YorkshireRam

Hat-tricks this season:
McGoldrick- 2
Shef Wed- 1
?

Hat-tricks this season:
McGoldrick- 2
Shef Wed- 1
?

Hat-tricks this season:
McGoldrick- 2
Shef Wed- 1
?

Hat-tricks this season:
McGoldrick- 2
Shef Wed- 1
?

Hat-tricks this season:
McGoldrick- 2
Shef Wed- 1
?

Hat-tricks this season:
McGoldrick- 2
Shef Wed- 1
?

Hat-tricks this season:
McGoldrick- 2
Shef Wed- 1
?

Hat-tricks this season:
McGoldrick- 2
Shef Wed- 1
?

Hat-tricks this season:
McGoldrick- 2
Shef Wed- 1
?

You can't have been paying much attention to Shef Utd in the last few years then... Top scorer in their final season in the Prem (20/21) and voted Player of the Season the year they initially got promoted (18/19), and remained a firm fan favourite throughout his tenure with them.

We were right behind the goal, 3 rows back. It was absolutely mental when we got the winner, random blokes hugging and jumping on each other. I haven’t embraced that many strange men since that party round Michael Barrymore’s

Just to play devil's advocate- you wouldn't want Bogle back? We're literally without a natural RB and he'd be unplayable at L1-level (when fit)

This what he said about Norwich n Cashin....
"If it is true I'd be amazed the chief exec hasn't told me because even more so I spoke to the head of football at Norwich in the last few hours"
Why is he speaking to head of football at Norwich today? Hugill?
Hugill also fits into what Warne said about a striker he is after...in the Champ, either early or late in their career and other Champ clubs want him

We've not been able to buy a player for 2 and a half years... We were forced into selling players due to our perilous financial situation in administration, including lots of upcoming academy talent. This created a subsequent need to rebuild the squad which is now being hindered by a weird rule in the business plan that we can only make free transfers. 
Ultimately signing a player on a free transfer who's at the top end of our wage allowance, say £11k a week- over the course of a season that'll be half a million or so spent. Paying £100k for a player who's only on £4k a week works out cheaper, so this isn't about reckless spending, it's an unnecessarily inhibitive rule that's stopping us rebuilding our squad following the punishments we already received over the course of the last couple of seasons.

I still feel fairly uneasy about the lack of clarity we got over how far the EFL's witch-hunt was motivated by Steve Gibson threatening to sue them if they didn't retrospectively punish us... That coupled with the reveal that leaks to the press were coming directly from Trevor Birch's office, and i became fairly obvious that there was something underhand going on.
I don't believe the EFL was acting vindictively with this business plan, but it doesn't make sense to not allow transfer fees when they aren't even explicitly linked to reckless spending that would endanger the club- that's the bit I can't grasp

We've not been able to buy a player for 2 and a half years... We were forced into selling players due to our perilous financial situation in administration, including lots of upcoming academy talent. This created a subsequent need to rebuild the squad which is now being hindered by a weird rule in the business plan that we can only make free transfers. 
Ultimately signing a player on a free transfer who's at the top end of our wage allowance, say £11k a week- over the course of a season that'll be half a million or so spent. Paying £100k for a player who's only on £4k a week works out cheaper, so this isn't about reckless spending, it's an unnecessarily inhibitive rule that's stopping us rebuilding our squad following the punishments we already received over the course of the last couple of seasons.

It's like the decision not to allow us to offer new contracts to the young players last season. All it achieved was to allow other clubs to snap up these players for a song and to reduce the income or value of the club. Those who suffered from this decision were the creditors of the club. It also affected the saleabilty of the club, which nearly resulted in the club folding, is that what they wanted?

We've not been able to buy a player for 2 and a half years... We were forced into selling players due to our perilous financial situation in administration, including lots of upcoming academy talent. This created a subsequent need to rebuild the squad which is now being hindered by a weird rule in the business plan that we can only make free transfers. 
Ultimately signing a player on a free transfer who's at the top end of our wage allowance, say £11k a week- over the course of a season that'll be half a million or so spent. Paying £100k for a player who's only on £4k a week works out cheaper, so this isn't about reckless spending, it's an unnecessarily inhibitive rule that's stopping us rebuilding our squad following the punishments we already received over the course of the last couple of seasons.

A club can be run frugally, while also spending transfer fees though?
It does present a competitive disadvantage when we cannot strengthen as much as teams around us, despite having the financial means to do so. And given we started the season with about 3 senior players, we arguably have the most cause to spend transfer fees.
Suppose it would make promotion all the more impressive, however, if we could achieve it without being able to buy a single player...

Doesn't have to be big fees I'm referring to. The pool of players available on free transfers is very limiting. The result of the EFL sanctions from the last few years is that our squad was decimated- continuing an embargo so that we cannot properly replenish, aside from the perceived cast-offs who are not contracted to a club, seems harsh. I don't understand why the business plan explicitly excludes spending fees, why not allow us to spend fees that fall inside an outlined business plan? It's the black and white nature of ruling out fees altogether I'm not sure I agree with. 
Basically, at the minute, we're relying on other clubs not wanting a player, to be able to recruit them; and for a club that desperately needs to expand its squad, that seems an unnecessary restriction.

Doesn't have to be big fees I'm referring to. The pool of players available on free transfers is very limiting. The result of the EFL sanctions from the last few years is that our squad was decimated- continuing an embargo so that we cannot properly replenish, aside from the perceived cast-offs who are not contracted to a club, seems harsh. I don't understand why the business plan explicitly excludes spending fees, why not allow us to spend fees that fall inside an outlined business plan? It's the black and white nature of ruling out fees altogether I'm not sure I agree with. 
Basically, at the minute, we're relying on other clubs not wanting a player, to be able to recruit them; and for a club that desperately needs to expand its squad, that seems an unnecessary restriction.

Doesn't have to be big fees I'm referring to. The pool of players available on free transfers is very limiting. The result of the EFL sanctions from the last few years is that our squad was decimated- continuing an embargo so that we cannot properly replenish, aside from the perceived cast-offs who are not contracted to a club, seems harsh. I don't understand why the business plan explicitly excludes spending fees, why not allow us to spend fees that fall inside an outlined business plan? It's the black and white nature of ruling out fees altogether I'm not sure I agree with. 
Basically, at the minute, we're relying on other clubs not wanting a player, to be able to recruit them; and for a club that desperately needs to expand its squad, that seems an unnecessary restriction.

A club can be run frugally, while also spending transfer fees though?
It does present a competitive disadvantage when we cannot strengthen as much as teams around us, despite having the financial means to do so. And given we started the season with about 3 senior players, we arguably have the most cause to spend transfer fees.
Suppose it would make promotion all the more impressive, however, if we could achieve it without being able to buy a single player...

Just for parity (I didn't dislike Rosenior in any way), Bournmouth's first here:
 
 

Might have been ''embarrassing'' but it contributed to us keeping a clean sheet at Anfield, can't really argue with the methods when that's the outcome...