robf

I mentioned this guy in the summer. I am no scout so no idea if he would be the answer but interesting that clubs in our sort of level are circling. If true, then they clearly think he's a good addition. It may cost a six figure sum but it may be a player who is more of an Uche replacement (he's 6 foot 4) than an unknown, inexperienced loanee (and though it may cost - would that be worth paying to ensure L1 survival?) https://the72.co.uk/2024/01/30/exeter-city-cambridge-united-and-cheltenham-town-eyeing-league-one-striker/

I think Cass and Balmer are both the same age - both had an error in them, I thought Cass was more reliable, more willing to break up front and was our own player after all. So, I was always a bit confused when a loanee was often chosen ahead of him. I'm not saying Cass is a world beater but I would have had him ahead of Balmer (i.e. Cass on the bench rather than Balmer) in the pecking order.

You can have as many as you want - but you can only pick five in the squad.

Not if that academy in addition to self-funding itself is producing a batch of players who could make it in the first-team - Plant (already in there), Shorrock, Lomax, Walters, Dipepa, McDermott, Brazier etc. In that case, it's producing potentially some first-team players for the club and because it's self-funding there's no outlay for those players. BTW, I don't think all of the above will make it (that's somewhat unlikely) but one or two (perhaps more) may. I would also think that with the new rules about having a proportion of "homegrown" players in the squad it's essential to have an academy that is producing decent prospects. You can wish all you want for big-name, big-money additions to the squad but the rules still state there's a limit to how many you can pick in your squad - you still need to have some club-produced talent in there. If the Academy can produce those "homegrown" kids to as high a standard as possible then that's got to be a good thing - especially if the thing that is producing them is doing so at zero cost to the club.

From what I've read about Hudlin he's a bit of an oddity. He's like a poor man's Peter Crouch (or perhaps in lower league terms Kevin Francis) in that he may be tall but his ability (and that can be in question given his record) is more about the ball on the ground, rather than beating players with power/aerial ability. So, he's not a targetman as such in the same way that Crouch/Francis, despite their height, didn't really score too many headers. Having said that, I would 100% agree that a pacy forward would be a good signing . Someone to play off the likes of Uche and to pick up Wilson/Chislett's (and perhaps Gore/Weir's too) through balls. Hudlin may not be a classic target man but he also isn't renowned for pace either (at least I think so) so he wouldn't fit that profile. I'm not sure Hudlin is the right signing but I'd be delighted to be totally wrong if he does sign.

Klopp told the assembled media: "After reading the reaction of some Liverpool fans upset at the loan of a promising defender to the likes of Port Vale, I have to now take responsibility and step down..."

Yep, that would make sense if Vale are looking for one loan signing from Chelsea and one from the Championship (which I am sure I have read somewhere). A LWB (possibly Sturge) from Chelsea and possibly Hudlin from Hudd. Not entirely sure about that second signing (would be delighted to be proved wrong) but I'm commenting about what may happen rather than what I'd like to see happen. EDIT: additional note. Putting two and two together and making five... looking at Hudlin's contract situation, it makes a lot of sense he will go on loan this window. He's out of contract in the summer and not broken through to the first-team regularly. From a Huddersfield perspective you get him out on loan to either a) give him a final chance to earn a new deal b) get him off the books as you're going to release him anyhow c) give him a chance to try and impress other clubs for when he becomes a free agent in the summer

On the Chelsea front. They (of course) have a load of young forwards and I think it could be anyone's guess if Vale have targeted one of them. However, if it is a LWB then there's an obvious contender... Zak Sturge is a 19 year-old, six foot two inches tall, attacking, left wingback. He was on loan to Peterborough for the first-half of the season but was recalled in January after "limited first-team opportunities". I reckon he could be a good bet if Vale are looking to bring LWB cover in. Zak Sturge is a defender who joined our Academy from Brighton during the 2022/23 season. WWW.CHELSEAFC.COM

I don't think that's the case - it's just that Vale are having to address it one position per window at a time... Let's take goalkeeping... for a couple of seasons we had sub-standard signings padded out by loanees. For last season, for over half the season we had Jack Stevens, a loanee. That fits your method of padding out positions with loanees. But then we put in more budget in the summer and got Connor Ripley, who's good for a few years I would hope. That has effectively sorted out the GK position long-term. The club say they want to do the same with forwards this summer - that is address that position by allocating more budget to it to get a higher quality player(s) in. That would potentially sort that position for a couple of years IF they get it right. Clearly even then there's still gaps but I guess the club can only do it one position at a time unless they get a cash windfall somehow. However, there is also the parallel long-term project of bringing young homegrown kids in. So, I guess potentially they would perhaps hope that the likes of Shorrock would sort out the LWB, Walters come into central midfield etc. Clearly some of the kids won't make it but if one or two join Plant in the squad then that would also resolve those positions too. So, yes there is a reliance on loans to fill the gaps right now, but I do think there is a plan to bring in permanent and youth players (and then the Vale can look at adding loanees that add value rather than using them as 'cover' for a lack of permanent signings) - but it's just a slow process and doesn't fill all the gaps yet.

