Crusoe

Personally, I think it would be foolish to cash in. He's young, decent at the level we play (and hopefully above too), I doubt is on extortionate wages, doesn't have a bad injury or disciplinary record, and could well get better with time. We may not be flushed with cash but I don't see that cashing in is necessary (at least until summer 2009 when he has a year left on his contract, and that's assuming he doesn't sign an extension).

Lomax and Black look like good prospects at full-back, but if there's one thing this season is likely to show us it's that strength in depth can make the difference between play-offs and mid-table finishes. For whatever reason you care to name (some kind of bizarre intransigence on Shez's part, lack of quality players, extortionate demands from available players, I've no idea) we don't have a great record of snapping up quality replacements in a hurry, so I'd be loathe to start selling the decent players we do have.

...if he leaves us high n dry after all the club has done for him then in my opinion it would be good riddance...

Eh? I'd be disappointed to see him go, but we've hardly done badly from him - 80 games and a reasonable fee. Not sure why that would count as a massive betrayal.

Maybe I'm the only one, but I never thought Beharall was that bad. Not great, sure, but we've had many worse defenders in recent memory.

Call of Duty 4 is the one, the only game an Xbox Live gamer needs.

At least until GTA IV comes out in April.

I can't wait.

Or the new Cristian Colusso...

How are Virgin Media scammers, exactly?

Yeah, I use that Netgear model too. Very easy to set up.

Allott for me too. Glad he's shown his doubters wrong.

Farnborough FC are my second team (where I was brought up). I wouldn't start supporting a Premier club, or even a league club really.

Wolfy's finish was superbly controlled (or just very lucky, but I'm being positive here). Robertson's finish wasn't as good but his play to get into the position to take the chance was excellent, a real instinctive run.

...half of the goals were tap ins from deflections...

I agree with most of the rest of what you say, but not this bit - every team needs a player who's in the right place at the right time to get the tap-ins. They all count. I'd rather have a striker who scores 30 tap-ins than one who scores 15 world-class scorchers.

Hughes' goals-to-games ratio is 0.44, or 0.38 if you include his sub appearances.

For comparison's sake, Davies' ratio is 0.35 (including the Leeds goal he was credited later).

Terrible news. Obviously didn't know him personally but on the pitch seemed like a wholehearted and committed player who always gave his best. Thoughts are with him and his family.

Senor C - it's not the rule that's important here, it's CAS' response to the challenge. According to another source:

The Court of Arbitration for Sport yesterday issued a landmark ruling that in effect means no players can be held to their contracts for more than three years. For players who join clubs or renew their contracts after their 28th birthday that comes down to two years.

And:

A Fifa ruling awarded Hearts £625,000 but the Scottish club were seeking £4.6m - which they considered to be the player's market value at the time of his departure - and challenged Fifa's verdict at CAS. The court yesterday revised the compensation figure downwards to £150,000, which was the value of the remaining term of his contract when he crossed the border.

 

Fifa's disputes-resolution chamber can multiply contract values by a factor of 1.5 in calculating compensation. But, with a player's value directly linked to his wages, the ruling is likely to cause transfer fees to plunge.

 

"My view has always been that this is the most significant case since Bosman," said Tony Higgins of Fifpro, the European players' union. "The Webster case allows players, after a set period of time and if they so wish, to decide who their future employer will be."

And:

...clubs, as well as players, can unilaterally terminate contracts under the same terms. But it is likely also to cause clubs to suffer big accounting losses, since player contracts must now depreciate over a maximum of three years - the so-called "protected period" for players under 28 - rather than over durations of up to five years as now.

 

The CAS rejected Hearts' claim that the cost of replacing Webster should be a defining factor in the amount of compensation due. It further rejected the club's suggestion that, as in Scots law, commercial rather than basic employment values attached to football players' contracts should be primary.

I reckon we'll see a midfield of Allott, McDonald, Jarrett and Livermore, with Smalley alongside Davies and Alessandra on the bench (unless we sign a striker in the next couple of hours).

He's the one who joined Leeds for £400,000 then got sold immediately to Hull. Has a reasonable reputation, I think. A workmate is a Hull supporter, I'll ask him tomorrow.

Confirmed on Hull City site.

"Livermore Joins Oldham

Posted on: Thu 31 Jan 2008

David Livermore has joined League One side Oldham Athletic on an initial one-month loan deal.

Livermore, who has regularly featured in the City side this season, heads to Boundary Park in search of more regular first team football."

Decent signing.

33 years old in April, hasn't scored a goal since February 2007, has scored 5 in total since the start of the 2005/2006 season ... I think we could give him a miss.

I'd like to think that his or his agent's actions will hurt his reputation and he'll suffer professionally as a result of this about-turn.

Football Transfers Are About to Change Forever

Some interesting thoughts on the implications of the recent ruling on Andy Webster. He wanted to leave Hearts but was under contract. After a protracted dispute the Court of Arbitration in Sport has decided that he is only liable for the remaining value of his contract. Hearts wanted £4.6m; they'll get £150,000.

The implication is this: clubs can buy players for no more than the remaining value of their contract. As the linked article suggests, that would mean that Ronaldo and Fabregas will be "worth" £12m each in 2010. So will clubs stop offering long contracts? Will transfer fees plummet? Will we see a greater revolving door of players in and out as their contracts are snapped up?

Not interested. Big slow lump. Not saying he's useless but he'd be a ridiculously expensive (wage-wise) and short-term (age-wise) attempt to fix a problem, and I don't think he'd work out. Would rather see us investing in youth if the alternative is overpriced, snail-paced veterans.

Congratulations & best of luck to Neal, he's a young lad with a good career in front of him and I genuinely hope he does well.

Shame we lost him but better that than another Porter situation - we've not done at all badly out of it so as much as I'm disappointed to lose him it seems like a reasonable decision by the club. Decent money for someone 6 months away from a nominal fee (I doubt we'd have got much as he was a Burnley trainee originally).

Jury's out for me.

According to a mate who's seen him play a few times he's a reasonably good defensive midfielder - breaks up attacks - but lacks the pace or creativity to really set up attacks. Sounds like he's good at what he does but similar to what we already have.

I wish him well and hope he proves me wrong, but he doesn't sound like someone who's going to score or make goals for us.

Oh, and of course this could all be paper talk. Who knows?

Right. Can't be bothered to read all seven pages of this, but doesn't it boil down to whether Trotman is likely to sign a new deal or not?

If he has done, then the fee offered seems too low.

If he hasn't, then after Porter last year it makes sense to take what's offered now. We're unlikely to get much compensation if he leaves on a free since he was only training with us for a couple of years.

If the debate is why hasn't he signed a new deal - well, none of us can answer that one. Maybe he's determine to leave (or his agent is). Maybe he wants more than our Sheridan/TTA is comfortable offering.