McAuley to get a "bumper" new deal

[Sooper Steve's shin]

Oh look - some transfer rumours about a first team player that may be finally put to rest if the club cough up a little bit more of the good stuff.

You've gotta love agents.

[MC Prussian]

I still think he's a valuable squad member - not as a regular, but as a good backup.

[The People's Hero]

Who is McAuley's agent?

I might get him to sit in on my review.

[Sooper Steve's shin]

Who is McAuley's agent?

I might get him to sit in on my review.

Heh. Good idea. Especially as IMO his form has dropped this season.

[Dames]

We really should have sold him to ipswitch.

He's decent but his lack of pace would be horrifically exposed even more at a higher level.

[Thracian]

I can well understand he shouldn't be drawing chunks less than N'Gotty when he's playing regularly but the big wage earners have an enormous advantage, as far as likely selections is concerned over the lower paid, and I think it's divisive even when selection is justified which, sadly, isn't always the case.

It would certainly be a situation that would bother me but as for McAuley himself the question to me would be whether to stick with a sound and mostly reliable defence or whether to be brave and move towards the sort of flowing fast-passing football team that really could ask questions.

Truth is if Holloway thinks it needs powertools at the back rather than passers then that's what he'll go for. Me I'd like both but then I've never been much for compromise.

It would suggest Holloway doesn't see a high-defending, fast-passing team as the way to success in this division and many will think he's right.

Personally I don't think power without passing will win anything. Even more so in modern football. But we'll see.

[TrickyTrev]

I can well understand he shouldn't be drawing chunks less than N'Gotty when he's playing regularly but the big wage earners have an enormous advantage, as far as likely selections is concerned over the lower paid, and I think it's divisive even when selection is justified which, sadly, isn't always the case.

It would certainly be a situation that would bother me but as for McAuley himself the question to me would be whether to stick with a sound and mostly reliable defence or whether to be brave and move towards the sort of flowing fast-passing football team that really could ask questions.

Truth is if Holloway thinks it needs powertools at the back rather than passers then that's what he'll go for. Me I'd like both but then I've never been much for compromise.

It would suggest Holloway doesn't see a high-defending, fast-passing team as the way to success in this division and many will think he's right.

Personally I don't think power without passing will win anything. Even more so in modern football. But we'll see.

I agree. There is increasingly less of a place in the game for a centreback who can't bring the ball out into the midfield. A bumper wage for what? Being tall?

[Manwell Pablo]

I can well understand he shouldn't be drawing chunks less than N'Gotty when he's playing regularly but the big wage earners have an enormous advantage, as far as likely selections is concerned over the lower paid, and I think it's divisive even when selection is justified which, sadly, isn't always the case.

It would certainly be a situation that would bother me but as for McAuley himself the question to me would be whether to stick with a sound and mostly reliable defence or whether to be brave and move towards the sort of flowing fast-passing football team that really could ask questions.

Truth is if Holloway thinks it needs powertools at the back rather than passers then that's what he'll go for. Me I'd like both but then I've never been much for compromise.

It would suggest Holloway doesn't see a high-defending, fast-passing team as the way to success in this division and many will think he's right.

Personally I don't think power without passing will win anything. Even more so in modern football. But we'll see.

Holloway always often defends high up the pitch, the fact that his centre backs lack pace doesn't normally stop him doing this.

If McAuley is on anymore than 7k a week then we were stupid not to sell him.

[MPH]

I can well understand he shouldn't be drawing chunks less than N'Gotty when he's playing regularly but the big wage earners have an enormous advantage, as far as likely selections is concerned over the lower paid, and I think it's divisive even when selection is justified which, sadly, isn't always the case.

It would certainly be a situation that would bother me but as for McAuley himself the question to me would be whether to stick with a sound and mostly reliable defence or whether to be brave and move towards the sort of flowing fast-passing football team that really could ask questions.

Truth is if Holloway thinks it needs powertools at the back rather than passers then that's what he'll go for. Me I'd like both but then I've never been much for compromise.

It would suggest Holloway doesn't see a high-defending, fast-passing team as the way to success in this division and many will think he's right.

Personally I don't think power without passing will win anything. Even more so in modern football. But we'll see.

i do see your point but we have always done quite well with the bid dudes at the back in the past... , walsh, Elliott, even prior and Taggart...

[Ric Flair]

Rumours.

[Staf]

I actually think we should of sold McAuley to Ipswich he is a good player but we should of sold him and found a cheaper replacement in my opinion

[Moreton]

Good Good Good. I love Milans money.

[maddog]

Mc Auley is nothing more than an average centre back with awful distribution.

£1m is a great amount for him i don't understand why we don't sell.

It would be crazy to offer him more money, and waste it on wages.

We can buy 2 Matt Oakley's for £1m ffs.

We could buy 2 or 3 quality players for that price.

Sell Sell Sell, then sign a new centre back and a left back.

[Bryn]

Mc Auley is nothing more than an average centre back with awful distribution.

£1m is a great amount for him i don't understand why we don't sell.

It would be crazy to offer him more money, and waste it on wages.

We can buy 2 Matt Oakley's for £1m ffs.

We could buy 2 or 3 quality players for that price.

Sell Sell Sell, then sign a new centre back and a left back.

I don't think £1m is three quality players at Champo level anymore. Certainly not for us.

[maddog]

I don't think £1m is three quality players at Champo level anymore. Certainly not for us.

Id love to no the price of Zsolt and Bori, bet you could buy 3 of them for £1m.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I can well understand he shouldn't be drawing chunks less than N'Gotty when he's playing regularly but the big wage earners have an enormous advantage, as far as likely selections is concerned over the lower paid, and I think it's divisive even when selection is justified which, sadly, isn't always the case.

It would certainly be a situation that would bother me but as for McAuley himself the question to me would be whether to stick with a sound and mostly reliable defence or whether to be brave and move towards the sort of flowing fast-passing football team that really could ask questions.

Truth is if Holloway thinks it needs powertools at the back rather than passers then that's what he'll go for. Me I'd like both but then I've never been much for compromise.

It would suggest Holloway doesn't see a high-defending, fast-passing team as the way to success in this division and many will think he's right.

Personally I don't think power without passing will win anything. Even more so in modern football. But we'll see.

Isn't it more of a case of keep whats going well for now - look again at the end of the season? It'd be silly to break up a decent defensive partnership just to rush in a replacement with no time to bed him in. Plus prices are inflated, so if McCauley's a million, a better defender will be more? And if someones bidding a million it must mean the lads doing something right - so fair play, keep him, after all he's not a right back!