Adam P

TCD can recognise a baller when he sees one but clearly he has no idea who is actually in charge. I think thats fair enough, his talent is in recognising how slow players are before he watches them, not who makes sure the electricity bill gets paid at the training ground.

Learnt your lesson, been pessimistic ever since

Easiest thing in the world to be negative, to claim an action has a risk, its the simplest position to take. I hate it at work, people running round finding reasons not to do things. People of clear true leadership and vision who show the way forward (and i am referring to joeyt here) are brave and courageous.

She's spot on as usual.

Asian snide shirt market and teetotalism have far reaching consequences.

And you'd think someone smart enough to use Latin in the user name would have enough cash to buy a pint and contribute towards our new back up LB. Ffs.

Fortunately we arent located in downtown Manhattan.

You've got talent mate.

I'd start my poem about him like that i reckon.

Anderson needs to run down his contract at Forest and then get the fuck home.

Changes the price maybe? If Wissa was refusing to train and saying 'if you dont sell me i will refuse to play', then i dont see how Brentford get 55m. I can see how we only got 125m as Isak went scorched earth.

What exactly did Wissa do? He left their pre-season for talks with the owners and then it was leaked that during that meeting he had threatened not to play for them again. Did he then go back to training with them or did he then go on strike?

My (pet) theory on PSR is that the regulated financial loss was set at a prohibitive rate in direct relation to the existing revenues of the financially biggest clubs. The figure isnt arbitrary. It possible that it was set in the context of the total revenues of the most powerful clubs. If a 200m revenue club can lose e.g. 300m over 3 years instead of 110m then a 200m club can act (for a while) like a 500m reveune club and compete directly. Roughly speaking of course. Doubling the PSR loss threshold from 100 to 200m would be financially irrelevant to a lot of PL owners who want to spend more and would free those clubs to compete on a more level basis. How its not inflation adjusted upwards is beyond me.

I think Edwards told the truth. Up until the PIF/Reuben vist to Isak's house, the club was determined to keep him. Then PIF folded. On the other hand, whoever was feeding him that line from the club would have also known that PIF might fold. So he was acting as the mouthpiece of the club.

Still painfully shy after all these years?

I like Craig, he does a reasonable job. I'd rather eat a pie with him than Lee Ryder, pastry flakes flying everywhere and curry sauce on his chin.

I agree we folded but what he apparently said was 'i will continue to refuse to train or play if you dont let me go' which for me explains the fold from PIF. A harsh decision for PIF to make and as @Mattoon just said, one that a fan wouldnt take but may prove to be the right one for the long term health of the club.

Good question. We dont know as we werent in that room with Yasir and Jamie.

A good strategy has to be formed out of the realm of what is possible. To explain why i am making these points, 'Dont sell to Liverpool' is equivalent to a 'Keep Isak' strategy when Liverpool are the only ones who want to spend 130m and the player wont go anywhere else. @r0cafella

Areet Herr Flick, i hear you.

I may have got it wrong but my understanding was that you both had the same strategy (dont sell) all summer but then the club folded whereas you said you wouldnt have folded.

Sorry thats just wrong Andy (hi by the way), a good strategy has back up and mitigation. Yasir and Jamie going to Isak's house last week with one last ditch desperate attemtp to persuade him to stay and then pressing the button on the Woltemade deal basically confirms what i am saying.

Howay man. I am saying that was the strategy set out in March, during the now well reported meetings on Isak. That strategy was deemed to be too costly for the club in the last week of August. Back up and scenario planning had to happen. The difference is that you say you would have followed it through and let him strike until January. The club deemed this too costly. I prefer 'obtuse' to deliberately dense but no, i believe the point i am making.

They followed the strategy up until the point he told them he would stay on strike until January, then they pivoted to a 130m and 2 fantastic players. A good strategy only survives until contact with the enemy, as they say. Meaning when shit really hits the fan, you need to adapt. The team met in March and war-gamed the summer and devised a plan to keep him. That plan fell apart when Isak joined a very small group of cunts in refusing to play for us again. At that moment, not adapting your strategy has bigger costs to the long term health of the club.