No, you'll notice I never mentioned Bennett. I'm saying we have other players who can play there more effectively than Bennett or Mulgrew. Even amongst the ones who are actually fit at the moment, I'd have Downing or even try Lewis Thompson before either Mulgrew or Bennett played LB.

Agree that Holtby did fine, but Rothwell control the middle of the pitch? He wasn't even controlling himself. Needs to learn when to make his runs and when he's just running into a brick wall. Then he could be a hell of a player.

Jesus, not his fault but what are the man's bones made of?

Because he is dog slow and has no positional sense. Bennett needs to not be at left back, but we have plenty of better options there than Mulgrew.

Bennett having to just turn back and play it off to someone behind or inside when he is far up the pitch, because, shock, he isn't left footed.

Bennett was alright last week. Woeful this week. Gally was clumsy last week but at least was a nuisance. Ineffective and still clumsy this week. Travis the only player having a great game.

Results can always go any way, at all times. I wasn't saying it can't be won, I'm saying it's not in the 'really should be winning' category, which the term winnable implies. All games are technically winnable. The form guide was messed with by the break, for sure. And if Wigan had lost their last outing I wouldn't be putting much store in their previous form. But they won with a clean sheet again, and I suspect this restores their state of mind to being in that run of form. Wigan were also unlucky in a lot of games when their form was poorer. It's unlikely to be a walk in the park today.

All games are winnable but this one is a lot tougher than the table is telling us. Have you not seen their form? 4 wins and a draw in the last 5, with 5 straight clean sheets! 21 points from the last 30. I'd say that, and our poor record at the DW, and the way last time we beat Bristol then played Wigan saw our form collapse, the way we could get into the playoffs for the first time today...does make this a very important game, but certainly not easy. Minor derby element too.

No, no he is an utter liability there. Feels like some people have forgotten because of his better performances at CB, but he really is an utter liability at LB. He was responsible for so many goals playing there last season it was ludicrous. I dreaded seeing him on the team sheet more than anyone else back then. At least Mulgrew scored a lot of goals.

It shows his class. I don't believe the club should spend actual money for him to show his class. I don't buy the morale angle when it comes to peripheral man Sam Hart, who has mostly been loaned out in his time here. TM's brief is to look after the team, sure, but Waggott should be putting the brakes on pointless deals as his brief is to look after the club itself. We all know why he won't.

If that League One side we loaned him to (was it Southend? Rochdale?) were happy with him, how can he not be professional standard?

As stated though, there will be absolutely nothing stopping us still getting players who will make a difference. Every squad needs squad players, you know this. Because many of them will be gone. I already said this in both my posts on the matter. We have already lost one of our free transfer targets and we are still a week away from June, only 1 game into the 9. I forgot we had extended Bell's deal, although some say he isn't even good enough as backup. Personally I can cope with him as second choice. Your list there is still 6 players, but we probably need genuine RB cover for Nyambe, and we still only have one consistently scoring striker. I'm also yet to see a window where TM isnt targeting a CM, no matter how well stocked we are there.

Uhh actually guys, the Hart thing is even worse than anybody seems to have clocked, according to the LT article anyway. They say he isn't eligible to play for us this season due to having just come back from his loan at Shrewsbury. If they're right, this means we have given him the extended deal not as extra LB cover with the injuries and issues there, but for one of only two reasons. Either the misguided sense of loyalty JacknOry mentioned, or...because they're considering giving him another deal. And tell you what, why in the world has Platt been given another year? The lad is pushing 23 and just played out his season at Conference level. What the fuck do we think he is going to offer? Conversely I'm not comfortable with some of the younger lads only getting 1 year deals. If they have a good season we have another Brennan situation. I know times are tight but I wonder how many of them could have had 2 year deals if we weren't pissing about with Platt, Hart and Smallwood. Edit - oh and before anyone points it out, I know Hart has only played for one club this season and the rule is 2. But the LT are saying it, so I'm wondering if there is some odd rule about his loan having been until the end of the season meaning they're the only club he can play for or whatever. Or they might just be wrong.

Crap incumbents at the time, too. Except Lenihan.

