Hardly any headline fees are payable up front these days, they're all spread over the life of the contract. The only exception might be if a particularly rich Club paid all or most of a fee up front to keep a top player out of the clutches of rivals. It's therefore no excuse to a duff transfer to say that the full fee doesn't have to be paid in year one, after allowing for any unmet add ons, it all has to be paid eventually!

I'm happy to believe what everyone says about the contract, I just fail to see how it would be enforceable in practice if he decided he wanted to leave.

You're still talking nonsense in an attempt to make it sound like possibly recouping £120k on a player we'll end up shelling out the thick end of £2m for over 2 seasons not to play for us is some kind of result or clever management. No-one ever suggested £120k was not a lot of money in the real world, that wasn't even part of the discussion. On balance I'd send Mulgrew out on loan as well but I don't think the relatively small saving (in footballing terms) is that much of an advantage as opposed to having him available if needed. I think you're just as usual taking Mowbray's side and agreeing with him whatever he decides to do. Taken as a whole the Mulgrew saga has been a disaster for the Club irrespective of whether he goes out on loan to Fleetwood. I also have little doubt that if tomorrow TM brought in a CB or LB the same age as Mulgrew cheap cover on a one year deal on 2.5 k p.w. , you'd be hailing it as a masterstroke!

He won't be changed I agree but as soon as we come up again anyone half decent he's found lacking I'm.

I thought it was fairly widely accepted that after we lost the opening home game of last season, (for which as you say CM was not only selected but captain) Mowbray blamed the defence in the press which Mulgrew took exception to and this culminated in them having a stand up row at Brockhall in front of everyone on the last morning of the transfer window. By the afternoon he'd been shipped off on loan to Wigan with us no doubt paying most of his wage and relations between the two obviously haven't improved since.

Southgate is incredibly PC and says all the right things for FA purposes and is very touch freely as is the modern way and in tune with the players feelings etc but in footballing terms there's as much chance of England winning something under him as Rovers being promoted to the Premier League under Mowbray! England have some good youngsters as well. Southgate wouldn't last 5 minutes at one of the big Premier League Clubs.

What does he stand to gain from agreeing to a two year deal with a further 12 m option entirely at the Club's behest as opposed to a straightforward two year deal or three year deal?

Why would Dack agree to that?

Sooner than defenders!

Nyambe's value will be negligible bearing in mind we have somehow allowed him to enter the last year of his contract and he will probably walk away for free in summer. Dack's in the last year of his deal as well despite talk of a 12 month option in our favour which I can't see is enforceable unless both parties are happy with it.

You're talking absolute rubbish. Whether Mulgrew does or does not go to Fleetwood and whether we can either have him at our disposal or save (say) £120k is a marginal benefit either way and fairly irrelevant in the general scheme of things. The issue is that Mowbray gave him such a ridiculous contract at his age then compounded it by falling out with him putting the Club in the position of having to pay the player the thick end of £2m quid for 2 seasons not to play for us.

Think you've nailed it there. In all the talk about whether it's better to use the youngsters and maybe finish lower, or bring in expensive loanees to finish midtable, there seems to some sort of idea that by doing the latter we are close to achieving promotion whereas in my view we're a million miles away using this method. Back to square one every summer and likely to regress at a rate of knots as the few better players get bored of waiting for anything to happen and move on. The only apparent hope is the youngsters come good but I suspect under this manager they'll only play peripheral roles whilst senior players are shoehorned in out of position. Many of us questioned at the time the lunacy of handing out blanket long term contracts to average ageing players as some sort of loyalty bonus and its now coming back to bite us on the arse over the last couple of seasons

Considering you're suddenly so keen to save £120k I don't recall you voicing your dissent when we paid Gladwin for 6 months to use our facilities, or Smallwood and Hart for an extra month for doing nothing!

I doubt that. I was told Downing was on 15k p.w. Mulgrew will be on less than Ayala but the principle is still the same. You scoffed at the notion we would hand out an overly generous contract to someone of a certain age.

Wish I'd had a pound for every time I'd heard that during every abysmal transfer window from the Mowbray supporters! It never gets any better by the end of it either! Last two Jan windows only Club in the League not to sign anyone and Chapman respectively, last summer £5m wasted on Gallagher, no permanent keeper acquired and the dreadful Walton in, the summer before (probably) having to go back cap in hand to the owners at the last minute having missed out on all our targets and over paying for Brereton in a last minute panic buy.

If it's good enough for Mulgrew why not Ayala?

I think you're spot on about loans.

I'd go even further than you in your criticism of loans. In isolation Tosin looked reasonably impressive but imo was far from a worldbeater. We finished 11th and conceded 63 goals, only 6 fewer than the season before that. ( Although you might argue that that itself was an achievement with Walton in nets) I'd far rather we'd finished a few points lower but saved the £1m loan fee plus wages but much more importantly allowed Wharton or Magloire to get 12 months experience under their belts at Championship level. And I will feel the same way this season if, having spoken of the need for "men" at the back Mowbray splashes out again on a loan for a Premiership youngster the same age as Wharton or Magloire leaving us back at square one yet again in 12 months time.

Imo the notion that Venky's won't pay for defenders is just another stick to beat them with and excuse the failings of successive managers. Everyone conveniently overlooks we paid a reported £7m for Scott Dann although admittedly that was some time ago.

I said "if all parties were serious about the deal he'd be here". You obviously didn't appreciate the point I was making. We might or might not have had genuine intentions of signing him initially but the player obviously wasn't serious about coming. If you put a bid in for a player and he says "I'm coming" or "I'll think about it" and you're still no nearer whatsoever a month or so down the line you surely don't have to be a genius to work out there's a potential problem or that the player isn't that bothered about coming. So it's not difficult to see why it looks like the whole episode comes across as a box ticking exercise to make it look like we were doing something.

Kipre was obviously just hanging on until a Premier League Club came in for him. We should have been able to suss this out and move on to other targets. Still, by enquiring about him it looks like we've been doing something.

My only reservation over the Director of Football role would be that you don't want a person with a non footballing background who couldn't tell a decent player if he tripped over him telling a football man of vast experience who he can and can't sign. This happened during Dalglish's latter spell at Liverpool when the clown Damien Commoli (sp?) was there I think. However provided the DOF is at least equally clued up on spotting a player and the state of the market (shouldn't be difficult with TM in charge) I can't see too much problem if it takes some strain off the manager.

Can you find us someone from the "people who get deals over the line" section?

However, if all the parties concerned were serious about the Kipre deal, he'd be here.

Because? File him with the list of targets before we signed Brereton, Bauer, Assombalonga, Reed, the two foreign keepers who must not be named, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all.