Sour Mash

It's net spend that is relevant, not gross. Those two clubs have spent more than us this summer.

I assume the big spenders that we can't compete with that you're referring to are Bournemouth and Burnley?

Your point isn't really clear, so I'll ask one final time. Do you agree that the more a club spends, the likelihood of it doing well also significantly increases? And therefore if there is money available, it makes sense to put it towards better quality or a greater quantity of good players? That's pretty reasonable, sensible logic you'd agree?

So no-one said "guarantees" and you're arguing against no-one, understood. You said you think the reason we don't spend more is we're unable to attract the players we're after - which other clubs do you think also fall into this category resulting in their continued negative net spend?

Why do you think we're the only club that can't attract or source the players we feel we need? Who has stated that spending more guarantees success?

Well who are you arguing with, as no-one said it guarantees success? So you think that for the last three summers there have been players we've wanted to bring in, but have been unable to get them to leave their current clubs and we were unable to source any others. Always possible I guess, just pretty unlikely.

No-one has said paying more always gets you success, but that it usually gets you more success, that's a fact, why dispute that? If in your opinion we could have brought in more quality/quantity but haven't, why do you think that is?

I'd agree with that. For a club trying to "build a brand", it doesn't do the club's image or reputation much good. Equally though, I wouldn't expect them to come out and tell the world details of plans that maybe aren't yet confirmed on need to be kept confidential for the time being. Who knows, something in-between maybe, but it is an odd approach. And overall I'm very happy with the way the club are run and the people running it, just find this approach, consistent across summers, a bit odd.

I've asked the question previously and think it must be covering something, definitely part of a strategy/plan. Be that paying back debt/equity, a larger infrastructure project, or a future FFP work around?

The more you spend, the probability is, you'll get better and/or more players; would you agree with that principle? Do you think our transfer incomings (both quality and quantity) are as good as they could possibly be?

Clearly we can't compete with the likes of Burnley and Bournemouth when it comes to transfer budgets.

Milan will be the worst out of the three trips definitely.

Anything like this is always a gamble and you never really know, but I'd say if you've got the same surname and time it right, you've got a fairly good chance of getting in.

Mental.

How can ours be considered good compared to many others?

Maybe Fonte will do a bit with club media about being our captain and a Euro Champs winner.......

Nick Gregory is guaranteeing anyone that books with him a ticket.

Don't know why they don't just give us that lower tier.

I don't necessarily have a problem with selling players, particularly if they're pushing hard for a move or we get a huge offer.

That's ridiculous, why not just give us a bigger away end.

What neutral end has been announced?

S**t away end if all in that upper tier, why can't we just be lower behind the goal? £6.95 ticket postage!

What happens to our excess money made? Long term FFP work around? Pay off debts? Put towards a bigger infrastructure project (ground etc)?

How many teams play every game with two midfielders purely as defensive shields? Given where we were at the end of last season, we could have been hoping for more than just saying 'should be ok' at the end of the transfer window.

Bet Fonte is gutted.