And if the option price is prohibitive? What does he need to make it worthwhile? 30 goals? (Bearing in mind he has a record at this level of none in 31 or 32)

I obviously understand there will be a fixed fee. What everyone apart from me and roverandout are seemingly failing to grasp is that as Leicester want to sign him up to a new contract first, that fee will obviously be set by them at a prohibitive amount.

Exactly this, he's patently not an Elliott, and almost certainly not a Tosin, Reed, or JPVH either. For those type of players such a deal might be worth a go. This guy obviously isn't in that bracket.

Ain't that the truth. Reg Varney would have been more use "Get that bus out Butler".

It will be prohibitive when the deal is signed.

The irony of the above statement is simply breathtaking. It's you who has completely misunderstood the point. If it was the normal sort of situation where the player was under contract, the selling Club didn't fancy him that much, and we wanted to have a look at him before we took the plunge, then, yes, a loan with an option at a sensible level would be the perfect option. This is completely different. Leicester are apparently going to make him sign a new contract first, therefore they must fancy him a bit, and either think there's a slight chance he might improve further to the extent he might be of use to them, or, they will get top dollar for him if they sell. We won't be getting him at a bargain price, no matter what he does. Negligible chance he ends up here permanently imo. Another situation where we potentially develop the player and ultimately miss out.

Without knowing the exact figures, if it ends up being a loan with an option to purchase I think it's a terrible deal in principle. From our perspective, he's done nowt so far, it should have been a case of buy him now for a reasonable fee or walk away. Leicester obviously think he has a bit of potential otherwise they wouldn't be considering offering him a new deal and loaning him out. Once he's signed a new contract, any price on the option to purchase is likely to be completely prohibitive. Almost zero chance he ends up here permanently I'd say. Either he does OK and we probably can't afford him or he doesn't and we don-t want him. More can kicking down the road and another position that probably needs filling in 12 months time.

Every cloud.....

No money apart from the £6.5m already spent?

And get rid of our RB and put a chap called Gallagher in there.

Gallagher, Gallagher, Gallagher, Gallagher, Gallagher.

Computer says no. He can have Pears, Edun, Pickering, JRC and Gallagher as part of a package deal though.

I agree, can only be a loan but from our point of view no bad thing. The less we commit to this particular deal the better imo.

If they wanted to sell him they would sell him now. If your theory is correct and he doesn't cut the mustard here they'd be stuck with a player they don't want by the end of the season. Or alternatively if he does well they won't want to allow him to move at a guaranteed knock down price at the end of that - they could do similar now presumably.

OK fair enough, see above then. Can only be a loan in that case.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Even if he signs a new deal with Leicester before joining Rovers that would tend to suggest that they want to keep him in the long run. Therefore they won't be prepared to put an option to purchase at an agreed fee in and in the very unlikely event he does well his time here will come to an end when the loan period expires and we'll be priced out of a permanent move.

I give up. He isn't their player by then! Who does the money go to? Charity?

(Beats head against brick wall) In Hirst's cade, if he's out of contract at the end of the season, we don't need to pay anything by then. He'll be a free agent! I fully agree that in different circumstances where the player is still under contract the only advantage of entering into a loan with an obligation rather than an option to purchase is that you've already decided you definitelywant the player but can schedule the payments differe try for FFP purposes.

Maybe if the Club ever got round to discussing a new contract with him.........

Read back what you're saying. He's a free agent at the end of the season but you're claiming we're entering into an agreement which would involve us paying Leicester a fee at that point out of the goodness of our hearts even though they no longer own him.

If he's crap, what is remotely sensible about an obligation to buy?

God help you if he takes over at your place, I'll be laughing my socks off. Expect platitudes about being on an unspecified "journey" with no definable targets or end goal. From his point of view it should be enough to keep him in situ until the end of his contact when everyone wakes up and smells the coffee and realises that you're in a no better place than when he took over.

🤣 As a point of order, if anyone was actually barking enough to go in for Dykes I suspect it would take a Gallagher size fee to land him. Hopefully we won't be finding out.

Maybe I should have said "current" criteria. Thank you for agreeing with me. Neither of above remotely like Hirst or Dykes.

If we could get him for next to nothing, as low cost, low risk back up he might just about be worth a go. It's difficult to see how he could be much less effective than Gallagher and in the long run it might allow us to get Gallagher's wages off the books. If we were relying on him to be a primary source of goals it would obviously be an absolutely suicidal move. Still don't want him. There must be loads of options out there better than him and Dykes.