I'm certain the rules will be the same for Hudds as they are for us, but the Premier League Cup may have slightly different registration rules. My FM game doesn't seem to think so though (showing the same age restrictions as the U23 league, but it's about 3 seasons old I think). Huddersfield will just have to field a B team that meets the age restrictions, shouldn't be too hard.

Hah yeh I just clocked this on google moments before you replied, cheers though. Saadi came on for Brittain I see. Looking at the LT feed, I see it is indeed 5 overrage players you can field. Also seems Gamble captains the team which seems odd considering all the experience out there. Brittain cross was spilled for the Gally goal, Edun and Hedges with assists for the Leonard goals. Quarter finals after this win.

You would bloody think so...I doubt he will be more than on the bench though. If so, hopefully he comes off it for 20 minutes or so. With JDT and most of the senior staff watching, this game won't do his chances any harm though. Who did Leonard come on for?

I believe I have this correctly... Last season, when it was U23s, you could field 3 outfield players over the age of 23 (slightly more complicated than that, they had to be under 23 on a certain date). Now that it's gone back to being U21s, I think you can field 4 outfield players over the age of 21. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, like you say with the reserves there were no restrictions at all. First teams still have numerous senior players who need to keep fresh just like in the old days. There are no restrictions based on their first team appearances etc, it's purely about their age. Edit - looking at that team sheet, maybe it's 5 over 21s you can field now. Since we have Brittain, Edun, Hedges, Gallagher and Szmodics out there who are over 21.

Last night I was looking at him and think he's lost a little weight since last season? Seems more robust though as not been getting injured so far and more full blooded in the tackle, I think he's been really working on his fitness and it shows.

Apart from Hilton and Gamble, very similar lineups have started first team games before. Strange to see Morton starting it tbh, ok he didn't start the Wigan game but he's had plenty of game time this season. Should be more in need of a rest than more minutes (if he actually did enough to earn one, that is..). I'd have an eye on a few of these lads for the next match so I probably wouldn't be playing this many first teamers personally. Hope they're still fresh by the game. We should take some off around 60 mins if we are still leading comfortably. Also gives the actual kids the game time they need.

That one last night was idiotic. He'd have had to pull off a Carlos to bend it round the wall enough to land it inside the post. Even then he had signposted it so much the keeper had it well covered.

Do neither of those things.

Entirely as predicted when we signed the player. Exactly why we needed a striker. Thomas may prove pointless without one.

Thought he was a central midfielder? He is on my FM.

Maybe he will move on to players who go by Daniel.

Sounds like he likes to link past-it free agent midfielders called Danny to Blackburn Rovers. Bit of a niche but whatever gains him followers I guess...

Well, I would love to have VAR too.

Was gonna say the same.

I can't ever understand this point of view, that fans pop up with from time to time. This regime has really done a number on the ambition of the fanbase. Financially alone, this club desperately needs promotion. Even if we came straight back down.

Taking league only, he has 912 minutes, so probably just under 10 full matches worth when you account for injury time. We'll call it 10 matches worth. It's a goal contribution every 228 minutes. 3 goals and 1 assist from 10 matches equivalent, so 4 goal contributions in 10 games, is actually pretty good when you put it that way, especially from a CAM role. Adding cup minutes increases it to 1080 minutes, or approx 12 games, with one extra assist, so 5 goal contributions in 12, or a goal contribution every 216 minutes. It's a small sample, but enough to suggest you're right that criticism is a bit overboard and it's worth seeing what we can get from him over a longer run. Not that goal contributions are the be all and end all. (For reference, they're actually very similar to Dack's numbers in the league, although of course he was struggling for fitness and is currently in form... 4 goal contributions in 914 league minutes is almost identical, and is also made of 3 goals and 1 assist. Dack has been much more prolific in the cups though, with 3 goals and 2 assists in 6 appearances. His average across all comps is a goal contribution every 154.7 minutes)

Of course he doesn't. If they're coming here they get a free pass. Which is fine to a degree, but I reckon he'd be the same if we signed me or thee.

Allegedly was our transfer deadline day striker target. They wanted 700k and we balked, he's out of contract in the summer. Presumably we may go back in for him in the summer if he doesn't sign on.

Tbf he had just scored 10 goals in 17 matches for Ipswich in the Championship in the first half of that season. When we loaned him, anyway, then he scored 0 in 7 for us and broke his foot, and we still decided to sign him fully.

Last I saw of him he was scoring a sensational overhead kick against Manure.

I can tell you right now if you want? It's getting rejected.

So he says twice that everyone will have sympathy, but we're not looking for sympathy.

We've been losing about 20 million a year, nearly every year since relegation. As sad as it is given how paltry our spending is compared to many, we definitely have a history of spending beyond our means.

It still wouldn't matter, not really. Again, promotion to the Premiership is worth a bare minimum of 170 million. Let's even assume we were giving him a pay rise, up to 80k p/w, on a 4 year deal and paying 10 mill as reported. That's a total of £26 million over the contract length (assuming we couldn't sell him on before or after relegation to League One, if we did indeed suffer successive relegations). Let's even call it £30 mill with bonuses. It would be how or even if we spent the remaining 140 million that would or wouldn't be an issue. It's not the league's duty to poke holes in a transfer that couldn't possibly cripple us in and of itself. I'm not saying it isn't the sort of thing our people should be putting into contracts though, it is.

If you do them club-wide, sure. On one player? Nah not so much. It would be a drop in the ocean, and absolutely isn't worth the EFL scrutinising the deal. Assuming this is what's even meant by this relegation clause speculation, and assuming there is anything in what Nicko said in the first place.