Davefevs

Agree, you start high and as per Monty Python “you gotta haggle”! ? What we start to see through this and similarly with the Semenyo £12m stuff is people guessing / making it up. It’s always round numbers, no detail of what might make up the add-ons, etc. Its quite possible alongside a sell-on percentage, we might also have the following (some, all or none): - international caps - appearances, typically 20 game thresholds up to 100, but doesn’t have to be so prescribed - relegation avoidance - promotion - etc I do know that we received money for Brownhill for Burnley staying up. For Kelly, we got appearance bonuses. We made some decent money out of these two on top of their initial fee. Unless someone like Kid hears specific detail, then most if this will be pure guesswork until we see any accounts and try to trace it back.

Naismith seen training. Kalas / Wilson not far off.

It’ll be whatever arrangement the clubs come to. Could be offered back for free.

Will be interesting to see whether they get anything. As I understand it Guernsey (and Oxford City who we signed Ewan Clark from in the summer) are outside the PL/EFL EPPP Academy system, so it’s quite likely we paid them (and Oxford City) a nominal fee as a bit of goodwill to “compensate” them for their “development time” rather than official EPPP compensation. If that includes any add-ons I don’t know. It’s possible that there aren’t any! If Scott does move, I’ll be checking Guernsey and Tony Vance’s tweets to see if they mention anything!!! Last night was the first time I wondered whether a sell and loan-back might be a possibility.

I suspect our EFL season will finish on or before QPR on 6th May ??? Unlikely that we’d move all the various company accounts.

May 31st. I wonder if there’s a realisation that we can’t shift certain players / enough players to generate some real freshness in the squad…so more drastic measures are required. Scott will leave a big hole, but I think we could temporarily fix this window, e.g. someone like Laurent who Stoke are looking for offers for. Maybe we could do a loan with option to buy / obligation if we stay up. He’s the kind of physical CM who might suit our current situation. Agree with Pete and Kid that this is club pushing this info out there.

I guess an explanation of name wouldn’t go amiss. Could be Steve Pazza for all I know.

In fairness @SPAZZAis a decent poster (even for a Dirty Leeds fan) on here, so let’s cut him a bit of slack. But when the likes of Keane Lewis-Potter went for circa £18m in the summer, a year older, without the youth pedigree of Scott, you can see why Scott is being mentioned in the £20m+ bracket.

Wrong thread! ???

I honestly can’t imagine we’d sell for anything less than £20m…and that £20m will have several clauses on top too. That might mean we’ve priced him out if the market, but there’s so much interest in him from so many PL clubs that someone will do it to get him. Maybe not this window, but summer otherwise. That’s my genuine thoughts on this. Normally I’d say that is too much, but he’s a bigger prospect than Lloyd Kelly for example. He’s a proper journo.

Shitting myself a bit here, not gonna lie.

Too quick.

You are right.

Talking of Martin, I had Chris Martin down as top scorer this season, mainly off of the back of pens. What a tit I am ???

Funnily enough when injuries got the better of my own playing it was all the pre-match stuff that I missed rather than the playing itself.

Another good post. It’s hard at the mo’ isn’t it? OTIB I mean, not City ????? Seriously though, it’s really frustrating, but I don’t got to any game thinking “3 points today”. We are a team where 8+ players need to have good games to give us a chance of winning. I still look forward to going though.

Don’t disagree with any of that RR. Proof of pudding will be Saturday….assuming some of them make it onto the pitch during the 90! Might be a reason why some aren’t getting into the eleven might it!

That’s just your view that it doesn’t suit. Nige is saying it does suit, hence why he’s playing it when his preference is a back four. He hasn’t insisted on it (a back 3) his whole tenure either. That’s blatantly not true. Re your second point, tell me who hadn’t been given a chance and not been worked with. Even Bakinson got several bites of the cherry before Nige realised he was wasting his time. So, a group of players that have the ability to play well in patches, but inconsistent….how does that equate to a good squad? Not aimed at you btw.

