How do you feel about the seemingly lack of money from the owners?

Agreed. The main 2 priorities were an out and out striker and an experienced midfielder.

Says who? Who are you to tell people with families to turn down potentially thousands of pounds a week? As I said, there is also the fact that there is probably a better chance of Premier League football at Watford and/or a chance to play in Serie A. The ambition of playing at the highest level rather than going somewhere to try solely to ensure more game time.

Nothing like being an echo for Sky Sports! Great game and it is the best league I would say but the previous 3 televised games this weekend have been terrible.

Porteous like any person will be massively influenced by the financial side and there is also a pathway either to play Premier League football you would imagine sooner at Watford or even Serie A football with Udinese like a few of his compatriots. Where this leaves us I am unsure. An attacker on loan and a sub keeper wouldnt be sufficient, thats for sure.

What they have said sounds like a long term plan, the actions arent any different to the previous few years in terms of contracts, loans etc. What happened to judging as you go based on results? (And in 4th, obviously we continue)

If you knew what he offers to the team, you would say as such, rather than speak in riddles.

I would very much doubt that if Brereton had 2 contracts on the table from a top Division French club in European competition and Premier League club, both with big wage increased, that he would have turned them down. Had we accepted the bids and he had rejected them, I would not be criticising the owners as I would accept that they tried to generate a fee to reinvest and it was out of their hands.

Waggott is rubbish, but you just overlook the main issue. All of that above income would still be incomparable to the money we could have made and thus reinvested had Venkys not prevented the sales of 2 players in the last 12 months that will now earn us no money.

Broughton explained HIS reasoning. You can't fathom that I or anyone else may see flaws in what he is saying. I know what he has said, I think it is flawed logic. THIS SEASON, Morton who will have an expectation (with or without clauses) from Liverpool to play every game, so solely THIS season, he offers no less of a block to those 2 youngsters than a more experienced player. If the worry is that the two seasons after, a more experienced player would still be here blocking pathways, to me that is not the way to run a competitive football club that actively is seeking promotion. It is a HUGE assumption to expect Wharton AND Garrett to both be ready to play week in week out next season AND for Buckley to have mastered the positional change that so far he has failed to do. But even if that all happened, would 5 central midfielders competition for at least 2 spots be too much across a 46 game season in which we can use 5 subs per game, or would it be good competition for places that helps the football club? Also, a more experienced player may help the younger ones to learn how to play the position and be aided by someone who has proven themselves a lot more. Another question, how does it differ from the situation at centre back? Assuming Ayala goes, we will next season still have Hyam, Wharton, Carter and Phillips all as centre backs. We are interested in Porteous (granted he seems destined to go elsewhere) and you have not once criticised our interest in him. I know he is not 27 but he would likely come on a few year contract, and there is less scope for rotation at centre back. How does that not block the pathways for Carter and especially Phillips in the same way as a midfielder would to Wharton and Garrett?

As I said, you had no constructive reason to suggest that I was being over critical of Vale having at the time not seen the game. He may aswell have not played, and until you actively say what Vale offers to the team, at which point a normal debate can occur, then I will presume that the riddles you talk in about him are covering the fact that deep down you know that he offers nothing. Absolute rubbish. He slowly stepped out of the way, if you are crediting players for literally moving then all 11 players warrant praise in the goal. What paranoid nonsense. There is pretty much a widespread desire on here for Adam Wharton to play more games on here than he does. Nyambe was rated on here probably in excess of his ability. Hirst was criticised just as much if not moreso than Vale. There are plenty of examples that prove that your theory is totally fabricated. Gallagher is criticised as much as anyone but as limited as he is, he is quite a few levels above Vale who couldn't score goals in non league last season. Of course he is more experienced and I accept that but he is just a bang average Championship forward who will get you close to if not double figures in a season from a mixture of attacking players. Like chaddy, can you tell me anything that Vale offers to the team when he plays?

Something that you cannot fathom is that just because someone within the club says something, it does not necessary make it logical to everyone else. I don't see how a young loanee who plays every game offers any less of a block to pathways as a 27 year old experienced Championship midfielder.

You clearly are too far gone in regards to defending him and are just doing it to save face. I would hardly call sacking a clearly incompetent manager "more mess and disruption to the club." If they had any sense, they would sack Lampard and get Dyche in.

