Sorry, couldn't resist ?

Well, in case it is true, Hull site did a little writeup on him a few weeks ago when they were rumoured to be interested. https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/football/ollie-rathbone-hull-city-profile-4458476

When they learn they need to jack off Bell to get in the team too, it really isn't a surprise we can't close the deals.

If it's true, I don't really see the point. It's a position we need real quality in if we recruit, not yet another young talent. Maybe he is that good, and maybe it lets some other young talent go out on loan, but I feel like he would have made more waves by now if that's the case. Still, if he arrives I hope he turns out brilliant, quickly. Hope it doesn't affect our budget for the defence either, but surely it must as it's all one budget. Preferred the idea of loaning that United youngster. Didn't like it at first, but a few said he was real quality, and I was thinking it might let us loan Buckley to League One or something, giving him or whoever some regular match time experience whilst we improved for a season. This would give us how many CM capable players under 23? They definitely can't all work out. With all the resources we have put into that area of the pitch and the depth of numbers who do or can play there, a loan of real quality seems the wisest way to recruit there. Unless Rathbone really is the real deal.

Hahaha yeh, fucking loser, getting a team to a playoff final....oh wait. Still, it really put off any suitors from bigger clubs...oh wait.

Each to their own opinion, sure, but yours aren't really opinions unless it's on non-Rovers related football. Yours is a stance. It very, very rarely shifts and I'm sure you're aware of that. The odd token admission of something being wrong doesn't change that. Marshall, shouldn't have been down to the last 6 months. No asset ever should be. Tbf he was a psychologically unsound player so he didn't go on to much either, at the time I think I was saying 2, 2.5 or so with the contract situation. Definitely a player who squandered his potential though. Rudy had a lot of bad luck with injury after, but whether he went on to much in a better league isn't as important as the fact he had scored 36 in his last 66, was a good age, was moving to the Prem, and looked every bit as good as RSC in the air. 8 million should have been the bare minimum we accepted. Got relegated the season after he left didn't we? Albeit because of wholesale flogging of talent, not just him.

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/18712814.agent-confirms-arsenal-interest-former-rovers-kepeer-raya/ LT article actually says there are reports Brentford have already turned down 10 million for Raya. Which suggests they're looking at 12 or more. Obviously the higher the better for us, although the more he goes for the more it shows up what we sold him for. Article also points out he is home grown due to how early we brought him to the UK. Which is one of the reasons English players often have a premium.

You don't think having Raya instead of Walton would have improved our position in the table though? Maybe we would have made the playoffs, maybe not (small margins in games in this league, and a win at the right time builds momentum), but I'm entirely certain we would have been closer than we were.

I was referring to the state under the current regime (TM and SW). We haven't sold much under them, but I do get the impression TM will sell a player for whatever once they want to leave (not literally before anyone starts, but for less than we could get with a firmer stance). Raya does back that up so far. And if they don't want to leave I bet they're barely for sale (his comments in pressers have given me that impression, he always says he won't force players to leave). Time will tell though, not much selling been done under him yet. I was disgusted with the fees for Cairney, Marshall (though he had started going off the boil really) and Gestede btw if we want to go further back. Jones was a release clause at a few million less than Liverpool were willing to pay. I disapproved of a lot of sales in the Trust era tbf, think I'd be more from the Levy school of negotiations if I were a CEO...

Oh for...I can barely be bothered to explain it to you at this point, as much as I appreciate your passion for football and the club. But no, I was referring to your relentless defence of 99.9% of whatever the club and management do, even when it's a blatant fail.

So your theory is the guy who got him brought him to Brentford would have just lost interest if we had kept him another year? I mean it's possible but I doubt it. Expect he still would have been saying 'hey, you want this Raya lad'.

You did it last summer, and the last however many summers, and you're doing it again.

You think we are going to get another 2-3 million off the sell on? They're often percentage of profit and reports are it's 20%. 20% of 7 million (profit) is 1.4 million. Conversely we could have been looking at 10 million ish, in a straight deal, by not selling him at all that summer. 'Player wanted out'? Tony made that happen by chewing him out in public and letting veterans make mistakes with no consequence.

You're absolutely relentless.

Was it buggery a reasonable fee. As shown by the fact that many of us said at the time it was far too cheap, and a year later he is being touted for more than triple the amount!!! A sell on is better than none but it was still a poor deal. At a well ran club, hard questions would be getting asked on the back of this. And on the back of the BB buy. And on the back of the SG buy. And about the pointless contract extensions.

Well no, because we are happy to sell for peanuts. Even if he had a 10 mill market value with Arsenal snooping we would let him go for about 6 I reckon. 'We couldn't stand in David's way by asking an unreasonable fee, we had to do right by the player and let him go as soon as Arsenal were interested. Not a problem anyway, there's this bright young keeper at Brighton we can loan, we will be fine.' We can't consider it a successful piece of business because after what, 6 years of developing him, we will have let Brentford make more money off him in a year.

Temporary replacement. Although, I'm glad it was.

Only 25 this week, got a decade left as a keeper. Huge wage bump, increased profile even if it doesn't work out at Arsenal (at which point he will probably get loaned out or sold to a Prem or top Championship side). Chance to break into one of the top sides in the country, always the possibility to impress enough to stay in. Nah, I stick by it, great move for the lad, it'll set him up for life if he's smart, and probably sort his career trajectory and salary out for a good 5 years or more.

That was my first thought. Although tbh one of the reasons he went there was the GK coach who is now at Arsenal, and they'll be getting offered a lot more money than they paid for him, up to a cool 7 million profit (then minus our share) for a year of having him. Good business, they should sell really, and a huge chance for the lad. Not like us, developing him since he was 17 to sell him for 3 million to a league rival...god that was stupid. We could be pocketing in the region of 10 million probably for him now just for holding onto him a season longer, and not had Walton wasting around in the meantime. Bet Brentford go in for Dillon Phillips to replace him.

Dunno, think Johnson has made that move a few hundred times in the last year already and we don't seem to be any better off for it.

? he would have said agent! Are we really gonna keep doing this?

Uh yeh thanks for that, I'm aware. Know what else is a third party? Third party ownership. You haven't solved this mystery yet, sorry. Seems odd a manager would describe it as a third party instead of just saying an agent. He talks about agents plenty after all. Maybe he just wanted to mix his language up a bit. Or maybe a third party owns the player abroad and wanted their cut. Either is perfectly possible until confirmed, which probably won't happen as the club have moved on. We should probably move on too.

Are you saying that because Sharpe described it as an agent in the article tonight? All of the direct quotes I've seen just say 3rd party, I think that was just Sharpe making an assumption. Could be he has actually fact-checked it was an agent but just didn't read that way to me.

So those clubs are fucking it up too, and? There are also clubs getting their business done and not throwing excuses around. If we got relegated (we won't) would you be saying 'well x and z got relegated too'? Other clubs failing isn't an excuse for us to fail.

Here yes, not in some countries. Still need to buy them out to bring them here.