bluebruce

Newcastle aren't all that big, just got a lot of fans. Spent quite a bit of time in this tier themselves. And it's only the 3rd round. Think you'd be sorely disappointed. It would take one of the big 6 to get a crowd approaching that, or a later round tie.

The other day the LT said the fee was around 6 million. I'm certain they've said 7 before, so they're not reporting it consistently ( withhold your shock please gentlemen).

There was a particularly disappointing moment from Brereton today, highlighted by Graham's work rate. Late in the game the West Brom defence passed it across their goal and then wide, and Graham chased it down with everything he had. It looked a lost cause to me and I was thinking don't even bother, but he put enough pressure on that they had to pass it back across the other way. Brereton got the chance to do the same thing immediately on the other side as a result, with Graham's example to follow. Except it was more likely to result in snatching the ball. He is younger, faster, hadn't been on the pitch long, and has to prove he is worthy of a place in the starting 11, unlike Graham. He barely broke stride and got nowhere near it. I know he can run a lot faster, I've seen it. It wasn't a key moment of the game but I was stunned to watch the lackadaisical manner of it. I have to question whether he really wants to be here. I suspect that, like a lot of fans, he is wondering whether this was the right move for him.

Really? Why on earth were you only expecting a yellow? Cos the ref was naff? If I saw it happen in a thousand game I'd be baffled if a single game didn't give a red. Wouldn't expect Fergie's manure to get away with that at Old Trafford.

Yes I meant to mention that in the original post but forgot, cheers. He has done it a few times, but those are the best examples. For me, if players are in form and making an impact, you give them a shot.

Danny Graham is quite clearly not past it. He is one of our best players. He is past his peak in terms of pace, but he is excellent at playing the lone striker role. However, I agree that the tactical approach of lumping long balls to him all game is inherently flawed. We aren't even good at long balls, Rodwell aside, so I fail to see why this is our preferred approach. Probably because we have no real wide outlets so we don't create the space that allows for decent play in the middle, as it becomes congested. How bad was Brereton's miss yesterday? I didn't see that bit but it sounded like he struck it about as well as that horrendous cross attempt against Norwich. I think the time to start Brereton was obviously after those two cameos in a row which earned a penalty in one and an assist in the other. Not getting his chance at that point seems to have dented his confidence and put more pressure on his shoulders.

As has been discussed before, this is basically an optical illusion. Forest were up for a permanent deal and not a loan. Buying him outright in the summer (which we ran out of time to do) would have had the same outcome. There'd have been no benefit to Forest to put a get out clause in, so they wouldn't have agreed to it. I would agree it is looking like a worryingly poor deal right now though, either way.

As much as you and I like Rothwell, he was the root cause of that goal. It was also extremely poor play. It opened up a lot of space for Leeds. It worried me a lot, immediately, not in hindsight. Williams being terrible doesn't detract from any of that.

Wasn't it Rothwell who made the awful pass which let Leeds in for the winner?

I'm glad I never played with you. Sounds like you want your teammates to...well, 'play' with you.

Oh thank fuck! I was nervous about this game until I read that post. Now I can relax knowing a positive result is assured. Thanks Mercer. Please don't show up in the thread during the match though, saying we have it in the bag etc.

Well yes, if we can convince Hanley to put Arma on his shoulder all day it will be like finally signing that massive striker we need. Probably not the most mobile though, and that shoulder will tire pretty quickly.

We spent £10 million this summer on Armstrong and Brereton, who often occupy the bench and haven't really taken us to any new level so far. So there's zero guarantee of that. 20 million isn't what it used to be, Gav. With what we'd be given from the sale, we'd struggle to adequately replace Dack and have anything left over. I can only see it weakening us. Even under Williams, how often did we sell a star for big money and actually improve? The only time I can think that it was actually the right move was Santa Cruz. That was more because he had become a crock than anything else, and we were very lucky to get that much for him. He's been the only big money sale I've been happy with. I remember when we sold Duff and there was a lot of talk of how we could spend the money to improve the squad. We went from finishing a handful of points from Champions League qualification, to finishing 15th in each of the subsequent seasons. When Bentley went, similar talk - we went from finishing 7th to 15th. Selling Samba and Jones for big money saw us relegated. Rhodes left (and a few others for semi-big money), we got relegated the next season. We all know selling Shearer did us no favours. Maybe some of these are correlation rather than causation, and selling them is often out of our hands to a large extent, but as a whole, it doesn't paint a promising picture for selling our star players for big money and improving, like people like to talk about.

As I've said before, I think it's unrealistic that the deal would be weighted to heavy premiums on starts in the loan stage. I can't see why that would be deemed logically necessary by any party. However, I can conceive that there might be large chunks of the fee due at 10, 20, 30 or whatever number of starts, whether in the loan portion or after, and that we have been intentionally delaying his starts to make this number of starts coincide with a Venkys cash injection in the future. Since TM likes to take his time introducing players to the first team anyway, he might not object too strongly to being asked to hold him off from starting in the league for a while. I'm not saying this is what has happened, just that I see it as a conceivable possibility, among a few.

The lad cost so much because of his potential, not because of his current ability or impact. I don't think transfer fee inflation alone would be enough to get it all back. Plus, if he doesn't improve at all, he simply isn't going to get into the team. If he never plays, his value will drop precipitously. We're all hoping he does improve, of course.

Aye, he is. There's the rub though - Bell cost about 500k. For every Dack you unearth buying that way, you're probably looking at a few Bells and one or two inbetween. You can't just go land ten of him with the Brereton money. I do think the money could have been spent more wisely, though.

Wow, when you put it like that, we should just go buy at www.dacksfor750k.com Dunno if we need ten of him though. Not sure he's much use in defence.

Fine result for the u-23s. I know Arsenal were off-form lately but seems our lads might be finally finding their feet. They may not do so well after the January loan-outs though. Lyons continues to be a bit of a mystery of a signing to me, largely due to his age when we got him, and his position. When you sign someone aged 21, you expect them to be a squad player at least. With only experience of the Northern Irish league, that never seemed likely this season. Loaning him to St Mirren seems fairly sensible to me, but where do we find ourselves with him next season? Seems he will have to step it up a fair bit. We are very heavy squad-wise in that area. I don't know why we needed another 'body'. Maybe the U-23s needed support due to starting so badly...if that's why he was bought it'd be strange to send him on loan already. Maybe this is one of those deals which will look a lot clearer in a year.

Agree, Lincoln can fuck right off for both those reasons.

Why are we looking at new contract talks with him then?

I'm sure I read we are about mid-table for wages. Can't remember the source though.

You're right, you two do have circular discussions with each other. It's because one of you fails to see or at least reply adequately to the key points the other one makes. Hint: it's not him.

Bloody hell, you were flush with cash for a newborn!

Never liked Big Club since the Big Club debacle. Whilst this has cooled a little, still hoping to stick it to them. Aside from that, given our run of games coming up and Brum's own position, this game is very important. It's bound to be a tough game and yet, on paper, the 'easiest' we will have for a while now.

Is it though? It's something we have done as a club under Venkys before - Salgado and (possibly) Nelsen. I have started to wonder whether there might be something in this conspiracy theory. The situation is so bizarre without it that there just might be something in it. I can't see why his starts would be weighted more in terms of cost during the loan period than after it becomes permanent, but I wonder if we pay a set fee after X number of starts and TM has been instructed to limit his starts for now so that the payment required coincides with the next due Venkys cash investment. TM tending to introduce players slowly anyway might not object to waiting until January to start him in the league. Could equally easily be cobblers, but something about this whole thing doesn't seem quite right so far.