JDT doesn't seem to rate him, and our discussion won't change the outcome. But it's not a pointless discussion any more than every single discussion on this forum is because, with very few exceptions, we can't impact any of them. But if we didn't have discussions just because they won't change club or managerial policy, the board would have died a very long time ago. The point of forum discussions isn't to change outcomes. Yeh I expect they would prefer to go down south given their origins, but Manchester is a fairly thriving upcoming city, there are a lot of beautiful sights in the NW, lots of very successful, rich footballers seem to enjoy living up here in Cheshire etc. If their lives have been deemed interesting enough for their own show (I wouldn't know, not touching it with a bargepole) I assume they've got enough going on here to feel settled. But at the same time I won't be surprised if she is trying to force the club's hand to sell him. The more unsettled he is, especially publicly, the price will probably go down.

Oh good, we could do with a public statement of how unsettled our player is, from a vacuous bimbo. Should do wonders for team spirit and club harmony.

But who has been arguing that JDT sees Dack as an important player? This forum is for expressing our opinions, not for expressing JDT's opinions. JDT's mouth can do that just fine on its own.

God could you imagine if Venkys tweeted about the club? I wonder what levels of embarrassment we would have reached by now.

He clearly did know that and was joking.

I can only think that Pickering wasn't deemed fully fit to last 60-90 minutes? Surely it has to be that, I don't think even Mowbray would have done it the way it was done otherwise.

I don't think using footballers as your example makes for a good comparison, since they're done when they get too old. For two seasons, the young Brereton wasn't any better for us than Chris Brown had been anyway. But my point wasn't that he can't be good because he looks young, I was alluding to a probable lack of experience (relatively) and established network of connections, things which take time to develop. If he's a great scout, seems more like he should be employed as a scout. I feel as though Head of European Scouting requires a wide knowledge of European football, an ability to manage a whole scouting team, and various other skills and knowledge that are more likely to be acquired with time. To be clear, I'm in no way ruling out that he may still have all of those things. Just that my scepticism that he does is increased. I feel that 'very well connected guy' by Hibs standards and by Rovers standards are, or at least should be, two different things. I didn't realise their rules are more relaxed. Frankly I think that's a fucking farce. We left the EU as one nation, there shouldn't be less disadvantages for Scottish football than there are for English football. But that suggests he will have more difficulty finding players in Europe here than he did there. Not only because the rules are tighter but because we need better players than Hibs do. Did he find any players for Hibs that would walk into our team? Genuine question. And did he lead the European team there or was he rank and file?

Think you've taken the post a bit more seriously than it was intended.

You'll probably run out of money because of your terrible forward planning through your life 😉 I don't want the club to run out of money, whilst I'm alive or after. I don't believe that supporting Rovers is about instant gratification for myself. If I did, I would have stopped supporting a long time ago. I love the club and want what's best for it in the long term, simple as that for me.

Or you may live another 20 years.

Eh? I didn't name any players.

Not sure how qualified a very young looking bloke from Hibs would be to head up our European scouting. I wouldn't imagine they have a great European network. Sounds a bit odd, will wait for an official announcement before I believe it.

And you'll be paying your money next season too. And the ones after that. I hope you don't approach everything in life by virtue of only what's happening tomorrow. Your pension fund would be a bit shit for starters. Planning for the future is an integral part of life. And on the topic of short term entertainment value, I find it more exciting to watch an academy prospect than a journeyman who might be marginally better for now. As stated, real promotion quality is a different story.

No excuse to show so little wisdom.

Any thoughts on why he isn't getting a look in?

It's not as simple as if they're good enough. Managers are, almost to a man, reluctant to put out inexperienced youngsters when they have someone with experience to use instead, on bigger wages. Especially if they signed them themselves as it reflects poorly on them if their signings don't play, and they often bring in a player telling them they'll get lots of game time. It's also not wise to just think short term. Although if we're in a genuine promotion push then short term can be the best long term approach too. But generally, especially with our usual midtable finishes...not much point bringing in a player who is currently marginally better than a youngster, if that youngster might be the better player of the two a year down the line if they get enough game time. Youngsters generally improve over time and with matches, they grow in confidence and game reading if they play, and their growth can easily be stagnated or reverse if they don't get enough game time. Say you have two players in the same position, and for arguments sake, one is about a 65/100 right now, and experienced. The other is a 60/100 right now and young. The experienced player probably won't be any better next season, or the season after that. Say the youngster might get to 70/100 after a season of learning the ropes in competitive senior games. Is it better to use that experienced player for the duration of his three year deal and keep the youngster from playing much, or use the youngster who may be the better player a year into those three years?

I wouldn't agree with any argument to sign two central strikers really, unless we plan to use two at once consistently. I know we have dabbled with that a bit in a two up top system, but it's not really the traditional two strikers that we often think of (although admittedly without the personnel, it wouldn't be). I think when people talk about our lack of strikers they're generally talking about a bit of an old school big lad who can mix it up and hold the ball plus score goals, a Danny Graham of old. Those are a rarity in the modern game though...most of the ones that exist aren't really goalscorers. At any rate a two up top these days is likely to only need one of those at a time, with a nippy, possibly more technical lad alongside. We have a few players a bit of that ilk, it would be odd, to me, to sign more. Then again, much depends on the sort of system JDT really wants to play moving forward. Agree with you about not blocking pathways, at least in areas where we are reasonably strong and where the youngsters are genuinely promising. Think you're right about the type of midfielder we would likely pick up for instance, and I don't think it would achieve anything most likely to do that. I don't think they would have to be proven promotion material though (Corry Evans was, and that didn't achieve much), but they'd have to be of that quality. Sometimes you just spot a diamond in the rough on a bargain fee, like say N'zonzi was. I could also consent to a loan of a proven experienced midfielder, as half a season of risk and being in the way is much less of a problem than signing another Johnson sucking up wages and being in the way for 2-3 years to little positive effect. Think you're right about LB. But you didn't mention RB, we have to try all sorts of crap there whenever Brittain is injured, which is a bit too frequently so far. I don't too much mind Carter as a stopgap on occasion there though mind. After that though we really pull players too far out of position to cover it. Agree with everything you said about the GK situation. Could really do with a better backup, but tough to find someone decent who is willing to mostly sit on the bench for modest wages.

I know we won 3 straight first, I mentioned it elsewhere in the thread. Another way to look at is, is every time since then we have followed up a win with a loss, until this run of 4 wins. The pattern suggests we might lose the next 3 now, that would bookend it quite neatly. Fortunately results don't come in patterns, those have been a coincidence. But if we play like this against Burnley, we will get thoroughly, lubelessly bummed. We'll have to play better against Hudds too, and hopefully West Ham field their kids.

My apologies for stating a fact.

No we haven't, we lost three in a row a while back.

Not only do we not come from behind this season, but in games where we have lost (which is every time we concede first of course), we have only scored in one of them (the 2-3 defeat to Bristol C).

At least you tried. More than can be said for some highly paid individuals tonight.

62.8% possession, but a loss again. No good if most of it is fannying around at the back, risking losing the ball in key areas, and missing chances to utilise the ball on to Brereton. We miss Hedges and Gallagher, who would have thought we'd be saying that at the start of the season? Worst game tactically from JDT that I've personally seen so far (had to miss a few recently with work commitments). Very little about how we set up and looked to change things made sense.

How do you reckon he scored 13 goals in League One last season then? He is League One standard. And that's very far from promotion to the Prem standard.

Hirst is a loan. I don't know if we can send him back in Jan.