The Larch

Can't we just re-sign Steve Bruce for 20kGSB per week and lay him out in front of goal?

Variety is the spice of life! My scapegoat will firmly remain joe willock

There always has to be someone to whinge about. If you take Pope out of the equation, someone else will immediately replace him.

If its anything like the city of rouen is pronounced....im not even sure how to type how it sounds 🤣

A shower of bastards

If it wasnt for the humongous white square on the back, I'd like it. Next year I predict they'll make the lines diagonal 😬

No way would Rashford put a shift in for us. To him it would be another step down and he's just winding down to retirement. Also, what a slap in the face for the likes of Bruno who'd be on less money. Never going to happen.

We were doing the opposite all last season and before...it was like flogging a dead horse regarding multiple targets

But surely there's some external body that can be appealed to, to reverse this grave unfairness?!

Or like entering a new formula one team with a trillion pound backer, but only being allowed to start off in a clapped out old metro until you earn enough money prize money to buy a proper car.

If you buy a house for a billion quid with a mortgage, but its worth two billion quid and the rent you get from it pays the mortgage - then the billion quid of debt isn't really a bad thing.

Ahh ok...thats a neat way of getting around it then

I've asked this a few times myself and tried to look it up too...but couldn't get anything definite. I think you're right though- spreading sales over 3 years, but purchases over (upto) 5 years, means that you cant reinvest your full sales proceeds because youre going to have a gap to fill in years 4 and 5. As you say, it royally screws over teams with lower revenues. The only way around it would be to amortise your corresponding purchases over 3 years instead of a maximum of 5, so that it matches the sales spread....but im not sure if thats allowed in the rules, because I think they say it needs to be spread over the contract (upto a max of 5 years).

Yes i was suggesting that Gordon refused to play. I just think thats far more likely than it being the clubs decision to not play him, for the reasons I gave.

I get where you're coming from, but not playing one of our best players for fear of injury when we're battling for Europe and fighting for the managers job would be an utterly stupid gamble in my opinion. At worst we would just have to wait to sell him and have hik for another 6-12 months). Its not like there won't still be a host of buyers. That is of course assuming that gordon is an honourable person. However he would have had a hissy fit at the prospect, which is why we did what we did (again, in my opinion)

I don't think theres any reason to think you'll regress. It looks like you have a very good recruitment team/strategy, and as long as they have continued to do their job and you have some more money to spend, then you'll be fine. I do expect it to be a bit tougher to get bargains as a premier league club though, as the club you're buying from will smell premier league money.

At least isak actually played the last remaining games of the season....well, in a fashion. I think Gordon just had a waaaay better agent.

The fact is he didnt play any part in the last several games of the season for us. It can be argued whether that was down to gordon or the club, but to me, all the evidence points to it being down to gordon. When a player effectively downs tools and disrespects the club like that, they dont deserve any respect themselves.

100% this

Totally agree. It reminds me of the saying from the outlaw josey wales "dont piss down my back and tell me its raining".

He did an absolute peach of a potential assistant against Liverpool last season. Their striker fluffed it though.

I think our back line is fine...its the lack of cover in front of it thats been the problem...that and after we score a goal, we then back up into our own box and give the opposition possession until they score.

He's an absolutely dreadful player because he just doesn't have the right attitude. There have been too many times when he just stops playing, rather than behaving like a footballer and trying to win the ball back when things dont go to plan. Yesterday was a prime example. He lazily swung a let out to stop the ball, then he saw it hit the crossbar and was slowly plodding backwards away from our goal rather than being ready for the rebound. He just doesnt have the right mentality.

As great as I think Eddie is - I think he'll bend the truth when he needs to. He may well have said Gordon had an injury, but i dont beleive that it was anything even remotely significant (like the one where the threw the towel in against barca), and equally eddie has just came out with some nonsense about why he isn't playing Gordon now. Eddie is fighting for his job, and if Gordon was anything other than a rat - hed be fighting tooth and nail to help him.

I would guess that Eddie has sat down and discussed it with him, and agreed that we will sell him, but he needs to sit on the bench to avoid embarrassing both Gordon and the club. Why else would he have gordon on the bench, but not using him when eddie is fighting for his job and hes one of our best players?