Godders

Had to be three points. Not good enough.

And what if Kodjia goes a few games without scoring and loses confidence again, or gets injured first game in September? If we don't get a striker in by the end of next week, we won't get one until January regardless of what happens in the meantime. Kodjia and Hogan aren't enough cover for me. Green and Hepburn-Murphy are development players, not starters. We're light up top. And granted, at the back too, but if the way we played against Brentford is the way we'll be set up this season, a striker is more important than a defensive player.

Turned the TV off in a rage so missed the equaliser. That'll learn me.

PLAY FOR **** 90 MINUTES YOU ****

To be fair, I wouldn't mind too much if he was a bit of a traore. He did OK for Boro during the season, and he's playing on the same side as Hutton so it's not like the Scottish Cafu will have him in his pocket like he did traore week in week out.

Goals.

Presumably neither were registered in time to feature this evening?

I would think his current club hold all his medical info. We have a lot more flexibility with a loan in that we can send him back. I would imagine there's a clause allowing us to cancel the loan if it turns out he's suffering from something that wasn't disclosed to us, so we don't need to do a medical, or at least one as in depth as would be for a full transfer.

Is that not the point of FFP though? To prevent clubs from overspending themselves into oblivion? I expect the EFL would have had a handle on our finances when the real concern was that we'd go into administration. They'd have to understand our financial position in order to determine whether we'd be able to fulfil our fixtures, pay our staff etc. In my view, the EFL would be being exceedingly lax in their oversight if they then had conversations with our new owners without a view to next season. Of course that meeting(s) considered FFP. The EFL aren't there first and foremost to punish clubs, I'm sure they would rather have us fixing the situation within the rules of FFP. If the club's plan was to inject massive cash, or sell the stadium rights for £1 billion without addressing the cost base, both of which are in breach of FFP as I understand it, but would prevent the club from heading into administration, I can't beleive that they would walk out of there without taking further action. It wouldn't be responsible letting a club rack up spending clearly in breach of rules, regardless of when those rules would apply. I'd wager the discussion had with the EFL considered our future FFP obligations, and the plan presented satisfied them how we would remain a going concern while acting within the bounds of FFP, without having to sell of players.

So before our new owners came in, we were under a soft transfer embargo. Our new owners had to meet with the EFL and discuss our plans and how the club will be financed. After that meeting, we were told by the club we didn't have to sell any players. We also had the soft transfer embargo lifted. The two scenarios then are: 1. The club told the EFL one thing, but then did the opposite and went and bought/loaned all these players, didn't sell anyone and actually, we're still f*cked from an FFP perspective, as some here seem to think. If this were the case, the EFL would have stepped in, refused to register the players we were bringing in, and reinstated some sort of transfer ban until we got out house in order. 2. The club presented a plan to the EFL, that didn't include selling any of our players and planned for wages for any incoming, such that they felt satisfied we would meet our FFP obligations. As a result, the EFL left us to work to that plan, and the owners could say we don't have to sell our players. I don't know what that plan is, but I'm don't have the necessary knowledge of tax, accounting and football regulations to know of it. Given the way the transfer window played out, and the fact there seems to be no concerns from the EFL, the only conclusion I can draw is that this window has no impact on our FFP obligations.

More lacks power

If he does, we can all bring flip flops to his first game.

I'm not sure which I'd prefer: Bryan going back to Bristol with his tail between his legs, or us taking him on just to see those Bristol City fans that are revelling in us losing out on him crying.

Skybet now have him at 4/6 to join Spurs. Disappointingly, he's only 11/10 to stay though. Looks like Skybet are eeking an extra few quid out of this one.

I understand Abraham is our top target up front, but he's holding out for a PL move. Nmecha is the back up if we don't get him. I don't expect anything to happen on these today as it all depends on whether a PL club comes in for Abraham. If not, I imagine there'll be movement on that in the next week or so.

Bryan own goal sends them down.

If I were Jack, I think either of those three would be a better choice than Spurs - you're almost guaranteed to play regularly, and in the prem against some of the best players in the world. After a couple of seasons there learning the league, making the step up and proving to all that you can run a midfield in the PL, then is the time to make the move to a top 4 club. More playing time now = better player in 5-6 years time. Obviously absolutely stoked he's staying though!

Apparently (rumours) Bristol City were going to miss out on a loan for Sam McQueen of Southampton as they wanted to keep him for when Targett moved to Fulham. Perhaps Bristol C greased the wheels as it were here, offering Bryan to Fulham as an alternative to Targett If so, would be hilarious if we get Targett instead and they still miss out on their loanee!

Unfortunately, a media outlet that waits for two independent sources to corroborate a rumour in this day and age won't last long as the scoop will have been had by a number of other outlets.

Nah, obviously the benny Hill tune. Edit: including obligatory sequence driving round spaghetti junction in various orders.

Im not sure how it works, but there have been examples previously where transfers have fallen through at the end of the window because the paperwork wasn't where it needed to be on time. I've never seen a football players contract, but there could be a standard clause in there that it only comes into effect once ratified by the relevant governing body.

Almost went a whole day without seeing any anti-bruce comments. Almost.

I beleive it's fine with the blessing of the club to speed things along while the fee negotiation happens. I'm fairly sure we'd agreed personal terms with the new left back were signing before the fee was agreed. I guess we knew we were selling Jack for peanuts, so we let him talk to the club while we were trying to eke another million out of Levy's first derogatory offer.

This article makes no sense. If we offer him a new contract, which I expect we will, with a reasonable release clause, which I expect we will, he's not going to turn his nose up at it. If he's staying, I suspect he we will want to be paid for his standing in the squad. That requires sighing a new contract. He's not going to stay on rookie wages out of spite. What an absolute unfathomably nonsensical article.

Boro allegedly keen on taking him back. Would love that, would properly have stung them if they pay to take Albert back as well as the sell on money for Adomah.