I watched the Boro game. Great goal by him, not much hold up though.

I am not sure that I would have trusted him at all when he first signed in a midfield 2. He certainly has matured as a Rovers player, from impact sub, to wide man, to central midfielder in a 3 that controls games, to a much deeper role in a 2 amidst a formation that protects his weaknesses.

He is an attacking winger, don't think he could replace a central midfielder.

As others have mentioned, is another of that type what we need with a limited budget? I think we need a more natural striker with an eye for goal to reduce the burden on Brereton who is the only one we have who plays in the main 2 attacking positions that scores goals regularly. Plus he is a winger rather than a forward which Markanday seems to be. Would he suit the right sided forward role?

Definitely. We need an out and out striker who can help to take the goalscoring burden off Brereton, especially ahead of next week ideally. Gallagher is not the best, and the likes of Khadra and Dolan are players that can compliment Brereton well and chip in, but we need another constant source of goals. Markanday is obviously an unknown quantity at this stage who can hopefully have a big impact but again, no track record of goalscoring and he is only slight.

Where does he fit into our team though?

Wouldnt make sense, not least in that our current formation wouldnt fit them all in.

Is it not crazy to have unnecessary games on the pitch at the moment considering the poor state emanating from a couple of downpours on matchdays and the budget cuts from the owners last summer?

You'd chose Gallagher to hold the ball up? When has he ever shown anything but incompetence at doing that?

Just because that Sky have moved it to Monday.

Massive blow with the news that Brereton definitely will miss 2 games. He is so critical to our goalscoring chances and leaves a huge void. This Chile story becomes more and more of a hindrance to Rovers.

When he is fully fit and firing, Dack starts for our team 100%. We often are an attacking threat starting from deeper than Buckley although his ability to nick the ball high up is his main strength so I do get totally what you arr saying.But Dack can press too and there tends to be more at the end of it. It would also suit him the way we play with 2 forwards splitting and giving him space to break into. We need another goal threat beside Brereton.

Buckley could not do what Rothwell has been doing to the same degree. Different players.

Doesnt explain why I would be "disappointed" if we was to strengthen. Heard from where? So what you are saying is youve heard gossip of a decent budget and if it doesnt materialise, you will presume that the information was correct, that nothing changed and it was just managerial incompetent that stopped the rumour from materialising? Fair enough. He often talks about the idea of selling a player and using the money to grow. He also repeatedly reiterates how we wants to keep all of our best players. I wouldnt over analyse every word he utters.

No issue at all for me. He is made for that Buckley role. He does press well even if its maybe not his best attribue like Buckley, although we arent a constantly pressingly team. He is such a good player when fit, definitely a better all round player than Buckley who himself is really developing. We are very reliant on Brereton to score, Dack will give us a regular source of goals whereas Buckley is very poor in front of goal, and his passing is also very good. Obviously we shouldnt and neednt rush him back so sub at first, but when fit he definitely makes the team.

Why would I be disappointed if we have funds to sign new players? And how do you know how much we have? Please can I have the interview whereby Mowbray has said that we "need" to sell one of 3? He has repeatedly said that he wants all 3 to stay. If he sells, then its obviously because the reinvestment could not have been done without that sale.

If he chose to sell an out of contracter to fund transfers then obviously he hasnt got the funds required to buy who he wants without.

I wonder if Louie Sibley is on our radar? Not a personal recommendation as despite remembering him scoring a great goal against us the other year, I haven't seen enough of him and he doesn't always start for Derby by any means, but Millwall are sniffing around at less than half a million. I do think we should be looking hard at the Derby side though for any potential assets available on the cheap.

This logic of categorising managers based on nationality is beyond illogical. Right, we've tried one or two foreign managers and it didn't work, must be the nationality, English only next time please.

I just am not a fan of this positive/negative narrative that people obsess over. The poster in question may in your opinion have a track record of a certain type of posting style but his points specific to this player were IMO fair (the player doesnt have senior experience) and he didn't deserve to be berated by so many posters. Minimal again, very similar, I think one cameo v City. My point is that we have barely any clue as to how these players will adapt to senior football, how long it will take or if it will ever happen. That is a valid point, the minimal football is objective and factual, it is IMO poor form to dismiss those genuine concerns and questions as blind negativity. Khadra merely proved that like with Markanday, that a player yet to play first team football doesn't mean a poor signing or that he can't go on and thrive, and that hasn't been said. And that is certainly not a point I am making. I take on board and share many of the positive points made, he is highly rated, Spurs wanted to keep him, it is a long term deal, he seems hungry etc.

Think the reaction to @Sparks Rover merely questioning the evidence of whether Markanday is good is totally unfair. The usual lines, the boring repeated Whiteman/Mols/Preston jokes, "have a day off" "here we go" "now you are just trying to be difficult" etc are totally unjustified towards a very valid question. I am cautiously optimistic, he seems highly rated, Spurs wanted him to stay and im happy that its a long term deal. Looking forward to seeing him play. But I do get why there are question marks seeing as he has literally played about 10 minutes of actual football.

That has been my point all along. Why would a former playing status have any relevance. If a sole rationale for appointing Rooney was his managerial record, kudos to doing well in beyond difficult circumstances and then you are having a genuine debate on his managerial merits, for me its a small sample size from a unique situation and Everton could find better credentials if they searched Europe. But all the stuff about who Rooney is, who he played for, "understanding" the club, invoking passion, boosting the fans etc? Meaningless bollocks.

Getting someone in who "really understands the club" is a fairly meaningless platitude often trotted out when championing an ex player for a job. Like at any club, the best way to please the fans is with wins.

I know but I dont really get how that would benefit Toulouse who I cant imagine are too keen to sell mid season. We will see if he signs, the suggestion in the LT was that the deal was a loan with an option rather than an obligation to buy and directly comparable to the Zeefuik deal.

The LT reported that our other main attacking target that we have a bid in for is for a loan to buy. Even if he is unhappy in France, as their main striker and 2nd in the league you would think that they would need a permanent offer to sell a key asset.