To be fair, when everyone is fit it seems that neither would make the bench for us at the moment so I am unsure exactly what he would say! I usually don't like the "developing a player for another team" line when it can benefit us just as much but Phillips would be a different case to Van Den Berg for example who has 18 months Championship experience and would clearly improve us, whereas Phillips wouldn't make the squad.

I think some of the signings that you have made in Maatsen, Cullen and to a lesser extent Harwood Bellis seem to have really settled in very quickly, accompanied by some more familiar faces in Cork, Brownhill, Roberts, Taylor and Rodriguez. Very strong in the centre of midfield and at full back in particular. My main question would be how your attack comes together, lots of unknowns at this stage.

Phillips is clearly a player with enormous potential but I wonder when the last time that a player with 60 minutes of League experience potentially leaving would seemingly cause so much anger, not that I am necessarily saying that it is misplaced. Would he be in the squad assuming we bring a couple in and with Wharton fit again?

I find the Lancashire Telegraph article a bit worrying assuming it is true, that we are after 2 centre backs and a forward which itself is potentially dependant on a Brereton sale. Not enough. It could potentially be 2 defenders and a striker in, with Phillips out, Carter loaned out and Brereton out. Our first 11 plus 3 or 4 of the subs when all fit are very competitive, beyond that the gap is too big, Can we expect an equal deputy to Kaminski, Brittain, Pickering, Travis or Brereton should they be unavailable, clearly not, but the gap between them and the next player is too vast and if any are out for a period of time, we could struggle in their absence. Pears is blatantly not a capable deputy. If we sign 2 CB's, we will look strong there, but Rankin Costello and Edun are not able to step in without being real weaknesses unfortunately. In midfield, if Buckley missed out then maybe Morton would come in so less of a worry, but we have no other senior options who could provide that maturity and tenacity if Travis missed out. Also if Gallagher who himself is average missed out, is Vale up to a regular run? A big unknown. Regarding Phillips, I can totally understand if he chooses to join Spurs, a massive pay rise, a huge club and excellent facilities. We should not break our wage structure regardless of his clearly massive potential which he may or may not fulfill. With his immediate future, the comparison between Brereton and Phillips' couldn't be more stark and the former is far more of a worry. Phillips is only playing because we have 2 defensive injuries and we have been unable to get in the defenders we seemingly want, if most of them are fit he doesn't make the squad. He has only played an hour of senior football, at his age of development there are questions over his durability playing games in quick succession and for all of his potential, we don't know if he could cope with the level at this stage either. I wouldn't want him back on loan because if he was a talent at a big club already, we would dismiss the idea because he is so young and untested. I would rather he left soon rather than next summer if he unfortunately goes as we get no benefit from having such a player around this season considering his place in the pecking order.

You clearly aren't reading what I am putting. I would totally understand signing players, selling at a profit, reinvesting some of the money, pocketing the rest and continuing but it has to be continuous. As it is, sometimes no money at all is spent following a big sale/big sales, including last summer, sometimes money is made available to spend fairly randomly and sometimes the sale of assets at considerable profits is blocked by Venkys. Such random and variable actions is not going to lead to the sort of model ie Brentford that people both on here and even people within the club have compared to in the past.

How would people feel if we loaned a guaranted goalscorer (injury permitting of course) for £10-15m for a season? There would be uproar for such an investment. I get and share the worries about Venkys pocketing the money which I suppose usurps the whole debate anyway but still. Should be a no brainer to sell due to his contract and reinvest if we had normal owners.

We would have to sign a central striker rather than just a series of wide men/midfielders too.

He could then sign a pre contract abroad.

Has he said that he would be happy for the owners to overrule his decisions, which was the scenario I suggested has happened in the past and shouldnt? No.

No my point wasnt specific to Brereton although I wouldnt be surprised if he wanted to talk.

If you say so. https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19477019.blackburn-rovers-boss-no-guarantee-adam-armstrong-future/ https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19496806.blackburn-rovers-putting-brakes-on-boss-sympathises-venkys/

It wouldnt be a surprise. See last summer. Also see the summer when we sold Hanley and Duffy. And other summers under Venkys. Such inconsistency is why a Brentford type model wont happen.

Unless we only get pitiful offers we cant afford to just let him run down his contract. Not even to do with FFP, it makes little sense. The thing that we should do though if it genuinely isnt a necessity to sell him is to spend the majority on a replacement. Riis is mentioned above, players like him, Adebayo, Stewart and Gyokeres are all possibly slightly beyond us but thats the sort of calibre im thinking, maybe someone from abroad if not them 4. Its a no brainer to have either Brereton for 1 season or another goalscorer on a long term deal. That should be the aim, buy, sell at profit, reinvest (usually I wouldnt even expect a majority/all to be reinvested but on the back of the Armstrong sale too) and continue. Its presumably only a lack of faith in Venkys to act consistently like that which makes people especially unwilling to think he should be sold rather than left to run his deal down and that is unfortunately why comparisons to teams like Brentford who successfully deploy that sort of policy are pie in the sky.

