stevegrant

I believe so, yes.

Apart from a loan fee and a wage bill £20k a week lighter... We've probably made back at least half Rasiak's £2m transfer fee in loan fees now, given that Bolton stupidly paid about £700k last season!

I suspect a number of factors have come into the decision to let Saga move to Denmark. It's probably been a straight choice between him and BWP, and the following have been taken into account: 1. Wages - MS probably slightly higher than BWP 2. Last season's record - 8 goals for BWP, only 3 for MS 3. Willingness to leave - MS has changed clubs quite frequently throughout his career, so he's probably not too bothered about a change

Consider it on its merits, like the club should be doing on all offers. Rasiak and Saganowski clearly don't fit into the intended system (Rasiak particularly) so it makes sense for them to be sent out on loan to relieve a bit of the wage bill for a few months. If someone came in with a ridiculous offer (£1m+) for SJ (which they won't... clearly), it would probably be accepted. However, I would expect that to be subject to us finding a suitable replacement. Whether Rasiak could be moulded to fit into the system at this stage of his career, I'm not convinced, which would probably leave us looking at the loan market for a season-long loan if possible from a lower to mid-table Premier League club. Not ideal, but that's the situation we find ourselves in.

Don't think SFC saw any financial benefit other than perhaps Bradford continuing to pay a portion of his salary.

Dan Petrescu came from Bradford City...

I would suspect not. International loans tend to be a bit more "fixed-term" than domestic ones, whether that's down to UEFA or just the done thing I'm not too sure.

Given McGoldrick's recent run of first-team goals, I'd now be inclined to agree with you on that one. Previously, DM hadn't shown that he could score goals at this level, so he couldn't be relied upon as the "pacey" option up front. Wright-Phillips has had that role pretty much since he arrived at the club and managed to keep a place at least in the 16 if not in the starting 11 on the basis that he was the only option for an injection of pace up front. It's entirely possible that we now have a better option in McGoldrick. It is also, however, entirely possible that this is a never-to-be-repeated purple patch for him...

Logic would dictate that this reported "interest" is complete ********. Why would anyone be pursuing him now, given that less than 6 weeks ago they could have got him for a relative pittance through a tribunal? Given that John Bostock, a 16-year-old with the likely potential to play for the full England side, something I suspect Dyer hasn't got, was only valued at £700k by the tribunal panel, we'd have been lucky to get £500k for Dyer.

On the other hand, it encourages people to buy in advance (a lot of CCC clubs do it for league games, let alone cup games) so the club can prepare enough staff to cover the anticipated attendance.

I think I'd have to ban myself if I commented on this topic...

Now THAT would be a coup... Not sure what I think about the Adams link, generally the bloke's been a complete **** in games against us, but I guess he's the sort of character you want on your side rather than against you.

Do you ever not have one of those moments? I think it's probably more a case of "business as usual", really. The club has to assume that those players are available to us until such time as they move elsewhere.

Yes. I shouldn't be hungover this week

Yes it is.

Because it doesn't suit certain peoples' agendas.

Again, where's the relevance? If anything, the situation we're in would suggest the ideal person to at least keep our heads above the water is someone who doesn't have any sort of sentiment to cloud their judgement.

Excellent, should be game over now.

LOL... right on cue, they have a goal disallowed

Really, what difference does it make? Does it inspire extra confidence in the players? No. They couldn't give a ****. Does it inspire extra confidence in the fans that are there? No. They couldn't give a ****.

Swansea 2-0 Brentford Wolves 1-1 Accrington Stanley

Possession stats are usually inaccurate, don't know why they continue to be used. Dagenham 1-1 Reading, by the way. Thought you might appreciate that one

Bristol City 1-1 Peterborough

Macclesfield 2-0 Blackpool

Swindon 2-3 QPR