My point is, such a small difference fee relative to what we have recouped and in advance of another big fee shouldnt be a problem. Why does every single penny have to go towards the debt? Whats the difference in sticking say £25m and £24.5m towards the debt, with another £10m plus to come? How can anyone justify it? Those fees came from Elliott Jackson. The Belgian(?) journalist who first reported that a fee had been agreed had it as £1.25m, Jackson said £1m. Ohashi was reported as £150k (exchanged from yen) by that Japanese journalist that was reporting it. Jackson said a very small 6 figure fee. If he played immediately after travelling 12 hours on a plane, he couldnt be any worse than Pears, surely. Unless its Wahlstedt.

We wont.

All transfer fees will be paid in installments so its irrelevant. Whether its £18m in the bank to spend £3m, or £18m in the form of £6m in the bank and a debtor of £12m, to spend £1m and have a £2m creditor. Obviously cashflow is a seperate issue, but that extra £450k is perhaps £150k up front. It shouldnt be holding things up. On your last paragraph, my point is the fees we have spent will be more than covered by what we have recouped this summer. Gallagher was reported up to £1.6m, Gent was it £200k, and whatever for Telalovic and Wahlstedt. Gueye was £1m and Ohashi a nominal fee. With the Wharton sale, the Raya money and an inevitable Szmodics sale, there shouldnt be any hold up. Just pay £1.25m and get him in now, straight in for the Derby game instead of the clown we currently have.

Weve brought in more this summer than we have spent. Thats before the Raya and Wharton money, and even with Szmodics, if weve nearly agreed a fee, then theres no logical reason why we cant spend another 400k My criticism is of the owners.

Again, we shouldnt be in that position either. But they can send money over. Not that they need to as money that has come in in the last 6 months (I know we dont receive it all at once, but same with all fees) covers well over a years worth of losses.

We shouldnt be in that position where we cant buy before Szmodics goes, when a player will cost just over a million and we have received nearly 30m.

Is it? Based on what? And even if it is, it shouldnt matter. This summer we have brought in more than we have spent without factoring in the Wharton and Raya money. A potential long term solution to a problem position for such a small fee should be doable.

Great news. We will likely not get a potentially talented keeper for the sake of 400k despite bringing in close to 30m and probably sign a veteran as back up to calamity Pears.

Derby have had a difficult pre season which obviously doesnt mean that much but also dont have much quality and are waiting on signing a keeper with his current club in European games. They have lost a few players from their promotion team notably Bird and Wildsmith. It should be a very good chance for Eustace to finally win a home game.

I dont think we will sign a Szmodics replacement. It seens like Dolan is being primed to play there.

Do you have a screenshot/link?

De Lange still in training. So cant be close.

Whoever it is. They have repeatedly predicted that Szmodics will leave within 24 hours throughout the summer. Suppose at some stage they will likely be right, stopped clocks and all that.

Is that based on the HowardRV7 twitter account, which is a mirror of Mercer's posts? If so, that account has predicted that the deal was to be completed within 24 hours on a number of occasions throughout the summer. Just ignore it. Obviously it will probably will come true at some point, but they are just repeatedly saying it knowing at some point they can likely say they were right.

So talk of a fee agreed with Go Ahead Eagles is premature? Just get it done.

Obviously assuming we do sign him. And we have been much further along with transfers than this. Having expected all summer to be signing a pensioner "to compete with" Pears, a signing of this type would be a welcome surprise. Im basing that purely on the fact that he has been a regular for a side in the Dutch league that finished 9th last season, he has attracted interest albeit as 2nd choice from Ajax, he will cost a decent fee for us and he is at a good age. I have never heard of him. Comments on twitter show that he is well regarded and rated in Holland. Obviously if he signs the proof will be in the pudding in terms of his performances but I like the idea.

Is that your assumption/reading of it or has that been reported? (Not having a go, just genuinely trying to interpret your post correctly) I really wouldnt want someone like Begovic or Ruddy. Not only past it but I suspect unlike buying a keeper, it could lead to then being backup and calamity Pears continuing to be number 1.

Is that as in, just out of interest re a former supposed target, or as in there is an indication that we have or will go back for him?

Im not really sure why you keep swooping in with the "well Eustace wants it" trump card. So what? I am giving MY opinion on a potential deal. I think we need to keep Travis and I am also not convinced that Baker is best suited playing deep in a 2 man midfield. It would leave us even lighter in an already light position. Baker is a useful player, he can pop up with a goal and he can take a good free kick. He can also be anonymous and is probably better suited in front of 2 midfielders. Baker is also a few years older. So considering the balance of our squad and at the expense of Travis? Not for me. We arent in a position where we need FFP snookers considering the money brought in.

If that is the case then different story. But either way, a striker is not a direct alternative to a wide man and I wouldnt want to lose Travis.

Dozzell was my suggestion yesterday.

These 2 rumours today make little sense. We only have 3 central midfielders (not 6's, they are centre backs) so swapping one for another who often plays further forward seems illogical and would still leave us needing 1 or even 2 central midfielders. Germain seemingly is a striker on the back of a sudden surge of goals and is 29. How is that an alternative for a winger.

Germain is a 29 year old striker so I dont see how he is an alternative if we want a pacy winger. Swapping Baker for Travis doesnt solve the fact that we need another body in midfield.

Absolutely, I am not saying we should give him away. But if we dont sell him he wont be happy.

I thought a deal was very close? We only have 3 midfielders so swapping one for another doesnt really fix the problem either.