egg

But it does not matter if the manager wants them or we can afford them or can register them in our squad.

So your argument has come down to the fact that cos Palace have a couple of lemons we should give Ralph loads of money to spend? Blimey.

Why other clubs borrow you don't know. The fact is that the other clubs that I constantly read that we should emulate do borrow. If other clubs loans have been converted to equity it suggests an inability to repay the borrowing. That doesn't suggest a sustainable model. The fundamental point raised above is why we need to sell to buy. If you look at our latest published accounts, the answers are there.

Nothing convenient Glasgow, people cite the clubs I've mentioned as those who's spending we should match. I referred to the latest snapshot figures for those clubs I could find. Our latest accounts are up to y/e 06/18 so there's nothing recent available. Of course we have debt, any business with a turnover of £148m and wage bill of £110m has debt. The point is that we're not propped up by borrowing from our owner. We're sustainable.

Borrowing. On the latest figures I've seen, the mighty Bournemouth owner is owed £69m, Brighton £223m, Everton c.£325m Palace £21m. I don't want my club being run that way - give me sustainable mid table please.

Quite, its not complicated at all. Seemingly you're not an uber fan though if you actually think about and don't whinge that we lack ambition and don't support poor Ralph. Or something.

Sounds like a no brainer for him and us. He's a decent squad player and hopefully we'll get him signed up.

And what do you base that nonsense on? Even Man City are operating a revolving door policy. For a club that doesn't spend money, can you explain why we are saddled with loads of players we don't want on contracts? The answer is we do spend, but have made shocking decisions under previous regimes, and quite sensibly need to have a clear out before we commit more big money. Its really simple.

Sorry Del, I misunderstood, but in multiple posts you've referred to the transfer activities of Bournemouth and Brighton etc as the ambition that we should be showing. Unless I'm mistaken, they've signed expensive crap players.

In principle I think you're right. A few on here focus on what they want as fans, ie signing loads of expensive but crap players cos other clubs do, whereas our manager appears not to want that (ie his last actual quote before the window shut was that he was OK with our defence options, albeit an injured Cedric was swapped out for KWP), so I'm not in the "poor Ralph, never gets support" camp. My guess is that he'll want a bit longer to showcase himself a bit more, and wait until a job he wants comes available. That said, I would be staggered if we ended up with a squad as threadbare as you suggest. We'd have no chance with such low numbers, and JWP and Armstrong as our main midfield pairing wouldn't be good enough. If his squad is that bare I wouldn't blame him if he walked.

Snow

Witness

Flint

Cream

What a stupid statement. How do you know he was for sale? Perhaps we made an offer but they refused? Perhaps we or he or both he said let's see how this season goes. Perhaps it's something else. Just because he hasn't signed permanently doesn't mean that we don't rate him.

Church

Server

Movie

Of course clubs sign youth players. We always have. Sure, it's a loan not a perm but no idea why that's a problem. As to using u18's for u23's, the gulf is massive between this age groups and promoting players before they're ready doesn't help them or their team mates. I'd rather have this lad at the heart of our u23 team than some 16 year old.

Not if the u23s need players. Which they do.

It's an odd career choice for the lad but it makes sense for us. Slattery has gone on loan and Smallbone is part of the first team squad so the u23 are light in midfield.

But you point the likes of Bournemouth and Villa and Brighton of clubs who's spending we should match. They don't have better than we have - would they really give Liverpool the game we have them in teh first half? The fact is that whilst they've spent more, they haven't bought better. The issue is buying wisely, not necessarily spending more.

Carillo is not better than players costing less. Vestergaard is not better than Bednarek. You call that a bad point, and than try to highlight your ridiculous point that more money always gets a better player by highlighting that cos Ronaldo cost more than Paul Moody that he's a better player!! Put your feet up mate.

I'm not the man saying that more dollar always buys a better player! But Moody was brilliant, better than both Ronaldo 's.

I'm not struggling anywhere Del, but don't call a post ridiculous when it highlights the stupidity of the point it responds to. We both know that a higher price does not equal a better player.