dsr-burnley

This is a red herring. You've got a valid point, but this isn't it. The point of Covid deaths is that a lot of them are people who were going to die anyway. (Well, all of them were going to die anyway, I suppose.) But they were going to die fairly soon. It's exactly the same with covid as it is with flu and pneumonia. How many people are killed each year by flu and/or pneumonia? About 20,000, estimated, depending whose figures you use. How many people die each year with flu and/or pneumonia on their death certificate? About 115,000. Why the difference? Because most of them were sying anyway. If you have terminal cancer, flu or covid will finish you off. If you have a severely weakened heart, flu or covid will finish you off. Forget the car accidents, the numbers make no difference in the grand scheme. I personally know 2 people who died of pneumonia and are officially recorded as that. One was my grandmother. she had a series of strokes and spent her last week of "life" lying in bed in a nursing home, asleep. It was officially pneumonia that killed her, but if it hadn't been that, it would have been something else. And my godfather - he was genuinely living as healthy a life as a 102 year old can do until he got pneumonia and died. But the point is, they were both nearing the end of their lives as a result of old age and wear and tear, and something was going to happen in the end to finish them off. Ultimately, we all die of the same thing. We stop breathing. And a respiratory disease is a sure way of stopping the breathing of those whose body is already finding it hard work. So this is the question you should be asking. How many of these coronavirus deaths were people who were looking likely to go on for years if the virus had not intervened; and how many were on death's pathway already and coronavirus happened to be the thing that shuffled them off it; but something else would have done relatively shortly anyway.

We're used to injury crises, and as long as we have 11 fit players we will make a do. There was no extra time, and there is no way a Dyche team will be tired after just one game.

Probably Bardsley rather than Lowton. Vydra can make a difference off the bench, as he proved a couple of times last season. But as long as we're winning, we don't want to make a difference!

Which Burnley are preparing to reject. Of course, you have a much better chance than West Ham did of unsettling him. I certainly hope not.

That's probably good news. If there are over a quarter of a million new cases every week but deaths are staying steady at about 60, then the disease is clearly not having the effect that it was.

I thought it might be. But you know how it is on social media - one person says Dyche said that, ten people quote it out of context, and it becomes perceived fact. It's as well to make it clear early on.

It's unlikely there would be any confusion, but just to clear it up, Dyche's name being on a thread topic doesn't mean that dyche wrote every word that is there. That post means that a random Burnley fan doesn't like King Power subsidising Leicester City. No more.

Which is not the same as "happy to sell but at the right price". It's more like "not happy to sell but it's inevitable if the price is high enough". Every player has a price. If someone offered £200m for Vardy any time in the last two or three years, would you sell? £400m? £600m? Burnley are not going to say "not for sale even if they offered a billion pounds and three England internationals in exchange" because every player has his price.

He has a dig at the Chairman in almost every interview. He seems happy enough in the job but gives every impression that he would move if someone offered him a decent job. Fortunately, the clubs with money seem to want fancy dan foreigners or tika-taka ball players while the teams that don't have money (not that there are many of them this year) wouldn't be an improved offer. Basically, the Chairman is in charge of getting transfers "over the line" and he has a very rigid idea of wage structure and budget. Dyche wants the budget to be stretched a bit. Dyche has shown over years that he would rather sign no-one than sign a player who doesn't fit in; Garlick (the Chairman) is showing that he would rather sign no-one than sign a player at the wrong price. Which may explain why we have signed no-one!

Burnley haven't said that. A lot of journalists have quoted rumours that Burnley want to sell. Those rumours are almost certainly false.

Wrong. Burnley are serious about not selling.

It's impossible to imagine Burnley's board being fool enough to sell Tarkowski for £30m. (Even though lots of journalists have imagined it.) Tarkowski has a limited escape clause in his contract of £50m to Liverpool, Man U, Man C only. But if someone else bids £50m and Tarkowski wants to go, then he very probably would go. But not for £30m net £23m, that would be nonsensical.

I've heard £3m, I've heard £6m. Definitely, absolutely, no more than £6m. It makes the purported £30m receipt into £22.5m or £23.4m, so not significantly different in terms of decision making on whether to sell.

Forget it. Burnley have 3 centre halves at the club and one of them is injured. We aren't selling Tarkowski unless it's for silly money, and £22m net after Brentford get 27.5% does not qualify as silly money.

One reason he left Brentford was because he wanted a move to the north west. There's no need to assume that everyone on the planet wants to live in London.

He's fast enough. He won't outrun full backs, but then again who does nowadays? Full backs can usually shift. I'm not convinced he's as good as many of our fans think, but he's certainly a lot better than Southgate and his team think. He's by far Burnley's most creative player, especially given that Gudmondsson has been injured such a lot recently, and defends well and is not afraid of hard work. He's also probably not a fancy dan chase-the-money type. There's no need to assume that a big increase in wages would automatically mean he would want to leave. It's widely rumoured that he would like to play for Manchester United and he's been well advised that another year at Burnley might help his chances. Meantime he still lives with parents in a relatively modest home. And he's under contract for another 4 years. Hands off! 😉

Michael Keane was sold for £30m with one year left on his contract, 3 years ago. Has the market plummeted?

I wouldn't worry. If your random twitterers are right and you have offered £55m for the pair, then they won't be moving. Ignore people who tell you Burnley are short of cash. They're not. That rumour came about because the chairman said that if football didn't finish last season and start the new one, then the club would run out of cash by September. I think perhaps the twitterers didn't notice that the season restarted after all.

That's the nub. Southgate has made it clear that he won't pick Burnley players at any price (Tarkowski no, Taylor no not even when there are no other fit left backs, Pope reluctantly in the squad but doesn't play, and McNeil not even in the under 21's. Burnley players must believe that if they want England recognition, they need to leave. You won't get him for £30m though. Burnley aren't cash poor and are already at least one centre half light. Maybe next year.

He doesn't feature on the right because he's definitely better on the left. Crossing is his strong point and his left foot is the better one. The number of assists surprises me as being low. VAR took a couple away because of someone being a quarter of an inch offside. Others (like Westwood's goal against you) don't count as assists because a defender touched the ball. Corners tend to be flicked on by Mee for Wood to score so the corner taker doesn't get the assist. Goals will come when he shoots more in matches like he does (so I'm told) in training.

We signed Josh Brownhill in January, who based on the last 8 games of the season already looks better than Hendrick both on the right and in the centre.

One problem is that if you pay a reserve (I know he played most of the matches last season until he downed tools, but only because Gudmondsson was injured) the money he asks - you may have more idea than me how much he was asking - then all the better players want rises as well. If a squad players gets an extra £1m per year, then all the better players want at least an extra £1m per year and your £32m goes up the Swanee very fast. Especially as you were hoping to spend some of that £32m on a replacement left winger.

No it doesn't. £32m doesn't guarantee PL football for ever and a day, or even for a year. Bournemouth have just proved that. General opinion on Hendrick is that he left because he wanted to play centre midfield. Where's your information from?

No. Burnley aren't strapped for cash, Burnley believe that McNeil is improving and will be worth a lot more next year, he is under contract for 4 more years (3 plus a club option), he has a preferred move in the north west that he isn't ready for, he is being advised by all and sundry including his father that he is better at Burnley for another year, and £32m will be rejected out of hand by Burnley and Leicester won't be willing to bid high enough to tempt. The only way it would happen would be if McNeil demanded to go, and I don't think Leicester is the club, or would pay the wage, that would tempt him to make that demand.

Is that why Burnley's style is so unpopular? Too much of this "fires it in", "desperate to get in the box" stuff instead of passing it around the back four all day long?