Nope, you told me you didn't think it fits the profile and that it's unlikely. I never asked you about that. I asked what you think if it does happen. Would it be a good signing, etc. Do you really think if you'd answered the question, I'd have pointed out that you didn't? If someone says something like that, I'd recommend you go back and read what they asked you, and think whether you answered it. Easier than me typing all this out on my phone.

We are going for both, or you've both heard it and are speculating? Not to be picky, I just want to be clear. Cheers.

You lost me with the opposites bit?

That's not what I asked though.

Cheers. Have you heard that it would be both him and Gally, or are you speculating on that part?

Doesn't necessarily mean anything. Do you have thoughts on this as a transfer if it does happen?

Conspiracy theory here, but I could see someone higher up thinking it's a good idea to have a bid accepted knowing we won't be able to agree personal terms. Then you turn around and say we tried but the player wanted too much for our wage structure. But at least we look ambitious to the fans...

70%? What does that mean in real terms? Sounds kinda like fee more or less agreed but personal terms not discussed yet? Any idea whether this is permanent or loan to a view (presumably with a big loan fee)?

The loss we took on him, you'd think so.

You can hide. But I will find you. And I will kill you.

Even Rhodes was sold at a profit, and we sold several of the players in the list for more than we bought Rhodes for. I can only think of a few who we spent money on to make a loss.

Do you?? As in, the ins and outs are similar total figures? I highly doubt that. Surely we have recouped at least double what we have spent in fees. Venkys' losses have been in covering wages (and at one time, agent fees) with so little natural income at the club.

He was very good today. Played well for much of the Ipswich game too. Not long ago he looked lost at RB.

Well I tried to change it promptly to Neophox's, as I realised that was who he was quoting originally. But it seems you saw it too quickly to be spared.

I think he's saying he would have sex with Neophox's daughter. Good news, right? What he's been waiting for?

Someone claims, not points out. Doesn't seem very likely based on what we've seen and heard about him before.

Bit of an unfair accusation towards a lad who turned down big bucks City's offer to try and earn regular football. You're implying he is doing it on purpose.

Of course it computes. Let's use an extreme example. If you spend a quid on a lottery ticket, that's a small risk by almost anybody's standards. With the 'big if' of a huge potential payout. Whether you think the potential payout is worth the level of outlay decides how much of a risk it is. That will vary from person to person on here, and also depend what the fee is. Speaking of which, any inkling of the fee yet? For me, 300k or less and I'm content to take the risk. Especially if we've kept sell ons and add ons to a minimum. It would only be a 'huge risk' if we are paying in excess of 500k, for me. Even then it could still pay dividends and is a much smaller gamble than Brereton.

He crossed my mind when Lenihan was down and I was worried Williams would be coming on...

Totally agree, we've been superb. Hull are looking again like that awful team we played in our second game, I doubt that will last into the second half though so, without wanting to be greedy, I've also been hoping we snag a third. Which we nearly did a couple of times. I started thinking in the Ipswich game that we were finally starting to show shoots of the more passing-based game Mowbray has talked about. I chalked it off to it being against an easy team, so we would look better at all that anyway, but that perhaps TM chose that game to experiment with it. Today though it's looking more like it's intentional. We'll see how we carry on.

Sod off....I can do better than Downing (suddenly wondering if his surname is a euphemism). Anyway the problem is Mowbray basically came out and said he is doing no such thing. We do need a better centre half though.

I don't think it would be bottling it to draw against the league's in-form team, as long as we compete. Crazy...that Hull away game, I thought then and until their recent resurgence that they must be the worst team in the league. They were awful and we should have beat them by a lot more.

I'm not sure on the plan to loan him out either. He is just as likely to be injured on loan as here, maybe moreso. TM doesnt think he is good enough to start for us when fit yet...I do, but most importantly we need to find out. If we don't know by summer, then, for me, we are gonna need to sign someone else for the flanks as it isn't a strong area for us. Then Harry will just end up being loaned out for years like our equivalent of Todd Kane.

He didn't say we are, or put a timeframe on it, he said there are possibly discussions to be had?

A fine post, well researched (heard different fees for a couple of them, but you just can't get the truth these days). A couple of things though. You say other Champs clubs are picking up decent frees in defence this window, but the thrust of what you're saying is essentially criticising doing frees as your bulk business. Just seemed incongruous with your point. A lot of the big money sales were in the Prem days, where it was a different ball game monetarily. Granted there was still insufficient reinvestment in the defence, but that was happened in other areas too. That period was short lived and distorts the figures. I'd be more interested to see the figures stacked up since relegation. Regardless, extremely damning that when you take out Dann (flop, sold for a loss but still half his fee back) our net spend is a shameful 1 million over that whole period on an area that covers 4 of our 11 positions. Criminal. It's also been a clear achilles heel for years.