Yes mate, but your initial point wasn’t about Chelsea. It was about ‘Todd Kane’ and whilst it’s happened at Chelsea as you have pointed out, that is more about Chelsea’s business model rather than the players.

Good post. But the budget isn’t presented like £5m for fees and £5m on wages. It’s broken down but effectively the budget is is one number that is agreed and encompasses player contracts, transfer fees, Wages and associated costs. The one theme that I’m trying to get across is that you are always trying to get the best for the cash you have. Never at anytime has TM said he has big money fees. He said he was happy with the budget. I don’t think you can say he’s lied there. In terms of being able to afford forwards, it’s surely more about value for money. If you can get the right price for the right calibre of player then you buy. If you want a higher level of player for less money you loan. Managers pick their battles. Whether players are ‘good value’ or not is a matter for the manager and the club. Either way, the window isnt yet shut so who’s to say we won’t have spent a couple of million?

Sorry? You mentioned Todd Kane and I stated that Todd Kane (ie a player who has been with a club for 8yrs as a pro but has never made a first team appearance for them and been loaned out the whole time) - Is the exception to any rule. Surely?

The exception, not the rule... That’s Chelsea’s business model. But it doesn’t mean that every player is happy to settle like Todd Kane. At 21 with England youth honours in his back pocket Palmer must fancy himself to play in the Premiership? That accepted, he has to play well in order to either break into Chelsea’s team or get a move to another premier league team. What im saying is that he’s unlikely to want to come and let the world pass him by.

Exactly, the focus is on getting as much quality as possible in for your money. Loan or permenant. If you get the right group and the right level of quality then you have a great chance of being successful, and success = money!

Wow. wild accusations! What I actually believe in is value for money. I want the best possible outcome for the cash that is being spent. If we had £20m to spend of course I’d want us to buy Palmer, Armstrong, Chapman, Bauer etc...but we don’t. The options are a) buy lesser quality players for affordable prices or b) buy good players who you CAN afford and loan the good players you CANT afford (Usually forwards). You aren’t going to go bust with that logic. In fact you’re working with the best possible players for your money. And if your superstar loan forwards get you into a promotion fight at the top of the table, the exposure will likely put millions on the heads of your your permenant players anyway...

100% agree.

There are some excellent permenant buys out there. Like Davenport for example who has potential after a great upbringing to improve and earn the club money. However, these players are usually limited to all positions EXCEPT forwards, who generally come at a premium. A premium that we cannot currently pay. There’s a reason why last season we loaned the likes of Antonsson, Armstrong, Chapman and even Payne. We needed their quality for less money. The situation with Palmer is no different.

All pure opinions which can be flipped dependant on your motives. 1. Players are motivated by many different things. If Palmer bombs out with us, what chance does he have getting in Chelsea’s first team? Is that not motive enough? 2. The recall thing is either in or out of the deal. 3. If we have a good season but don’t go up do you think many of our top players will still be here next season? Lenihan, Dack etc...will likely be gone. The money doesn’t mean anything to us because it doesn’t get reinvested with The Vs. So what’s the difference? 4. Yeah maybe. 5. Fines thing same as recall thing. Negotiated in the deal but not every time. But what’s the alternative? Buy lesser talented players? Because we definitely couldn’t afford Kasey Palmers transfer fee... You can’t have all loans but ones like these are the best we can hope for. I for one have no interest in us signing lesser but permenant players.

Maybe to Venkys, but we as fans aren’t bothered about resale. We just want the best players possible playing for us, right?

What??? A permenant signing of this calibre would cost us £7m - £10m....which we can’t afford. But seriously, other than resale value, what is the difference for us?

He’s going to be playing for us this season. So other than resale value, what’s the difference? More importantly, IF we were actually looking to purchase him he would be far too expensive. So isn’t loaning him actually an amazing option? We’re getting the services of someone who’s arguably better than Dack for a fraction of what he’s worth....how can anyone find a negative in that? ??‍♂️

We’ve just signed a player who’s probably better than our best player pal - cheer up!

