Guess you'd best tell Pep you know better then, since he's sending one of his lads on loan to us it appears.

That's one that could happen, but I don't think it will. Especially in a 5-man midfield. That would most likely mean Bell as a wing-back. I don't think he will start the season with the 5-man midfield experiment (though maybe he'll foolishly think he spies an opportunity against a promoted team...personally I wouldn't, sometimes promoted teams start like a bat out of hell). I think he will play his usual formation. I expect him to start Armstrong, Travis...and hopefully Rothwell. Midfield two will be either Travis and Johnson or Travis and Evans if he doesn't think Johnson is 'up to speed' yet. He slowly moved away from the 'one defensive winger' at the end of last season, and with us being at home to Charlton I think he will probably play two attacking ones. How he has lined up in friendlies suggests that too. I do fear we will see Mulgrew starting, now that Williams is injured. I just can't see him deciding the City lad or any other new centre half is 'ready' that soon after joining, due to his ridiculous bedding in periods. Outside chance of Nyambe playing there instead, with Bennett wedged wide, depends how much he has finally seen through Charlie's shortcomings.

You're pretty much just picking a team you don't want to see (aside from the super obvious starters like Dack). There is zero chance, even under TM, that Smallwood starts at RW. Almost zero chance Jayson starts instead of the new lad. Outside of that, yeh those could start, although I don't think Downing will, and I think he will start Travis. Still wouldn't be the right lineup but more realistic.

Sadly, the most logical conclusion from those three statements combined is that the Gallagher money was part of the initial budget, and that the Raya money is untouched and will be spent...to buy another striker. Considering the murmurings of us still looking at strikers, I worry. Hopefully that's not the case at all and the money will be spent on a quality centre half and/or full back.

No Walton? What is it with our bedding in periods? I get the odd exception like Downing moving his family or someone being grossly unfit, but in the last few years I can't remember us ever playing someone within a couple of days of them signing. Never used to be the case. He is a goalie, just put him in so he can start learning how our awful defence play.

Is this from your source or not?

I've just read that the City lad made his debut in their u-18s when he was just 14! Pretty impressive, although probably also something to do with the fact he's massive.

Not sure I've ever seen a player stay at one club so long without making an appearance for them. 26 in September!

19 year old, Fergie thought he would go on to become one of Manure's all-time greats, and we had another bid from Liverpool of over 20 million because they didn't know about his release clause. He did go cheap. Cheaper than he should have anyway. He was looking like becoming a worldie, marked a peak Drogba out of a game, and looked set for about 14-16 more years of playing, including developing further. That works out at a bit over one million a season, ignoring the potential for a higher value resale. The way it turned out later doesn't change any of this.

Don't know whether this slightly dubious link has been mentioned (too much to read now): Frazier Campbell

Tbf, there's being dropped, then there's being dropped for Jayson Leutwiler... And being publicly criticised when our worst defenders weren't.

The article says this happened to Rangers TV, which is Rangers' official channel?

Indeed. Problem is we don't really know what we've got in the academy for the most part, as we haven't seen them tested in this league beyond a cameo or two. Seems a very promising batch, but we can't afford to rely on them for next season yet. That's what Unsall is missing about why people want new signings.

Sounds like it happened again: Rangers friendly was interrupted by porn

Without meaning to have a go at Chaddy, he has form for believing people on Twitter with very spurious credentials. So his source isn't one I'm going to pay any attention to unless it starts coming up with info that actually pans out. (And no Chaddy, I'm not saying you're using a Twitter source this time, just that I think you're a lot happier to accept rumours at face value than I am)

Why would they drop their price tag 2 months later?

All the reports are loan though. We will see, think we had it reported as a loan once when it was actually a permanent...wasn't it with Davenport, funnily enough?

Don't think there's been any clamour to 'replace' Davenport, a lad who has sadly only played one game for us if I remember rightly? We have a ton of CMs and the lad is only out for 6-8 weeks (for now..). There wasn't really room in the squad as it was for two fringe youth players who should both be pushing on.

I'm struggling to understand this Walton loan deal from a few angles. Maybe someone can help me out. Why don't Wigan want him back? If they do, why are Brighton or the player in favour of sending him to us instead? He's played a lot of games for them over the last couple of seasons, and kept a scary amount of clean sheets (I assume the vast bulk in League One though). On the face of it, it seems he would be the number one at Wigan, playing in the same league, familiar environment, and just going off goals conceded in total and away, a slightly better defence? I can't see why Brighton or Walton would swap that for a new environment, shaky defence, and being only a challenger for the jersey based on TM's remarks. So I'm assuming it comes down to Wigan not wanting him back, or having signed a better goalie? The other part I doubt anyone will help me with, they'll probably just give me opinions I don't agree with (I can picture them now), but I'll say it anyway. What's to be gained from this being a loan deal, for Brighton or the player? Again, he's not likely to be a guaranteed starter here at all if we get this more experienced goalie, and at this point of his development surely he needs that and can get that (maybe from one of the promoted teams if nobody else?). I can see how it helps us, we presumably get cheap, decent cover without splashing out for it. I'd rather we signed him permanently though. I'm wondering if we might find out this is actually a loan with a view to buy (if not in clause, then in principle if we like him). Partly because we like to do that, and partly because it would make more sense to Brighton (financial incentive) and Walton (chance for a stable home and maybe as number one after our older keeper ends his loan or starts to wobble). A further benefit for us might be that if he doesn't play so much due to competition here, his price tag might drop...though this might make him less likely to want to join us.

Oh I look forward to reading the implosion tomorrow (sarcasm).

But would he want you to take him?

He has said Raya wanted to go. If we didn't want to sell really, then it makes sense to replace him with similar.

Funny enough, the other day I asked Alexa to tell me about Blackburn Rovers. I kid you not, she said: 'Blackburn Rovers Reserves are the reserve team of Blackburn Rovers.' That was it. Worrying I was about to fall out with Alexa and burn my firestick, I asked her again, tell me more about Blackburn Rovers. This time I got a decent amount of our history. Maybe she couldn't handle the accent and I thought I said Reserves instead of Rovers the first time?

Cut him some slack. Let's not pressure him into giving info he can't so he loses his contact like Madon did.