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
 Share
HankMarvin

James Tarkowski

By HankMarvin, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

murphy

murphy

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Gerard said:

My problem in going over £30m for him is that he's a player at his peak who is well known in the PL but none of the elite clubs are interested in him. He also has 21 months left on his contract and is refusing to play by all accounts so we shouldn't be paying £35m+ for such a profile. 

 

It's a bit like Sigurdsson a few years a go who was at his peak age, little resale value but costs top dollar and is well known in the division yet still none of the elite clubs wanted him. 

 

Happy to have Tarkowski but for no more than £30m. 

That's all true but the situation seems to be that if we need a centre half we have to over pay or go without and the second option is not an option.

mozartfox

mozartfox

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

£7m a year for 5 years = £35m. 

 

For an player of his quality, I dont think that's too bad!

Might take BR one season to ‘coach’ out all the Dycheisms :dunno: 

  • Like 1
Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, foxfanazer said:

But I don't think it sounds like we're in for multiple positions from what Brendan has said anyway so doubt that extra £5m would make much difference 

He wanted 5 new players, we have 2 in so far. Chances are we will get a CB and hopefully get a loan or another deal across the line, £5m might not seem much but it could get us a striker in on loan for a season and if we struggle to get Slimani, Silva and Ghezzal out then it could hammer us on our wage structure anyway. 

  • Like 1
NaijaFox

NaijaFox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, foxfanazer said:

But I don't think it sounds like we're in for multiple positions from what Brendan has said anyway so doubt that extra £5m would make much difference 

He said he wanted about 5 incomings.

foxfanazer

foxfanazer

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

He wanted 5 new players, we have 2 in so far. Chances are we will get a CB and hopefully get a loan or another deal across the line, £5m might not seem much but it could get us a striker in on loan for a season and if we struggle to get Slimani, Silva and Ghezzal out then it could hammer us on our wage structure anyway. 

If the £5m difference is that detrimental the club won't sign him. As fans I don't think we should be too concerned 

foxfanazer

foxfanazer

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, NaijaFox said:

He said he wanted about 5 incomings.

When did he say this? Thought he went on record recently saying it would be difficult to bring many players in

Edited by foxfanazer
Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted
Just now, foxfanazer said:

If the £5m difference is that detrimental the club won't sign him. As fans I don't think we should be too concerned 

It might not seem like much but there's reasons why teams don't offer just a few more million and secure transfers and walk away. Our budget is evidently tight this window, don't overpay for 28 year old from Burnley is the main rule.

  • Like 3
CrispinLA in Texas

CrispinLA in Texas

Posted
Posted

 So we got this wonderkid Fofana who wants to join us but still doing the business for his club and playing really excellent. And Tarkowski who also wants to join us and has gone on strike from his club and it seems doesn't give a toss for his team. Who do you guys want?

  • Haha 1
Leicester_Loyal

Leicester_Loyal

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, egg_fried_rice said:

Defender, who missed defeat to Southampton with a toe injury, is expected to join Leicester this week

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/09/27/losingjames-tarkowski-does-not-bode-burnley-struggling-replenish/

 

can't skip the paywall as on my phone, can anyone else enlighten us?

 

'It may be business as usual as far as Sean Dyche is concerned but as his injury-ravaged Burnley side limped to a second successive league defeat, it felt like unknown territory in his eight years in charge at Turf Moor.

Without seven injured first-team players, Dyche had 14 senior names for a game settled by Danny Ings’s early goal but, more alarmingly for medium-term prospects, his is a squad who have undergone virtually no strengthening since the end of last season. Now, as the transfer window enters its final week, there is the very real prospect of Dyche losing bodies, not gaining them.

Defender James Tarkowski, the subject of bids from West Ham and Leicester and out with a toe injury, is expected to join Brendan Rodgers’ club this week if they meet Burnley’s asking price, believed to be £40 million. Not that Dyche would approve such a sale or, indeed, expand too much on the severity of Tarkowski’s injury.

 

“It will be a board decision,” Dyche said. “I certainly want to keep him, make no mistake, he is a very important player, I think it is very important we keep him.

“He’s got a sore toe, we’re having to wait for that. He said to me it’s not serious but it’s sore. It’s had all the checks, everything has been done.”

Burnley have always been financially risk-averse, admirably so in some instances, but never before has Dyche had to deal with such a stunning lack of investment.

 

Dale Stephens, a £1 million arrival from Brighton and Hove Albion last week, was thrust in for an early debut against Southampton but remains Dyche’s only outfield recruit in this window. The manager was frustrated during Project Restart that his board would not ­re-sign four first-teamers to new contracts. But now, having finished 10th last season and guaranteed a fifth successive season of top-flight football, Dyche surely deserves more substantial backing.

 

While these are obviously unprecedented times, for football and society in general, there is an unavoidable feeling that this is a pivotal week in the modern history of the club, and their manager. The very real prospect of losing Tarkowski and not adding any more signings would leave the potential for catastrophe although, for Dyche, it prompted a familiar refrain.

