Do you think Waggott is actually going to them and saying "Look this guy is doing really well and is attracting a lot of outside interest, I think he needs an improved contract?"

If a player started off poorly for the Club, then improved dramatically and had a really good couple of seasons, would you judge him on his start? No. Yet that's what you're doing in reverse with Gallagher. And he was anything ranging from rubbish to average at best to begin with depending on your personal preference.

May or may not be true but I was led to believe at the time that very little effort was made to try and persuade Brereton to commit to a new deal.

Adam Wharton? And that was only with a view to flogging him, not keeping him here.

Curiosity value only really. Leeds can't win by that metric, you cant do any more than be top irrespective of your budget yet they appear half way down the table. Conversely even if Plymouth had zero points, (they're not doing a whole lot better) they still wouldn't appear very low in the table. It does give a rough idea of one or two Clubs that are vastly overperforming to budget or vice versa, the two that spring to mind are us and Luton. You don't need AI to tell you that.

Par for the course recently, Eustace was apparently linked to the WBA job by Alex Crook from Talksport yesterday who claimed Eustace's name had come up in discussions at the Club. As I've always said I think there must be some underlying reason why Eustace always seems to be a leading contender every time a job becomes available elsewhere. As much as we need fresh blood on the pitch I'd be even happier to see an announcement that Eustace has been given an improved deal. Fat chance with Waggott in charge though Id imagine.

Some of those look a bit odd. Where are the figures for the payrolls coming from?

Odd post. Hill only made 18 appearances for us last season and from memory I doubt all of those appearances were starts. You might as well attach that argument to Hyam who made 35 appearances and who I think most people would agree had an extremely poor season.

And yet again you leap staunchly to Gallagher's defence. No point keep saying "when fit" about him when he rarely is. His last season and a half in the Championship have produced four goals which is Gueye level anyway and in his final season here his all round performances tailed off from being poor in the first place to not contributing anything and never even looking likely to score. Gallagher is Gueye without the nuisance factor. I don't think anyone is saying Gueye is currently good enough to start if we want to achieve any measure of success though.

Blimey. Let it go. Another game where he didn't do anything majorly wrong and actually saved us a point with a smart save near the end.

That's why I queried the need to sign Hill as I think we have far more pressing priorities elsewhere. If there was money to bring in a decent striker, winger, and bring Hill in on loan and he was willing to come (lot of if's) I'd do it. I doubt he'd be our "Rodney Marsh".

IF he did come in, harsh as it sounds I'd put him next to Batth as I think Hill is better than Hyam. Play him at FB and Hyam at CB in the event of injury. That would only be a fairly marginal upgrade though the way we've been defending. We've much more urgent need of reinforcements up front. If there's enough money for everything, great.

Not that it's likely anyway but he's not going to come unless he's an automatic selection (subject to form) I wouldn't have thought

Fair enough, imaginative. Don't fancy Brittain at LB personally.

Great post as a whole and whilst nearly everyone on here was aware of the general problem the statistic in the first couple of lines is still a fairly startling one which shows the enormity of the problem facing us without substantial attacking reinforcements.

Who do you drop if Hill came in though?

Agreed. Roverfan99 is worried about the possibility Gueye might turn out to be better than Gallagher who historically he has defended to the hilt. I think he already has more of an impact when he's on the pitch than Gallagher did. Not denying we still need better. That's the biggest stretch I've ever seen attributing today's goal to Tronstad.

A perfect summary.

Agree 100% but it's been mainly 0 or 1 conceded not 1 or 2.

They should have had a hatful tbf. Rarely seen a more one sided second half. Down to 7th. Was nice whilst it lasted. That mini collapse over Christmas killed us.

I agree completely. He's even managed to make Hyam look decent which is some feat. The modern day Kevin Moran?

Apologies if you meant it light heartedly.

You're entitled to your opinion of course.

Not searching for faults at all. Said no-one deserved any criticism today. It was (as usual) another poster who baited me on Tronstad when I hadn't even mentioned him in the first place.

Did OK. Arguably his type of game. No quality on the rare occasions he finds himself in a slightly more advanced position.