Absolue rubbish. No, we have left it too late. We should have sold him in the summer. If he has agreed with Villarreal, they are letting Danjuma and maybe Jackson go so I would try and negotiate an early release for a fee.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/21119129/fulham-ben-whiteman-transfer-preston/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=sunfootballtwitter&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1674313329 Take with a pinch of salt but Fulham apparently want Ben Whiteman.

I dont think they are writing off the season, I believe that is a few peoples interpretations that I wouldnt agree with either in terms of that I dont think that is the actual truth based on how we have operated and also it would be a stupid idea anyway. Equally, I have never suggested that they should go hell for leather either. My suggestion would have been to sell Brereton and reinvest which does in particular benefit the long term from next season and beyond. But equally it seems that we want to be active agan in the loan market, I agree that we should try and improve specifically to push for the top 6 (I dont think we will get there but we have to try) and that could be a responsible and cheap way to add some quality only for this season. But again that doesnt fit this IMO misguided assumption that the focus is on next season. The key is always to have an eye on both this season and the future simultaneously. A radical approach to either write a season off or conversely to go "hell for leather" (which IMO is what we have done with Brereton and that will restrict us going forward) only looks at one of these which would be crazy.

Venkys are the main problem, but you dont have to be unconditionally for or against anyone and wouldnt be a hypocrite for being behind the current staff yet seeing fault for certain things. The idea of writing off seasons is insane. You can think long term as well as short term without having to treat it like a total system reset and a total lack of accountability for a whole season in such a bang average league. We finished 8th last season and people exaggerate as to the "state" that we were in last summer. We lost 3 peemanently contracted players who were regulars and all 3 were replaced by selected players of decent experience, that would have been less had the owners not interfered with Rothwell and not allowed a sale and replacement but forgetting that. A start again policy was not necessary. How we have gone about our season goes massively against the assumption that this season is just a stepping stone ahead of next season and beyond, no one has put it that implicitly anyway so it is a logic leap to assume that. The correct way of going about things in general is always to weigh up each decision individually, short v long term. Brereton should have been sold in the summer as a longer term decision regardless of any project/season write off bollocks but wasnt, that doesnt fit this narrative. Decisions should be made on each individual young player without targets of x number of minutes for graduates, if they are good enough now involve them, if not loan them out. Ash Phillips rarely features baring an injury crisis, and Adam Wharton also misses out on the 18 more often than not. Neither of those things happen if this season is more about the future than the present. Vale often features but I suspect that is massively due to the terrible signing of Hirst and the subsequent lack of options. Loan deals should also have been dismissed if this season is about the future. Morton plays week in week out regardless of performances in an area where our other options are all young or youngish and on long term deals, that doesnt scream long term project. I dont agree with the idea of a season write off so I dont have a problem with using loans if they improve us, I am just frustrated that our use of that market so far has been very poor and miles worse than the loans we got under Mowbray. I dont think we have gone in with a policy of writing off this season to look towards next, there are far too many inconsistencies to such an assumption that has been assumed so much it has become almost factual.

All about opinions but do you personally think its wise to write off a whole season, not least one in which we started well for such a reason? Why do we need to write it off to show we have or supposedly have a longer term plan? And has our business this season (Brereton running his deal down, use of loanees and game time for younger lads etc) been consistent with this plan?

A name jokingly mentioned a few pages back after the rumour the other year that turned out to be rubbish, but Assombolonga could be being loaned back to the Championship. Im sure it isnt us with Undav and Gelhardt seemingly the more pressing targets but worth a mention.

Today and last weekend gave us 2 away games against poor opposition and 1 point is not good enough ahead of 3 away games to come which we will really have to show something we havent so far to improve our poor away form.

He is clearly useful well above the likes of Vale, Hirst and Butterworth and will chip in with close to double figures but would his all round contribution be considered a managers dream? He works hard but he has a poor touch, jumps lower than he stands, cant hold the ball up and he misses loads of games due to injury.

Dan Butterworth has 2 goals in 16 games for Port Vale. Vale couldnt score goals in the Conference last season. An under funded squad with the owners refusing to allow reinvestment of potential sales means that we have to rely too much on the academy at times to fill the numbers. In successive seasons whereby we have started well, the fact that both have had the amount of minutes that they have and that we are comparing who is the least ineffective is telling.

I always take any supposed ITK titbits with a giant pinch of salt, and Porteous has a game prior to signing for anyone so I am unconvinced. We know that we have a bid in so lets hope that Watford's "interest" doesn't firm up.

Maybe one we will miss out on.

Would you now agree that he deserves to be potted or would you still stick blindly with him?