Good for Brereton. I'd install him as first choice up front for the chance he's never had but I'd guess even if he scored 5 today he'd still be relegated to the bench with DG plodding around next Saturday.

I don't agree that it's right that Clubs can hoover up thirty or forty players and make an industry out of it by sending them all out on loan and charging a loan fee whilst at the same time ensuring their direct rivals can't get their hands on the player. In fact I think the Authorities are coming round to the same sort of view. Moves are afoot to limit the number of players Clubs can have out on loan to around seven I think. But that wasn't the original point you made that I replied to so you've changed the goalposts. The point was whether or not it's reasonable to insert a clause in a loan deal requiring a certain amount of game time and I think it is. The Premier League Clubs are letting the lower tier Club borrow a far better player than they could afford to purchase outright, they're subsidising most of the player's wages and in return they need to see the player get game time. And from the loanee Club's point of view, what's the point in signing ANY player if you're not going to play them? And if they do turn unexpectedly turn out to be a dog with fleas you can still opt not to play them, you just take a bit more of a financial hit on the deal just as you would if you signed someone permanently and they flopped. I can't see the problem.

Oh come on, I know it's fashionable to bash the owners for everything that happens but this isn't too difficult a concept. Waggott should be close enough to Mowbray to know his attitude on exactly where any potential incoming would stand. Assuming penalty clauses for limited game time for loanees are not uncommon, that should have been the first question we asked Citeh. If it's likely to be a problem move on immediately. Not spend an endless amount of time on the deal then draw a blank.

I actually completely disagree with the criticism of Premier League Clubs loaning out their youngsters, if anything, even though there will be a sizeable loan fee involved, they're still doing Clubs further down the Leagues a massive favour by lending them their players then subsidising a huge chunk of their wages. For the smaller Club then to leave them out or use the player simply to fill their Bench is the ultimate show of disrespect imo. I think it is only fair to have provisos about game time built in to these type of deals. If you don't like it, go out and sign and buy your own player outright! Im not that bothered if the City lad doesn't come, it's no surprise the deal has floundered, he'd only have been a squad filler in TM's eyes and I'm not sure he's what we needed in any event. I think we'll struggle to get loans from any PL Clubs bearing in mind Mowbray's attitude about incoming players having to dislodge those already here and the way we treated Palmer last season and Barrow in the past. What say though the "Mowbray can do no wrong" brigade who were cock a hoop about the prospect of us signing a guy "who played 36 games in a team that finished in the play offs?" We've now missed out on our 2 main targets in defence Bauer (who we chased unsuccessfully for 12 months) and a young loanee who we subsequently made our new number one target. Cause for concern yet? Or like last season are Waggott and Mowbray simply going to have to go back cap in hand to the owners at the eleventh hour and say "Please Sir (or Madam) can I have some more?" Edit: I see JH Rover beat me to much of the above whilst I was typing!

Mowbray is so transparent now it's painful to listen to or accept. He simply will not bring In players who are massive improvements on the core group he inherited when he took over. He only ever talks about providing "competition" within the squad. Any big money is spent on younger players with possible potential who can be played out of position or left out altogether and simply placed in the category of "one for the future". That way TM keeps the owners partially happy by spending some money which they probably expect of him, keep expectations relatively low which protects his own position, and at the same time his old favourites aren't replaced or affected.

67 (?) goals conceded and the worst defensive record in the League away from home last season suggest otherwise.

Good move, after all it's not like we're short of centre halves or anything ......... Absolute madness. If the budget is that bad that we need to let Wharton go to bring someone else in then we are in trouble because Wharton will be on absolute bobbins relatively speaking. I'm not even sure I wouldn't rather use one of our own youngsters like Wharton and Magloire rather than spend relatively big money on a youngster from Citeh as you can bet your bottom dollar that under TM the default pairing will continue to be Mulgrew and Lenihan and anyone else will just be covering for injury, suspension, or playing in the League Cup. I think Mowbray has completely lost the plot and the season hasn't even started yet.

Don't think those odds are quite right. Sky Bet have us 33/1 to be Champions, 10/1 to be promoted and 11/2 to go down. If I was betting on it (which I'm not) I'd be taking the relegation option.

So if Leicester and Barcelona suddenly decide to loan us Harry Maguire and Lionel Messi at the last minute and pay their wages we'll be fine! All joking apart; you're right, it doesn't sound from that as if we're after any one specific and our transfer policy in general over the last 3 windows has seemed extremely haphazard being a case of winging it and seeing who becomes available rather than chasing specific targets. Or if we do put offers in it has seemed as though we don't offer a realistic amount and have generally ended up missing out on our main targets.

