ExiledAjax

And back playing with his academy mate. Also, and this isn't directed at you, he's our player right? We signed him, and loaned him back. There's nothing to "cancel".

Probably going to equal the 12th place we achieved in 2019/20. Fewer scored as well though. But importantly the goal difference is looking better overall. That's really what matters in terms of goals scored or conceded. Perhaps. In some ways. In other ways looking quite static.

Feels almost like one we should just try. I'm pretty sure the penalty for fielding an ineligible player in a league game is simply a forfeit of any points gained in that match, plus a fine. We can take that penalty. It would have no effect on us. Could be that we try it. Test the EFL.

Largely I agree. I think Huddersfield have to at least get a draw today. They have to force Birmingham to require a result against Norwich on the last day. Playoffs are likely going to be decided today. Norwich have a much easier game home to Swansea than Hull do hosting Ipswich. A draw is enough for Norwich if Hull lose as well. I think Norwich will seal 6th today. That means Norwich v Birmingham is likely a dead rubber unless Huddersfield force the question. I agree that it's Birmingham/Huddersfield/Sheff Wed competing for one safe spot. Although having said that there is a (pretty unlikely) scenario where Plymouth are in 22nd tonight. That's the wildcard outcome that would really make next weekend interesting.

I said this a week or so ago and I don't think much has changed. "Birmingham's last game will likely have nothing on it for Norwich, and they may even rest up ahead of the playoffs. Huddersfield have a horrid last two games. Fail to beat Birmingham and I think they're in big trouble. But the massive variable is, as you say, that game between Huddersfield and Birmingham. If that goes the other way then Huddersfield probably stay up and Birmingham go down." I'd keep my money in my pocket personally - but I always do.

So it confirms Leicester's promotion right, as they can't be caught by both Leeds and Ipswich?

The length of contract remaining at the point of illness influences things as well. Making a few assumptions here but say Mowbray and Pearson were each told "you'll be too ill to work for the next 4 months". Well 4 months out of Mowbray's 2.5 year contract is less significant than 4 months of Pearson's remaining 8 months (at the time). So Birmingham would have had a harder time justifying a termination of Mowbray's contract on that basis. In our case we'd be saying "look, you're not capable of fulfilling 50% of the remaining contract" that radically changes things, and could permissably be a factor in the decision to terminate. I'm not saying any of the above is "right" or wrong, but it's a summary of part of the legal position.

Can be done, but doesn't have to be done. It is legally justifiable to terminate a contract of employment if the illness/incapacity of the employee is likely to make performance of the employee's duties either impossible or radically different. Whether or not a dismissal is justifiable depend on many factors. It's an area of law that is very complex, open to interpretation, heavily influenced by case law, and very very very dependent on the individual facts of each case. But there's far from a blanket prohibition on ending an employment contract for health reasons.

Late to this. Just listened. Probably don't have much new to add but I'll give my thoughts. God I'd forgotten how long he can talk after just saying "Hello". Although fair enough he admits he rambles, and Allardyce more than gives him a run for his money. On leaving us: "Get the exit clause [in the contract] watertight" and was it? "Yes". And there's confidentiality clauses (of course there are). So he can't tell us the official reasons that he was given, but we can assume he's been "looked after" in the settlement. But he can talk about what the club have already said in public - hence he can mention the deconditioning point and the results. It does not look good for the club that they gave reasons in public not given in private. Sounds as well like Pearson is a bit less litigious than old "pint of wine" Allardyce. Allardyce is clearly very well acquainted with the LMAs legal team! That means there may still be more to the story than we know, even after this interview. I love the bit on "success" and how it's not necessarily just trophies and wins. Absolutely true in all walks of life. There's an absolutely top example of the diversity training kicking in with the "him OR her" when talking about the man OR woman in the middle. Very enjoyable to hear that, made me smile. Finally, I'd like to apologise to Nigel for ever calling him a curmudgeonly old man. Allardyce is a curmudgeonly old man. Good lord the size of the chip on that bloke's shoulder.

Perhaps, but there are circumstances where you can dismiss someone due to ill health if you can justify it. It's a complex area of employment law though.

I think what I am trying to say is that I think we need to concentrate on raising the average ability of the squad, or perhaps better to say shrink the gap between our best players and our worst (importantly by raising the floor rather than dropping the ceiling). Essentially trying to have it so that if we do get injured the players that come in are of a similar ability to those that are injured. Hopefully that reduces the drop off in performance as much as possible, so ideally giving a smoother season. Very theoretical, and obviously hard to actually deliver, but it's where I'd focus on depth and quality rather than raw number of bodies.

