Where does it say that a fee has been agreed for Rothwell?

I thought it was as good as done?

Sounds like from the Lancashire Telegraph that the only deal close is one for Ryan Giles. That wouldnt be an adequate window even assuming that Rothwell stays/is adequately replaced, should have a bigger budget from the owners.

He signed that when he signed initially as a free agent from Oxford. Obviously the wage was low and he hasnt wanted to sign a new one.

Its a random website, so it clearly untrustworthy. But how on earth would Poveda have managed to get such a high wage when he has never been a proper first teamer at Leeds? A wage structure would depend on many factors anyway, no club would have it whereby the sole factor is ability. It depends on how long ago they signed their contract, their age, how influential they were at that time assuming it was a renewal for an existing players or where (and if there was a fee) they have been signed from.

The owners shouldnt be interfering, that is the simple truth. There are pros and cons to the idea of selling Rothwell. Ultimately the key is in the replacement or replacements, to make sure that we arent weakened. The main bonus would be from the scenario that Mowbray mentioned that we would have 2 long term signings. Obviously the difficulty is in replacing him with similar quality. I doubt a Burnley fan would take the piss by having us in second place. It will be interesting to see what our net spend is at close of play tomorrow.

Nobody knows actual wages, I certainly wouldnt put too much faith into random websites. With Poveda, even if it reports his wage at Leeds correctly, we dont know how much of it that we are contributing.

The man who has us 2nd in the table is a "twat" that youd drive to a promotion rival for free? Deary me.

A bit strong. It leaves a sour taste but he is doing what he needs to to manufacture a move to a club that will see him get presumably a big pay rise, not factoring in other factors, everyone would do the same.

The key is in a replacement or 2, I am sceptical that we can rush through a deal so quick for such players.

What is with all of the conspiracy theories? Assuming that is true, surely a bigger bonus would come with promotion?

My point isn't about the specific individual, it is that the owners should not be interfering in such things. I can understand it both ways, it is risk and reward. You consider the risk of potentially helping a rival. You consider the potential of signing 2 players with money that won't exist if he runs his contract down, would those 2 potential deals leave us stronger or weaker this season? Long term, we have 2 players on long term deals that we again wouldn't have. What will his motivation be like, will his team mates get over it? So much to consider. The last part of your post again shows that your agenda against Mowbray is clouding your judgement, if you genuinely think that he would purposely try to harm our promotion push as some sort of petty revenge against the fact that he hasn't got a new deal. Surely it is in his best interest to get promotion to then guarantee a new deal?

Luke Freeman wouldn't make much sense. He is more of a number 10 or a winger, which is not the most pressing concern, he has an injury I think and is reportedly on high wages.

Neither play in the same position.

Sizeable fee? Only a reported 200k. What is the purpose of this thread at all then if people can't pass comment on a signing? Same with the transfer thread. Having an opinion on a signing and then giving the player a chance and judging in a Rovers shirt aren't mutually exclusive.

Ryan Giles is a good player, would be a very good loan. Question would be when Pickering is fit, can they both fit in the same team? Your dislike of Mowbray is throwing any balanced opinions out of the window. He went into detail about Rothwell and how he totally understands the situation, it can lead to a huge pay rise, there are family reasons and he quadrupled his wages as a player with a transfer so showed empathy. He has not hung Rothwell out to dry. The owners should place total trust in the manager. If he thinks the best thing to do is to sell and bring 2 in, they should trust him, if they don't trust him which wouldn't make sense based on this season, then they should employ someone who can be trusted. They should not allow their own petty stubbornness to overrule the manager. Not the same position.

Mowbray said he would consider getting 2 players for 1 or 2 million on long term deals but the owners dont want to. They shouldnt be deciding on that.

I thought he was poor. Every time he ran forward he tended to make poor decisions and lose the ball.

Overall a dissappointing day, many if our rivals getting 2 points over on us. Suppose though with circumstances against us with no attackers, a point away at Luton isnt horrendous though. Back 3 were superb, Travis and Johnson both good too. Thought the decision to play Zeefuik in a forward position was the wrong one but thought he had a poor game, none of his runs led to anything. Rankin Costello was poor, his crossing is not up to scratch. Gallagher and Butterworth did nothing nor did Buckley who also kept wasting set pieces.

Really poor performance so far with a very depleted squad. The experiment to play Zeefuik so far forward is not working and even the regulars like Gallagher and Buckley have been very poor.

He limped off in their last match at the end.

Elliott massively improved us and benefitted us as much as him. Unfortunately much of the remainder of the team and the managers tactics meant that we performed poorly overall.

But that implies that our league performance relied solely on those 2 individuals.

Utter nonsense. Davenport was injured for most of his first 2 years and has been unremarkable when he has played after that. Rothwell and Nyambe have not been mistreated, they have grown into consistent regulars under Mowbray.

Why do they cross reference a rumour with a messageboard?