robf

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 -

It's ten minutes after they've signed with some people!

Just off topic for a bit... has anyone else noticed the number of uninformed Man Utd "fans" who are suddenly upset that Dan Gore may be going to Port Vale. I did a Twitter search for "Port Vale" and the latest posts are just chocka of uninformed nonsense from fans who think their teenaged talent (with one minute of League action to his name) is far too good for the likes of Port Vale. I presume that's because they haven't heard of us because we're not on Sky Sports every week and that they've got no clue that though Dan Gore may be "far better than Port Vale" we've now got a proven record of looking after young loan players and that we can give him plenty of first-team starts, something a kid with one minute of senior football may not get in the Championship or Premier League. Thank goodness, I'm not a supporter of a "big" club, I don't think I could take that amount of rubbish, spouted by uninformed idiots. And if you ever get fed up about a topic on OVF, it's well worth a brief trip onto Twitter - the amount of garbage on there may rapidly restore your faith in the quality of debate on here! Rant over...

Ethan's move will have to wait as we've got Liam Brazier's transfer to Barcelona, Borussia Dortmund, Bayern Munich, Bayer Leverkusen, PSG, Marseille, Nice, Juventus, Benfica or Rangers to complete first...

From what I've read of Dan Gore (and that's not much admittedly) he seems to be someone who enjoys a tackle and will get stuck in. So, a different player from Devine. However, I wonder if having one of those (showing my age here) all action "Andy Porter types" will help the defence? I think we've been badly missing Ojo and perhaps Gore can come up and add that screen in front of the back three?

The club is bringing in permanent signings - it's not just relying on loan signings. This season you could argue that Ripley, Debrah, Chislett and Ikpeazu are permanent signings that are upgrades. The problem as I see it is that the club also needs to up its success rate on permanent deals. Some aren't good enough, some have come with injury issues and are not available. This summer we brought in nine permanent signings (eleven if you include Debrah and Ikpeazu who arrived later). The problem for me is that only the four I mentioned can be seen as clear successes meaning a lot of the others haven't worked out. Loft hasn't impressed. Grant, Iacovitti and Clark have all been injured. I think there's a mix of squad additions this season - permanent moves, loanees, graduates from the youth team. So, I don't think the issue is a short term approach of bringing in loanees which can be recalled. Eleven permanent signings doesn't suggest a reliance on loans. It's been a mixed bag - the loans have largely been successful, playing the kids was always going to be a long game (and there are glimpses of potential) but the area where the club could improve is with the permanent signings. If they can improve the success rate there (it's never going to be 100% but four out of eleven isn't great) then that would help.

I've done a piece on the Brazier rumours on the front page. It may be useful if anyone is catching up. The response from Vale suggests these reports are hugely wide of the mark... Explainer: why latest Liam Brazier rumour should be treated with a pinch of salt - onevalefan.co.uk WWW.ONEVALEFAN.CO.UK

pm or am?

If this is to be believed, Uche is having a medical today... Charlton Athletic set for double striker swoop – South London News LONDONNEWSONLINE.CO.UK

As far as Young goes, he came back from Swindon seemingly fully fit and full of goals and then mysteriously picked up a knock and hasn't been involved in any squads for them. If he played for Bradford he would be ineligible to move anywhere else, so the theory goes that he isn't being played because they want to cash in on him.

I think there may have been a bit of Vale annoyance over the way Swansea handled the Thomas injury too. I can't remember which interview but in one of the pre-match ones, Crosby said the Vale were expecting Thomas back and then (I'm paraphrasing) he didn't turn up and they were told by Swansea he'd had a further issue and was a couple of weeks away still. The indication to me (perhaps I was reading too much into it) was that was unprofessional by the parent club and Vale seemed a bit miffed that neither club nor player had thought to mention it to the Vale.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. A gut feeling but first of all Uche doesn't strike me as one to sulk. You could also argue that playing well for Vale for the rest of the season suits his interests. He's getting fitter and fitter with more gametime, playing games puts him in the spotlight and gives him more chance of a decent move in the summer if that's what he wants. The flipside is if he sulks and gets dropped then there's potentially a player who's not matchfit who is less attractive to clubs (who wants a "problem" player?), who maybe has to go on trial and could end up without a club. He's suffered that fate earlier that season (I would imagine it wasn't very pleasant) and presumably wouldn't want to do it again. So, for me, if he was told to stay, it suits his interests more to knuckle down and get on with it.

I guess it all comes down to whether he's got a get-out clause in his contract or not. If he hasn't got a get-out clause I would hope Vale either hold him till the end of his contract and only let him go in January if an offer is too good to turn down.

Mike Baggaley suggests Vale are keen on Gore but any move would take time. So I suspect he may be later in the window if at all. I can't see it being Dale Taylor as he's still on loan. He'd have to be recalled but he's doing well at Wycombe so why would Forest bother? It's not in their interests. Their priority is to develop him and get him game time. Why risk moving him when he appears settled, in form and playing? I can see the logic in bringing in Young though, presuming the asking price isn't stupid. Take a chunk of the fee off with what we get for Uche and bring in a younger player with potential. From what I've read Young is pacy with a great shot and can play upfront by himself or as a partnership. The main criticism appears to be work rate off the ball, pressing etc but I guess Vale may think they can work on that. At our level you're never gonna get the complete player anyhow.

I'd agree with that. We hold the cards as Charlton have lost out on other players and need someone now. We only need to sell if the price is right. However, there's a limit to how desperate Charlton are. I suspect if Vale demanded any more than 100k they'd start looking elsewhere.

But Charlton's issue is they need a striker now, they can't wait six months. In that case, it's reasonable that they may have to pay over the odds. After all, Uche is under contract, we have no need to sell unless it's a decent fee.