No, because they are fees. Not the absence of fees. And city dont give away promising youngsters for free. Neither do Oxford, who were rejecting bids from us in Jan and would still have been entitled to compo. The Davenport fee was reputed to be around 500k, and the Rothwell one somewhere around 300k. I think I saw 500k for that one somewhere too, not sure. The club doesn't officially announce fees anymore, always undisclosed. But the ballpark figures are generally reported consistently, and stated by the LT. If you used undisclosed as meaning we might not have spent a fee you'd be assuming we got Dack and Samuel for free too. I think even Rhodes was officially undisclosed.

It varies. If clubs know you have cash, are desperate, and they are under no pressure to sell or have multiple bidders, then prices can inflate. If however, they've been asking too much and they know it, and the player wants to leave or they in fact are desperate for the cash themselves (sometimes to buy a player they've been holding back on too), prices can drop dramatically. The end of the window is a time where prices tend to reshuffle both ways. Clubs don't want to risk an unhappy asset sitting around sulking, nor missing out on their own targets because they didn't free up enough funds. The dynamic fluctuates. If the window is one big poker game, the end of it is where everyone has to play their real hand.

Maybe that is the rationale, but that isn't the way TM explained it. I think there is a pretty big difference between those leagues. Especially in terms of someone being ready for our first team, we really need to be testing them in the next rung down. I'm not saying we should have kept him here to make 3/4 starts and some sub appearances, just that he needed League One football.

If their asking price is 3 million, more often than not they will settle for 2-2.5 million. Rare that clubs get their asking price met and don't come down on it.

This whole thing is odd. The only way I could explain it is if Tony thinks we are close to signing someone we have wanted for a while, either a hotter prospect than Wharton (maybe with a bit more experience) or someone who can challenge Mulgrew and Lenihan, or at least isn't far behind and will provide better backup than the current lot when one of their injury spells kick in. Regardless, I hope it's not at the detriment of our vital need for attackers. What has really bemused me is Tony's comments in the paper today. We had League 1 loan offers for Wharton, but held off because we needed him for pre season matches!! What the hell? Those matches dont matter, theyre just for fitness. Put one of the other kids in there ffs. Now those League 1 clubs have moved on, and we just throw him out to League 2 as if no other League 1 clubs might want him (they may have assumed he wasn't available yet). All badly handled for me. One of the most inexplicable things Tony has done, the whole situation. I usually find him a lot more sensible and logical.

Surely he could have played at the next tier though, if he is even remotely close to being good enough for our squad. At most this should have been a 6 month deal so we could move him up a tier in Jan. Hope there is a recall clause at least, for if we have an injury crisis. Unless we have Bauer lined up now.

That's very disappointing. He needed to be playing League One now. Hard to see how he will end up in the first team here, as presumably we will want him tested in League One before he gets to play for us in the Championship

Interesting, thanks. Of course, with some exceptions, the list does only show where they are now, a lot later, with inevitably retired or dwindling careers in most cases given ages. It doesn't always tell you how they did for WBA or clubs inbetween. Or costs.

Very good point. We were told the new scouting system would be in place for the summer. Maybe that just means setting it up, and they haven't been able to do much actual scouting yet? I wonder if Mowbray has form for buying abroad at previous clubs, or he just prefers the domestic market for the fact players need less time to adapt? If so, that would be shortsighted.

Fair enough. I'd want more goals from a striker looking to step up a level though, regardless of all round play.

Did he? 6 goals in 42 games? Up front for a top 3 team? So sayeth the Wikipedia anyway

Chaddy mate, roversfan99 went to trouble to talk at length about the concerns with Rothwell. I might not agree, but you can't just reply with 'so what?' and 'lets see where he plays'. He deserves a better reply, and I'm sure you can give one.

He's the spy in the dressing room? Shouldn't think that makes him too popular.

I wouldn't mate. Always wanted him. There will always be some detractors of course, whoever signs. You shouldn't assume that those would be the same people who are now saying he would have been a good signing.

Quite possibly. No links, but that doesn't mean anything these days. I reckon both him and Dack have more versatility than just that one position and could have featured together. Immaterial now I guess, as he's Bolton's player. They've done well there. Hope they get relegated though! Jason Lowe starting every week would help...