Well. Shit. I am pretty keen to see these two reunited in our midfield.

It's a pretty profligate strategy from me though. I go back to Afobe for an example. We signed a very good player, an ambitious signing, hell maybe even the fabled "marquee" signing. He started brilliantly scoring and even seemingly rejuvenating another expensive yet failing signing (Palmer)...then injured. Now, I'd not suggest we should have signed a "spare" Afobe, but that's the kind of transfer disaster we at least need to think about trying to mitigate. Ps. I mentioned Mehmeti especially for you.

@Silvio Dante and @Davefevs I think we'd also need to allow for failed transfers. Although we've maybe been a little better over the last few windows, generally I'd guess that at least 1 in 3 transfers are "failures" or don't succeed to the extent hoped. For every Dickie and Sykes there's a Mehmeti* or Mebude. Therefore really, to give us a hope that two work out, I'd say we'd need net 3 incoming. Unless of course Tinman has absolutely nailed this window already and the shortlist is absolutely infallible. *he might have had a couple of good games recently, but this summer we need immediate success, not a season and a half of getting used to the idea of actually passing the ball every now and then.

In which case no, I don't think two will be enough. We've suffered twice this season, once when shifting manager and style, and once where we had an injury crisis. That second lull (which chronologically was first) can be protected against somewhat by having a broader squad. I think that's what we need to take us up from the band in 8-14th to that in 5th-10th.

Agree on both those figures for those two. I'll just say that £15k is about the max we have been paying over the last couple of seasons. It's probably about what our top earners are on. We might stretch a bit towards £17k for someone really special, but more than that and I think we're at our limit. So, if our limit is therefore players of the quality of Vyner, Knight, Twine - then it's about getting more of that standard in. Improve the depth of the squad and the breadth of the quality. Go from a strong first 15 to a strong first 17. It could be enough to just get us the 10 extra points we need (just 3 wins and 1 draw) to be in that playoff mix in 12 month's time.

I think two properly ambitious and quality signings would be enough. But, I don't think this is the summer to sign "ones for the future" (especially given we already have Stokes, Murphy, and Bird). If there ever was a time to go a little harder and spend two lots of £3m and £15k a week on some absolute class, it's now.

If what you're trying to do is get people to use the seat, then incentivise that rather than punish the opposite. Maybe a 1% discount on next season's ST for every game attended this season. Allows for a STholder to earn up to a 23% discount, and every STholder would earn something, even if they only attended a single game. This also protects some of the income the club receives. Stripping someone of an ST creates a bad feeling between them and the Club, maybe they don't buy another ST, maybe they persuade someone else not to renew in protest. The club might lose that ST, and as we've not got a waiting list, nor a huge queue for POTD, we're relatively unlikely to recoup it elsewhere. I'd be really interested to see whether Brighton actually see any impact from a policy such as you say they have.

I think they need to get enforcement of the current rules and Laws sorted before a few new ones get added.

Nah. We've seen plenty of runs where we've played ok but had bad results, and fans get angsty. I've been told enough times that "the only stat that matters is the scoreline". I don't think most fans go much deeper than the scoreline.

The club must be so happy that we've managed to put a little run of results just at the right time.

Which Tommy, and Tommy's agent, will know. They'll also know that strikers get paid more than CBs. Yes Tommy is a contract below Vyner in his "contract cycle", but I'm sure he'll be asking, quite fairly, to be one of our top paid players.

I should clarify - my post was meant as a cold statement of fact rather than an argument for us to move heaven and earth to re-sign Tommy. He has a good enough record, and market conditions (ie a lack of young out and out strikers with a decent record) mean he will get another club without issue, but I don't think that necessarily means we should offer him. Yes he's a Taunton boy, and believe me I love us having academy products in our team, but there will be other options.

A 21 year old striker who's scored roughly a goal every 225 minutes for two seasons (noted penalties) will have absolutely no issue at all getting a contract at a Championship club. Any club that feels they can give Tommy the right service will be queuing up for him. I'd be surprised to see him stay tbh.

Frazer was shit, almost felt like she'd not read it. Debbonaire was much better. Crouch's bit quoting the PL submission to the FLR was exceptional. Largely a bunch of grandstanding, and some of the MPs who spoke were clearly just there for the banter and didn't have any idea about football. But it was interesting, and hopefully some of the amendments we've suggested get accepted.