Doesn't appeal to me.

In short, I just wouldn't take him whatsoever.

Just checked and we have had 21 shots in the league. So that's 28.5% conversion rate. It's high of course, but nothing like 60%. The main reason for the high conversion rate is the Swansea game. They're a team who obsess over possession, it was at their ground, and they're vulnerable to the counter we used against them. 3 goals from 5 shots. We also don't need to win games 3-0 like we did there.

I'm certain that will be from 10 shots ON TARGET, not 10 shots total. Hell we had 7 shots just against West Brom. So the conversion rate isn't going to be anywhere near 60%.

Good.

Not gonna lie, I wasn't inspired from the highlights reel. But if he comes, we'll see what he's really about.

Great stuff, thanks very much!

If you're drawing the distinction between 'offering' big wages and paying him big wages, you didn't need to. I know we arranged a contract before he turned 17, it was just a figure of speech. The point was more that they couldn't pay him it until now.

Yes, I invented it. As part of a hypothetical contract offer Spurs could make that we would struggle to match. And that even if we did they could go higher without a second thought.

Knocking back the larger clubs is one thing. Knocking back the larger cash is another. If I understand it correctly, due to his age none of the big clubs would have been able to offer him big wages until now.

I am sure we could match 10k p/w. I'm fairly sure we won't match 10k p/w for a 17 year old with 2 games under his belt. It's just not how we operate. And even if we did, Spurs would just gazump it with barely a second thought.

Agree to a large extent, but the problem is if he doesn't do well enough or gets a serious injury he might never land life changing money again. I bet Spurs would think little of throwing a 10k p/w 4 yr deal at him. That's 2 million quid. Enough to set anyone up for life if they're sensible and smart with it. Also, Spurs can just send him on loan to the Championship, especially now he is showing he can compete in it.

We don't want teams sitting deeper. We are better when they come at us.

We would have had a 10 mill player in Nyambe if you just went off a run of his best 3 games. It's very, very early days. Seen plenty of players look shit hot early doors and fade away. Jay McEveley once looked like the next big thing. Time will tell. He's made a fine start.

Think he knows more than us though. Tbh it has never looked, maybe Walton aside, like we were playing someone who wasn't worth their place, not for long.

According to Sharpe, there were no such clauses for any of those, or anyone else we have loaned in recent years.

Well done Lee. In your indignation about what we discuss here being too boring, you've started and partaken in a fascinating discussion about what we discuss. The irony appears to be lost on you though.

Ben Brereton is our best player, not Bradley Dack.

For a moment I thought that front three was the back three and I thought TM was posting here.

Umm, we do have shirts that play on the 1875 and Arte et Labore themes.

Yes, absolutely it is. It being an opinion doesn't remotely stop it being off.

May increase the price a tribunal would set. And until he signs elsewhere, we will probably hold out hope he signs here. Playing him helps with that (unless it persuades big clubs to up their interest!)

In other words, IRHJDTCWVDBRTVDHBIRTVDBCTCBBTVDHC. No idea why you felt the need to be so wordy.

I thought I read he did it last night. I wasn't there either though and I could be misremembering what I read now I think on it. Perhaps moving Pickering to CB again made me think that, but that was to bring Wharton off. Having a look at Pickering as a CB still suggests to me he wants to go 3 at the back sometimes. I think it's an effective tool to have in our arsenal, we saw last season how difficult it can be to break down.