bluebruce

I'd hoped he'd be on loan in League One this season, but somehow he ended up down in League Two again, twice! Someone on here was saying they'd heard he'd rather be sold than go on loan again. It's a shame, as I can't see him jumping straight from League Two to the Championship for a team who want promotion, especially since he couldn't get into one of those League Two teams and we need to strengthen in central defence anyway. The logical thing for the club is to get him tested properly at League One first so we can see how close he is to making the grade, but he doesn't seem to want that. Could be his days at the club are numbered...hopefully not another O'Connell scenario that we come to rue.

I know he's free, that's why I said for what he'd want in wages. Yes, I'm sure Rodwell will be on far less. His career was pretty much finished. I know Hart is finished as a Premiership keeper, but Rodwell had already failed to impress in the Championship, dropped to League One, had an awful injury record, wanted to be played in a different position...he was in absolutely no position to demand big money. It's the only reason we got him. Hart was moving for 3.5 million just a year ago, and has interest from France, Spain and Italy. It's a calibre of signing that would be right for us in that area right now, so in that sense it's a good shout (though he does have huge question marks over him, probably a busted flush), but I think we can file this one under unfeasible. He will go where he is paid the most - that won't be here. In fairness, I seem to remember thinking there was no way we could get Rodwell because of the wages, so I could be wrong. I don't believe I am on this one though, when you look at all the factors it makes sense we were able to get Rodwell fairly cheaply.

Can't see us affording him, or beating top flight (?) clubs from those leagues to him. For what I expect he'd want in wages, I doubt he'd be worth it even if we could. That would be bad, as the Dingles would also mock us for taking their cast-offs.

Depending how the point was meant, you could argue it applies to any of these from not playing them enough or selling cheap without giving them enough chances: Josh King, Mahoney (potential remains unconfirmed!), Beattie, Ormerod, Rochina, Anthony Pilkington. Jason Lowe (just trolling there). Also, we let Hoilett's contract run down and clearly didn't rate Cairney enough as we sold him far too cheap, but at least they played consistently. We let Alan Judge go twice. And yes I'm aware you could argue against most of these applying too. As I said, depends how the point was meant.

I don't think he's worth that, either, yet. But I'd be loathe to sell our only good centre half, an area where we are vulnerable, before getting some 100% reliable (or as close as you can get in football) replacements first.

Would they want to for someone who hasn't played at that level yet? Their defence seems decent, I imagine they'd plump for top flight experience if trying to strengthen it.

Anyone else a bit alarmed by how short this new deal is? 2 years is awfully short for a talented 21 year old who plays frequently in the first team. It's also the exact same length as if we just exercised our one-year extension on the existing deal. I hope at the very least the new deal has an extension too. But I think a 3 or 4 year deal was called for, personally.

Yup

So 16 goals from midfield at 21? Doesn't sound particularly available.

Unless he watches them day in and day out playing against senior players competitively, I'm not sure why you think that merits a jesus-wept.

Bigdog. I like you, honestly. But why the fuck, when I just told you that I categorically wouldn't have said that, in the very post you quoted, are you telling me that I would? That's frankly more than a little obnoxious. Know me better than I know myself, do you?

He knows the youth players inside out despite many of them having never played a single game of senior football? That's a neat trick. He didn't need to play a whole rookie team. One or two starters would have been plenty. Hell some off the bench would satisfy most. Nobody who asked for that would have melted down at a defeat. Also...why the hell do we 'need' maximum points?

He did bring in 'competition' last summer. It's worrying that that's how he defines competition though, with all the recent talk of bringing in 'competition' this summer.

The win doesn't vindicate the selection, because the criticism of the selection was never that it wasn't good enough to win the game. No, I wouldn't have criticised him if we lost and he had blooded some youngsters. I and others have made it clear, we didn't value the result highly and we wanted youth to be given a chance. Why would we contradict ourselves by complaining about a defeat where youth was given a chance? (This is assuming he didn't play them in ludicrous ways like Butterworth in goal)

The win is a good enough result, obviously. The lack of desire to try the youngsters out, is not. The wins don't really matter anymore as safety is assured and promotion is impossible. Very simple logic, I'm surprised you didn't follow it, as enough people have said it.

Can't wait to see what Brereton can do in 5-10 minutes on the pitch.

He was on about Wanky Wanderers, not Venkys.

Personally I wouldn't buy anyone on the basis of how good they looked against Benno at RB.

Because we don't particularly care about the result, we just want to see our highly promising youngsters given a shot. If they don't get it now, it's hard to see when there'll be a better opportunity.

A packet of crisps. Not the premium brands either, Aldi's own.

Any keaner, I don't care (within reason, obviously not Rothwell or others who need more game time). It's not about rewarding recent form anymore, or winning particularly. These things don't matter at this stage, only preparing for the future does.

So the perfect opportunity arose to blood youngsters, and they're not even on the bench. The result is fairly meaningless and the u-23s have no game until Tuesday. Fascinated to hear the excuse. The only change is that the backup goalie out of contract in the summer finally gets a start, against the only team we've already seen him play against. This suggests to me that TM is considering keeping him on and not bothering with genuine competition for Raya. The only other reason would be to do Jayson a favour and put him in the shop window, but why do a favour to a player we aren't keeping but not bother to give a chance to the youth we own? Bet the young lads are gutted. After everything Tony was saying (until yesterday anyway) and with our safety assured, they will have expected at least someone to at least make the bench. This also means they're even less likely to play against Bolton, since they have a game the next day for that one. Pathetic decision, disincentivising our youngsters.

Totally unacceptable if true. They don't even have a game until Tuesday. No excuse, short of the entire u-23 team being injured, would be acceptable.

Nothing to suggest he isn't brave enough...except his own most recent comments which I quoted, suggesting starts will be very limited and he doesn't want to interfere with the u-23 season.

Ah that's true, I forgot we moved fairly quickly that summer. I feel like I remember some fans (maybe not many) still managing to panic about it though. It felt like TM got caught cold a bit when we came back up. Prices and wages were no longer what he expected them to be, having not done business in the Championship for years. He also felt the lads who got us up deserved a shot. I can understand the issues in summer to a degree. The failure in January was pretty unforgivable though, he should have known by then on both counts.