Abacus

From the Birmingham mail. It was third time lucky for Steve Bruce as he finally signed Jed Wallace for West Bromwich Albion after two failed attempts at previous clubs. “I think I’ve tried to buy Jed twice before and not been able to get him,” Bruce revealed. “He’s a very good player, and so is Swift. They’ve added that little bit of quality, which is what we needed at the top end of the pitch." “Can I reveal a secret now? He was at our game on the last day of the season," admitted Bruce. "That’s how long ago we were planning. I shouldn’t really say that, but there you go, if I get into trouble, so be it." A few things from a small amount of words. 1. Top end of the pitch. That phrase infuriates me, as it's his usual lack of precision or understanding of football and he uses it every time. He's just saying roughly whereabouts he wants stuff to happen. Ah, top end of the pitch Steve? Want more goals, right? It's a bit like when he tried to explain how league tables worked. 2. Cosying up to the press by giving them his 'secrets'. In this case, that secret is that he seems to have tapped up a player. 3. Lack of doing his job. So, he is making a virtue of thinking about a specific player on the last game of the previous season, before the new one starts. What forward planning, to be thinking literally one game ahead! 4. It's also a player he had just admitted he'd tried to buy twice before for different clubs, so it's not like he'd put any real thought into it anyway. He just tries to buy the same players again and again regardless of what's needed (see Choudhury, Hamza). What a stupid hopeless oaf. Good old Steve. One fawty two, one fawty three (using his own mental counting system and clapping his hands).

I was thinking about this the other day too, and it's yet another bit of damage Ashley did. I remember when we first signed a few talented players from France under MA, and a few of them were saying how they'd seen the likes of Ginola playing for us, so they knew it was a big club. Rewind the last 14 years and we've been a stepping stone club treading water ever since. It's no wonder players in their early 20's with a bit of ambition barely know us. So, cheers Mike. And well done to whoever persuaded Botman to join, the only way to start to turn this around.

Good idea. I assume it's a bit like when you go on holiday, realise you've forgotten your toothbrush and so pick one up in the terminal. Imagine being a Sunderland fan going to Newcastle airport and suddenly realising you've forgotten to wear your football shirt. A valuable emergency service.

I'd love to sign this Paqueta fella, if he's available. I've seen people debating where he'd fit in our midfield. But there's a good post on another thread about the impact of bring in the 5 subs rule, where more quality in depth will be a real advantage. That's quite apart from the benefits of having competition for places and potentially being able to mix up your tactics. Though, I do agree that a striker and a winger are the priority for now.

I wish he'd bought Derby now. Would have kept him busy ruining someone else's lives instead. That said, I've got nothing against Derby fans. So I don't know what I'm saying, except wishing he'd go away.

Jeff Hendrick has played 60 times for Ireland. They can have him for free, if it settles this rivalry once and for all.

Agree with this. That dressing room sounds toxic and with a lot of overpriced rubbish.

Well, I think the club should send him a text saying he was shit anyway and we faked it every time.

If we get a couple of decent forward players, I'd say; Realistic - 9th / 10th with a cup run Optimistic -6th. That's finishing above the 'best of the rest' and rattling one of last year's top 6. Of those, I really think Man U are there to be got at whilst they rebuild (again) - they were certainly a bit weak last season. Some form of European football would be a great lure for us to new players.

I believe it would, I'm afraid. If you build a new stadium, you don't account for the cost all in year 1 - you spread the cost over multiple years. But it still hits your P&L, every year. A bit like player transfer fees, just over a longer period. But in the case of a stadium, it would count as infrastructure costs, and the annual cost could be excluded from FFP. FFP used to be all about limiting player transfer spend and wages. It explicitly said other costs were excluded because they didn't want to discourage worthwhile long term investment. Interestingly though, with FFP version 1, if a player had already been signed on a big contract before those rules came in, the costs for those players that had already been signed were excluded too. What's the betting there is a similar exemption for any current big clubs who have already spent a fortune on new stadiums (and already earn more income as a result)? If you were suspiciously minded, it might seem like a double pincer movement. First limit income and sponsorships, then restrict what can be spent building your club, so it's even harder to make more income organically too. Anyone would think it feels like a blatant stitch up, and might wonder what has caused it to be introduced all of a sudden...

I thought Chelsea's new owners were required to spend over a billion on infrastructure (new stadium, mainly) as part of the takeover. Not sure they'd look at it too favourably either if that's the case.

I hope we do challenge this legally. How can they just come up with this rubbish? Although, they do seem to say it's OK if people put equity in (which our owners have already done once). But, leaving that aside, just imagine if you took out the infrastructure bit and just said that spending to develop the women's team was to be restricted. The reaction would be immense.

This deal has ekitaken a turn for the worse. Or has it? Stepping back for a bit. He has had one breakout season, which was hampered a bit by injuries in the second half. Clearly very young and with time to develop, but you wonder whether he would slot straight into the first team in the PL anyway. There's a risk signing any young player if they don't develop as you'd hope, and that's before all this noise about his agent. I'm wondering whether it was better to pull out anyway, and maybe come back in a year or two if he develops. Yes there's a risk you end up paying far more for an established player later on, but there's already a risk in paying £30m for someone raw, who may not be happy, may not work and may not go straight into the first team. And stepping back even further, from a transfer point of view, it's surely not be a bad thing to make a statement by turning down unreasonable demands. It's not January and we're not Stewart Donald desperately trying to buy Will Grigg on Netflix.

No-one has even mentioned Jimmy Nail.

You worry a bit for Leeds. First Phillips, but also constant links about Raphinha. Fine, decent money assuming one or both go, but even with that I think they would struggle to attract replacements post Bielsa and they only narrowly avoided the drop last year as it was.

It's certainly a very specific number of people that he needs for his confusing rampage. Still. Nice that he ends by quoting One Love by Bob Marley.

I literally have no clue what he's like, having never seen him play. But I'm excited anyway! It's like when you used to buy a new player and then you started itching for pre season friendlies to start, so you could catch the first glimpse of them to debate whether they were any good with your mates in the pub. We didn't really get the chance for that same buzz with Bruno, because we were all just mainly fretting whether we'd stay up or not too much to enjoy it at the time.

I'm really pleased with this, assuming it comes off. It also means I can also be even more biased and jeer that menace Pickford even more, wanting Pope to become England's No1.

Interesting if it's true that they have walked away from Ekitike. But seemingly not (yet) from Botman. I wonder if that says anything about their priorities. I mean, probably not, but it doesn't stop me from speculating. Could also be quite an effective scare tactic to get Lille to pull their finger out and stop messing around.

Quite happy with this. Unless of course we do end up buying him. Then I'll be quite happy with that.

Can't see he's done a lot wrong there.

I thought the other guy was Juan Sartori, a failed Uruguayan politician. I mean, either way it all sounds very promising.

I don't understand their ownership thing. They were desperate for Stewart and Methven to go, and I thought all the talk was about someone else coming in and there being offers on the table for that. In fact wasn't that reported on Sky? So all that really seems to have happened is a slight juggling about of the shares. The trust fund owner doesn't seem to have bought them out either. Does that mean there weren't any serious bidders, or that they ran off? Owning that place seems like a game of pass the parcel, where the prize is a shit sandwich.

Phonecalls from Edwards, I think he means.

Happy enough with Pope - more so than Henderson. As has been said, he'd be an upgrade on Darlow at the very least. We bought a right pair of plums with him and Lascelles. Send them both back to Nottingham, I say, with no chance of parole.