Maybe but not necessarily. Newport have been bought by Hew Jenkins, former Swansea chairman so maybe their transfer budget has gone up and they are strengthening their squad rather than bringing in a replacement?

Perhaps you're right and in the know - I certainly don't know who they are targeting... However, signing Young would directly contradict some of the stuff said in the fans forum last night that is the Vale - will probably only get loans in this window, permanent moves are too expensive in this window , the best time to recruit permanent players is in the summer, they are looking outside of the UK as transfer fees are too high etc...

There was an interview with Will Ryder in the Mike Baggaley newsletter and the reply was the club were bemused by it all and had stressed there had been no contact from any of those clubs enquiring about Brazier.

I think there's an element of spin from the club about their status as a prime loan location - but that's only to be expected, your official channels are always going to carry positive PR messages. But then again I think there has been progress. I wonder in terms of scouted, it doesn't mean as a unique case but rather Man Utd paid due diligence and reckoned Vale was a good place for loan players. It doesn't mean we're the number one or only destination but rather we're one of several clubs they have reviewed and we're not seen as somewhere you don't send your youngsters (which perhaps we would have been a few years ago). I think big clubs are always going to have a number of clubs they deal with often, simply because they often have quite a few to loan out (of varying levels of development) so they are going to want a range of clubs at different levels of the pyramid, in different locations etc. For me, I think it's a good thing that Vale are clearly in a group of clubs that several Premier League clubs believe create a good environment for young loanees. While some of Flitcroft's statements may be pushing things to the extreme, I think it's perhaps to be expected and in fact some of this PR (the positive endorsements from Arblaster and Devine, for instance) may have actually have helped Vale make their case. Ultimately, whether you agree with Flitcroft's comments or not - the proof of the pudding is that this season we have had some of the most successful loanees in years, who have left the club singing our praises and have now been replaced with another crop of Premier League loanees. That surely can only be a good thing and something the club should be proud to promote.

There's some full 90 minute games from years long gone on the OVF YouTube channel if you are missing watching Vale in action. Note: they are of varying quality due to a) VHS tape deterioration b) production values (the in-house ones can be poor quality) so you may need to click on a few to find the ones with the best video/audio. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLitB7Hn9e6bkCSpx3SJKU6yenZxE0vfz-

I've found the occasional packet of half a dozen oatcakes for sale in my local Sainsbury's here in Bridgwater. It's always a total bonus to find some lurking there.

I think Loft's form is a tricky one, almost a chicken and egg situation... he needs game time to recapture any sort of form but Vale need to be in position where putting a badly out of form player on won't affect the result (i.e. either comfortably winning or (not great) no chance of winning). Ideally, it needs to be minutes when Vale are winning if he is to get confidence but realistically how many games will Vale be comfortable enough in front to give him say a 15 minute run out. Not many, I would guess. It's such a pity he's played for two clubs - a loan out would be the perfect move. I wonder if loaning him out is what the Vale will do next season if he hasn't done anything by the end of this one? It seems sensible - put him somewhere where he can get gametime and hopefully recapture form and potentially recall him in January if he's doing well.

Away from Vale moves, wasn't this the player who looked decent in the home game? Looks like Reading could see their squad picked off due to their financial woes... Nesta Guinness-Walker: Stevenage sign Reading left-back on loan - BBC Sport WWW.BBC.CO.UK

If we were to get a striker in on loan, I'd be happy if it was Michael Mellon. It was mentioned a while back in this thread he'd been recalled by Burnley after a good spell for Morecambe. He's eligible to play for a club (having only played for Morecambe this season) and perhaps Burnley would be happy to see him step up a division? I'm not sure what other clubs are in for him, but sure Messrs Crosby and Flitcroft can email over their Powerpoint (file name: port-vale-is-the-right-club-for-your-loanee.ppt) with all the selling points?

Wasn't it Weir and Devine behind Chislett for the sixteen mins of the Reading game? So, it could be Weir and Gore until Ojo is back, with Chislett further up.

