As I said earlier, in the period in question, Gibson's Boro at least made it into the Prem, and a few times (3 I think I said) into the playoffs. We may have started in the Prem in that period but Venkys promptly got us relegated and haven't gotten us into the playoffs once since. They did however get us relegated again. Nobody is saying Gibson is the litmus test of a perfect football club owner, but he's a fucking damned sight better than Venkys and if you don't agree you're either a WUM or braindead, sorry. Despite him being nowhere near as wealthy. Being willing to risk his own personal fortune only puts him even further ahead of Venkys.

And he is doing it again. Very odd behaviour. Usually gets mad when people point it out too.

Very good, nice and glib, well done. We're clearly talking about the Venkys effect vs the Gibson effect though. Our preexisting superior condition can't really be brought into that conversation. Since Boro finished 11th, 12th and 7th in the Championship in those seasons it didn't affect any of the stats I used. Arguably you could use the two Prem seasons under Venkys, the one where they nearly got us relegated from what was it about 8th place, then the one where they did get us relegated, but they don't reinforce any notion of them being capable owners as we were far stronger before then. Gibson has been chairman of Boro since 1994, and formed a consortium to save the club in 1986. This has been the most successful period in their history, with a League Cup (their only major honour), an FA Cup final and a UEFA Cup final. I think Gibson's approach has done pretty well for Boro, yes. But it's really only pertinent to compare the Boro and Rovers since Venkys took over, moreover since they got us relegated and how we have both dealt with being Championship clubs. In this period, his approach has been far more successful than our approach of mostly selling everything that's not bolted down and barely reinvesting apart from a couple of random flurries. If you can't see that Venkys' ownership is shit and their lack of reinvestment is hampering us, then there's really nothing else to discuss.

One. Which is one more than us. Along with reaching the lottery of the playoffs 3 times, which is 3 more than us. And spending zero seasons in League One, which is one less than us. They've only finished in the bottom half of the Championship twice, which is four less than us. Even taking out the fact that we have objectively performed worse than them in this period, I'm really not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting it would be best to not support the manager and to not reinvest?

The car in question is on a hill, and if they don't at least fix the handbrake it will slide backwards.

Sadly, they'll then spend money on replacements.

That's not how it works. Famously, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the one disproving it (at least not until the initial claim is proven). This is because it's generally impossible to prove a negative. I refer you to my previous post where I said I could claim we're pursuing Borja Sainz. It's impossible to prove we're not even though I don't have any proof we are (just like Nicko doesn't). By your logic we would just go off what has been said and assume we are after Borja Sainz. I could make any kind of claim, no matter how ridiculous (eg, Waggott has only got one bollock, or Balaji Rao is actually Elon Musk with a Mission Impossible style face mask) and the same logic applies.

Easy question to answer- because he isn't an honourable man.

It's even easier to claim we only have an interest in him. That can never be disproven. I could claim we had an interest in Borja Sainz, see, easy. Prove me wrong.

God knows why. He couldn't lead a lemming off a cliff.

Unpopular and stupid opinion, sorry to be blunt. Buckley was dogshit, and it was predictable he would be dogshit, because he has been dogshit consistently for a very long time now. I do agree about Brittain though. He was impressive.

They took 30 seconds to take that nonsense free kick, we played 15 seconds after it. Makes sense.

Not sure they were applauding it, they said he's been lucky.

That note the Dingle just got passed- 'your sister is watching, says she won't put out if you lose'

And we have taken off our main knockdown guy.

Buckley was a stupid sub. Predictably fucked up every time he has touched the ball.

Brittain being the best crosser at the club, I do wonder why he doesn't take our corners.

What we should do with him is keep him here as backup.

Agreed, it's definitely not Garrett's game, he's about energy and bustling and hustling. I think you can arguably have him there as long as Tronstad is also there to cover the rash moments, but I think it'd be a waste. Like you I think he can be a poor man's Travis and fill the gap for a bit. I'd rather that (and further cover for the season) than send him on loan again and risk the same shit happening when some team decides they don't want to risk a young player in a relegation/promotion fight or would rather promote their own players and use him as cheap backup. He's too good to be sitting on a League One bench, but the right standard to be sat on a Championship bench for me. (Yeh yeh, cue someone, think I know who, coming in to tell me they don't rate him and he's not League One level again, don't waste your time)

Yeh I'd hoped he might kick on this season, but it's reached the point he's a big wage that needs shedding. Seems the type of player though that I won't be surprised if he has an impressive last 6 months if/when given the chance, because his contract is running down. Happy to let him go this Jan if there are takers.

The most convincing argument I've ever seen for banning A.I.!

The bigger issue than this blatant lie is - wtf have they done to our famous shirt in that terrible mockup?!?

So Nyambe was wrong about being able to get a better contract elsewhere, but Brereton, Lenihan and Rothwell were all correct. Certainly sounds like we can't/won't pay the going rate for the most part.

They do, but they're still not accepting a cut price fee. What they also have history of is holding out for their demands. They probably expect something like £2m plus in tribunal, and whether that's realistic or not they're not going to be accepting less than that, and we aren't paying that. Like you said, they want clubs to not lowball them, so, we won't be getting away with any lowballing, aka a cut price fee. They have no reason to take bids below what they believe they'll get at tribunal. Honestly, just forget about this one lads, at least until summer. Even if it was say £1.5 mill, which it won't be, it's too much of our puny budget for an injured player when we want to challenge for the playoffs.

He isn't on a free transfer at the end of the season. Due to his age and offering him a new deal, Peterborough are due compensation. They're expecting it to be quite a lot, since they paid 'a substantial six figure fee' for him and turned down 3 million plus 3 million in add ons this summer allegedly. They believe they'll get 'millions and millions' at the tribunal. https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/sport/football/peterborough-united/a-club-record-busting-contract-offer-wont-keep-kwame-poku-at-peterborough-united-4864216 There is no cut price deal to be had in January.