Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
HankMarvin

James Tarkowski

Recommended Posts

If Burnley are looking at Dael Fry, maybe we could outbid them. They seem to base their  team on good strong defence, and signed Tarkowski and Keane, before selling the latter for £30M. Maybe Ginger Mourinho is good at spotting a decent Centre Half and we should take Fry for £10M rather than Tarkowski for £40M/£50M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the reality is, if Burnley can replace Tark, they will sell him to us.

 

It really does beg the question, why didn't we exercise a similar philosophy? It's not like this was out of the blue, we have known for months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, hamptonfox said:

If Burnley are looking at Dael Fry, maybe we could outbid them. They seem to base their  team on good strong defence, and signed Tarkowski and Keane, before selling the latter for £30M. Maybe Ginger Mourinho is good at spotting a decent Centre Half and we should take Fry for £10M rather than Tarkowski for £40M/£50M.

We don't need another unproven CB in my opinion , we already have two.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, L3n9a said:

So the reality is, if Burnley can replace Tark, they will sell him to us.

 

It really does beg the question, why didn't we exercise a similar philosophy? It's not like this was out of the blue, we have known for months. 

I guess because if we signed a CB for £40m then Man U didn’t meet our valuation we would have signed a CB with funds that could be better spent elsewhere and left with a £40m CB that wasn’t really required 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stephen Hughes said:

I guess because if we signed a CB for £40m then Man U didn’t meet our valuation we would have signed a CB with funds that could be better spent elsewhere and left with a £40m CB that wasn’t really required 

Or maybe when we signed three CB's last summer we were preparing for this eventuality.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stephen Hughes said:

I guess because if we signed a CB for £40m then Man U didn’t meet our valuation we would have signed a CB with funds that could be better spent elsewhere and left with a £40m CB that wasn’t really required 

Except you can have everything agreed and then green light it once replacement is found. Seems to be what Burnley are trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, L3n9a said:

So the reality is, if Burnley can replace Tark, they will sell him to us.

 

It really does beg the question, why didn't we exercise a similar philosophy? It's not like this was out of the blue, we have known for months. 

If we'd have bought Tarkowski first Man U would have known Maguire was then surplus and not paid £80m.

 

Also the fact that everyone and their dog knew we were looking for close to £90m.

Edited by hackneyfox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hamptonfox said:

If Burnley are looking at Dael Fry, maybe we could outbid them. They seem to base their  team on good strong defence, and signed Tarkowski and Keane, before selling the latter for £30M. Maybe Ginger Mourinho is good at spotting a decent Centre Half and we should take Fry for £10M rather than Tarkowski for £40M/£50M.

Whilst I understand your point we already have 2 young CB’s who we’re not sure are adequate or whether we can have full confidence in and we’d be taking a gamble on we don’t need a 3rd, we need someone to come in and do a job now, someone solid and proven.

 

Whilst bringing through the 2 youngsters we have.

 

Unfortunately bringing in someone to come in and do a job, someone solid is going to cost us, I’ll say again - making the Maguire deal almost pointless as we'll see very little profit all things considered and probably weaker for it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Matt said:

Whilst I understand your point we already have 2 young CB’s who we’re not sure are adequate or whether we can have full confidence in and we’d be taking a gamble on we don’t need a 3rd, we need someone to come in and do a job now, someone solid and proven.

 

Whilst bringing through the 2 youngsters we have.

 

Unfortunately bringing in someone to come in and do a job, someone solid is going to cost us, I’ll say again - making the Maguire deal almost pointless as we'll see very little profit all things considered and probably weaker for it all.

If we bring in a solid and proven CB to replace HM how do we bring Soyuncu and Benkovic through, presumably one would go on lone and the other would get a few cup games, in a years time we'd still have 2 untried CB's 2 years into their contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...