You could use the same logic about the cup. We ain't winning that either. More chance of promotion (that's slim too of course).

Yes, good point, I momentarily forgot about that. But the general point still stands as you say. Examples I should have used instead would be contract renewals to stop us losing top talent for free, compounding the loss of money with a further loss of money, which would likely have additional knock on impacts. Ie, we don't have the 10 mill from BBD, so we can't afford to renew contracts at the going rate for another 10 mill worth of talent, essentially meaning we lose another 10 mill worth for free, and have to spend to replace them, plus can't afford other renewals...it can be a vicious circle. (Before anyone says it, those values aren't as flat out as that in terms of losing exactly 10 mill again, it's just a speculative example of how the problem can intensify with knock-on effects, you don't end up in some cycle of infinite regress and bankrupcy by next year or anything. I'm also not saying we should definitely sell BBD if we get 10 mill, I'm just saying it's a complicated problem, and a gamble whichever way you handle it, nowhere near as cut and dry as some are making out.) Edit - Actually, it probably is also worth pointing out that although Venkys can fix the stadium and pitch issues without it affecting FFP, if they're simply not going to as current evidence suggests, then we probably do still need the money for those kinds of purposes. Although I agree it's something they should do.

The club can afford to lose a certain amount under FFP. We often skirt close to that line as the accounts show. If we sell him for 10 million, that is going to make a difference to how we operate. I get that football fans are often impatient, don't think of the wider picture of running of a football club, and want to see flashy multimillion pound signings, but not every benefit to a football club is seen, or seen so obviously. 10 million in the coffers might only mean, for example, that we don't later have to also sell Hyam and Kaminski to make up the shortfall. Or that we can afford to maintain the stadium and pitch properly, invest in facilities, not lay off staff, boost the scouting, maybe with a Hyam type signing thrown in, and without failing FFP. Any of that would be preferable to the scenario: have Brereton for six months and still not get promoted. Of course, the gamble is that he does get us promoted, and we all hope so. But if he doesn't, the gamble failed, it's that simple. Same conundrum as the Rothwell situation last winter, but more money on the line.

Ahhh

Eh???

For a 16 year old he certainly was. Clubs were buying potential at that point and they knew it. Morton is of an age where he should have realised most of his by now. Bellingham, who now has 22 senior England caps, is still only 19 even now, Morton is 20. He has very nearly as many England caps as Morton has league appearances (most of them in the Championship). They really aren't comparable.

No, the worst thing in the world for a player is to not be in the team every week regardless of performance, like has happened to a few of ours in recent years. But yes, it's unhealthy to be guaranteed a starting spot regardless. Breeds complacency, and means you can't be taken out of the firing line when you're out of form.

It will only prove worth the risk if we achieve promotion, even if BBD scores 30 more goals. It's not 'our' money, but we are part of the club and care about its fate, which is inextricably tied to how much money is in the budget. So of course it matters to us. Never understood the 'it's not our money' argument.

Lol at that article calling 15 million 'eye-watering'. Fuck off, it's bugger all to Prem clubs, especially Newcastle if they genuinely do want him. If he were fully under contract it wouldn't even be eyebrow-raising. It's the going rate for a player with his track record at this level the last 18 months. It's only the contract situation that makes it seem a lot, but as you and others have said, he can only go to one club. There are foreign clubs sniffing too, who could move now to stop these domestic teams from even being in the bidding. He's only going to want a much bigger wage and fees if he moves for a free too. You'd also think they'd Everton and Leeds would want someone right now to help with their relegation struggle. Even if they still got relegated, they'd be going down with a proven Championship attacker who knows the league. Personally I think that, assuming they think he's good enough, they're idiotic to not be testing our resolve with at least a 10 mill bid even if they think 15 is a stretch. They've probably all paid more for youth team prospects. Hell, even we paid 7 mill for him before he had shone consistently in this league, and we're chamber pot poor.

