egg

Err Chelsea haven't bid. Perhaps Christensen won't want to come. We can't just nominate a buyer, a price and a part ex player. This isn't fantasy football.

Behave. The sale of a want away player, after 3 seasons in the top 8 and two signings of international players, is a teenie but different to the farce that was the latter stages of the lowe era.

Absolutely. The club ain't stupid. Saying that he wasn't for sale doesn't mean that he was never going to be sold, and the long contract works to our advantage. It's brinkmanship and tactics, pure and simple.

See above. Perhaps try to separate what you would like to see happen from what is likely to happen.

Pretty much it, except there's a bid in from Liverpool. Unless there's a higher bid than that we either take the money or leave him till Jan. My guess is that we'll take their money and move on.

I suspect we've had at least one and it was always inevitable that's where he'll end up if they're the highest bidder. We're a business, end of.

Of course he will. Who else? VVD was always going. The fact that he wasn't (apparently) for sale and that we (apparently) didn't want / need to sell him never meant he wouldn't be sold.

Amazing business for us. What's more amazing though is the number of keepers who keep getting pay days but rarely play competitive football. Gazza will retire rich but fresh as a daisy.

That's sad for the lad, he seemed to be on the way back. Fingers crossed he can make it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see 3 at the back, with either 2 up top and 1 behind, or 1 up top with 2 supporting like Chelsea. If we use 2 up top Redmond gives us another option. Either way, a good signing.

That's not what I've said. A 5 year contract does not come with the expectation that a player stays for 5 years. Be sensible.

I'm not worried. They will have signed having asked about the VVD situation and their position should a big move be possible. To have signed they will have been given certain answers to their liking. Those answers will not have been that 'we're letting VVD rot' or that 'we'll hold you to the last day of your contract'. However, if we now act in a way with VVD that concern potential future players we will not sign them. Jeez, I'm gonna watch the telly, this is like pulling teeth.

Do you think that the VVD situation was not discussed with their agents? Do you think that they didn't seek assurances about what may happen if a CL club came in? If you think the answer to one or both is no then you are daft.

None of us know what the side deal was re his exit. Obviously there was one, there always is (even if informal) and he was always going to leave. If (and I don't know the position) it's felt by team VVD that we haven't honoured what was apparently agreed (seemingly not the first time) that will make us less attractive. Even if we had no agreement/handshake that we would let him go this window, potential signings will see a club holding back a player who's apparently been offered triple his wages. You may think that won't harm our ability to sign future players (as a stepping stone) but I do.

And you said my post was nonsense! Basically you agree with me (I think) but seem to think that we can decide when the player goes and refer to his contract extension. I keep hearing all this nonsense about contract renewals meaning we can decide when a player moves on. At least I think that's the inference. It doesn't work like that. Nobody believed he would stay for the length of his contract, of course we were going to cash in. The longer the contract the more power we have as a selling club. That contract gave him more cash for a little while but its purpose was to assist us come transfer time.

Not strange at all. For every future Mane/vvd/alderweireld there'll be a steady player who's about right for our level and will stick around. Think yoshida/davis. Then there's the players who can't believe their luck and would never be demanding a move while under contract , ie Martina/Pied. Those players realise that there are layers and probably know where they are in the layer cake. The club do as well. Alas, the fans (mostly) don't.

You're wasting your breath pal. The masses think we should let him rot until we decide to sell him to who we want for what we want. Apparently that's how it works, and doesn't damage the club at all.

That question gets to what we all, as fans, want the club to do. The reality is that we're not a top 6 club and won't become one. We're at our limit, at least league wise. We therefore have to operate as a business. Competing on the field, buying then nurturing and developing talent, selling it, repeat. That's not what you want us to do, nor do I, but that's where we are. If we hold good players back we don't get to sign them in the first place. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that.

I agree with most of that. I made your point 2 a while ago and was told that I was in a minority of 1. We are a stepping stone club, and potentially very good players will only sign if they have an assurance, which they see the club delivering to other players, that they will be allowed to move on when the time comes. If we don't do that we sign WBA type players, or WHA type mercenaries . However, I also hate players holding a gun to our head but the stepping stone model means that this situation can happen and will happen again and needs careful management. On this occasion it hasn't gone well and I'd hazard a guess that both sides had different understandings of what may happen further down the track. Like you I think that the club needs to get out of this sharpish, probably with a 'we accepted an offer above our valuation' type deal. That we save a degree of face, and retain our appeal to the next Mane/VVD etc.

Judging by those who didn't play last night, and those who need game time, I reckon we'll play something like: Mccarthy Pied Gardos Bednarek Targett JWP Hjoberg Long Boufal McQueen Austin If Flannigan is fit I think he may get a start at RB, or in midfield.

Gardos is the obvious candidate but I can't see we'd have many takers. The alternative is a full back going. We have 3 left backs, plus 2 right backs and Stephens (who's not guaranteed a start at CB) who we've never really seen at RB but he's played there for Boro and international level.

Perhaps we did "try for" him, who knows. I hope we didn't though.

This. He's had one reasonably good season in the championship. If he was another clubs player we would not have regarded him as a good signing. Hopefully he'll impress and come back better equipped to make the step up.

Simple scenario/analogy, and a simple question. Just suppose another midtable club, say West brom, have a promising striker. He has a good ish season on loan at a lower level championship club who ultimately get relegated. Say we then wanted to buy that kid and swap him for Long. Are you seriously saying you'd be happy with that? Your suggestion is akin to that.

Still doesn't address why it's felt Gallagher is ready for the prem. Long possibly not being good enough (in your opinion) doesn't mean Gallagher is.