Jamaal Lascelles joins on deal until end of season - Official

[Pliskin]

Another brilliant bit of business this, sign a player who’s clearly done…. Just completely and utterly sums up the running of this club now…..

[JimJams]

What makes you say he's done?  He's not injured. 

[Izzy]

If he's fit enough to be on the bench each week then surely he's fit enough to start?

[Guppys Love Child]

On 01/03/2026 at 01:59, lookwhaticando said:

We’d manage to concede a lot of goals if we built an eight foot high brick wall on the goal line. 

We already have an immobile 8ft brick wall...it's Vestergaard.

[Muzzy_no7]

Big mistake not getting him up to speed sooner. 

[SK3Blue]

Didn’t do a great job of organising us when he came on v Southampton on 75 minutes at home. But…..it’s sh1t or bust time I guess. 

 

 

[Stuntman_Mike]

Seems another disaster signing. 

 

He hasn't been the leader off the pitch that most of us had hoped for at the very least.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

What are we waiting for to play him? He'll be gone in the summer. If he plays and gets injured long-term frankly it isn't our issue.

 

We're just being a soft club as usual.

[FLAN]

24 minutes ago, Stuntman_Mike said:

Seems another disaster signing. 

 

He hasn't been the leader off the pitch that most of us had hoped for at the very least.

He may be. He’s just up against years of players having no accountability which stems from the top 

[Long Eaton Fox]

3 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

We’re in the mess we’re in because of the defence and we can only get out of it if Rowett somehow sorts out the defence. Last week he said that he would like to bring Lascelles in but didn’t feel he could break up the formidable Nelson-Okoli partnership. Well, nobody will complain if you break it up now, Gary. The interesting question is what he’ll do if both Lascelles and Vestergaard are available to play.

I think Lascelles and Nelson would be my choice for Watford. 

[Mickyblueeyes]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

If he's fit enough to be on the bench each week then surely he's fit enough to start?

My thoughts exactly. I cant see why Lascelles who has been signed for 10/11 games is sitting on the bench as an option to see out games when that scenario is unlikely given we have two inexperienced (but I am going to say) talented youngish players at the back. We are lacking a leader and that is what he was brought in for - no time to ease him in. 

[Long Eaton Fox]

How about Skipp at right back?

[suffolk fox]

As much as it pains me to say it we need Vestergaard back and give Lascelles a game from the start.  Both Nelson and Okoli isn't working, both need dropping.

We need to try something different, we are leaking goals.  I don't want to see Hamza again either he is lazy and bloody awful.

[ClaphamFox]

17 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

My thoughts exactly. I cant see why Lascelles who has been signed for 10/11 games is sitting on the bench as an option to see out games when that scenario is unlikely given we have two inexperienced (but I am going to say) talented youngish players at the back. We are lacking a leader and that is what he was brought in for - no time to ease him in. 

If he didn't know it before, Rowett must surely know by now that if he doesn't do something about the team's mental fragility we will go down. Lascelles was brought in for precisely that reason and must play if fit. And while Harry Winks' chequered history with us may not scream 'leader' to everyone, he is one of the few players we have who is vocal on the pitch and he needs to be brought back in. Daka is clearly not a leader but at least he's a willing soldier, whereas Ayew is an anti-leader and energy vampire, so Daka must obviously play.

 

Those three changes are required as a bare minimum. Hopefully Rowett will look at the formation as well.

 

Edited 17 March by ClaphamFox

[Ian Nacho]

Back 3 of Nelson, Okoli and Lascelles. Fatawu and Thomas wingbacks. Mavididi more central. 

[AjcW]

I'll go full cynical.

 

He's made 3 appearances. In two more games time the max he will be able to make is 9. Wouldn't be surprised if he's back making appearances from Sheff Weds onwards

 

Sneaky suspicion he has a "10 appearances for a 1 year contract" clause? 

 

I think if we'd picked up after the first few games we'd have gone for it because the likelihood of being in the championship next season would have been higher. Or on the other hand we'd have never seen him again after 9 games.

 

I know he was loaned to us but the deal is essentially a short term free transfer where he's trying to earn a perm contract.

[Craig]

7 minutes ago, AjcW said:

I'll go full cynical.

 

He's made 3 appearances. In two more games time the max he will be able to make is 9. Wouldn't be surprised if he's back making appearances from Sheff Weds onwards

 

Sneaky suspicion he has a "10 appearances for a 1 year contract" clause? 

 

I think if we'd picked up after the first few games we'd have gone for it because the likelihood of being in the championship next season would have been higher. Or on the other hand we'd have never seen him again after 9 games.

 

I know he was loaned to us but the deal is essentially a short term free transfer where he's trying to earn a perm contract.

This would make sense. It's also not a loan, it's "permanent" so that makes that scenario more likely. 

[ClaphamFox]

22 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

Back 3 of Nelson, Okoli and Lascelles. Fatawu and Thomas wingbacks. Mavididi more central. 

As a support striker/number 10 ahead of a midfield three of Skipp, Winks and James? That would be interesting to see, though I suspect he'd more likely go for BDCR in that role.

[AjcW]

7 minutes ago, Craig said:

This would make sense. It's also not a loan, it's "permanent" so that makes that scenario more likely. 

Was a bit sketchy on the details wasn't it, which make me think even more its a play to earn a deal situation.

[LCFCCKEANO]

Tbf with Saturday we were off the back of a win and a clean sheet for the first time in almost a year, would’ve been odd to choose the next game to change our pairing at the back. This week makes the most sense for him to be starting

[turtmcfly]

51 minutes ago, AjcW said:

I'll go full cynical.

 

He's made 3 appearances. In two more games time the max he will be able to make is 9. Wouldn't be surprised if he's back making appearances from Sheff Weds onwards

 

Sneaky suspicion he has a "10 appearances for a 1 year contract" clause? 

 

I think if we'd picked up after the first few games we'd have gone for it because the likelihood of being in the championship next season would have been higher. Or on the other hand we'd have never seen him again after 9 games.

 

I know he was loaned to us but the deal is essentially a short term free transfer where he's trying to earn a perm contract.

 

I'll go full Occam.

 

His return to fitness coincided with the two 'current' CBs having been alrightish-if-you-squint (including helping out with our first clean sheet for half a year). Add to that the fact in that Lascelles' previous two appearances we conceded four goals in the 30-odd minutes he was on the pitch.

 

As an aside, the 'we need Jamaal cos he's a leader' stuff is giving me Coady Mk2 (Coady Mk No-one?) vibes.

 

 

[Dan]

Total waste of time as predicted.

[Gazza M]

Would stick in middle of back 3. We need to try something different to win those headers and stop balls just floating in to the box unchallenged. Let the other 2 do the running. 

[Ian Nacho]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

As a support striker/number 10 ahead of a midfield three of Skipp, Winks and James? That would be interesting to see, though I suspect he'd more likely go for BDCR in that role.

He has put him in that type of role with two 10s when we've been chasing games. 

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

Back 3 of Nelson, Okoli and Lascelles. Fatawu and Thomas wingbacks. Mavididi more central. 

There needs to be a rule on FT that anybody suggesting a back 3 is automatically banned for a month.