Cheaper players are not inferior by definition. Transfer fees and wages are not a guarantee of what level the player operates at. There are plenty of bargains, and plenty of overpriced dross. Players (including the one sold) can easily be in deceptive runs of form. The trick of course, is having the eye for a player and a bargain, as well as the negotiating skills, to get good deals made and not have your pants pulled down. And of course ensuring a sizeable chunk of the fee received is reinvested. These are the areas where we fall short when strengthening the squad after sales, and will quite possibly/probably continue to.

I'm a bit confused that the funds freed up don't allow for transfer fees, and yet we are looking to pay a transfer fee. Sounds like a recipe for getting in further bother with the Indian courts.

Ethan Walker recalled from League Two Morecambe and sent to Oldham in the Conference.

Very odd to suggest letting Brittain leave for an ultra low fee. We paid over a million for him abour 18 months ago and at times he has looked very good. If you shuttle people out whenever they have a run of bad form you'll be out of business quickly.

It's not pedantic to point out that your argument had a massive gaping hole in it. You can stand by your point, it won't make it make any more sense. I'm sorry you don't like that, and it's a shame you think it was point scoring. I was never making a point that I want Broughton to throw 500k to 1 mill fees on young players with no pedigree at this level. There's nothing wrong in making bigger use of the loan market than we have this season, although it does of course need to be balanced with actually procuring assets too.

Eh? You suggested loaning Hedges first instead of signing him permanently. If we hadn't signed him to the pre-contract (ie permanently), why would they loan him to us when his contract is nearly done and they wanted to use him? And with the pre-contract signed, why would they loan him to us for a fee any different to the one they insisted on? With 6 months left on a contract, a club is going to insist on roughly the same fee whether it's for a 6 month loan or a permanent, whether or not you've signed a pre-contract. That fee will be a bit less when the precontract is signed, because the selling club know you're definitely getting him in the summer, but there'll still be no real difference between the loan or perm, because those two things are essentially the same thing to the selling club at that stage. Markanday we couldn't sign a pre-contract with, so we had less power in that situation. If I remember rightly, Spurs had offered him a new deal too, which means with his age it would have gone to tribunal. You can argue that we shouldn't have signed Hedges if you like, and there's a very good argument that we should have just stuck with the freebie given how little we used him at first, but it's entirely irrational to expect we could have loaned him for less than we paid, because that would essentially be the same deal. Markanday wasn't going to be coming on loan for less than we paid either, unless he signed his Spurs deal. We could have ran the gambit of the tribunal though, may have been less may have been more, and then potentially seen his wage demands go up if other clubs were interested, or down if he'd had a poor 6 months in Spurs u21s. Ask yourself if you were in those clubs' positions why you would agree to what you're suggesting. It can only work that way when the club wants rid and sees the player having no market value, in which case they're happy to let them go for nowt and a loan first can work for all parties (or rather to the buying club, it's all the same).

Why would either of those clubs loaned us a player for 6 months who was due to be out of contract in 6 months? If they did it would have been for the same price we paid.

The fallout that may not have happened at all?

So we bought the wrong young Swedish keeper with exactly 1 international cap.

That made me curious about another slightly bizarre and ultimately pointless signing from the past, Brad Lyons. Now seems to be a regular for Kilmarnock in the SPL and got a Northern Ireland cap in October.

I'm assuming he means Hill being recalled. I can't see Hyam or S. Wharton being particularly likely departures.

I don't think there is any chance whatsoever we would accept that level of bid for Szmodics. I think that'd be it for me until Venkys left if we did.

You literally just argued he's being dropped at all costs, and argued that his being dropped is a myth, in the same post. His value deteriorates if he is dropped, fact. If we just wanted to sell him for max value, we would keep playing him until January, and certainly play him in the right position when he plays.

This theory doesn't stack up. If you want to maximise player value and attract bids, you don't reject bids, drop the player and play him out of position. I think it's fairly obvious Travis has been sidelined because he doesn't really have the technique to play the current style, and this has seen him supplanted by Tronstad.

It would be beyond bizarre, when we have a tawdry budget and are dangerously lacking at GK and CF, to invest 500k in a 20 yr old CB (who is also only seen as a fringe player for now it seems), whilst quite well stocked with CBs. I can only assume we have a CB leaving, or a sudden addition of at least 3 million to the transfer budget (Raya isn't moving til the summer and the funds will be drip fed). Given the situation in India still seems iffy, the latter seems very unlikely. Though I admit there's always the third possibility - we just don't know what we're doing.

My first thought with this deal, if true, is that Hill must be going back.

I've seen the 'can't do any worse than X' argument countless times over the years. I've also seen plenty of players then come in and indeed do worse. Hilton would almost certainly highlight this.

Then how has he kept some clean sheets, if he's worth at least a goal start for the opposition?

It doesn't sound like Hilton is any kind of answer, and the other keeper isn't available, not to mention is also guilty of continuing to make mistakes. I think the squad is running on fumes rather than not trying. But I do think some pragmatism is needed at times. There doesn't seem to be a Plan B.

Where are you getting 30 games since he left from? He has played 18 in all comps for Villareal (mostly off the bench of course) and 6 in 2023 for Chile, not sure how many of those were after he left us. Did you mean 20 or something?

4-0 away against QPR wasn't convincing? Or 3-0 Stoke? Beating Norwich 3-1 with ten men?

Amazing neither team has scored since it went to 2-1, especially Wolves. Nsangou nearly scored a spectacular goal from some 40 yards or so with the keeper off his line, and Wolves should have had 3 really. Some very close shaves.

Ref is soft as fuck. 2-1 now after a free kick out of nothing.

Gilsenan subbed off at 71 minutes. Presumably with an eye on him sitting the bench at the weekend. Him and Bloxham are players who always seem pretty decent to me on the few occasions I've seen them.

Excellent goal from Gilsenan. Thought the pass to him was over hit but he somehow stretched his foot onto it to leave the keeper stranded, did well to keep it in play at the byline and finish from a fairly tight angle.