I have never really got from where such a prediction has come from, that Gallagher could get 20 goals if played central. I actually think that some of his better games this season have come from wide where there is less dependance on him to bring others into play etc. I dont ever see him being prolific however.

A covid passport does not prove that you havent currently got covid. I just thought it seemed strange that fans have specificaly been told not to interact with players yet the club are promoting a video doing exactly that. Seems an unnecessary risk at a time where games are being called off left right and centre.

Not the main point to your post but we didnt limp to promotion in League 1, we finished 9 points clear.

That scenario would only work though if we were not currently paying Gallagher anything.

You could say that about anyone.

Whilst Gallagher may not return a profit, you could see the 5m as a sunk cost and indeed any fee would be still income. Not only that, but that assumed 15k a week is not an additional expense in that if Gallagher isn't here, then we would need someone in his place, whether he would cost 15k a week is a different question. I agree that there should be a more of a long term view taken considering potential asset value, but in the Fans Forum it was said that we have offered as much as we have in the budget, we have heard the lines about how difficult it is in India so it seems that there is very little flexibility from the owners.

I always found the obsession about his size an oversimplification, for me his biggest flaw was that prior to this season, he wasn't impacting games anywhere near enough. He very much is now albeit he needs to add a goal threat.

The clubs ability to sign up key first teamers on longer term deals is a concern, it seems that we have a very strict wage budget forced upon us by recent cost cutting by the owners, which long term is counter productive. With Gallagher though and I mentioned in another thread, Rich Sharpe said that any new deal will have little if any of a pay rise, the difference to the wage bill will be minimal. He hasn't got the power to demand an increase and is unlikely to get a similar deal elsewhere, he is injured quite a bit, his performances since joining have been unremarkable (not without use but nothing special) and he has 18 months left on his deal. With Nyambe, Rothwell and Lenihan, they all will justifiably want significant increases on their previous deals when their negotiating power was much weaker, and also they hold further power in only having 6 months left. Brereton's rise has been even more sizable and although he has 18 months left, he is in a massive position of power too. Extending any of these makes sense partially to protect assets, but would all considerably increase the wage bill, something which the owners seem unwilling to sanction. The different contract situations are not comparable.

Playing devils advocate, I thought that players are not allowed to chat to fans with the covid regulations? Could be at unnecessary risk of infection.

I wouldn't have given Gallagher a new deal personally, he contributes an unremarkable handful of goals each season and its easy to point to the Brereton miracle but I don't see Gallagher ever being prolific. He also has serious issues with muscular injuries so missed quite a lot of games, and hasn't developed his ability to bring others into play.

I don't get why people don't grasp that the situations are not comparable. Rich Sharpe mentioned recently that Gallagher's new deal will have little if any pay rise, and it makes sense, his negotiating position has not strengthened since he signed his last deal when he joined. No doubt contracts are somewhat circumstantial, he came from the Premier League and it was widely reported that he actually took a wage cut to come here, ultimately your previous club/contract plays as big a part as anything as to what you can demand in your next one. Lenihan signed his last deal prior to becoming captain, Nyambe as he was establishing himself and Rothwell when he joined from Oxford, all 3 are in much stronger positions to negotiate, coupled with the fact that they have 6 months left, they hold all the aces. They can justifiably demand significant pay rises as key players here, so all 3 would cause the wage bill to jump up a fair bit. For what its worth, I wouldn't have given Gallagher a new deal, but it has nothing to do with the other 3. Our current wage bill will have barely if at all increased, and it would have been much easier to agree. It's not as if the Gallagher contract money could have just been chucked at the other 3, as even without a new deal, Gallagher would still be on a significant (for us) contract for the next 18 months, all that has happened is that we have tied him down for the 2023/24 season too.

January would be shrewd. End of season like the other pre contracts pointless.

Butterworth definitely needs a loan spell,so much of his young career has been wasted due to injury. Carter is 5th centre back so only a couple of injuries away from playing but could also probably do with a loan spell. That being said, the club comes first and we may have a decision as to whether we keep them purely to ensure we arent left short with Covid and also being where we are in the table.

Its a fact that we arent offering them enough money, it has been publically said as such. That may be simply the owners not putting enough money in the budget to protect key assets, it could be a case of players/agents asking for unrealistically high amounts, or it could most likely be somewhere in between.

Im not sure there has ever been a suggestion that they arent happy. Just that the budget from the owners isnt sufficient to come close to paying them the going rate.

I would agree and it certainly isn't nit picking. He needs to add a goal threat to his game as an attacking midfielder, in a few years he has 4 goals, 2 of which were pea rollers that got heavy deflections. Another impressive performance from him though last night and 2 more assists.