Living in a nice place to set up with his new family. Money. European football. Big reasons.

Watched Burnley tonight and they are very much a work in progress. Their midfield 3 of Cullen, Cork and Brownhill is the best in the league and their full backs especially Maatsen are a real threat too. Harwood Bellis seems to have matured and Taylor is experienced with both well protected by the aforementioned midfield but I would be unsure of Taylor there going forward against a more obvious striking threat and the whole line was caught out for the goal and once or twice on other occasions on the counter attack. Their biggest weaknesses might be their goalkeeper who had little to do tonight but has history of errors and made one or two mistakes v Watford and also the piecing together of their attack. Rodriguez is a lot more effective than Barnes but they still need another striker and I am also unsure on who they are best playing around that and how to go about fitting them in. Twine is the main absence and will give them a real threat but do you sacrifice a midfielder to play Twine behind a striker? And when will he be fit? Bastien looks like hes not best suited to playing so far forward nor does Vitinho who was totally anonymous. Benson was dropped but he was very loose when he came on and didnt impress the other night. Tella is really quick so totally different but hasnt really made a name for himself yet and Churlinov who I have never heard of seemingly is signing but he will he be the only further addition? Costelloe looks a million miles away from the standard too. These players are of course settling but im unsure what the plan is What is your take @longsiders1882

16 Championship goals is "not near good enough?" Not that I think that we will spend anything like the fee needed.

I wouldn't mind a "selfish" player if it meant one that scored 28 goals to be fair. Don't think Southampton will let him go, involved at the moment coming on with a very selfless assist on Saturday.

I never said he had. I am just saying that in general, lots of players pull out last minute of games when they have interest from elsewhere and they are no longer in the right frame of mind.

I think he will play but I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. He wouldn't be the first player to become unsettled and pull out of a match due to transfer issues. It's all well and good saying he plays regardless but if he is visibly unhappy then he won't.

I don't think that the owners should over rule the manager, or if relevant, the manager and director of football. I stand by that decision. Venkys have employed Broughton and Tomasson because presumably they seem them both as being capable of performing their role, and I would hazard a guess that their footballing knowledge compared to that could be scribbled on the back of a stamp. We are undeniably short at centre back, even if you have untold faith in Phillips when no one can be sure how he will cope with a sudden batch of Championship games in quick succession. One more injury and we really are going to struggle, so it is IMO critical that we get one in as soon as we can, and if we are after 2, maybe we can get 1 in and Van Den Berg becomes less urgent. My point was not that Tomasson will come out and say "I feel let down" or even that he will feel let down if we struggle with the lack of depth across the rest of the month. I am saying that he would be entitled to do so.

Because Dack is a very good player. Reading played only one day prior in similar temperatures. We also have more comparative scope to make changes if we choose/need to, Reading had a bench full of kids. I am still unsure why you keep mentioning last season, we had a different manager, it was far later in the season, we was in terrible form, and both sides will be more than 50% changed. And what sort of logic is, we should have won last year but lost so even though we should beat them this season, I will take a draw?!

It is not just specific specialisation, but also on general ability too. If a team with good, ruthless strikers is over exceeding its xG, that could be sustainable, likewise a team with poor strikers and scoring less than xG suggests they should be. It goes back to sustainability and expecting teams to naturally revert close to their xG. I don't think that it is bollocks but I think it is an incredibly flawed concept so needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. It makes sense to want to increase the number of chances that you create. I also think that it is has become fashionable to use xG with little context in the mainstream media. Take the Second Tier Podcast, they can't and don't watch most games so they become somewhat reliant on soundbites and cliches, so xG can be used as a crutch to suggest more knowledge about how a team is doing than they actually have. What I am saying about the way a game goes beyond measuring xG before and after goals. Games early often can be cagey and once players tire etc, the game can open up a bit for one. But say Travis/Brereton don't score the goals they do, the whole game is different. Maybe West Brom score first for example and we pen West Brom in the second half in their own half creating chances. So much is reliant on the flow of a game and when that first goal in particular comes. I also don't think it makes for constructive debate to be so dismissive that people simply don't understand it.

Why is that particularly relevant? We lost to West Brom at home and Swansea away last season, but with many different players and a different manager. The guy who scored the winner last season has left. There isn't some sort of strange curse at the Madejski, it's coincidence. They are one of the worst sides in the league, have loads of players out including Joao and Meite and have the worst keeper in the Championship and the worst manager. We have won all 3 games. I don't get why anyone would take a draw.

Do you agree/disagree with my points that: - The assertion that over/under performing xG and sustainability doesn't factor in the likelihood that teams will not automatically fall back towards their xG due to either having particularly ruthless/wasteful strikers either in general or if their teams create types of chances that their strikers specialise in - The above point was a big factor in the drop off following Brereton's injury last season - As evident in our first 3 games, the first goal can hugely skew the xG especially if a first half goal is not from a clear cut chance because of the natural way that a team losing will want/need to attack more than one protecting a lead Or have they just been dismissed under the "he clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about" line?

Not from the treatment table.