would also like to see kirmond stay, that injury was bad,i just think he needs more game time hes much better than furgason imo,if he stays and nb plays him i think he will be the player that was before his injury.

So you reckon making a player stay when he doesn't want to is good for the player and the club and the player will give his all and not upset the team- give over!

That's one school of thought and I'm not totally convinced that it's wrong on all counts.

However, if the default approach is to release a player as soon as he gets itchy feet, what's the point of a contract? As for what's 'good for the player' - that's irrelevant in this situation, surely? The club should do what's good for the club - we're not running benevolent societies here.

From a WTW perspective, the general view is that historically, we've capitulated when other clubs came knocking, because we were always strapped for cash; the hope now is that we're less strapped for cash, so we'll demand better terms from any club approaching us for a player who is still in contract - I certainly hope that proves to be the case.

Do you like who you work for? Do you still go into work and do the best you can? Of course you do, they pay you after all. All this talk of someone not giving it all for a club because they want to leave it garbage. There is probably only one or two incidents of this in the last 5 years!

They are Professional Sportsmen after all - why make themselves unemployable?

ATEOTD there's nothing to say that Wakey aren't offering us Murphy. After all, we don't need him. He's apparently under contract so we wouldn't be able to make an offer without permission if that is the case. They could certainly use Kirmond and Raleigh, who would both be certain starters there, whereas Murphy would be warming the bench at best with us as things stand. We could be doing Wakey a favour again.

Wadski - totally agree.



Don't get me started on that one again!