Also, I don't see "well larry got Nunez on a 4 year contract" as an argument. He cost us nothing and will be earning relatively little. Everybody is harping on about how Warnock has fixed all our problems, yet he's made questionable decisions about players in a similar manner. We're stuck with Danny Pugh. Granted, Grayson signed him, but he sucks, why not get rid? Colin's decision to keep him. I give him the benefit of the doubt as he obviously rates him, much as Grayson rated Nunez - but I see the Nunez contract as more of a glaring example of the lack of financial backing Grayson received, forcing him to try find these gems in a steaming pile of horse afters, and hold onto them hoping they come good. Which Clayton arguably did - but the club doesn't think his obvious quality that is clearly going to develop is worth £9k a week - inconsistency is the main argument, but none of our players have been consistent this season. All seem to have adopted the "what's the point? club doesn't care why should i?" mentality - I'd imagine Clayton's inconsistency is down to this more than lack of talent or worth.

You can add Rogers to the same list as Nunez as well Marko. Why would Grayson take a gamble on an American winger, when we let a quality proven winger go in Gradel the transfer window before? The logical thing to do would be to bring in an established winger, who will make an instant impact. We don't have the backing to pull off the big signings which include transfer fees and high wages. Leicester brought in the young winger Marshall who was very successful at the owls on loan for around £1m, but we are not in the market for these type of players.

Many argue Grayson was backed. We made profit on the goalkeeper (around £450k) and sold Gradel. Yet the only transfers were 2 keepers, O'Dea on loan and Brown in the midfield on a free. If Grayson really had significant funds, would it be logical/sensible to wait until September to bring in two Finnish players, one who has never had a great goalscoring record, and the other who has never played in England before? To me it suggests, his targets through the summer went elsewhere, so he gambled on out of contract players to bulk up the squad and in the hope they may contribute.

Derby paid 750k for Shackell so they would want at least£2m way out of our reach

Who else would pay 500K for Danny Pugh? And though he may not be the best, the fact that he can play in several positions means he could be useful.

agree roz,pugh is useful because he can play various positions so as a sub that would be very useful.
marko- leicester waste 15 million and you say'at least they tried' what use is that?
why are we still talking about gradel? he wanted to leave for family reasons so we had no choice than sell him but he is still put forward as bates selling the clubs talent,get real

Playing in several positions is of no use when you're bad in all of those positions. I'd rather have a back up who's good in at least one position if they are going to be terrible in the rest.

As for who would buy him for 500k, doesn't really matter. It's sunken investment, sell him off get at least something for him and get his wages off the books, which I hear are what was deemed too much for Clayton.

Either way "no one will buy him" isn't an argument for not listing him. No one will buy Conolly by that same logic, or half the other deadweight players we've got on the books.

I used to always mix up Shackell and Pearce