You're better than that jim.

I don't have a problem with him at all. When it mattered, he gave his all and kept us up virtually single handedly. Who in their right mind would give up what might have been their only chance of Premiership football in favour of staying at this shitshow? If I did have a gripe with him it would be that after one season here I thought he was rubbish. In season 2 he proved he was a great player. If he'd performed anything like that in season 1 we'd have definitely made the play offs and could quite easily have been promoted.

No.

If we end up with Argentina, no. If we end up with Croatia, yes, as it is out of England's control, and you would expect Argentina to beat them normally. (Although maybe not as we couldn't beat them either in 2018) Anyway, when did we reach the World Cup Final?

Arguing about semantics and the definition of "impediment" really but I'd still maintain in reality there isn't because there's nothing whatsoever to prevent them from complying with those conditions if they WANT to.

Completely false comparison to compare England to Rovers. Other than a very brief period under Jack Walker we haven't had the choice of the best players in the Country to choose from, in fact for most of the time, not even the best players in the Division. So you're not looking at anything like a level playing field. Despite that in my time we've achieved actual success in 1975, 1979, 1992, 1995, 2002 and 2003. Southgate has never achieved any success at senior level as a manager. I suppose he did get Middlesbrough relegated which I presume was very memorable for Boro fans.

I think it's a bit subjective. I've never rated JRC personally. Conversely I wouldn't criticise anyone for giving Buckley a 5 year deal at the time as again he looked like he was going to be the next big thing. I rate Scott Wharton and again wouldn't quibble about him having been given a long term deal at the time. On the other hand at no point would I have been rushing to offer Pears or Pickering new deals, I don't think you can just hand contracts out to everyone carte blanche, you have to assess who's performing best for you and who has the most potential resale value and prioritise accordingly. Mowbray was particularly guilty of handing out contract extensions to those who didn't warrant them.

Thanks. The only one of those I'd say was a real coup would be Carter's as he looked at the time as though he'd be the next one to leave for big money. His form and fitness have declined somewhat since then though which couldn't have been predicted at the time.

Well, if they needed signing up because we wanted to sell them on for a profit maybe. How many senior players still here did he sign up for an extension? (Genuine question because I don't know) Buckley and Scott Wharton maybe?

As others have said, Andrews would be an insanely bad appointment for Brentford imo. On the other hand I think Frank will do very well at Spurs. Seems a lot more adaptable than Postecoglu was.

Why, do you like not winning things?

Can't believe the furore about Tuchel mentioning his Mum found some of Bellingham's on field antics "repulsive". The remark was taken completely out of context from what he originally said and blown up out of all proportion. If I were him I wouldn't bother doing any more in depth interviews. Talk about the thanks you get. Guess no-one will be moaning if Bellingham gets himself sent off during the world cup then.

Obviously not solely to blame but fully complicit.

There's a fair bit of PR fluff sprung up about Waggott since his departure. So he was prepared to push the boat out for O Neil, but wouldn't lift a finger to keep his (supposedly) own man Eustace? Sounds extremely unlikely tbh.

Have you got a job as Steve's new PR man or something? 🙂 No way Waggott was sanctioning a deal for O Neil imo. All indications at the time were that talks with him never got off the ground and were over as soon as they started.

The win against Boro was in the Cup. Just had a quick look and between the Sunderland game and a good win against Preston end of Jan we had 1 win, 2 draws and 5 defeats from eight games. (Five points) I wouldn't call that "decent" but if you don't think it was down to Trav's absence it's irrelevant for the purpose of the current discussion I guess.

It was the rough patch over Christmas until mid to end of January when he was missing that initially de-railed the season. The next implosion was the 5 defeats when the players didn't initially take to VI.

"Hi there, would your clients be interested in exploring the possibility of a new deal?" "No? Thought not, thanks, See ya!"

This is my view as well - surely no-one with half a brain cell can actually think that "the project" of selling off anyone with a bit of Championship quality, not reinvesting the proceeds and replacing them with cheap untestested players or Academy graduates is doomed to anything else but failure. You can dress it up as bringing in young players with a bit of pace to match some mythical brand of football we haven't actually seen any signs of yet all you like. I'm in 2 minds whether VI actually believes any of this nonsense or already knows the gig is up and is merely trying to string his time out and earn £600 k or so here over the next 12 months. One thing's for sure, if he can get it to work, or even keep our noses above water, he'll be a bit of a miracle worker.

Have we, where has it said that? Even if we have, means nothing unless they sign.

Couldn't disagree more with the above. If we were getting £6m or £7m for Travis then you might be able to make out a viable case for selling him. (That's assuming the funds were being reinvested in his replacement). At up to £3m however there's no way you're going to be able to replace him with anything like the same experience and quality. He's the heartbeat of the side as we saw this last season. As soon as he got injured results fell off a cliff and it was effectively season over. All selling him at this stage does, scrapes together a bit of beer money to pay one or two bills and rips the heart and soul out of the team.

Yes, he's cheap.

Ah I thought the purpose of last month's case was purely to be allowed to send over £4.85m. With a by product of the hearing being that the "bond" was reduced to 50% on the basis that there'd previously been argument that 100% was too onerous etc.

Whoosh. Sorry my feeble attempt at humour. Not a reference for the teenagers. (The Enigma machine)

Agreed. Aren't the further hearings that are scheduled if they ever get heard) to discuss whether the need for a guarantee can be removed altogether?