DJ Barry Hammond

I imagine most of this forum don’t know what to do with those two outcomes! 😂

Walker AND McCarron (who I thought was serving notice first?) in addition to Enzo and Willy. Well… one can only wildly speculate!

So Thomas has been threatening to score in the last two games - third time lucky today?

What was Villa’s reported as yesterday? 156% I believe. And then below is Cardiff from last years relegation season - 151%!

He probably is, but he’s not had much action and when he has for us it’s not been in a position I imagine he’d say is his favourite. It was notable that after coming on last night on the left hand side, Rowett didn’t really like what he was seeing and ended up bringing on Page to play there and shifting Aribo central.

Given he seems more of a wide right inside forward than an out and out striker, I think he came in as some additional flank cover; namely for Fatawu.

Yeah; makes the two points added to our tally feel a little more like a missed opportunity for six (or at least four).

Why with LT? He’s got quite a good left foot and often plays some neat passes in tight spaces to help us beat the press.

Thomas with a chance to win the game in the dying moments again… albeit this one was much harder. Fair play to him, Ricardo, Skipp and Winks - that was a pair of full 90, lung busting performances on short rest.

Well that was absolutely shocking defending… yet given it wasn’t us for a change, who cares!

I agree, but I don’t think either pass the two in the middle was clearly on, Boro’s defenders positioned themselves excellently there.

Yeah, that site hasn’t been great for our games for a while now 😒

Rowett won’t care about that - he’s not going to be playing as an orthodox winger, he’s going to be asked to sit a bit deeper / drift inside.

Being factually incorrect is sensible? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Yes, because the monies due are assigned to the bank as I already explained.

I did wonder whether Rowett would go for Bobby on the right. He’s going to be the winger / come central midfielder in this setup I reckon.

I didn’t deny that - but your suggestion was we’ve taken out loans against monies we won’t now receive, which I do not believe to be the case given how these loans are structured. My understanding for TV rights / parachute payments is that the club will receive a lump sum from the bank - and assign the future payments over to the bank who receive the monies when actually due directly from the Premier League. Macquire are not interested in high risk, unsecured loans; they’re quite happy with these very profitable, highly secured advances that have pretty much guaranteed repayment schedules.

Nah, we just go off the players YouTube video to make an assessment… until reality hits.

I don’t think this is true. These Macquire loans are specifically advanced against guaranteed future income to the extent the monies due to be received from the Premier League can be assigned over to the bank so it goes directly to them (this is different from EFL rules that don’t allow this to be done for TV / Prize Money). The only Macquire loan the club may have had that wasn’t secured against future income might have been the funds used to support the Seagrave development; but I think from memory King Power have since squared that debt via debt/equity swaps (I’m not looking through pages and pages of the clubs accounts again right now to confirm, but I’m almost certain this was confirmed by the club previously).

It’d be a straight swap with Skipp 😏

This player (cat) is the better player to pick because we don’t know whether they’re bad (dead) or not, because we’ve not seen them in the team (box). Simple enough.

All this waffle. Your example doesn’t carry weight because you’re quoting brands that you will have prior awareness of - you have additional knowledge to make an informed choice on a preference and could state detailed reasoning for that choice without direct experience. Now you could, in theory, do that with the Souttar / Lascelles claim; “I’ve watched them play for Newcastle / Stoke respectively and think they’re styles of defending and skill sets would be well suited as a partnership.” But the reality is, there was no evidence from the OP for the stated preference other than; they’re not the players currently playing there - which brings us to a Schrödinger’s cat style of desired team selection when a team or player is not performing - see the Thomas / Kristensen (or Skipp 😏) at left back debate and the “should Wink’s play?” for further examples of this. Now that sort of debate is quite empty; it offers little value within the context of a public forum; so why not question it?

So I’m looking for a better standard of debate? If I see a claim that is wild, I am minded to call it out - such as the recently offered “try Skipp at left back” opinion. If you’re going to make a contribution to a public forum; at least put some thought into it!

The model changed based on “having a go” at becoming a permanent fixture inside the top 8 - something these boards were all for in the moment. But even if we had maintained the player trading model (and to a degree we have since) - there was no guarantee to continued success with that, which is what you claimed. There is a very big ‘bubble’ on these boards that overlooks the massively changed landscape of the Premier League from 15/16 onwards, that coincides with the implementation of PSR. Those financial requirements have massively benefited the clubs with strong revenue streams, with maybe the outliers being Brentford and Bournemouth in the current day… yet they may find a cyclical nature to their club’s relative performance over the coming years too.