 

“When I first got here, we sold Charlie Austin and had three free transfers. That’s the way it goes,” Dyche said. “I try and manage the model we have, try and manage with the guidance we have from the chairman and the board and that’s that. There is no ‘damage,’ it’s just the truth about the club and the way it wants to work. It’s worked well for us over a period of time. I’ve said we need to stretch it, we need to look at it because the market doesn’t care what we think.

 

“That’s just a challenge that I have had all along here and it’s just continuing, and it’s just exacerbated by the fact of the injuries we’ve got.”

Dyche’s opposite number, Ralph Hasenhuttl, had also endured a difficult start to the season but saw individuals such as Kyle Walker-Peters and midfielder Oriol Romeu respond well to poor displays in last week’s 5-2 defeat by Tottenham.

 

“We saw two different players from last week and this week,” Hasenhuttl said. “Oriol was a disaster against Spurs, too hectic. Tonight he was really the boss in the midfield. A fantastic performance.”'

  • Thanks 1
Pliskin

Pliskin

Posted
Posted

I actually don’t think this makes much sense.... because does he dislodge Evans? And with the signing of Under is Rogers really going to use three CB’s more often than not? Either way, surely either Tarks or Under is going to miss out more often? As I can’t see how he replaces Evans or Cags.....

Bob Weasel Fox

Bob Weasel Fox

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pliskin said:

I actually don’t think this makes much sense.... because does he dislodge Evans? And with the signing of Under is Rogers really going to use three CB’s more often than not? Either way, surely either Tarks or Under is going to miss out more often? As I can’t see how he replaces Evans or Cags.....

That is why Fofana makes much more sense as he would learn off Evans and play a smaller role for the first season or so 

 

long term planning 

 

Tark more risky in my opinion 

  • Like 1
Pliskin

Pliskin

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bob Weasel Fox said:

That is why Fofana makes much more sense as he would learn off Evans and play a smaller role for the first season or so 

 

long term planning 

 

Tark more risky in my opinion 

I agree... I don’t think signing Tarks is a good idea. Good player, but just not right for us at the moment.....

  • Like 2
HighPeakFox

HighPeakFox

Posted
Posted

It's for quality rotation, I think, so Evans and Cags both get time to recuperate. Hopefully this avoids the tail-off we saw last season, or at least is a part of that process.

Pliskin

Pliskin

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, HighPeakFox said:

It's for quality rotation, I think, so Evans and Cags both get time to recuperate. Hopefully this avoids the tail-off we saw last season, or at least is a part of that process.

Tarks won’t be happy with that, he will want to come here and be the main man. And I don’t think he will...

HighPeakFox

HighPeakFox

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Tarks won’t be happy with that, he will want to come here and be the main man. And I don’t think he will...

That may well be the case. On the other hand, he might a) fancy the cash and b) realise that Evans is getting older and Cags may be sold before too long.

Pliskin

Pliskin

Posted
Posted
Just now, HighPeakFox said:

That may well be the case. On the other hand, he might a) fancy the cash and b) realise that Evans is getting older and Cags may be sold before too long.

Which is also true, only issue with that is Tarks although not old, is in the prime of his career. And the clubs policy seems to be to sign players (more often than not) with prospect to make a profit on. I just don’t feel this signing at all, just seems like a signing for the sake of it just because St. Shitienne won’t play ball. I k is we’ve been interested in the past but I feel that was to replace Maguire, but we’ve gone beyond that now with Cags and Evans. You’re bang on re Evans, but that’s why I think a more youthful player would be the best option.... so although a risk I’d spend £40 on Wesley. 

HighPeakFox

HighPeakFox

Posted
Posted
Just now, Pliskin said:

Which is also true, only issue with that is Tarks although not old, is in the prime of his career. And the clubs policy seems to be to sign players (more often than not) with prospect to make a profit on. I just don’t feel this signing at all, just seems like a signing for the sake of it just because St. Shitienne won’t play ball. I k is we’ve been interested in the past but I feel that was to replace Maguire, but we’ve gone beyond that now with Cags and Evans. You’re bang on re Evans, but that’s why I think a more youthful player would be the best option.... so although a risk I’d spend £40m on Wesley. 

Time will tell. Might be quite nice to have a new player in their prime.

jayfox26

jayfox26

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I agree... I don’t think signing Tarks is a good idea. Good player, but just not right for us at the moment.....

Would make more sense to get Fofana now and get Tarks next summer when he would be considerably cheaper with only a year left on his deal. By that point, Evans might not mind dropping down the pecking order and if we had Fofana and Tarks, it would soften the blow if someone was to come in with a big bid for Cags. Next summer will be interesting as I cant see us moving away from our plan of selling one player a year but we have Ndidi, Ricardo, Barnes, Maddison and Cags who could all attract interest from big clubs if they continue the way they have been. 

  • Like 2
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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