I think you're rewriting history a bit on how 'good' of a signing Szmodics was when he joined. He'd made 39 appearances in the Championship prior to signing for us and hardly shone during that period. He'd had two good seasons in League One, but 'standout' might be a bit strong. I don't think he was in the team of the year for League One the season before we signed him and there was hardly huge enthusiasm surrounding the signing at the time. Too old to be a prospect and fundamentally unproven at the level we were at. It paid off, and then some, but it didn't exactly seem like an incredible signing at the time.

It may partially be in jest, but it's a valid point. We don't complain about the system when we benefit from it.

Well, you know, sometimes I get the boys to translate for me and, you know, the boys tell me if, you know, remove most of the filler words that you might, you know, understand what he's saying about the boys, you know.

Eustace can barely speak English. He will fit right in.

If the replacement scores 7/8 and our total goals output as a team is higher than last year then I will certainly view that as an improvement. As with all stats, the context can get very complex, but looking at total team performance would be a better indicator. No matter who we keep or sign, we probably won't get another year our of Szmodics like last year, so we've already got goals to replace as it stands.

All stats need more context - including the with and without record. That being said, I expect a forward to be scoring goals. If they aren't, you're in a bit of trouble. It's also far easier to replace a forward who just does a decent defensive shift than it is to find someone who can score or create goals. Sam Gallagher is not a very good footballer. He can prove me wrong, but he's failed to do so over the past few seasons.

I've probably watched 95% of our matches during the Sam Gallagher era. What exactly has his contribution been? He scored 3 goals in 1,721 Championship minutes for us last season. I'm happy to bet any amount of money that you want that any forward (and by that I don't mean winger, although even they will probably manage it) we have that plays over 1,700 minutes will score at least 4 goals.

Bottom half starter? Squad player? He's 28 and he scores a goal 1 in every 5 appearances for a side that has actually not struggled to score goals during much of his time at this club. We've seen two players go from nothing to being prolific goal machines in that time and yet he can barely get on the end of a chance. He's not good. I don't expect his replacement to be worse than him and that isn't me being optimistic about our future signings.

Will it? I've genuinely seen nothing from Sam Gallagher to make me think that he is anything close to an average Championship player. I honestly believe that the only thing going for him is that he looks good. I don't mean because he's relatively tall and looks strong, but he actually just looks like he should be a good footballer. Signing someone who looks like Gallagher feels better than signing someone who looks like Paul Dickov. I know which player I'd rather have. We won't be weaker for losing Gallagher and any money that we get for him is a blessing.

The initial fees, yes, but some future clauses that relate to first-team appearances and that will be triggered (likely) after a certain age may be a different thing. Not to mention any sell-on clauses that will impact the 'pure' profit nature of an academy signing.

It might not be literal peanuts to a club carefully watching FFP.

Totally agree. And if any other Championship club signed him we'd be hearing the 'why aren't we investing in experience' argument.

I understand the 'recruitment being motivated by finances' line, although I slightly disagree with it. It seems that Szmodics wants out - who could blame him - and that he has a gentleman's agreement in place to leave. That has been the story of my life as a Rovers supporter. Nothing new here. As for Gallagher? He's a bit rubbish and he has a year left on his contract. Get rid. Almost any warm body will match his performances and output. The most compelling argument for keeping him has been that he's useful for defensive corners. Think about that. Supporting this club is depressing at the moment, but these outgoings aren't really the issue. I'm happy to see some players coming in and I hope that they prove to be a great success. I wasn't excited when Szmodics signed and now we're all sad to see him leave.

This isn't 1992, there's no reason to be concerned about an ACL injury that a player had 5 years ago.

This is in addition to Mafoumbi? We should definitely be raiding Ligue 1/2 more often than we do. Clubs like Nantes have incredibly prolific youth setups.

That isn't splitting hairs. City can buy the best players in the world. Southgate can select from the best players in England. It's a massive difference. But you're fixating on only one of the points I made. Probably best to just leave it there.

No, it isn't at all the same. First of all, Manchester City can buy players. They can identify weaknesses in their first 11 and squad and go out and make improvements. England have a glaring shortage at left back, but can't do too much about it for the time being. City would simply go out and sign a left back and solve that problem in a single summer. Secondly, it would be like judging Guardiola purely on the Champions League. League competition typically allows class and consistency to shine through - both of which England have shown under Southgate. The problem is delivering in one-off matches against good-quality opposition. It is virtually impossible to compare international football to club football in terms of how you would assess success. Southgate gets a chance to win something once every 2 years. Guardiola has two big competitions a season to win and if he wins either of them the season is a success (not to mention being able to throw in a handful of other competitions that can sweeten the deal). Apples. Oranges.

It's not at all the same.

The reality is, 8-10m is probably fair for a soon to be 29 year old who's been plying his trade below the Championship for most of his career. He's had one very impressive season, but that's really it. We would have snapped anyone's hands off had they offered 8m a season ago and there's a good chance that 12 months from now he's coming off the back of a 10-15 goal season in the Championship where his value will drop. I'm against selling him because we won't see any of the money and it will just weaken our team, but it's actually somewhat fair value for a player of his skill level, experience, and age. Any club signing him will know that he will have virtually no re-sell value (assuming they hold onto him until he is 31/32).

I think there are more delicate ways of approaching both of those questions that might result in a conversation. Regarding his qualifications, I think speaking about inexperience is a legitimate line of questioning. When it comes to his refusal to play, I think we are more likely to ask something along the lines of how have his views on unhappy players changed now that he's in an admin role and how might he deal with players who are as frustrated or unhappy as he was during periods of his career. So, there are differences between softball interviews and coming across like an angry fan trying to shout down a club official.

You won't have to listen. I'm sure there's a fence somewhere that you can work on.

Good question.

It's a good question. I think we will likely have him on after the window has closed. That will give us the advantage of being able to properly judge the summer's transactions and also give him enough time in the role for us to feel like he can't just avoid questions by saying that he is still getting up to speed.

There's a difference between a softball interview and being so challenging with a guest that they either leave or don't consent to an episode being published. We could get him on and ask him very aggressively about his qualifications or his refusal to play when he was manufacturing a move and it would result in us not having an interview. I would suggest that you hold off any criticism until you hear the actual interview - if you ever even listen to it.

You can do that, but then you can't use actual results and success as assessment criteria.