egg

Yes. With a heavy heart - I hate employees holding guns to employers heads and I'm worried what message giving in to the little **** sends to other want away players. However, we need to strengthen and don't need a bad apple around the place. Leaving him to rot does us no favours, and neither does attempting to force a reluctant player to reintegrate. On balance I say cash in and move on.

Talented lad for sure. Great defender, as was Watson and Svensson. What Alderweireld and VVD (like Wright) have is the ability to defend like a CB should, but also play. Hall would have been brilliant and we'll never know how good he could have been (ditto Richards) but I never saw a great footballer in him, just a very good defender.

Agreed. Just. Mark Wright was superb and the best centre half I'd seen in a saints shirt before VVD. Alderweireld was the best since him. In between them, Richards, Svensson and Dave Watson were brilliant.

Thanks. Any clues on whether these are first team starters or squad players?

Yep. Giving an apology for doing something that they had permission to do makes no sense whatsoever.

And then apologising!

Noted. I just assumed he was really thick.

Err, what we receive as a total fee and what we receive during an accounting period are two completely different things. Plus, have a read of the little * and ** in the accounts summary.

It's not Chelsea that has to be sweetened, it's Christensen. If he'd rather stay out and 'fight for his place' he can and will. With Terry, Ake and Zuma gone he must be close to their first team.

They were separated deals. Players moving in opposite directions are not necessarily part exchanges.

This. Contracted players have to agree to join other clubs, they can't just be traded. With that said, Christensen would be a fantastic signing and as good as we could hope for as a VVD replacement. After 2 good seasons in the bundesliga he'd cost proper money though - Chelsea refused a 20m euro offer a couple of years ago.

Of course they'll be more money for him for the short period he was to be here but the point is what's in it for him, rather than us, to sign for such a long period.

Assuming we refuse to sell to Liverpool, and he refuses to play for us, and Chelsea make an acceptable offer he ain't got much choice.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. He'd be a great fit at city but I fear they'll see walker's price as a comparable.

We'll agree to disagree. The fundamental points are that a) extended contracts (where it is accepted that the player will move during the contract, like with VVD) are for the club's benefit not the player, and b) there will likely have been agreements or understandings reached when that deal was agreed relevant to the future transfer. You lurch to conclusions about that whereas I say none of us know.

We're straying from the point that the extension is for the club's benefit, not the player. The longer the contract, in theory, the stronger our hand when selling time comes. At least that used to be the thinking! To give that something to the club, the player expects something. Sure, there'll be money, but more besides I suspect. To answer your question, the club can expect some commitment from the player. It could be to delay a move to the next season rather than an immediate move - I'm not quite sure why and redslo assume something different.

You don't think we're a stepping stone club? You don't think that long contracts benefit us (with very good players who'll probably move on) more than the player? You don't think that the next big thing but who isn't yet ready for a bigger club won't want to come here if he's worried we'll hold him to his contract?

I hear what you say, but again it's assumptions. The fact is that we are a stepping stone club. If we weren't we wouldn't sign the likes of VVD, Mane, Lovren, Alderweireld (I know it was a loan). Signing players on long term deals are for our benefit, not the players. Sure, we're fans and want to see good players stay but we can't expect that - it's where we are in the layer cake. If we didn't have this approach we'd be signing players that the likes of West Bromwich attract. Consequently, when we sign up these players who are clearly destined for bigger moves, something has to be in it for the player over and above a few extra pounds a week while they are with us. One of those things may be an assurance of a move in certain situations. Without that I suspect that they wouldn't sign. Whilst I hate any form of striking or holding people to ransom, I fear that if we get a reputation in the game for blocking players paths we will be much less likely to sign the next VVD or Mane. That's a real problem. The longer this stalemate continues I suspect that we'll find the transfer market a trickier place in the future. Imo it's a horrible situation for the club - they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

You mean that you assume it's not a reasonable possibility. We are a stepping stone club. Anything could have been discussed and agreed as an understanding. The point is that we don't know why that deal was signed and the background to it.

Hypothetical question. Might we have agreed verbally with him a schneiderlin type 'give us a season' this time last year, but on the basis that he signed a new deal to assist us with getting the best fee? People assume that it's him not holding up his end of the bargain.

Lower mid table. Another manager change at the season end.

Squad cap is 25 players. We have that. We all agree we need more players. I suspect (hope!) that the board agree and we get players in. To facilitate that (aside of any budgetary or FFP issues) we need to make space in the squad. I'd like to see Gallagher get a chance this season but something has gotta give and I suspect the kid will get another season under his belt elsewhere.

Our keeping situation is crazy. The England keeping coach has seemingly made them worse. Forster has an awful season and gets rewarded with a new contract. Mccarthy spends all year injured, seems to have recovered and then disappears again without mention. Taylor doesn't play but gets a new contract despite the fact he'll probably never play. Lewis, who has obvious talent, gets chucked in at the deep end and then thrown aside with his confidence probably in shatters. Then there's Gazza. He's clearly a good keeper but needed games. He got them and assuming Mccarthy is injured or whatever, should be around the place to challenge Forster. Crazy decisions have been made and we're left with a poor keeper on a long deal with no competition.

Nice idea, we need at least one proper CB desperately. But, we ain't buying and selling cars and you can't just part ex footballers. Players have to be willing to move to other clubs. VVD seemingly only wants to go to Liverpool, feck knows why, but that's what he wants. We can't make him go to Chelsea anymore than we can make Christensen join us. As for finding anyone who'd take Gardos, forget about it.

Pretty sure he'll go to a championship club. He won't get game time and we need to make room in the squad.