Otzumer is hands down a higher calibre signing than Rothwell. They're both only League One experience so far (bar something like 3 championship appearances for Rothwell with Blackpool) but Oztumer has been a huge hit in League One for a few seasons. He was a player we looked at before we got Dack I believe. We should have gone for him this time for free I feel. He is a bit older so maybe less re-sale, but will likely hit the ground running far sooner. Davenport perm is probably a lot better long term than a Wildschuut loan. But the latter is far more established. I have high hopes for Davenport though - even this season. I feel that in a few months he will have proven indispensable. Can't say I've seen more than a few highlights, but nobody has anything but glowing praise for the lad, and it sounds like he will fit perfectly in our system and give us better distribution to the top end of the pitch.

I didn't ask for one, but thanks for it anyway. I know you watch a lot of football, so I do appreciate your views even if I don't agree with a lot of your logic. Which of them, aside from Gally and Armstrong, do you rate most?

Are you warming to the idea now Chaddy? I noticed you didn't answer my earnest question of whether, if Kent was not available and we had the money, you'd like to sign him?

Lol we shouldn't even get into my workplace! Totally different kettle of fish. Aside from the pay being miles apart anyway, at my place you have to work for anything from about 6 months to a year before you even earn a permanent contract. Plenty of people who aren't very deserving get promotions (the only way to get more dosh) ahead of those who are. But I digress. Football is a whole other world to all of our day jobs. I should probably clarify - I don't begrudge him getting more, in relative terms, given his ability and how crazy money is. I just question the timing, and whether it was strategically sound or necessary yet. I'm also not 'unhappy' about it, just ambivalent on balance. When I said I'm not happy, I meant an absence of glowing positivity rather than actual unhappiness.

Very good point, if there was one then it would make tons of sense to increase it a good chunk. Course, could be there wasn't one and now there is. We won't know. Hope you're right.

Did he? I just remember after his iniital deal we gave him a 30k a week one, and then a 50k a week one. He did offer him one more in a desparate bid to stop the Newcy move, but don't recall others. We also had Manure constantly hovering over him, rather than just one club in the last window when we were a lower league. The one thing that makes me think maybe you're right though is we would have had to offer him a new deal next summer if he tore up the Champs....and possibly a much pricier one. But I do think if he does that we are gonna need to sell anyway.

Not the argument I was making though. And all players are rewarded, more than amply at League One upwards, for what they do. No need for us to make it a one way street of huge boosts for one good year when it can't go the other way. I know it's the way football works, but I think it's daft. The other bit about his contract length, yeh I've just seen...so my stance remains after all lol

Oh really? My apologies then, I thought we signed him on a 4 year initially. Fair enough, that makes me feel a good chunk better. Think we should have been looking at 4 last time and this time though. Guess he or his agent don't like to commit that far ahead if it has been 3 both times.

He did what we paid for. Like I said, he delivered a bit above it, but still. You shouldn't award players big increases in pay, which I'm sure it is, every time they have a good or great season. Because you can't reduce their pay when they don't. I don't feel Dack will disappoint in this league, but I wouldn't as he just had a great season in a lower one. Crazier things have happened. New deals should come with extra security for the club, ie another year. I disagree about Smallwood and Williams actually too. Both had one year left on their deals, and are at the very least, good enough squad players for this level. Wouldn't like to lose either for free next year. I can see the argument that it may increase a fee we could get, and deter bidders. That is how the psychology of the market works. Just feel the psychology is a bit flawed as, in real terms, we have the same length of contract as before and that is where the security lies. A bidding club may even wonder why it isn't longer and wonder if he isn't committed and just wanted more money while he waits for a bigger club. I do think it should make Dack a bit less likely to push though, hopefully. Just wonder whether it is worth that, on balance. Guess it depends on the wages and terms we are talking, which as you say, we will never see. I'm relieved though, in the sense that, because the club said ages ago they were giving him a new deal, if he hadn't signed it then it would have been very worrying. I just don't think many people would have insisted we needed a new contract for a player with three years left if we hadn't trumpeted it.

Or more likely given apparent financial constraints, enough of a loss in budget that we don't have the money for any bigger players. If I felt I could take it as a sign of intent that we had a very healthy budget, I'd be delighted (but still questioning why it isn't 4 years), but I just can't bring myself to think that. I do think we have a little to spend, more than some do, but nothing mind blowing and this can only reduce it.