I can only think there are two possibilities here. You have either skim read my post, or the point contained within it has soared over your head like an albatross wearing a rocket pack after taking a ton of speed and coke. Because you certainly haven't answered the points I made. All you've done is make the same points again. Let me try to break it down again. Scenario 1: We get the players we want on free transfers in preparation for the Championship. We get promoted. At best, we now have some new squad players instead of first teamers, or at worst we spent a piddly amount of our new £200 million influx of funds. Neither is a problem. Scenario 2: We don't get the players we want on free transfers for our Championship season. We don't get promoted. We have a very limited budget and we now need to recruit 2 goalkeepers, 2 CBs, 1-2 LBs, probably an RB, and potentially wingers, strikers, and TM's latest addition to the CM collection (we don't need that one but history shows it will probably happen). Very likely, very few of them are available for free as many of the best freebies are gone. We now have to spend transfer fees or loan fees for almost all acquisitions. If you want to reply to these points again, please actually make a point yourself that relates to them. So, tell me what you disagree with about these theoretical scenarios. Because unless you disagree with them, it isn't logical to reply that signing freebies is flawed, or that missing them is fine.

There are quite a lot of players about to go out of contract, we could talk to them if we know what budget we have. They need tying up as soon as possible. McLaughlin was one of them. The more we can tie up on frees nice and early, the less pressure we have to spend heavy when the window does open and the most desirable free agents have been snapped up. This isn't a terrible point, but it's flawed. It would make sense if we were in a relegation battle. It would make sense if we were in a promotion battle from League One again. But it doesn't matter for a promotion fight to the Prem, because the money on offer there completely changes the game. Yes this changes targets, but it also changes resources to such a degree that a free signing like McLaughlin has an irrelevant impact on our budget if we have those riches. This applies to any free signings we could get at this stage. In the case of a goalie in particular, they could easily just become our 2nd or even 3rd choice when buying new ones. In the areas where we should be recruiting, this should apply to most freebies we would look to sign, assuming they are of a reasonable calibre. Squaddies at best, irrelevant to the budget and loaned out at worst. By the time the real transfer window opens and fees get involved, we should know where we are. It's only likely we could tie up 2-3 desirable freebies before then, if that, assuming we got our shit together.

This got me thinking about long-term pursuits. I'd say the longest ones we are aware of that panned out are: Gallagher - was a target when we came up wasn't he? Panned out might be generous considering... Armstrong - I bet TM was tracking him from when he rocked up, having worked with him at Cov. But for sure we took him on loan, then followed up with a protracted summer chase. Rothwell - was a target in the January of our League One season when we ended up with Payne instead. The fails are: Bauer - the big one, a whole year wasn't it? Just for Preston to gazump us, that one was really embarassing and he's had a fine season, and although we got Tosin instead we're an injury from an inadequate partnership as nobody else seems a suitable partner for Lenihan. Next season we're very likely to not have Tosin. We needed two CBs and could have done with both, although maybe we were going for both and were too honest to Bauer about this and his chances. McLaughlin McGinn (arguably, more a protracted summer chase than a truly long-term pursuit I think?) Can't think of any others, feel free to add, but if I'm right then I suppose that makes a roughly 50 percent success rate on the long-term targets that we know of. Problem is we seem to cock it up the most in the areas we consistently fail to recruit, defence and GK. Bauer and McLaughlin also wouldn't have cost that much and were freebies, which means we had even more time to tie them up and no fee involved, no club to negotiate with. The successes are all attackers. Gally is gash for what we paid so far, Rothwell was cheap, brilliant when on song but still hasn't done it consistently enough yet. Armstrong was a triumph if he keeps up his 2020 form.

I'd say it goes further up the line than that, and is more about Venkys not being sure what their own financial situation is going to be when everything is said and done.

That's how you do it. I don't know if there were rumours about Rangers before today, but they were quiet enough that this is the first I've seen. And bam, done same day.

And McLaughlin has chosen to move on.

Or they are acclimatising to being a League One side and his wage expectations are too high for their current budget, which I saw a report say. The months ago you mentioned have been pandemic months, with lots of clubs trying to figure out their budget. Expect they've just thought sod it, we will offer him what we actually can afford and if it works it works. Especially since we are dallying. He has been their number one for a long streak of this season now, has started making it into the Scotland side, has been offered a new contract at Sunderland, and the fans want him to stay. I'm not saying he is the answer as I simply don't know enough about his game, but to say he is a Sunderland reject is simply disingenuous. Was Conor Mahoney a Rovers reject?

He's not a Sunderland reject though. They want to keep him.

Nah, I reckon he has lost his love of the game and will just chase the best pay packet before his stock falls too much. Which may have the same result of not dropping down.

Hope we don't go for him. His days are done.

Away games aren't what they used to be. We were the only home side in the Championship to win today. Six away sides won.