Cheers. I think I might have been looking at FIFA regs which seemingly required 28 days notice before you get get the player back.

Not sure the actual ability or value for money of the player is the main point here, which is those 2 Clubs obviously fancy him and think he will improve their fortunes and are making an effort accordingly whereas us....... *Tumbleweed*

Surprised, when I've seen bits of him.on TV I thought he looked lethal.

I think he's a really good player. Do you not?

Again don't disagree - we've been a selling club and not the trading club we need to be obviously - but that wasn't the point I was making. At best there would still be quite a turn round period when not insubstantial losses would be incurred and need to be covered imo.

Meanwhile in the real world Middlesbrough have accepted bids of £5m from Luton and (ironically) WBA for Issiah Jones. And we are doing.......what?

I couldn't agree more with that analysis.

That wasn't the point under debate. The proposition I was replying to was that savvy owners (i.e. not Venky's) wouldn't have to fund losses. They would for quite a while imo.

Thanks. Do you know if players can be recalled instantly or if there is a minimum notice period?

We haven't got any Szmodics' or Wharton's left to sell. New owners would still have to find that £10m (at least) plus cover annual operating losses for a while

I think that's a fairly optimistic take.

They have in the past up until the Court case, I meant when the last bits of family silver have been sold off. They'd have no option then but to cover or sell.

Surely if you've committed to a flexi- ticket you should get priority over a potential walk on? Good idea in principle but I can't decide if they've negated the point of it by having to give at least 3 working days notice. Surely there's enough spare capacity to accommodate 1) ST'S 2) Flexi tickets and 3) Walk ons in that order?

Apart from that...........

Especially as we weren't a Championship Club but a Premier League one when they bought us. No point swapping owners who can fund losses for ones who can't though.

To be fair, to them we're probably just a bottomless money pit but the only chance they have of getting a decent chunk of their money back is for us to be promoted so you'd think that in itself would be the motivation to provide the manager with some clever and strategic investment in players.

The news has only broken publicly just now but I presume the Club will have known about it for a while, I'd assume Stoke did us the courtesy of tipping us off in advance, maybe had to give us 28 days prior notice as per regulations. So we can expect the blue touch paper to be lit any time now then.............

Another day, another player needed.

No problem. John Fleck has apparently successfully completed 1 game for Chesterfield in the EFL trophy this season so I'm sure he'll be available come deadline day!

Yep.

OK thanks. I assumed all loans entailed some sort of fee these days otherwise there's not really that much incentive for the parent Club. Perhaps the fee and recall options are totally at the discretion of the 2 Clubs.

Except he probably wants a permanent deal at the end of the loan.

Is that the difference? I.e. if you pay a fee they can't be recalled in Jan? Edit: I'd have thought it was more likely the appropriate portion of the loan fee would have to be reimbursed.

Yep. I think that's quite a blow bearing in mind he's actually been starting recently due to our injury problems.

I wasn't aware of the rule on whether loan players can or can't be recalled by their parent Club. Having attempted to look it up, Am I right in thinking they can be recalled but only during the transfer window and on 28 days notice? If so we're theoretically at risk of losing Beck and ACD as well?