I would imagine he's been given the usual Mowbray speech about not being a guaranteed first team starter and having to dislodge players already here etc Him (and Citeh) might be weighing up their options and wondering whether to send him somewhere he is likely to get more game time.

No, the 14 -15 extra points required to sneak into the bottom end of the play offs wouldn't be out of the question ordinarily, I just don't think it will ever happen under Mowbray, even if (god forbid) he were to stay another 10 years. I'll agree with you about Damien Johnson. Positive move. Other than that, when you say Johnson will be a "big" player for us, on the evidence of the first game it's not clear whether that refers to his weight or his likely impact. Downgrade on Reed imo. Downing like Conway is a complete waste of a squad place and wages imo and will only hinder the likes of Rothwell and Chapman from getting enough game time. Doubt Mowbray will drop the static Danny Graham so Gallagher if he's used at all will provably be sidelined into one of the manager's favoured "wide striker" roles. Ditto Brereton. I personally doubt that the keeper will be any upgrade at all on Raya and I wouldn't mind wagering that the Citeh lad, if he comes in will only be used as squad cover at either RB or CB and wouldn't be a first team starter in "We mustn't upset the first team lads" Tony Mowbray's eyes. So have we improved or regressed? I certainly wouldn't say we're any stronger, about the same at best, and therefore if other teams have strengthened we've gone backwards. Funnily enough I could get behind a starting line up like the one at Bury last night regardless of results initially. It was young, exciting and gives you something to believe in. However unless Mowbray has completely changed his spots I fear we'll bomb with a starting line up extremely similar to the Rangers one.

Well is it any wonder when you make sweeping comments like that when we finished last season in a lowly 15th position and have since had a very poor transfer window thus far in the eyes of most people. You might as well say "Under Mowbray it'll be automatic promotion this season. pip Citeh to the Premier League next season then after that we'll round it off with a trio of Champions League successes". It's about as likely as what you said and it comes across as irritating when you state you apparently expect us to improve by around 30 points next season when nothing has happened to support that scenario!

JFHC. And there in a nutshell is why we will never ever do anything under Mowbray.

I'd far rather Samuel went out on loan than Nuttall personally. I would say BB, Gallagher and Nuttall have it all to prove this season. I wouldn't say Nuttall is particularly any worse than the other two on what I've seen of them all thus far but presumably the other two will be ahead of him in the pecking order given we paid large fees for them.

God. More players to pad out the squad rather than ones to go straight into the first team?

So should we flog Dack and get a replacement in on loan as well?

It's only really a worthwhile approach if the replacements you bring in are so successful you go up either automatically or through the play offs. Then obviously you're operating in a completely different marketplace. if not you're just left with the same problem in 12 months time of having to replace said players.

Yes. Losing one of your "crown jewels" and replacng them with someone on loan is not progress. You're just kicking the problem down the road for 6 or 12 months as someone said above.

So what? We were under no obligation to let him leave. He was under contract. Too difficult a concept for you to comprehend obviously.

Walton obviously didn't speak to Merce before signing then! ?

Not really. Will have to reserve judgment on the new keeper but all that's happened so far if is we've replaced a potential star of the future with someone who isn't our player. Had we planned the Raya sale and then replaced him with someone obviously better we'd been after for ages then that might be a bit more like it. At the start of the window I'd have said Raya was one of the last players that needed replacing, so if we'd have kept him Lenihan Nyambe and Dack and spent decent money on a really good centre half then that would have been good progress. Losing your keeper and getting a CH (if indeed we do get a decent one) isn't that much of a step forward imo. Probably a step back all things being equal.

Should have gone for Peter Crouch if that's the criteria!

I find it bizarre that anyone is happy at replacing an up and coming young keeper with someone who isn't an obvious upgrade and who isn't even our player. As for the City lad, not what we need at all imo. We need an experienced specialist CB to replace Mulgrew and bring Lenihan through. I bet he hardly starts and ends up padding out the squad. Absolute shambles of a transfer window for me. Very similar to last summer. We seem to put offers in for our main targets which are laughed out of court and then end up scratching around at the last minute for anyone still available, regardless of whether they're what we actually need or not. Don't know if it's anything to do with Waggott or not but since he arrived we seem to find it virtually impossible to get any deals over the line. Certainly not for the type of players we really need.

Experienced centre back on a permanent deal. Not a young kid who can maybe play CH, maybe play RB. If he's so good, why don't WBA want him back?

Well yes. He avoided relegation last season as opposed to not avoiding it. Hopefully most people aren't satisfied with that going forward so it's what happens next that counts.