Its this willing and able to inject £20m a season in that I dont get. It makes out as if its done out of anything other than necessity to cover costs. They will have to "pump money in" each year going forward because like any Championship club we spend more than we receive. They had been intent solely on reducing losses even in the years before the court case. Selling Armstrong and not reinvesting anything was a similar example. I dont get why you make out as if they were chucking in money prior the court case as some sort of attempt to progress the club, it was merely to pay the bills which even then were kept as low as possible. The only difference post court case is that the primary objective of reducing losses has been actioned even more aggressively and it happened to coincide with Wharton being ripe for a sale.

They have never been useful. They have to offset losses like the majority of Championship owners but they have not been allowing us to improve the squad for a number of years, well before the court case. The only reason they didnt put in money in the last financial year was not because of the court case. It was because for them we had a fortunate one off sellable asset that meant that we actually kept a small profit. This financial year, they will have to put something in to offset the loss again. Would you be happy for them to stay if the court case ended and they reverted back to what you perceive them to have been like before it started in the summer of 2023?

I look forward to roverandout coming on saying that Latvia arent a bad side later on.

Yes, it is a bad thing. Dilutes the quality and also makes it asymmetrical where you remove any jeopardy by having 3rd place teams going through groups.

Is that your token response now whenever a question is asked that you know you cant answer, in this case because there is an inconsistency in your logic? If Hedges' worth is proven because managers pick him, surely so is Pears' worth? IMO, both have played so much simply as a symptom of our lack of budget and poor recruitment over a number of years. Every window we call for "a new number 1" and a "pacy winger." Offers hard work and is a team player. They should be a given. Versatile? Equally ineffective in a few positions. And scores "the odd goal!" You are stretching it there, literally one this season, one last. Youve literally listed goalscoring as one of his strengths.

There should be pre qualifiers. And on a seperate note, they shouldnt have increased the size of the World Cup to 48 teams and the Euros to 24 teams. As you said, harder not to qualify.

How is there pressure? From who?

Tough game tonight against a side ranked lower than Madagascar and Tajikstan. Pointless game.

Those same managers keep picking Pears. So based on your logic we shouldnt want him replaced, shouldnt focus on what he cant do and should see that they must see him as a good player?

Repeatedly picked in a position that is symptomatic of the lack of budget and poor recruitment over a number of years. Hence why people calling for "pacey wingers" has become a running joke. Hes a wide man who doesnt score, doesnt create, cant take on his full back, is slow and his decision making is poor. Might be a nice guy and might work hard but thats not enough. Some make out as if hes a brilliant player off the ball but I dont even think hes that.

Wing wizard Ryan Hedges is back? Maybe that play off push isnt as dead as we thought.

Dont forget our record away at promoted sides and its really difficult to look past a home win.

It would be best for him to leave permanently in the summer if anyone wants him in the lower leagues. He looked out of his depth last season which considering his age there certainly was no shame in, but hes struggled to get minutes even in League 1 and now League 2. I cant see him making it at this level similar to Markanday. Probably more chance of him and Buckley being our first choice midfield next season though knowing our owners.

Doesnt change anything that I said. Our negotiating position was weak because we was desperate to sell ASAP.

But the argument is that had we not been so desperate and had waited until at least the summer, to put ourselves in a much stronger negotiating position, that we would get more money. Not a bit more and with a reduction of the release clause whereby it somehow comes to being less overall.

That is based on the assumption that a sell on fee was instead of more money up front. Had we waited and not been as desperate then we should have been able to get more of a fee but still include the sell on. So say you receive £10m extra, the only difference beyond that is that the profit of any future sale is £10m less so the % of that is reduced, say by 12.5/15%.

Had he played more football for us then he likely would have improved upon and proved those weaker areas and generated more attention. Also, you downplay it but £18-20m is not an insignifant amount especially considering FFP to spend in January even if its a bargain as teams restructure their team more in the summer. But even if it was still only Palace, they would have had to pay more if we werent so desperate. We were desperate to sell, it was January and had he stayed he would have proven his quality more. I dont care about other incomparable players, England under 21 caps or Nixon rumours, its surely basic business logic that had we waited and not been so desperate we most likely would have got more.

You can go down the rabbit hole of well this player went for this, Nixon thinks this player is worth this, this player has these England under 21 caps, whatever. Surely it is common sense that if it wasnt in the much quieter January window, if we werent as desperate and if he had more experience and game time under his belt, we would naturally be in a position to get more money. There probably was a ceiling in that he would only ever go for the big, big money after proving himself in the Premier League. But due to the various circumstances leading to us pushing him out of the door, his value was reduced.

Typical refusal to believe that the club could have possibly done wrong. Of course as a Championship player there would always be a cap on his value. But common sense says, if we werent so desperate, had there likely been more interested parties in a summer window where teams naturally spend much more and after further proof of his ability playing for us, we could have got more. Its not even about direct comparisons to other players, its just logic based on our weak negotiating power. It doesnt matter anyway. £10m, £20m, £30m, it makes no difference to the club as we dont see a penny.

Its incredible revisionism to now have people suggesting that West Brom and Watford were wrong to sack him. Delusion.

So Ismael has done an excellent job in all 3 Championship clubs that he has been in, and his 2 sackings were unjust. Amazing that he hadnt been snapped up before he came here and that we even considered anyone else.

I dont think hes on a different planet, both are very good and probably at a similar level. But Palmer isnt a winger. Woud leave us imbalanced and sticking square pegs in round holes to try and force him in. (As I think would having Rice as the most defensive midfielder)

I disagree, I dont think he has the ability to play quick enough on the half turn, its not really his game. He has also shown for Arsenal in the last couple of years that he really benefits from having someone more disciplined next to him to allow him to roam more. Its a bit like Travis with us, although obviously Travis is nowhere near as good at it. Play him as the deepest midfielder and he is nowhere near as effective as having a Tronstad next to him. Rice was stifled at the Euros with more attack minded options beside him and the side was imbalanced.

The other argument is that managers havent finished higher than where Ismael was mid season since. Ismael had those clubs at stronger points than those since. West Brom as you say had just gone down, they finished the season Ismael left with Steve Bruce. Once they wasted that season, it naturally gets harder and harder to compete at the top and they have had financial issues since. The squad Cleverley got at Watford was weaker too.

The sell on is a seperate thing, its not as if it wouldnt have been included had we been in a position to get a bigger fee. Had we not been such distressed sellers then we could have got more had we waited. We were desperate to sell which weakened our bargaining power. Had we waited he would have had more time to prove how good he was/is. And crucially had it been in the summer, Premier League clubs naturally spend far more and buy more players so it likely wouldnt have been just Palace.