Oh Eeyore, when are you ever going to lighten up!? ???

That is honestly the biggest contradiction ever. Unbelievable.

I think the people complaining about the negative vibe on here are doing so because there’s nothing to be negative about really. Not until the window closes. Rovers are in a positive place, the players are working hard, the manager is a great fit for the club and his message has never changed. He’s happy with the budget and has maintained he wants 4 permanent signings and a couple of loans. Yes, he hoped to do his business early on all managers do but that wasn’t meant to be. Maybe the prices were high and he expects them to reduce towards the end of the window. I can definitely see us doing a cut price deal for Armstrong on deadline day. He’s not wanted there and hasn’t even gone on tour with them. Similarly, I can still see us doing cheaper deals for Bauer and Chapman too who are into the last year of their contracts. When you look at the team we fielded against Everton, that team is good enough to finish mid table in my opinion. The reason we’re loaning these lads is because there’s no way we could afford them. And as the window has not shut and TM hasn’t suddenly come out saying they’re not signing anyone else and he’s having to sell his best players then most of us are happy, if not a little impatient.

I would actually agree with you. I like old fashioned wingers too, I just don’t think TM does. As I mentioned earlier, even when he has a winger in his ranks he plays them on the opposite flanks...lets see

Absolutely, but surely he’d play Bennett and Bell...who would fit that mould perfectly.

I think it’s pretty clear that TM would love to play three at the back. (3-4-1-2) But systems depend on context. Three at the back is perfect if you are having to defend and then break on teams. Your three becomes five with two sat in front of it. Then when you attack, the wing backs get forward and you can overload the opposition in midfield with forward runners. Sheff United play this perfectly. The main problem last year was that we had too much possession and teams sat back which leaves you susceptible to the counter attack when you have three at the back. Hence why teams like Man City don’t play it. I do feel that those who are desperate to see ‘natural wingers’ are likely to be disappointed as neither system (3-4-1-2) or (4-2-3-1) utilises wingers in a traditional way. Even the likes of Chapman and Conway who could be classed as ‘natural wingers’ were used on the left instead of the right. This is because ‘wide’ players are now expected to sit 15yrds off the byline in ‘the hole’ between fullback and cb. Their roles have changed from getting chalk on their boots to forwards who are encouraged to drift out to inside the box as oppose to the traditional in to out. This leaves space out wide for the fullbacks to attack in order to create an overload. Mowbray played Armstrong, Samuel, Antonsson and Payne in those wide attacking positions last season. None of them are considered wingers. I agree that we need players who can carry the ball with pace in those attacking areas (hence the Palmer signing). But ultimately I think he wants fluidity in those attacking roles not out and out wingers.

Fair enough... The length of his deal is what it is. The truth of the matter is that it allows us to punch above our weight as we could not afford to buy Palmer or pay his full wages. From everything I’ve read he can play on either wing or through the middle but I’m not sure it really matters these days. I don’t think there are any ‘natural’ wingers out there anymore. Even the ones who used to be considered ‘natural’ now play on opposite wings and in ‘the hole’.

I can’t believe we’ve been waiting for transfer news for weeks, only to get news of a potentially fantastic addition which is followed by 5 pages of discussions about...QPR!! ???

I know something. I just want quality. Kasey Palmer is exactly that. He’s MUCH better than Chapman, Armstrong, Wildschut, Edwards or any others that have been linked and may or may not have gone anywhere else...so whether he plays 20 or 200 games for us he’s an improvement on what we have. I’m happy with that.

He’d be more likely to play in one of those three attacking midfield positions (In a 4231). iv seen him play live and on the tv. He’s direct, quick, skilful - miles better than anything we have other than Dack. Miles better than Chapman, Payne, Antonsson etc. The Derby fans are bereft. Don’t know what’s happened there but general consensus is that he’d walk into their team!!

Kasey Palmer is CLASS! Wow!