Agree. And until someone meets our valuation he’s our player and will play, otherwise it shows we are hoping to cash in and all the ‘poker face’ will have been futile.
Also I’m sure the experts @Mr Popodopolous and @Davefevs will correct me, but whilst SL may want to sell, the reality is he’s still chucking a decent amount in this season to cover losses, Scott sale or not. We’ll have an immediate cash flow/P&L impact for first instalment but the rest is balance sheet creditors (I think, but could well be wrong).
Given reporting periods it means no difference to us if the same happens in August or in January. In January it’s much more a seller’s market so it might be worth the risk of injury / loss of form to get to that period.
What is pretty clear by now is there are only really two suitors - wolves and bmouth, with the potential for one or two other clubs coming in from desperation towards the end of the window. Neither of these genuine suitors I would gurss are particularly attractive to Alex Scott, hence not seeing any discontent from his side.
When you know there are only really two genuine buyers, and one of them can’t actually afford the deal anyway, I really do think he’s still going to be our player on 1 Sept, and we go on with a view to selling in January if we feel that’s the right footballing decision.
SL covers the cost of Alex Scott yearly in his owner’s contributions. Even if we sell, given it’s in instalments and add ons, selling or not won’t push the needle too far on what he’s covering at the end of 2024 given we will spend something (despite what the club says).