He is a fantastic talent, but so is Alex Scott. Plus he has proved it more consistently than Wharton has at this level and has also shown competence at Premier League level.

Its a big and potentially biased statement that. Scott won young player of the season, Wharton has shown his class but hes not been consistently great I wouldnt say this season. Scott meanwhile since his injury has shown his quality in glimpses at Premier League level. Scott is certainly ahead of Wharton now, both are excellent talents and have the potential to play for England but theres a hell of a long way to go until they do.

Reinvest half of the 25m into 6 players. Will. Never. Happen.

Another loan, which would be our last because you can have 5 in any squad. Gallagher is if we want him to be, here for 18 months. Yates isnt a Premier League kid so presumably would be more expensive than usual loans, the rest of the money would vanish. We then in the summer have Telalovic, Ennis and Leonard as our 3 strikers. QPR didnt win today so we are unlikely to go down, will be nowhere near the top 6 obviously, so it seems counter productive to be too short term focused. If we sell Gallagher, I would want a permanent replacement and would be very annoyed if we didnt get one. But not surprised.

Again, people very keen to accept the Gallagher bid, seemingly not interested in the fact that he is considerably better than our other 3 below par strikers. I get it, its a decent offer, but only useful if we buy someone. Yates im not sure is really an upgrade, got 14 last season but some were penalties. If we bought him then fair enough, loan until the end of the season, no thanks.

We would not have a transfer thread though if we didnt pass opinion and comment on previous clubs.

Equally, we didnt expect Hill to go back or Carter to get a serious injury. Neither are our fault, but it doesnt alter the question.

Even if with the limitations, it is the best we could possibly get, it doesnt mean that people shouldnt be able to question whether he is what we need, whether he suits the style we play, whether be improves us, whether his lack of general game time especially in recent years is a concern, whether he is good enough etc. If we are limited to loanees, then considering most are usually kids with minimal experienced, maybe game time wise it is as good as we could do. But it doesnt mean he is sufficient to solve our problems.

One thing O'Riordan and Phillips will give us some added height which we obviously need, if the latter signs. Im guessing that to Tomasson, it will be a case of Hyam plus one if we stick to a back 4. I guess that with O'Riordan being younger it might initially be between Phillips and Wharton, the latter has been in favour much more lately. He mentioned in his latest press conference that he hasnt been able to have the flexibility to play a back 3 due to a lack of options and obviously went with that against Huddersfield but we looked imbalanced and we lacked a goal threat. If he wants to use that, I think it would take some tweaking if it was to work. Rankin Costello would help at right wing back, and the balance of the midfield would IMO need to change, Garrett looked out of place playing towards the right and it could do with an extra attacker supporting Gallagher and Szmodics who doesnt really suit that way of playing. Admist the options of Hyam, Wharton and Phillips in particular, I havent seen O'Riordan play before, theres a lack of pace and although Hyam is decent, the other 2 arent ball players. When I have seen Phillips, he has looked quite slow, not the most elegant on the ball and is quite rash and aggressive. He is strong in the air and quite old school. Is he a JDT player? Not too sure about that.

Cresswell is even less experienced.

Not too sure about Phillips. We need experienced heads and less than 70 senior appearances and less than 10 in 2 years is quite simply not that. Quality wise, question marks there too. Celtic fans thought he was hopeless: https://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=11414667#p11414667 He certainly isnt the best on the ball nor the quickest so will take a change of style to get the best from him. All that being said, he has had spells at good levels so he has a bit of calibre, and he isnt totally untested.

That might be Ben Davies from Preston you have confused him with.

Hes literally neither of those things. He is a good player and experienced but hes in a position we dont need and hes slight and not the quickest. Maybe youve watched Sunderland and got the wrong player like we apparently did with Ennis.

The statement says little. As ever, the replies are the more interesting part. Lots of especially the younger and more naive fans singing their praises. But there is a bit more in the way of people seeing through this.

Im sure if this club was put up for sale, there would be interest. But how could you possibly have "had confirmation" on that?!

One was free. One cost a 7 figure fee beyond our means. It wasnt, we must sign a Plymouth attacker, which one do you fancy. Your theory is utter lunacy.

We had no money hence why we signed Ennis early doors on a free. This idea that theyve got 2 players confused is a bizarre conspiracy.

Theres absolutely no chance that Whittaker would come here anyway.

We had no money to pay fees.

He is quite sarcastic in general so its hard to read into it. Hes probably putting things on the line, this is what I need so if we dont get it, blame can (rightfully) be moved above him.

We didnt. It was clearly stated even before the further cuts that we had nothing to spend.

That scenario (especially considering that we had no fees to spend) definitely didnt happen.

Morgan Whittaker? You really think if we had all of the Wharton money, we could get him? Heads in the clouds.

Where has it come from that a statement is coming?