Here's my twopenneth on transfers for what it's worth (sorry it's a bit of an essay)... I'm not sure the club will bring in any permanent signings. Everyone seems to be asking silly money, especially for forwards, so I wonder if they will just fill up their loan allocation? We currently have three. You can have as many as you want but only five are allowed in a matchday squad. Midfield If the Vale continue with two upfront then there's fewer midfield spaces to fill than earlier in the season, so you possibly don't need another midfielder. Presuming Ojo comes back soon, you've got Ojo, Gore, Weir and Chislett (plus Walters as back-up) to fill two central and one advanced midfield slot. You've even potentially got Garrity back in March too. On that basis, some of them are going to start on the bench. To me, it seems pointless to bring in another body just to also sit on the bench, especially if we could use signings in other areas of the team. I guess the counter argument is that we could have quite the fixture backlog so players could pick up injuries, suspensions etc so we may still need another. Attack I think the club has to prioritise what positions they bring players in and for me the concern would be numbers upfront. I'm personally very unsure about Ryan Loft (he seems so shot of any confidence that it's almost not worth picking him in the squad) plus there's always that James Wilson injury worry. For me, those things indicate that we really need two forwards coming in. We've got two loan slots available (taking us to the five allowed on matchdays) and it may be particularly difficult, given transfer fees to get someone upfront in permanently, so I wonder if the club will try and bring in two loan forwards? Wingbacks If you did bring in two loan forwards then clearly it wouldn't make sense to bring in a loanee LWB (unless you want to have six loanees and drop one from the squad each week). That may not be the best thing for player morale though (and goes counter to Vale's policy of giving gametime to their loan signings). It's not ideal to have not much cover for Conor Grant but I guess you could take the view that he's match fit at the moment, there's Shorrock available plus you can always (at a push) play someone like Sang or Massey out of position on the left. Defence If Dan Jones is back then at least we have two left-footed players although I suspect both of them will divide opinion. However, I think we have cover at the back, especially if you consider, in addition to Cass, Williams, Iacovitti, Debrah, Smith and Jones, you've also got Lowe and (at a push) Ojo who can cover there and we also have the likes of Lomax, who can fill in on the right of a three. I suspect the only activity there would be if Lewis Cass leaves, the club may have a replacement lined up. Kids Depending on the make-up of the squad it would be great to get some of the promising teenagers out on loan. I think loaning to non-league is different to loaning to league in that you can recall them. So, we could potentially get the likes of Shorrock, Lomax and Dipepa out there with the opportunity to recall them if injuries hit. I wonder if the Vale can "flip" their loan policy. i.e. they've done well to earn the trust of some higher placed clubs so I wonder if the Vale can now try and develop some trusted clubs in the non-league which they can send their youngsters to. That loan spell at Salisbury seemed to do James Plant the world of good (he came back and was straight into the first-team) so perhaps we could develop that relationship? Summing Up Having said all that, the club will probably bring in four permanent signings now... However, I think that the cautious "not spending money" approach to the window (bringing in two loanees) is the one the club may adopt. I guess if the right permanent signing comes along then the club could go for it, but everyone seems to be asking silly money, so I wonder if the club will just wait till the summer to re-assess and look at free agent forward signings then? I read in the (I think) Flitcroft interview about how the club prioritised a keeper (in terms of a bigger percentage of the budget) this summer. I think if they prioritise forwards in the summer that could be a sensible plan and we muddle through with Wilson, Ikpeazu and loanees for this season. We probably face a decision on Loft's future then too.

I think he's more of a ballwinner and for that reason more robust than Devine but without the passing range. In other words where Devine's strengths could be seen as passing and then tackling, arguably Gore's are the opposite. I can't remember where I saw that assessment of him, but I remember whatever article it was praised his combative, never say die style while saying his passing choices still needed a bit of fine tuning. However, I have no idea if what that article was saying is true or not. So, I see Weir as being the attacking player who creates chances (hopefully goals too) and plays further up with Gore behind doing the ball-winner role (now I've categorised him as some sort of modern day Andy Porter, he'll probably turn out to be a pass master who can't tackle now!) However, if he is that breaker-up of play who can win the ball back then his attributes could really help tighten us up, playing that Ojo role in front of the back three.

I read the summary of the Clark hearing. The lenient punishment was because he was fully co-operative with the enquiry and sought immediate help. Toney, by contrast got a harsher ban because he was accused by them of trying to conceal some of his bets (presumably not disclosing bank statements, betting account statements and so on).

Jack Stevens?

No-one would want to break into my account, believe me! Unless you're really keen to deal with stopping spammers trying to access the forum and other boring background tasks!

Please see this thread. It's a glitch after work on adding a cache to increase site speed. No actual a/c information is being shared -