuries in the near term, and an increased fee for just one would mitigate that risk. And we have had these lads at the club a while now, we know what they are all about ability wise and in terms of how they fit in at the club. Without being privy to the exact contract discussions, I find it hard to conclude losing any or all of them on frees would be anything other than very bad business.

Why not in the summer just gone? Why not on securing Leninan, Nyambe and Rothwell? Kaminski and Brereton? The 'sale' was made back in June. The money isn't getting spent mate. It's getting used to prop up existing losses for FFP.

Of course those generate income. Not for Venkys, which is maybe what you meant, but definitely for the club's balance sheet so that we can spend without falling foul of FFP.

Agreed. We handled the situation a bit sloppily, but he still got his contract in the end, and earned, for very little work and little benefit to the club, an amount that would probably take me a bare minimum of 10 years to earn, probably a lot more. Boo fucking hoo.

It happened in June and even recently they have been saying they can't really offer any more in contract negotiations to valuable assets. It's definitely only been done to keep the ship afloat and probably to pass FFP.

Apologies if already asked and answered, but I find myself wondering... Why are we only just hearing about this now if it happened in June? The only reasonable non-detrimental reason I can conjure is that we didn't want to put it in the public spotlight incase the league felt under pressure to disallow it somehow, so we waited for official confirmation there won't be some blowback from it. I'm not sure that idea holds up though. I can think of some detrimental or at least manipulative answers to the question though.

First positive I've heard or seen about him in a long time. Was highly rated and linked to Liverpool, went on loan to a low level (Fylde I think), made no impression there and has practically fallen off the radar. When I've watched him hasn't particularly impressed me either. No real optimism for his future tbh. But you never know. Sometimes players lose their way for a while and find it again.

Swearing isn't wrong. It's an entirely pointless taboo that society has fabricated.

I didn't dispute that they were woeful, did nowt etc. I didn't watch it so I have only opinions on here to go off. It being the only game they're getting is why they need these games for fitness. Over the years I've seen and heard of loads of accounts of first team players, including multimillion pound purchase Prem players and supposed mega prospects, do poorly in youth games. Players who have already played at a higher level are less enthused about playing at u23 is my point. They're also not match sharp as they haven't been playing much.

Seems often players dropping down to the u23s from first team are mostly looking for fitness, whereas the other young lads are still hungry and trying to make it, and it's their main football so they put more into it.

Tbf, Clarkson supposedly looked good for their u23s too. It's not always easy to tell if someone is good enough for our first team based on how they play against our kids.

It's the option being hypothetically discussed.

Nevermind JacknOry, now I see where you heard it. Gav, where do you get nearly 20 million from? 15 is the most I've heard.

With respect, you should have made that point then, instead of saying we sold him for 10 million. If you wanted to say we ended up with 10 million, say that instead. We sold him for about 15, we ended up with about 10, as best we know anyway. Just hovered up into the debt black hole of course. Again I've not heard anyone say 20, where have you heard that?

A winning team in a shit league over a struggling or mildly competitive team in a great league though? To me, a player who picks that is unambitious or has a very tender ego. If you impress in a great league, then even if your team goes down you could get a move to a better one. Hell you can go find a winning team to play for in the Sunday pub leagues, but why the fuck would you want to do that if you can play at the top level?

15 million was the reported fee. Officially undisclosed though. I've seen absolutely no mention anywhere of 10 or of 20, personally.

Disagree on the first paragraph. Some are that fairweather, but most of the fans boycotting Mowbray's reign now didn't do so the second he lost a game. They've been worn down by years of his bizarre selections and strategies, as well as the infuriating stuff he comes out with at times, and the club's apparent nonchalance in the face of it all. His not having been sacked yet is symptomatic of how badly ran we are, which is highly dispiriting and keeps as many or more fans away than the lack of top flight football. The club feels like it is on autopilot, with no destination set. The second paragraph is right, but literally any club in the EFL would get more fans for the playoffs.

It basically was that question though. The future may change, and no decision will be made until at least January, but as things stand Bournemouth look odds on to go back up and Brentford are comfortably midtable. So if it's the same picture by then, it's Premiership vs Rangers and I think that's a no brainer. Although even in January and several points clear, Bournemouth would be a gamble. Brentford could put themselves clear enough to be more or less safe by then though, but if they sink a bit then that's a gamble too. Sorry but no argument on earth is going to make me see Rangers as a 'huge' club for as long as they stay stuck in that league. Big yes but not huge. I don't care if they get gates of a million each game. It's a league of third rate football sprinkled with a few European games for the big boys. In terms of ambition, I don't think going there shows more than going to the Prem. And again it's likely to pay less, which dictates 90% of transfers.

At his scintillating best, he fits that description. On average, nope, not even our best player this season. He's starting to threaten to get there though. Typical that it would happen now we might get nothing for him.

Personally I'd ask why on earth anyone would choose Rangers over a Premiership team (unless looking likely to go down). Absolute pauper's league next to the Prem, I'd never opt for a handful of European games and the SPL over no European football and the Prem. That's before we consider the wages.

Brereton has had a very quiet game

We are terrible at that holding the ball up in the corner business, we just shouldn't bother.