Official announcements never say things like whether there is a loan fee, what the wage contribution is, or the amount in any loan-to-buy deals. Every deal has been 'undisclosed' for the last decade or two.

They're signing a player from themselves?

This rumour seems like it might be dead already, but I don't expect a loanee would result in the sale of anyone else. When it comes to senior players like these, probably not a loan either.

Yeh I especially feel for A Wharton, who has to occupy both flanks of the pitch simultaneously.

I think it's because of the way your post showed when formatted on a mobile phone:

Announced as having no chance of happening?

Tbh...I'd probably take about £5 mill for Dack if it was offered and we had a good replacement lined up. Nobody say Szmodics.

It's a fair bit shorter a drive tbf.

Sam Gallagher for 5 million hopefully.

Oh I got straight onto writing this one off the first time I heard it. But touche!

The man can't help himself can he. If this was his pitch at the interview, the Sunderland board should really have looked at how his rebuild ended up here after 5 years - with a glut of players needing replacing because they were gone.

Mowbray to Sunderland confirmed, btw.

Because they probably aren't willing to sell him for 1.5 million now. That stance may change if the player didn't want to sign a new deal though, but it sounds like he does. More fool him I say, Leicester clearly don't think he will make it there and are just trying to leverage more money off their asset.

If they wanted to sell him, rate him at £5 mill now or potentially, and the offer is half that or less, they could very feasibly choose to roll the dice instead. Their being 'stuck with the player' might be a low risk gamble (maybe his wages are or would be low). If he doesn't do that well, they could loan him out again, probably getting most of the wages covered and mitigating the risk. These Prem sides know how to make money off their youth prospects through the loan market, they've made an industry of it. The guaranteed knock down price would still, in this example, be double what they were going to get if they sold him now. Also, if he does REALLY well and is attracting much bigger clubs, it probably won't matter what we have agreed. Typically, a clause like that would only allow us to have a bid accepted - if the player isn't interested, because Brentford have had a 10 mill bid accepted and will pay him 40k a week, we aren't going to be getting him.

It does make sense. They don't want to lose him on a free and are protecting their asset. I know that seems surreal to Rovers fans after this summer though. They likely don't think he's going to be good enough to ever break their team, but they know he is worth money, and could be worth more after a decent season in the Championship. Let's say our offer now is about £3 mill and they think they can get £5 mill for him, but we won't budge. So they extend his deal, loan him out with a £5 mill sale clause which we can choose to pay if we're convinced by next summer or whenever the clause expires. They make £2 mill more on him this way than by just selling him. Theoretical numbers of course. If we don't want to pay at £5 mill because we are broke, another club perhaps pays that next summer, or even more. Or, he doesn't do well enough for all that and they loan him out again in the hope he does.

A loan with an option is surely better than just a purchase (on the assumption that the fee in the option is the same as a fee now would be, of course)? As it means if he turns out to be a dud we can just not waste millions. If he sets on fire we'll know we're getting a bargain. It's the loans with no option you have to watch out for, because if they do really good their transfer fee skyrockets.

Doubt he is going to impress enough for us to want to pay that. Agree it's a statement of intent...our intent to not actually buy him, just like Zeefuik was never realistically getting bought either.

Where have you got that from?

Tbh he has generally looked more effective playing wide. Not sure he knows how to move around the box to maximum effect yet, but out wide he can get past most and cut inside effectively.

It's not midnight yet. But we did have the highly dubious Barkley rumour. And did the Dykes one pop up today or yesterday?

Alternatives are JRC (eww), Carter, Buckley (I'd really rather not, but a bit more comfortable with it than when Mowbray first tried it disastrously) and as you say, Travis. None are ideal of course. I think Carter is the one least likely to be a liability, though I wouldn't expect to see him do much going forward (even though he does have some tricks and flicks for a big lad). A long term injury to Brittain would very much be a problem. The occasional short term one we can probably live with for now.

Aye, as long as the opposition only score 2.5 we will win.

Backup goalie is always a difficult position to recruit for. They know they run the very real risk of not playing all season (except potentially cup games). The calibre of keeper that is happy to risk that usually isn't very good.

I agree, we are goosed if Kaminski is out for any real length of time. But I suspect it won't be on the agenda just yet and I kind of agree. It's certainly a risk, to hope TK holds up, but keepers usually do. Funds are low, we have a backup keeper who seems to be on a decent wage who we probably can't shift, and some promising young keepers...I think JDT will assess his keeping options over the next 6 months and maybe look at dealing with it in January if there's any money left. Fingers crossed Kaminski remains a picture of health, he has been out for a few games at a time before. For now, our general play and thin squad in areas where we are almost guaranteed to lose people to injury and suspensions is likely a bigger concern.

Did I say anything of the sort though? No. I absolutely didn't. I was even clear in the post you quoted that I'm not crazy about signing them. I simply pointed out, correctly, that your statement that Vale and Burns have done as much as Dykes and Hirst is simply untrue. Burns has scored 2 goals in 15 League Two games, that's the full extent of his professional experience. Vale has 151 minutes in the Championship, with no goals or assists, and 44 minutes in League One, with no goals or assists, and 4 cup appearances with 2 assists. Dykes has 22 goals in 79 appearances in the Championship. Hirst has a poor Championship record (mostly off the bench) but scored 13 in 40 in League One last season. Like I said, I'm not sold on getting either, but to say Burns and Vale have done as much as them is false.