Just picking one bit - width - as an example. We had loads and loads v Coventry (h), we had 40+ crosses that night. We’ve had games leading up to the WC break where we couldn’t go through the middle so everything was through wide areas. The fact that we were crap in our execution (Sykes and Dasilva the main protagonists! ?) doesn’t mean we didn’t play with width…which is what you’re claiming. All three goals at Rotherham came from crosses, as did Wells’s goal v Stoke (h), as did Semenyo’s on Sunday. How many crosses did we flash across the goal on Sunday? I think you’ve got to a point where you aren’t gonna see anything in a good way. That’s your prerogative. I get that. I agree that in some games we do bits of everything you say too, e.g. press like a bunch of individuals, but you’ve reached a point that one bad thing seems to tar you’re whole view. That’s fine also. It frustrates me too. It must be incredibly hard for you to watch and enjoy at the mo. That’s not me criticising you either, just where I think you are at this moment in time (over a period). We all go through it, not necessarily football either. I hope it comes back. It doesn’t make you any less of a City fan either. Up the reds.

@Johnny Musicworksalluded to, this might’ve been more about getting minutes into players legs. Result isn’t hugely important. Individual performance levels, effort levels, will be of interest to Nige, Jason and Tins undoubtedly. I only watch first half, I thought Williams was the pick of the first teamers. I don’t think any of the others who’ve been around the 18 will be worrying the first eleven on Saturday. But should they be needed off the bench, they’ve at least had 90 mins. Bigger picture at play here imho.

Was that the tweet Geoff read out last night? Sounds like it. Arghhhhhhh! If the transfer market didn’t implode I believe we would’ve got some fees for the players we let go OOC, or those coming up to going OOC. But we’d also have carried on paying £20k p.w wages, spending money on players, and still be making losses far bigger than we ought to. The quality of squad diminished massively when Webster and Brownhill went. This is the problem I thought we were sleep-walking into. Covid hastened it, but only slightly. Covid allowances have saved our bacon. The reality of no incomings, players leaving for zilch / some at a cost (like Nagy and Palmer) was gonna happen anyway imho. It’s why I’ve been moaning about the finances for the last 3/4 years having started getting into the detail 5/6 years ago. It was coming…I still can’t believe SL couldn’t see it. Absolutely….but it’s massively influenced by what happens off of it! ?

Firstly it’s more than a formation, which is what some people like to think. In fairness I think we have been able to play our game in lots of matches (impose not always, I accept, but that’s a strong word). I’ve noticed us play lots of different ways this season, not just formation driving that. I honestly don’t think you’re watching closely enough if you thought Sunday was the first time we’ve changed at home. That’s not me trying to be rude Neil, just that I’ve seen evolution in the way we’ve played, some through personnel, some through system, some because of opponents, making us do different things, etc.. some of that evolution has been effective, some of it counter productive. The example you give is a set play, that happens 6-12 times a game. I don’t like it either, but that’s just a small part of the plan. What do you think might be a reason why we are playing less through the midfield and then out to the WBs of late? It’s an easy “criticism” to make, but why do you think that is? For me, Initially the absence of Naismith, then the absence of James, meaning we then changed to a flatter three in midfield, meaning we missed that “break the lines” ability, firstly from Naismith as the passer, but also the likes of Weimann, as the receiver in the pockets (repositioning to either RWB or RCM), whilst James positioned himself to provide a bit of protection. That’s an example about how we’ve tried to adapt, it’s not the only reason I dare say either. Incidentally our goals conceded have gone down as a result, but we’ve lost a bit of that attacking threat as a result. There is a lot of cause and effect out there. Naismith is now LCB3, that’s a change, pros and cons to it too. I’m just waiting for the change to a back four as the golden ticket and then the realisation from fans that players will still make individual mistakes regardless of formation, and that there will be games when we can’t get the ball up the pitch effectively. We might create an element of surprise for a game or two, but teams will get wise to that too. Going back to your initial question. I think we have a mixed system, we try to pass through the thirds when we can, but we are also accepting that we can’t play like that all the times. Sometimes we will play through central positions, sometimes we play through wide areas. Much will depend on gone state, opponents, our own personnel. We will also look to play fast in transition and attempt killer pass early in the phase. We aren’t a team that passes for passing’s sake, nor are we a team that just want to camp behind the ball and play counter-attacking football only. We don’t have enough quality or the right players to rigidly play like Swansea or Burnley, nor like Millwall either. But we saw against both Swansea and Millwall how we can reduce their effectiveness whilst increasing ours. Swansea got forced into pumping long balls second half, didn’t they? What do you think it is out of interest?

I quite like NW too….the only real time I don’t like him is when he’s in the opposing dugout, but I think he’s a good manager.

Just listened to that bit and think Warnock is actually saying he has done pretty much what Pearson has.

Because the plan was to impose our game (which we are familiar with) on our opponent and make them change. But we didn’t execute it, and felt the best way was to change.