Cos we want him. In fairness, being linked or not being linked doesn't seem to mean much with Rovers these days. We get who we get, and at most, there are a handful of days warning from the press.

Sounds like the Posh co-chairman just confirmed it, leaked a story, and didn't leave it with Barry Fry.

Well no, I have better things to do. I just said I can't be bothered with it. PM Jal about it.

Please don't ask him. I don't want to hear it all again, it's boring. Can you take it to PMs, pretty please?

Local boy? I don't care if he lives in my house, just want the best players we can get.

However, he is the kind of striker-winger who fits our system.

Yeh there were only two of those in this whole league last year. So, forget that one.

Interesting, where did you hear that?

And the clubs we have approached about their players. It seems clear that whenever we make a bid, Rovers are specifically asking the clubs to keep it very hush hush, considering not only are no clubs publicly speaking about bids from us, but nothing has leaked through unofficial channels either until very close to completion (probably coming from excited players gassing to their friends or family at that stage).

Would be a good move for the lad, especially since they just lost their main striker so opportunities should be there. Will be a good move for the club too, if Tony's words ring true about getting a striker first. These advanced talks might be preparatory for when our own strike deal gets greenlit - doesn't mean such a deal is close yet, but everything starts moving quicker this stage of the window.

I'm happy with this signing, but since you ask... 1. Loanees are less invested, because they can easily start over the next season whatever happens. 2. The parent club can usually recall them in January anyway, leaving us hanging. 3. It is rare to loan a player two seasons in a row, so the likelihood is that next summer we need to roll the dice on another loan, as opposed to a permanent player who we can develop for ourselves instead of others. 4. A permanent signing will usually put roots down in the area, enabling them to settle better. 5. There have been known to be fines for not playing the loanee even if they don't find form (although I do think the Kent thing is a rarity). That's without getting into the debate that the resale value thing is pretty important, especially with the FUP (FFP) rules and only limited investment from the owners (they cover debts but they don't release extra funds much). Happy with the deal though, as long as we get a permanent winger/forward or two also.

Mowbray wouldn't have said the price was cheap, would he? That'd be a pretty horrendous negotiating position.

He never used to. The Chaddy of old was pretty friendly, his optimistic outlook on all things Rovers almost matched by his optimistic outlook towards other fans. In fairness, I think he was twisted and embittered by the perpetual abuse he seemed to attract for being the epitome of the positivity spectrum. Being constantly under attack seems to have developed defence mechanisms in him, and to survive psychologically he has subsequently adopted the default attitude of a brfcs poster - condescension, unwarranted sarcasm, hubris, and a propensity for indulging in catfights. To be fair, some of the stuff people used to hurl at him, I'd have been snapping at them a lot sooner and a lot harder. A lot of people used to genuinely feel sorry for him and asked others to lay off him. So, it is understandable to an extent. Sadly, this survivalist adaptation period has cultivated a persistent paranoia that everything of an opposing view may be a personal slight. I miss the old Chaddy. The biography - The Evolution Of Chaddy, penned by myself - is available in all substandard bookstores now.

This one is old. Nobody seemed to think it had legs given the source.

I found the LT article and Mowbray quotes today encouraging, if confusing. A few days ago they were saying we would be signing 'up to' 4 players total by the end of both windows, which worried me as it implied we might run with 3. Today it seems to be suggesting we could see 5 more come in now.

Fleetwood fan at work says Cole is extremely lazy.

Wonder if there is anything in the difference between 'not been told he's of interest' and 'been told he's not of interest'.

Hope he was worth it.

Don't worry, I got your point, and it was a very good post. I will be similarly questioning it if we don't bring at least one dedicated wide player in. Just saying, sometimes all is not as it seems and the manager may have another idea, which could be better than our ideas. Henry was playing on the wing until Arsenal bought him. You said you saw him at Huddersfield in the central role, but I haven't seen anyone say where he played at Derby, or in Chelsea youth. We will just have to see. Even if Palmer was an out and out winger (or given how we play, an 'inside forward') I'd still be expecting another. We are threadbare there.

Lenihan's original position was as a central midfielder. We adapted him to CH. Mulgrew has played quite a lot of his career in central midfield I think? At one point it looked like his best position for us and many fans wanted another CH so we could push him upfield. I may be misremembering, but I thought I'd read before that Williams started out as a centre half too. Sometimes a player is actually suited to a different position, sometimes to everyone's surprise. I remember Emerton being better at RB when we moved him there, though we had bought him as a RW. Not to say you're wrong on this lad, and I'm a round pegs for round holes guy in the main, but sometimes things aren't that simple.

I don't follow the women's game really, but this is a truly scandalous decision and I feel genuine anger about it. Interesting that we have yet to hear any official explanation for this - surely because there cannot be a remotely acceptable one! I thought the men's FA were bad, but this is next level. This is some FIFA level nonsense, at best.

Oh come now BDS, we are veritably swimming in an ocean of piss. Fortunately I brought swimming shorts rather than a nappy. You can always let yourself leak in the sea in those anyway, nobody notices. Especially in a sea made of other grown men's 6-month-loan-of-a-kid urine. Or ya know, maybe people are just fairly pleased we are borrowing a very highly rated youngster in a key area of the pitch, but expressing their reservations about the length of deal and the need for permanent additions. I can't quite tell which is reality.

Did the LT break it first though? I thought the first link posted on here was from Sky. If they broke it first, then the LT had the article waiting but only spilled it once it broke elsewhere.

Very wishful. We have been told ad infinitum that the best we can expect without departures is 2 perms, 2 loans.

And now that the LT is telling you it might only be 5 in total?