Why can't we give Brereton a try where imo he needs to be, centrally?

Me neither. Conversely I think Buckley looks a great player. Which probably means in Tony World that JRC will be virtually ever present and Buckley will be banished out on loan to the stiffs somewhere.

"Get that bus ahtttt!" Good old Reg would have been better than Luke. Reg's old Mum in the programme, Doris Hare, would have been better than Chris Brown! ?

That puts a very different slant on it for me and would mean I have to attend matches on my own. How do you mean "anyone in a bubble?" ? Also are masks compulsory? If they are, I'm out.

Cheers for the explanation on that point John. Bearing in mind local restrictions in BWD etc Are you OK to sit with a friend from a different household because if not I suspect it'll kill the whole thing stone dead.

My thoughts exactly. Hope we're not being used as bait to catch a bigger fish (again). Continually reading any deal is "close" makes me nervous. Can't be that close or we'd be reading it was done and dusted.

He's done it already though, hasn't he? My ST in the Riverside has gone up a whopping 25% from last year from £319 to £399. If he does similar again next season then he'll probably have compensated for the majority of refunds given out because of Covid. Whether it turns out to be clever bit of sleight of hand or commercial suicide remains to be seen based on the actual uptake. There's a lot to process here, I want to help the Club but frankly I don't think the Riverside is worth £399 and it doesn't sound like the match day experience would be much fun, indeed it sounds quite the opposite. I'll have to see what my mate in the Riverside thinks about it all, frankly I don't know what to make of it at the moment, if he doesn't want to renew I'd be split between not bothering at all and watching on I player or going the whole hog and ordering the best package available in JW upper. Ayala's don't pay for themselves I suppose......... BTW, whatever happened to "How can we sell something we can't guarantee?" That's gone completely out of the window hasn't it? Glad to see we've finally woken up but why couldn't this have been done a couple of months ago like many of us wanted?

Quite a high risk move for us financially I'd say given his likely wage, potential fragility and age, the Nixon tweet above would suggest Ayala wasn't happy with the deal we offered him originally, perhaps he's getting another year. I was told Grant Hanley wanted a 3 year deal twelve months ago but apparently the owners would only sanction 2 years. Sounds like we've gone back to the owners for permission to push the boat out on this one to me. Let's see if it comes off.

Yes I agree. Love Feed tbe Yak's side but I can't see much advantage in starting Armstrong and risking him picking up an injury unless you're putting him in the shop window and hoping he impresses against Premier League opposition. Conversely you'd hope either BB or Gallagher were getting to the stage they could be called upon and do a decent job whenever required.

Well done! Couldn't agree with you more. Let us know if he responds.

What a great post. Bravo Sir!

Yep. Obviously we need the first choice left back as well, I'm not saying we only need one CB, rather we need a top class CB and top class LB.

Yep. If we're revisiting old deals in general that have floundered to date it sounds like we've gone back to the owners for more money. On Ayala in particular if Sharpe is not committing himself any further than "it has a pulse" it sounds like it's not completely out of the question but not particularly likely either. I predict another 50 pages of speculation and excitement about whether he is actually coming after all before he moves to another Club entirely. Hope I'm proved wrong.

I don't see him as a player that'll ever be more than a single figures man but if he leaves me a lot lighter in the wallet than I was anticipating I'll put up with that as it might mean (against ny expectations) we've had a decent campaign!

It's back up. I'd suggest Lenham and (say) Ayala with Wharton, Magloire and maybe even Williams as back up would be pretty strong for a Club our current size. The key is getting in the top CB for the first eleven, I'm not too worried about the back up. On Wharton in particular, if the manager here won't give him a chance then loans him out to League 2 Clubs, and he does the business (2 seasons running) I don't see how Wharton can be criticised for that. You can only beat whats in front of you.

Incredibly harsh. But if he was a similar age or younger coming here on loan from a Premier League Club and had no top level experience I bet you'd be all over it!

No real need for the gratuitous political barb but I like the idea. ? I'll donate £10 now to the National Deaf Children's Society, £10 at the end of the season if we finish above Boro and, as I don't think that'll come in, £5 for each League goal Gallagher scores. I'll probably be able to afford another £20 at the end of the season!

Based on what?

We've got one. Wharton. Need to get the first choice CB and LB in first before we start worrying about back ups!

Ah, that would explain why he's so good!

Spot on. It reminds me (imo) a bit of Lambert flogging Rhodes on the last day of the January window. "I'm only here for another 3 months so why should I care?"

The only advantage to that surely is that it doesn't have players knocking on the manager's door complaining they're only on £20k and he's on £30k. (p.w) It still comes out of the same pot at the end of the day so it either leaves you in the same amount of debt, or if FFP is still in effect, it's still going to put you over.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think what Waggott has done is within the letter of the law and I think he knows that as well otherwise, if legally he had no need to refund, he would not have been pleading with fans not to make the request. I do think you are spot on with your fifth paragraph about what SHOULD have happened but I also think the main point is not about whether Waggott has acted within the letter of the law as I think in practice numbers of requests for refunds would have been relatively small and the number prepared to take it even further would have been even smaller. Overall this would vindicate Waggott's belligerent stance from a very short term financial perspective even though imo he technically hasn't a leg to stand on. The main point is however how they're treating the fan base at a difficult time for everyone and how they can possibly expect to retain decent numbers of customers with an attitude like that.

Exactly right, it's the tone and attitude (not the lack of a refund per se) that is most offensive. Incredibly shortsighted too. Numbers actually wanting a refund would probably be relatively small, but it's unlikely anyone wanting a refund who got a response like that will be back. So for every £60 - £90 saved on a refund you're risking losing £350 p.a. indefinitely.

You're obviously an intelligent chap so I'm guessing you know very well that the clause you refer to (drafted before anyone ever heard of Covid) means that any ST holder who is ill, wakes up with a hang over, or has to go to work, or go to their daughter's birthday party or simply can't be arsed going etc quite rightly can't go running off to Rovers for a refund for that game. Any attempt to twist the clause round and interpret it in a way that it meant rhe Club didn't have to provide refunds if a match didnt take place would be laughed out of Court. As for "Force Majeure" it releases Rovers from the need to perform obligations under the contract if the event in question has made those obligations impossible to fulfill but it doesn't mean they can simply keep the money for those unfulfilled obligations if they've been paid for them in advance does it?