islander200

I said in my initial post that I bear no ill will toward Philips if he moves. Me not wanting him to return on loan has nothing to do with revenge just don't want us developing a 17 year old for Spurs. When Barnes was fit ,the manager decided he would be in the squad and not Phillips. He was only in the first team the other day due to injuries and our failure to sign any central defenders

No we shouldn't ask for him back for the season.

A 17 year old with 1 appearance isn't firing us to Promotion. He only made his debut the other day because Carter and Barnes were injured. When other defenders are signed he won't be starting this season wether he signs a new deal or not

If Phillips leaves for Spurs or another team then I wish him No Ill will but under no circumstances should we taking him back on loan for the season

What about Harvey Elliot then?He wasn't on pro terms Seen already asked

Sharpe reckons Lenihen was offered a deal not far off what we were offering Davies which was 26k per week. So again am 100% confident that it is correct what my friend told me, Darragh was offered a long term deal at £22k per week

For me it's worth a gamble. The league at the moment looks shit to me and we are not far off having a squad capable of sustaining a challenge if four players of decent quality are brought in before deadline. Sepp looks likely to happen, a player capable playing for a team challenging for promotion imo...3 or 4 others either loan or permanent and keep Brererton and could be our best chance in years to go up. Not sure if Sarr injured but wasn't playing for Watford tonight, Dennis already gone, Newcastle going back in for Pedro.Burnley changed half their team ,Norwich haven't started great but be up there at end of season. Hard to argue against longer term it would be better sourcing a replacement and getting what we can for him but I think in the shorter term keeping him would be our best bet of doing something this season

We need a few players being brought in and we have repeatedly been told that the club are trying and players will arrive regardless of a Brererton sale. We would probably get some of the Brererton money as extra to reinvest but that money if given for a singular player and a Brererton replacement it will most likely be a similar profile as what we got when we bought Brererton a younger player with potential as even if we were to shell out a decent wedge we do not pay the wages to attract a proven top man.Last 2 games Brererton has me convinced if stays relatively fit another 20+ goals are on the cards this season.Unless lucky we won't be replacing that Id only sell if it meant failing Ffp and the sanctions that come with it but been no suggestion that is the case and the better a season we have the more likely our other assets value grows

Early days but be nice going 4 points clear at the top with a win tomorrow night

He has shown absolutely no signs of being unhappy here.He has known all summer he has a year left on his deal and the bid is nowhere near our valuation and has already been rejected.He will be playing

Dorsett from sky reckons they bid similar last January. He plays until a fee is agreed as far as Im concerned.We aint going to fail Ffp If he doesn't go and the transfer fee in its entirety won't be put back into the squad.Brererton will get another 20+ league goals this season if he stays

Id put my house on Ben Brererton still being here when the window shuts unless offers of £15+ Million are received. I want him to stay now, the league looks poor again and we won't replace him with better and we have already been told the budget is healthy and we are actively seeking signings. We have a few younger players who potentially could bring in decent money over the next couple of years so I'd rather us gamble in this instance and keep Ben and take the hit on missing out on the transfer fee even if sold for £15 million when you take into account the percentage Forest will get and the fact we paid out £8 million for him in the first place and wages and bonuses received by the player throughout his contract we will be lucky if we make £4-£5 million profit on him.

Yeah why wouldn't he? The bid in for him is nowhere near our valuation

Yeah but we have missed out on two top targets that we know of in Anel and Davies. Like I mean according to some the deal for VDB done but waiting on a few injury issues clearing up for Liverpool which isn't our fault. What if the other centre back is Van Hecke but waiting on Brighton to give an answer? Should we move on from them?

Nixon reckons the VBD deal is all but agreed and he said the same when there was a delay in the Morton deal. Gomez came on for them and Matip isn't far off.VDB is proven at this level and it would be a good signing, I do think we should wait for them. We missed out on Anel and Davies and we have no idea what talks have taken place with other targets.Obviously I want players in as quick as possible but would rather wait for a VDB than make a Paul Downing type signing

Fair enough but we also have people discussing that Mowbray could have brought in Jed Wallace for the money when Wallace is on a deal that far exceeds our highest earner. No way could we have brought in Wallace and Dembele for the initial £3 million we were supposedly selling Rothwell to Bournemouth for.

I don't know if £5 million but didn't Mowbray himself admit we had money to spend but he chose not too?

Sharp said Wharton out for the next 2.Phillips was just cramp

Yeah and we won't HAVE to play VDB we will just have to compensate them. If Nixon's article is correct then JDT has already spoken to the player and is comfortable with the deal. Liverpool ain't dictating anything.We ain't forced to play the player, if he isn't worth his place then I presume he will be on the bench and not starting. This is only an issue if VDB is picked solely for us to avoid having to pay the fine. If the club are comfortable and the fine isn't excessive and we can afford it then I don't see the problem?

He doesn't have to pick him. We pay the fine, he isn't being forced to choose the player!

I'm not taking Nixon's word as gospel just find it logical and am aware that many Prem teams insist on such Clauses when loaning out . But if I was pushed I would find Nixon far more in the know than Sharpe.

This clause is only a problem if the lad is picked due to us not being able/willing to pay the fine. Just get him signed.

Says who? Sharpe? There is absolutely no advantage to the club admitting those clauses were in other loan player deals .What you expect the club to start giving the finer details of contracts out to the local media? I think it is standard practice for these sort of clauses to be in place. Van den Berg has half the championship after him and from the gist of Nixon's article it is JDT pushing the VDB deal and Is comfortable he will have enough playing time to avoid any penalties

Sharpe looked at the contracts? With all due respect Sharpe has been wrong plenty of times . Like last January when he said we were no longer interested in Maja as Bordeaux wanted a permanent deal only and we couldn't afford it and then he ended up at Stoke on loan. Loaning out young players is now big buisness for these clubs hence why they collect so many young players.

They ain't dictating our team, they want there player playing and if he doesn't they will want compensating.We do not have to play him and without knowing how much we would have to pay its hard to be too critical. These sort of clauses will be in loan deals all over the place in the EFL