Don't understand the point you're making? Seemingly we COULD have got several times the money we paid for Rothwell in January had we wanted it but (rightly imo) chose not to take it in the hope he could fire us to promotion. Why would the situation be any different with BBD?

I think Venky's could actually hold out a lot longer than Tony Bloom! Whether we need the fee for FFP purposes or not is a different issue.

If we held onto him until January and were 2nd in the table (again) though, surely it'd be worth keeping him and risk losing him for nothing in pursuit of the ultimate prize? For me it's actually a no brainer we keep him until January and see where we are. If we're not likely to go up or down then sell. There'll be a lot of desperate Clubs by then and I can't see any situation in which we don't at least get money back.

It's not a lot different to Brereton really. Both selling Clubs want top dollar, probably more than can be objectively justified with 12 months to go on the respective contracts. Interested Clubs are playing poker trying to offer a lot less but how long can you wait before you start to panic or risk missing out altogether to someone who's prepared to bite the bullet and meet the asking price?

We'll have to agree to disagree then. It seems clear to me from your contributions on the subject (and it's a point you've attempted to make before) that you're mistaking sums paid to players on a voluntary basis by Clubs as a result of negotiation in an attempt to make deals happen with being contractually obligated to pay up their wages for the remainder of their contract if they leave.

That's exactly what I'm saying! Your post came over as if you requested a move and it fell through you wouldn't be entitled to any further wages.

You've changed the goalposts and the argument substantially now. As a point of order, isn't BB still on his original deal he signed here which was on a relatively low wage supposedly (Just feel the flex!) So the remainder of his wages probably wouldn't even be £390k. And in all probability he'd be moving for a lot more than £30k p.w. Why would his agent risk jeopardising a move to the PL (and possibly) a seven figure signing on fee for a sum that might not be much more than a month's wages?

That's the end of that then.

Again, that's nothing whatsoever with what you said originally about him being entitled to the wages for the remainder of his contract being paid up in full. IF Rovers had been stupid enough to agree to something like that being inserted in his deal when he signed originally then obviously that's their funeral and they'd have to pay it. Normally you'd expect any remuneration for the agent or any additional inducement for the player such as a signing on fee to be paid by the buying Club. If such a clause existed, barring a remarkable coincidence it would be a different figure from his outstanding wages though.

That's also nonsense. If you hand in a transfer request the only thing you forfeit are any potential benefits arising out of a loyalty bonus. If on the other Club attempts to sell a player who doesn't particularly want to move, he either chooses not to move and that's the end of it or negotiates some sort of arrangement with the selling Club about the remainder of his contract if he'd have to move elsewhere for less money. He's not entitled to have his contract paid up as of right on leaving.

Not what you said originally. It's entirely Rovers choice whether or not they want to enter into an arrangement like that with the player due to the situation particular to him of his contract running out. Your originally proposition was a selling Club are obligated to pay a players contract up whenever he leaves which is rubbish.

You might pay part of someone's contract up to get them off the wage bill if they're stinking the place out and have the chance to move somewhere on lesser money and you want to save a bit of money at the same time. That's a million miles away from your original proposition that if a player wants to move and you're a reluctant seller you are OBLIGATED to pay up their contract as well just to rub salt in the wound. In BBD's case he'd be moving for more money so the considerations in my first paragraph don't apply. And I don't believe the owners need the money that badly in the first place, let alone pay up the remainder of his contract when they don't have to to ease him out of the door.

That would be tough luck on our part. You can't bribe a player to move by offering him cash back on any transfer deal.

Nothing. And Rovers would receive £18m not £12m after Forest's 10% in the hypothetical scenario you describe. The only thing you might do if you were Rovers is if he were due a loyalty bonus if he made it to the end of his contract you might make some concession in that respect if there was a sale before then with everyone's blessing.

We wouldn't even have to pay him the £5k p.w. Either he moves and takes the £5k p.w. hit because he decides the footballing prospects are better elsewhere or he decides he'd rather have the extra £5k p.w. and stays put. In the latter scenario, the Club can't force him to move.

Correct.

That's clearly wrong - why do you think then that players on big deals who have become surplus to requirements opt to sit out their deals rather than move for less money elsewhere? According to you they'd get paid twice!

You don't pay off the remainder of players' contracts if they leave of their own volition. I don't know where you get that idea from. Maybe you're confusing it with paying off managers who've been sacked. Otherwise no-one would ever move, it would be worth the selling Club's while.

It is quite a remarkable stat I think which may just indicate that the Championship will be much of a muchness this season and is there for the taking.

Didn't see either of those games, I had lost interest in the Mowbray train wreck long before then so I'll take your word for it. I didn't think he was particularly good v QPR. Terrible first half, a lot busier second but gave the ball away a lot and not much end product. Much better yesterday imo.

Only team with 6 points - two clean sheets. It's hard not to get carried away but I'm trying desperately hard not to and casually chalk it up as a "decent start". Think the success over the first couple of games has been built on the two centre backs, Ayala and Wharton. Thought Wharton in particular was absolutely sensational here once again. The worry surely has to be Ayala's injury record and if we somehow could get JPVH in it would be a massive boost. Kudos to Hedges, very good yesterday and it was the first time I've thought he may end up a decent acquisition. He looked like a bloke off the street who had wandered into a professional football match last season so it shows the difference a bit of decent coaching can make. How the hell has anyone managed to unlock the howitzer in Travis? He never looked like he had one of those in his locker previously. Gallagher still woeful, the two results are all the more impressive playing effectively with ten men, if we could replace himwith someone decent we really would be flying imo. Super goal from BBD. Although the same type of gamble didn't come off in Jan, for me we need to roll the dice once again with him and keep him until January then see where we are imo The funny thing is, I don't think we've even played that well yet! There looks like there could be a lot more to come from this group of players under this manager. Come on Waggott and Broughton, there's something potentially a bit special in the offing here. Do your jobs and give the manager the quality and strength in depth to succeed over a 46 game season.

Can't recall anyone ever saying that specifically. My view when Allardyce was here (and still is) give me 38 or 46 horrible scrappy 1-0 wins all day long. BUT if you're not in contention for League titles or trophies and are only winning enough games to ensure you stay up you need a bit of nice football or entertainment along the way as well otherwise the whole thing becomes exceptionally dull. Going back to yesterday, I didn't find our team's performance displeasing on the eye at all. I thought we could have played a lot better but it's only this group of players second game together under JDT and that will hopefully come.

Literally anyone. Vale was quiet but showed up far better than Gallagher last week imo. One's been dropped after a game because he's young and the other has retained his spot because he's "experienced". IAlternatively put Dack in. I'd rather the side was picked on merit and players who aren't up to it didn't retain their place regardless.

Very disappointing Gallagher has kept his place. Otherwise a decent looking side.

If it were down to me I'd drop Hedges and Gallagher for Markanday and Dack but I expect Vale will be scapegoated and dropped after one game and replaced by Szmodic and that Gallagher who was far worse than Vale on the day will retain his place. That's what would have happened under Mowbray anyway, let's see if JDT views things differently.