I don’t understand that either, a contract only has to say what conditions it has, not those that it doesn’t. The club said what would happen if we were promoted, allegedly they asked what would happen if we were relegated - why not ask what would happen if neither was to happen as well??

I don’t have 100% faith in myself yet alone anyone else!

It’s the fact that there is any obligation to buy that triggers the requirement to submit the contract I say fact, I mean my reading of the regulation - I may be wrong!

The EFL regulations require the submission of the future ‘permanent’ contract when registering a loan with an obligation to buy.

Me neither - I guess my point was from a regulatory point of view ‘loan club is paying all his wage’ doesn’t have to equal ‘loan club is paying his usual wage’ I’m sure in reality it does always mean the former.

The regulations do allow for a players contracted wage to be altered for the duration of a loan - maybe he agreed to a pay cut and we’d have paid 100% of this lower wage (ie no forest contribution)? i don’t know why he would, but in theory he could have

Even if what he’s reported is true, and I’ve no idea if it is - this and us making a complete mess of things are not mutually exclusive. I also think it’s always useful to ask ‘why are they telling me this?’ and ‘what have they not told me? In this case - given Broughton has said that there were both external and internal factors, why have only the ones I presume they consider to be external been leaked?

I’m in the too early to tell camp. Some promising signs but some concerning ones as well

If no one has ever succeeded with an appeal (no idea if Broughton is right on this) the why have an appeal process at all? oh and good luck…

A lot of what Broughton said in the video, about Undav for example, had appeared in the press (not sure whether they were Nixon articles though)

Some of us… (I’m not offering!)

I understand all that, so far I’ve not seen anything disrespectful though - which is good. Now what can we use to plug that hole…

I literally said I’m not defending us - in fact I’ve spent most the day criticising us. I was just merely pointing out there are other ways of not being ‘respectable’ towards players. The O’Brien situation is entirely on us! Re: replacing players after a promotion , I agree that’s perfectly normal - I just think 29 new ones is a tad excessive. O’Brien was bought by forest after their promotion - unless I’ve got that wrong?

Granted this is the only social media I look at but any praise for the statement I’ve seen has been heavily caveated.

Again, not defending us but… https://www.nottinghampost.com/sport/football/transfer-news/nottingham-forest-transfers-tobias-figueiredo-6588128 Late submission of paperwork you say…

Why thank you… but maybe I was being entirely serious 🤔

I think it will ultimately hinge on whether it turns out to be the same old bullshit or a catalyst for change.

and possibly giving him more than 13 games (some from the bench) to prove his worth to you before trying to get shot of him.

I’m not defending us but you can’t sign 29 players in six months and be respecting them all at the same time. You must be signing some of them with little intention of playing them.

I know we’ve let him down, but haven’t they done the same by trying to ship him out only six months after signing him?

I’m certain you mean overestimating…

I’m glad you took that in the spirit it was intended - I understand you have access to the ban button…

But how about J*B…

As he said in the video, he did get the deals over the line - and then it all went wrong. I’m of the view that the CEO is ultimately responsible if not directly to blame - others see things differently

Something that I found interesting, was how much of what he said (eg about targeting Undav) had already appeared as leaks. Someone must have a good source somewhere.