duncanjwitham

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't care about how we actually play, they why even bother watching the games? You can just watch the scores come up on Ceefax/Twitter/Soccer Saturday/whatever and get exactly the same value from the match. Obviously there are different ways to play 'entertaining' football, not just Barca-eqsue pass and move. The sort of fast, direct style Liverpool were playing last season is very entertaining. By most metrics Leicester are probably quite defensive, but their counterattacking football can be good to watch and so on. And beyond that, there are absolutel

Does this actually matter to us? As far as I know, it's the window of the buying club that matters. You can sell or release a player at any time, the transfer window is just a restriction on when you can register an incoming player at your club. Obviously if they want to sign a replacement before they sell him then it matters to them.

He got better and better throughout his spell, which is what you'd expect from a youngster learning his trade. He'd just started to really show what he could do when Liverpool recalled him, played him at wingback for a bit and then never played him again, which pretty much tanked his career.

The biggest problem Sibley's had is being the only threat in the team, so the opposition just double up on him. His tailing off last season coincided with Lawrence and Waghorn getting suspended, and Holmes injured etc. Chuck a couple of Lawrence, Waghorn, Jozwiak, Ibe etc in there too, and suddenly Sibley will get a lot more space.

Same here. But I'd much rather be in the position of taking a gamble on him in this position, that say trying to buy him in a year's time after someone else has gambled. If the wages/contract length are sensible then it's a no-brainer. Pace and power up front is a big thing we've been missing.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-6---players/= "43.8 Subject to Regulations 43.2, 43.3, 43.9 and 57, a Player will only be eligible to play in a match organised by The League if: 43.8.1 the appropriate forms for his registration or the transfer of his registration (including, for the avoidance of doubt, Temporary Loan Transfers) are submitted (in such manner as the League shall specify from time to time) to and received by The League by 12.00 noon on the day prior to the date of such match; and confirmed by the League to be in order; and" So a

Providing the clause isn't stupidly low, it makes no practical difference to us, so don't risk blowing up the deal just for that. If the clause is say £12m, then if we don't get promoted and someone offers £12m for a player we paid ~£3.5m for, we're probably accepting it anyway, regardless of the clause. Obviously if they're insisting on a £3.5m clause, then we can't accept it.

He's the kind of player that will benefit from playing with better players, and those players will benefit from playing with him too. It can't be easy trying to find Grey and Deeney in space to pass to, but when you've got Kane, Son, Moura etc...

The thing is though, we still have to account for the amortisation, whether we do it in year 1 or year 4. We can still spend the same amount of money as other clubs (relative to club income etc etc) in the long term, we maybe just have a little bit more flexibility about when we do it. We're not suddenly able to spend millions that we otherwise wouldn't and other clubs can't. So I'd argue it really isn't even against the spirit of the rules.

I checked the rules earlier - they can only introduce evidence that wasn't available at the time of the original tribunal, and they have to actively convince the tribunal of that, they can't just claim it off hand. Their own negligence in looking for the evidence isn't an excuse to being it in now (so they can't introduce stuff that was available back then but they just hadn't looked properly). I can't imagine there will be anything new introduced, since nothing seems to have come to light since.

That was a completely different type of charge though - they breached an agreed business plan with the EFL. If we're guilty of anything other than the failure-to-disclose part, we've potentially failed P&S for multiple years, which definitely has points deductions attached to it. And that's such a minor indiscretion that the IDP didn't even think it warranted a punishment.

Is that even a thing that can happen though, in a practical sense? Obviously they're appealing against at least one of the first 4 parts of charge 2 (i.e. the ones they lost) - I can't imagine they're stupid enough to appeal against something they actually won... So surely if we're found guilty, we have to change our amortisation policy to a straight line one (as does any other club in the league that isn't already), which potentially triggers changes in our P&S submissions for the last 5(?) seasons. The previous tribunal report already confirmed that the EFL have the right to review P&am

Te Wierik, presumably.

The difference between a 433 and a 4231 is as much down to which players you pick as anything the manager says IMO. If you pick Rooney, Bird and Sibley in there, Bird is still going to drop deep and look to play through midfield, and Sibley is still going to be getting on the ball and driving at people, no matter what numbers the manager puts on the board.

Apparently he sees a move to Derby as putting him the shop window.