🤣That's a very amusing way of putting it, bravo. However the player of the match one is one I disagree with. Not to a strong, frothing level at all, I just think it's a bit of a silly and unnecessary change. There was nothing wrong with man of the match, because there are no women in the men's game, just as there are no women in the men's game. I think gender neutral language absolutely has a place in areas where it's possible a woman has the role/award etc. But until there are women in the men's game, or the games merge, this one just strikes me as a pointless tokenistic change to tradition designed to appeal to certain areas. It's therefore the sort of thing that gives fuel to the sadsack types who really want to fight against every single progressive change because it's 'PC gone mad', and I find it counterproductive as a result. A lot of these little language fiddles distract from the serious real issues too. Again, it doesn't really matter as such, I just think it's a bit daft and will keep calling it man of the match. I'd point out I also like saving the extra syllable when I say it, because I'm lazy, but typing a whole post about it has probably negated that benefit! 🤣 I'm not sure what you mean about it never mattering with Olympic and Paralympic records, those are split by gender too. If they weren't, women wouldn't hold many (any? Gymnastics maybe?).

If a player sounds like he would be excellent for us, and has other clubs sniffing, that's how I can usually tell they're not coming. If barely anybody has heard of or seen them, they may turn up. That's not necessarily a bad thing, our history is littered with players who seemed uninspiring signings and turned out to be fantastic, as well as many overpriced flops that really seemed like they should work out well on paper. We've long been a club that needs to hunt out the unpolished gems and shine them up.

Are you coming around a bit on Dolan then, or are you just making a style comparison? I thought Gelhardt was a bit more of an actual striker, but that's just off FM (although his profile will have been suggested by Wigan fans and maybe scouts on my version). He is reasonably pacey on it though, and a good dribbler. Only know about him at all as I signed him, loaned him out and sold him for a profit without ever playing him.

Those contracts are very much enforceable as things stand and are fairly commonplace. They don't literally prevent the player from being dropped, but they impose financial penalties if the player doesn't play a certain amount of games (I assume if the player is injured or otherwise suspended there is no penalty). I'm not sure on the ins and outs of real world penalty arrangements, I'd imagine they vary, but on FM (20 at least) there is an option for a monthly fee if the player plays, and another fee can be set for if the player doesn't play (on the game, clubs will almost always accept the same fee for both, but I think that's an oversight). Loaner clubs don't attach those clauses where they can't play against the parent club anymore, because NO players are allowed, by the rules of the game, to play against their parent clubs anymore. This was introduced to prevent conflict of interest. Imagine if you borrowed a club's goalie, and he let in a couple of howlers against them, you'd be suspicious as hell.

With talk of Mola going back to be loaned out elsewhere, and our only other left back being Pickering, no stranger to injuries, surely this means we will be in the market for a left back.

The fact they immediately sent him out on loan with an option to buy tells me they were just trying to protect their investment and maximise their return. He had a year left on his deal before he signed it so his market value was reduced.

He has played for them previously, it's where he started. Will have an affinity. Not breaking into his parent club's team and needs to get his career going...his old stomping grounds makes some sense.

Playing every game this season (or close to) in a playmaking role, this is to be expected surely.

*because the manager didn't like him

Another striker...maybe Hirst isn't going to be guaranteed games there either. Unless they've sold someone, are changing formation, or have truly dogshit strikers at present.

Not the only issue. Yes he has played well recently, but time will tell if it's a purple patch or if he has finally clicked. He doesn't exactly have a lot of credit in the bank. But yes I'm expecting him to break down imminently.

The Transfermarkt website valuations are frequently miles off. Really just someone's stab in the dark guess most of the time.

We 'interview' players now? That's not how things are normally done in the game is it? 'Where do you see yourself in 5 years?' 'Fucking off on a free transfer when my contract expires.'

It's much worse than that with BBD of course, we aren't just making nothing on him - we are making an enormous loss, amongst the largest in our history.

It isn't that simple, thanks to FFP, which puts hard limits on what we can lose. Not recouping let's say 10 million on Brereton means the budget is 10 million smaller than it can be, even if we assume Venkys are willing to cover it.

I can only think the arrangement suited us, Leicester, Ipswich and George Hirst, as IMO it benefits all of us. Even if it didn't come from within Rovers, I can't imagine we put up much of a fight about it. If we rated him, he'd have been playing more, and Leicester would have been much happier with him getting a decent amount of games at this level than League One.