Rousseau

That's a very rigid and workmanlike midfield - not a bad thing in itself; Liverpool employ the same. I would hope the FBs are playing high and wide, with the front-three playing narrow, though.

They had already sold Gravenbarch for 18.5M and Haller for 31M (euros).

Nobody is indispensable.

Does anyone think that is us covered? I think it was a mistake to renew Arfield's contract, but I suppose he's a good professional to have around. It's similar to Davis, but I can actually see Davis playing the odd game. Whereas with Arfield, I'd rather see Lowry, Hagi, Tillman, Lawrence play. We don't need a CB, but I wouldn't mind another. Of course, if anyone leaves, we'll need a replacement.

(LW) Kent / Sakala / Middleton - (ST) Morelos / Roofe / Colak - (RW) Wright / Matondo (#10) Hagi / Lowry / Lawrence / Tillman (CM) Davis / Kamara / Lundstram / Jack / Arfield (LB) Barisic / AN Other - (LCB) Helander / Souttar / King - (RCB) Goldson / Sands / Katic - (RB) Tavernier / Zukowski (GK) McLaughlin / McGregor / McCrorie

After doing a quick search, I think I'm completely wrong: "Buy-back clauses in transfer agreements are used primarily to give a selling club the security of being able to repurchase a promising player at a set fee should the player excel in the future. Some high profile examples of such reported clauses include Álvaro Morata (Juve back to Madrid), Casemiro (Porto back to Real Madrid) and Gerard Deulofeu (Everton back to Barcelona) . In many cases, the benefit of the transfer extends to the: selling club as they receive a transfer fee for a player that at present probably isn’t getting regular playing time with the possibility of requiring the player if he plays well at a predefined fee; buying club who can purchase a player that they otherwise may not have been able to acquire had it not been for the clause. In addition, the buyback figure is usually significantly higher than the original transfer fee; and player (who can play regular first team football, probably receive a pay rise and demonstrate their talent). The buy-back provision is usually based on a number of individual or cumulative triggers including activating the clause: In defined transfer windows (i.e. the selling club cannot buy back the player for a minimum of two seasons); should the original selling club bid a set amount (which could vary depending on the season that the buy-back clause is triggered i.e. €2m in the 15-16 windows and €2.5m in the 16-17 windows). Should a buy-back provision be triggered, there is usually a contractual obligation to enforce the contract and transfer the player accordingly. As such provisions are commercial agreements between contracting parties, there is always the possibility of removing a buy-back clause should both parties agree (usually through payment made to the club that has the benefit of the buy-back clause). An interesting situation was reported over the summer with Atletico Madrid defender Toby Alderweireld who was on loan at Southampton for the 2014/15 season. Southampton had an agreement with Atletico when entering into the loan deal that they had the option to purchase the defender for £6.8m. Although not a buy-back provision, the clause gave Southampton the ability to convert the loan into a permanent transfer unless Atletico paid Southampton £1.5m to remove the clause. In the 2015 summer window Tottenham bid around £11.5m which Atletico accepted. Southampton though wanted to enforce the £6.8m purchase clause. It has not been publically reported how the matter was finally resolved but it is likely that Atletico provided compensation to Southampton in order for the player to transfer to Tottenham. How is it different from a first refusal clause? A first refusal transfer clause gives the club who has the benefit of the clause the opportunity to be informed of any deal that the selling club is willing to accept for the transfer of the player. This is different from a buy-back clause because usually with a first refusal clause, the selling club retains the power to decide whether to sell the player or not. Typically, a buy-back clause automatically triggers the transfer of the player should specific contractual conditions be met. In practice, the selling club will not have any way of refusing the buy-back offer if the clause is intended to be an automatic trigger and it is drafted appropriately."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a buy-back option merely first dibs on any future sale? There's no agreed fee. If we get a bid for him next season for £10m, Bayern Munich would get the chance to match it? To be honest, I don't know much about it. It's just how I thought they worked going from past buy-back deals I've seen in La Liga.

He's certainly still young enough (23). A renewal would be agreeable.

We should be looking to sell Hagi after this season anyway. He's been here a few years, and he's entering his peak, and potentially peak value.

The more I see of Tillman, the more I think he's more of a second-striker/centre-forward. Obviously, he'll play as a #10, but in style, he's more of a second-striker; very central, looking to get into the box for lay-offs and get goals. He does like to play through-balls, but he's playing them from quite high up. He'll probably be competing with Hagi for that #10 spot, but in style, they're quite different - like Mesut Ozil and Thomas Muller.

I don't know; it's a strange one. It really depends on where GvB sees Hagi's position; he was played wide quite often. I think Tillman is more of a second-striker - and striker at times - rather than a deeper #10; and he doesn't really play wide. Hagi is a #10, who can play wide - although we don't care for it.

If this has an option to buy, then I'd be delighted to add him to our squad.

Central-attacking midfield, yes. He actually reminds me of Aribo: good close-control, but looks like he likes to play balls through more than Aribo ever did.

I disagree. There are roughly 40-60 throw-ins a game, and apparently most teams keep possession about only 50 per cent of the time. Some teams employ the long-throw. Leipzig employed a throw-in coach that helped their players throw longer. An example is the distance of Andreas Poulsen's long throw-in improving from just under 25m to 37.9m during his time at FC Midtjylland. Some teams play on the transitions, like Liverpool; they worked on taking fast throw-ins to take advantage of the no offside, to get in-behind quicker. If you can make marginal gains in an area that suits your style, then you are in a better position. The game is becoming more specialised. Why wouldn't you employ a specialist?

@buster. did make a valid point, but it was more than just a formation. Formations are irrelevant. On paper Man City play a 4-3-3; it's nothing like that on the pitch. Tuchel and Conte both employ a 3-5-2; their approaches are night and day. A playing style can change, without the need to rip up the playing philosophy of the club. Salzburg have had numerous coaches in charge over the years (Schmidt, Hutter, Garcia, Rose, Marsch, and now Jaissle), each differeing slightly, but you can discern a recognisable Red Bull style throughout.

Sounds like you've got your head up his arse too... Kidding. If he's experienced, fair enough. I can't argue with that. Certainly, you have to get results at the end of the day.

Ideally, yes; but I feel we're rejecting 'good enough' bids and waiting for the perfect bid that may not come. We did the same with Morelos. If it's Ajax, I would take a couple of million off for an increased sell-on fee. I feel like they can sell on for more in the future. Brighton: I'd want more up-front.

Depends what the add-ons are. If the total package is likely to exceed £20m, then I'd take it.

It seems to be about movement. A wee taster: