Everybody is saying loan him or play him in the U23's to gain some confidence. From what I have seen he may struggle to get confidence even at those lower levels. What do Rovers do with him if that happens ?

I am getting flashbacks of Gillingham last season.

I am on the nine o clock train from Preston

No ! What I am saying is not a fact or an opinion, it is another option to the two you stated ( Which are not facts either).

I don't know if you will remember this but it is a prime example of a better player upsetting a good formula. Man city where looking like winning the old first division (similar to Liverpool at the moment ), they brought in what was thought to be the player to guarantee them the title, (Rodney Marsh ) the team and the campaign fell apart because of the upset he allegedly caused.

I would say more like twice the size, with nice hair.

Option three there was no one available that the manager wanted.

As long as we win on Saturday I am not bothered who we get even if its no-one.

I would say Bell has not done as much wrong recently (the last game).

Personally I think he will be used as an impact sub, doubly effective against tired defenders. "We've a star man playing on the right "

It never has done.

I take it you didn't make it in time for the first half, where Grahams play as a targetman was perfect.

But if he manages to break into our side surely he will have proved he is good enough. If he then picks up an injury, we revert back to what we have. I don't get all the doom and gloom about a player who may or may not get injured. All signings are a risk (Cardiff ), lets just see how it turns out, and get on with enjoying Rovers having a good season.

I remember Rovers fans singing that to Tranmere fans.

If your cooker is slow, get rid of her.

Any eleven that win.

I don't think we are shopping anywhere.

Do Bury play with 3 at the back? Perhaps he is being loaned out to get used to the system, ready for the big push next season.

It's not to do with who he has played for, but that if no one is interested in a player, say that three clubs are.

You are quite correct in that I think that the main priority for a full back is defence. for a full back to be able to support the attack in my opinion would take a player above our financial situation. I do not get your statement of Mulgrew being the ultimate square peg in a round hole. He is a left footed defender who has previously played in the position, successfully. He has the passing range to get the ball to our midfield or forwards, he can time a tackle, has good positional sense and can read the game.

In a properly organised defence you do not run that much more at full-back than at center-back, a full back does not have to bomb forward. He has to get the ball to someone forward of him that can bomb forwards. You also propose to do nothing about the problem and just let Bell, do for now. I would suggest that we now find ourselves in a position, in the league, where we could take risks in games, trying to come up with an answer to the problem. Rather than make do for now with no plan for the future/present.

I just cannot see it being any worse than what I have been watching at left back all season. Lets hope the answer can be found.

So what would be your answer to our problem at left back ? Also I cannot see how playing in a different defensive position would be effected by a previous injury record. If you are likely to have a recurrence of an injury it does not matter which position you happen to be playing.

I don't get your claim that trying Mulgrew at left back is ludicrous. If we didn't have a problem at left-back, then it would be ludicrous, but we do. So something new needs to be done if we continue to play 4 at the back.

Even with pace Bell does not stop his opponent from getting crosses in. In my opinion the most important asset for a full back is to be able to defend. Bells positional sense is appalling he makes it easy for any opposition player to pass the ball to the man, who he is meant to be marking.