Search results

Yeah that’s to amortise the fee paid. Don’t think Man City are particularly arsed about spreading £nil over another 4 years.

Agree. I think back to Ben Turner when he broke through and how naive he looked - went on to play PL football. Doyle will be a mid-level PL centre back for most of his career. As mentioned on a previous thread, it’s just a shame that we won’t be beneficiaries of his development.

Why would Brighton have a 25% sell on fee? I find that kind of suggestion ridiculous.

I look at it from a similar standpoint, but how often are we going to be offering 5-year contracts? I’d ringfence funds to cover 3-year periods. My thinking is along these lines: £18m fee inwards £2.5m ‘sell on’ fee outwards £3.5m operational costs apportionment £3m additional transfer spend...

Sell some of our players. It’s the only way we’ll see a significant uplift in potential budget.

Downloaded FM Mobile 2023. First season finished 9th - let’s say realism has taken a back seat. £6.5m transfer budget, brought in some frankly ridiculous loan signings, defence was pretty weak til January when I signed Nat Phillips and Lee Buchanan, as well as Aaron Hickey on loan. Now got...

Won 8 of 22 attempted tackles. Pathetic.

Aged 17.

But the concern around Fadz potentially not returning to his previous capabilities is real. We’ve seen how players in their mid-30s can almost fall apart after an injury like this. It annoys me so much that we’ve not had any form of contingency/succession plan for him when he clearly won’t be...

I’d take Doyle in a heartbeat. However, we’d need another centre back as well. Think it softens the mistakes when you know you’ll be the beneficiary of the development.

Gyokeres 7? You’re mad.

Can’t believe this has largely gone unmentioned - absolutely appalling today.

I really hope they come good, but it feels like our recruitment strategy at present is “kiss enough frogs”.

I honestly thought the bad hugely outweighed the good. He was a passenger in the 2nd half.

It’s really frustrating. I get that fans don’t want their side to sell their best players, but look at the bigger picture. If it means we can bring in 3-4 to improve the overall quality then do it. And it’s a myth you need a 20 goal a season striker. Spread the goals throughout the team.

Can he play centre back?

I do think the mind was to play them both together and I think it would have worked, with O’Hare’s engine making up for Palmer’s lack of. Issue being O’Hare is so crucial to that dynamic. Still wouldn’t class Palmer as a failed signing but it’s apparent that zero contingency was made for O’Hare...

One instance of their player diving in for a challenge and removing a big clump of turf with his foot. It’s a state.

One thing I’ll quickly add to the Palmer summary: the situation towards the end of the 1st half when the gap opened up for him to shoot as Vik ran round the outside, only for Palmer to try the pass to Vik. THAT WAS THE DECOY RUN!!!

Can’t wait to have an entire back 5 of loans. Absolutely staggering. As an aside, you use your loan allocation to bring in the types of players who have quality you can’t afford to bring in permanently. Why we insist on bringing in loans who will largely be rotation options at best is mad...