THERE were more than a few eyebrows raised last week when Nottingham Forest made a bid to bring Kelvin Wilson back to the City Ground.
Not because he lacks quality. Wilson has proved, without doubt, in the past that he has the ability to flourish in the Championship.
Not even because of the manner in which he departed Nottingham two years ago.
Even if they were disappointed to see him leave most fans would understand the logic of a player wanting to accept the chance to play for one of the best supported clubs in Britain – and the lure of European football.
Nor should the events of his final few months at the club, when he was ostracised from the squad and made to train on his own, be allowed to reflect too badly on the player, who was left in a difficult situation once he had agreed a pre-contract with another club.
No, the only reason that the news caused a ripple of surprise was because the bid for Wilson was the second offer made for a former Reds defender in the matter of weeks.
And, rather than being a case of either or when it comes to Wilson and Wes Morgan, Forest clearly want to sign both men.
Despite already having added genuine quality in the form of Jack Hobbs, the former Leicester and Hull City man, Billy Davies hopes to add another two central defenders to his squad.
Whether they land either player will, in many ways, be a significant barometer of – if you will forgive the blatant lifting of a phrase from a previous era and a different regime – how serious the club are about promotion.
Neither Leicester or Celtic are in a particular rush to sell and, if Forest are therefore to succeed in their pursuit of either man, they are going to have to make the kind of offer that cannot be refused.
In Leicester's case, it may come down to how stubbornly they are willing to fight to keep their current player of the season.
Morgan may be out of contract at the end of the coming season, but the Foxes are clearly willing to play hardball. Because an offer of £1.5m is nothing to be sniffed at.
If Forest, as was anticipated last week, do raise the bar to £2m, then that would surely give their East Midlands rivals some serious thinking to do, given that the 29-year-old only has one season left on his current deal.
The decision, at that point, boils down to whether Leicester want to take £2m for Morgan now, less for him in January, or risk getting nothing at all next summer, when he could, in theory, leave on a Bosman.
While Celtic rejected the £1.5m bid for Wilson, Neil Lennon's response was more a hint that the offer was not big enough, rather than an outright 'the player is not for sale'. His response intimated that there may be a deal to be done, if Forest are willing to up their offer.
The Reds could yet end up with both players – but may have to shell out between £4m and £5m to finance the deals.
If they were to do that, it would be a clear, black and white demonstration of their ambition – given that, in the space of just two transfers, the club would make it remarkably difficult for themselves to fall within the new Financial Fair Play parameters.
At the same time, it would also provide a clear signal that Davies regards the back four as being a priority as he looks to build a squad for the coming campaign.
That, in itself, should not be a shock. That is typical Davies.
Forest, under his guidance, played an entertaining brand of counter attacking football.
The 3-1 victory at West Brom, in January 2010, was the perfect personification of Forest at their best, under the Scotsman. Goals from Dexter Blackstock, Radi Majewski and Chris Cohen capped off a fine display of fluid passing football.
But the central defensive partnership that day? Wilson and Morgan.
The defence has always been the starting point for Davies. Forest's priority, during his first spell in charge, was to keep a clean sheet.
And to say they were good at it would be an understatement.
In that season, when Forest were edged into third place, they kept 19 clean sheets in the Championship. That is a remarkable figure.
When they did concede a goal, it was rarely more than a single, solitary strike from the opposition. Right up until mid-March, in fact, only three teams managed to score more than once against Forest all season.
By the end of the campaign, it had still only happened in eight matches.
The following season Forest's clean sheet quota was 14, which is still an impressive figure.
But clean sheets, not unsurprisingly, have often been the cornerstone for success in the Championship.
In 2009/10, Swansea kept 24 and somehow still managed to only finish seventh. But Newcastle (22) and WBA (15) kept things tight as they finished in the top two.
In 2010/11 the leading pair kept the most clean sheets, with QPR (25) and Swansea (21) winning promotion.
The 2011/12 campaign was the same story, with Reading (20) and Southampton (18) making the step up.
Last season title-winning Cardiff shut out the opposition 18 times and Hull 16. Brighton's 17 clean sheets helped them to a play-off place.
Forest may still make a landmark signing; a statement addition that says 'we mean business' when it comes to the array of strikers and wingers they are chasing.
But Davies will know that the most important investment this summer could prove to be in the form of Morgan and Wilson. If even one of the duo were to return, it would leave Forest with a host of options in the heart of defence, with not only Hobbs but also Danny Collins, Greg Halford and Jamaal Lascelles at the club.
That would leave Davies with a headache when it comes to keeping everyone happy. Indeed, in such an event it might be better for Lascelles to go out on loan to gain regular football – and much needed experience – elsewhere.
Halford's versatility will ensure that there will be numerous potential roles for him to play in the squad. While Collins, in theory, could be one of four experienced defenders fighting it out for a place in the back four.
Personal frustration aside, that can be no bad thing for any club. Because, as Davies knows as well as anyone, clean sheets, in this division, are the most important commodity of all.
