Viana

I think there's no denying Cucurella is good player. That said, I have a hard time deciding whether he'd be worth what Chelsea would want. I think he was a beneficiary of the Brighton system in the sense it was highly structured and allowed him to be on the ball a lot. Chelsea's system last year was the opposite of that, hence why I struggle to decide where the truth sits. Personally, if we're going hard for a left-back, be it to replace Burn or compete with him, I'd prefer them to either be a Trippier type who can create chances from deep and essentially operate as a wide playmaker, or someone with genuine speed and agility to stretch the pitch.

I had a good chuckle at this. Luke giving it the big un, when his exclusive turned out to be a smokescreen.

I still don't understand how Chelsea are able to drop these bids in. I thought much of the selling this summer was about them balancing the books of their January spending?

That's a great point. You could absolutely start by making it so clubs can only include one in a deal.

Easy way to boost followers and engagement doing crossover posts like this.

I think it's a difficult situation because of football being a contradiction. Every team has the same chance of winning the league (statistically) on the first day of the season. We both know the reality of the situation is that there's only three or four teams that feel viable as candidates to win the league. After that you do have a decent amount of chopping and changing among the teams. Leicester going down showed that. The reason I say all of this is because it makes governance difficult. Ideally you'd want the laws to help the smaller clubs and impede the bigger clubs to boost competition - a bit like the NBA draft lottery - but you can't because every team is supposed to be treat equally. Even my sliding scale has some issues because if you buy a player from the lower leagues and develop him then you're cheating that team out of vital money. Caps would have the same issue sadly.

There's a pretty fatal flaw in that system though. Say, for example, Everton sign Brennan Johnson. They couldn't include a sell on because Everton just finished below Forest. I can already see the lawyers lining up to argue it's anti-competition to remove clauses like this and limit teams' ability to generate revenue through player trading. You'd be better off saying that players under 23 see their sell on % decrease year on year they stay at the buying club. It wouldn't help Lavia, but it would help others.

I wonder if Southampton have a similar crap deal with Lavia whereby they need a fat fee to offset a sell on clause.

Joelinton comparisons feel spot on to me. Gordon has shown he's quite versatile and adaptable. Now it's about that skillset being applied to a particular role. Lee Carsley - England U21s manager - seems to have figured out what that role is. I think after watching him for six months, his upsides are that he can press quite relentlessly, carries it well, and can take up good positions. He's not blessed with a variety of tricks, but he's direct and that fits our system quite well. He'll be challenged when we come up against deep blocks, but even saying that he always looks keen to play quick combinations.

I'm a tad skeptical about the Kalvin Phillips and Conor Gallagher talk to be honest. Whether it was a bad headline writer or not, Luke Edwards went big on Barella and then it went dead. The same was true of Felix Nmecha and now Tino Livramento. Signing Gallagher would feel like spending big money on a player that's a lesser version of Sandro Tonali. We already have players in that mold with Joe Willock and Joelinton. As for Phillips, I can't see Man City doing us any favors on a fee, and I think if we're going for a player in that age bracket if they're available for a lesser fee (he's not) or they're truly elite and will move the needle (he won't).

I sometimes wonder if RTG is a circle of folk who are all so terrified of being deemed a 'mag' that they feel a need to prove how pro-Sunderland they are. The club isn't a mess anymore which is good for the region. At the same time, they have a lot of young, largely untested players. I think they could ask 25m for Clarke if he hadn't already had one go at the Premier League.

Credit to Klopp, he's somehow managed to raise that ceiling.

Ludwig Francillette.

I wouldn't herald the end of Ashby just yet. He needs football and so I think he'll be loaned and Livramento will be added into the rotation of league and cup.

Exactly. Whether he's taken a pragmatic approach (more first team opportunities) or an emotional one (I'm happy here, I feel valued) he's made the right call.

The thing is; I hear the odd story via a mate of my brother's who works at the club. It's interesting to hear, but the thought of being 'ITK' is so painful.

I actually remember reading many thought he’d be found out here due to a perceived lack of pace.

Yeah I have the program downloaded on my laptop.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I tried there (set to England Manchester) and it still spotted me as being a dirty forrin. Is my cookies/cache giving me away?

The more I think on Maddison the less excited I am by him.

The slight issue with wrong footed CBs is similar to full backs really. Their weak foot being inverted (a lefty playing on the right for example) forces them inside.

"I no longer wish to eat pizza tonight, bring me a tumble dryer."

The beauty of born has always been his adaptability. You can switch to a three in possession to stretch the pitch, move him centrally if there's an injury, or just play him as a fullback that will take the ball and try to get forward. He doesn't excel in attack, but he's willing to get forward and overlap.

It's not the worst outcome if he goes there; he knows the place, performed well at that level. As with any young player, however, you typically want them playing at a higher standard each time. The Premier League would be a challenge for him now, and it would also test how well he adapts when the team isn't built around him like it was there.

Basically broke even on Havertz and pocketed 20m for Mount. It's not a terrible outcome. I do feel like they've mis-managed Mount. Havertz I'm less convinced by, personally, but given he made a name for himself as a 10/winger seems a bit daft to use him as a false 9. Interesting. I find it telling we didn't go back. The fee appeared to be around that 40-50m mark and on paper he's a standard number six that can also drop into defense if needs be.