Some teams played on the 26th and 28th, so within 48 hours. It has been proven that playing with such little rest in between puts players at high risk of injury. I dont think it benefits anyone to have potentially increased injuries or heavily rotated squads for anyone, there should not be games within 48 hours of each other. If tradition was strong enough of an argument to never question things then we would still play on Christmas Day, a change to tradition that came well before these pesky greedy foreigners came over. You arent addressing my point which is a common theme for you so just leave it there.

My stance on John Park is very much that the jury is still out, totally neutral, far too premature to judge either way. 4 loanees signed in a difficult window, 2 have improve us, 2 didnt, plus a permanent signing who has been a squad player. Our season hasnt been driven by the summer recruitment, moreso by the management and development of what remained. You seem regularly transfixed to make everything as simplistic as merely painting people to be positive or negative, whilst promoting yourself as the former. Its not about that. You could argue that to believe that we have a strong squad already and to be worried that players may leave (more vulnerable due to their contracts) is positive in that it suggests that we already have the key to our promotion push within the building.

You again are not directly addressing my points. My question is, why do we have 2 games within 48 hours, who does that benefit? Playing games so close to one another is proven to put players at serious risk of muscular injury. Even for the supporters or even those watching on TV, surely it makes sense to spread them out, otherwise by the 28th you have massively changed teams, and surely we would rather watch teams play their best players and with adequate rest to witness a better spectacle? Merely using the word "tradition" or the phrase "it has always been like this" does not mean it cannot be questioned. Its clear that if its keep as it is or reject it and "bugger off to your own country" if you dont like it, managers will choose the former but it doesn't need to be as black and white as that. Why not adequately space the games out, why can that not be asked/questioned?

I am unsure how John Park has earnt your trust so easily. Khadra has been a good addition, seemingly from catching the eye in one game more than based on in-depth scouting (https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/19587182.tony-mowbray-reveals-blackburn-rovers-reda-khadra-pursuit/) as has Van Hecke, neither individually more eye catching than say Elliott and Harwood Bellis but both very useful in their own right. Edun is very much a squad player and isn't a sure fire success story at the moment, Clarkson has been miles off it yet has been missed out, I think Poveda's loan (of course massively down to circumstance) has not been particularly successful and Maja didn't even sign so he certainly cannot be used as evidence of John Park's track record as he has never played for us! If we sell Brereton for any price in the January window, it would not be a challenge, moreso an acceptance that we are not being promoted this season. Assuming some of any windfall would be reinvested which is not a given with Venkys, the summer is the best time for that, even if we sell for less in the summer, we have to wait until then. I think January is a threat more than an opportunity. The main priority is to not sell ANY of our first team players to ensure that we can continue with a promotion push. A couple of additions would be ideal but it seems like there is still no money forthcoming from Venkys so another striker and right wing back even on temporary deals would be sensible. The Scottish pre-contracts seem a bit strange to me not knowing the league we are in next season.

But why in general are fixtures scheeuled within 48 hours of each other? Its illogical as it means that all teams either play weakened teams or risk injuries all under the guise of "tradition." Why cant those fixtures be spread out by a day or 2 extra, it benefits even the supporters who get to watch the best players avoiding injuries and/or weakened teams being played?

Hypothetical I know. But its naive to expect anyone to not pursue a potential dream move at the top level in a potentially exotic location on much more money in a short career.

I do think that is too easy to get fixated with how much the best footballers earn and go down the "they should get on with it on that money" but it means that there is a bit of tunnel vision being used. I don't get what benefit playing 2 games within 48 hours has to anyone and I think people are justified to question it. It puts the players at risk of injury and for entertainment purposes, isn't it better to space the games out to allow reasonable time to rest and recuperate to see the best players more often?

Totally take your point that it is impossible to pre-judge based solely on what league/nationality a player is from. Billy Gilmour has been hopeless at PL level though so a poor example, Norwich fans were singing "fuck off back to Chelsea" today and it is difficult to stand out as poor in that team!

Exactly this @chaddyrovers I just wanted to know whether the opinion came solely/predominantly from highlights reels which are notoriously misleading and are not fit for purpose in regards to judging a player, of if you have seen the player playing full matches, which obviously is a different case altogether. Not many people have suggested having seen the player play very much thus much of the general analysis like what my own would be is purely speculative, ie the merits of signing a player in general on a pre-contractual agreement when we don't know what league we are going to be in, analysing our own centre backs contracted beyond this season and looking at the players injury record which is objective and raises a big red flag.