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

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, fox_up_north said:

It's clear Burnley value him highly and rightly so. A reliable CB that knows the PL is massively worth having. Even if he goes on a free in two years, they'll know from him now what his attitude is and that gives them time to find his replacement. I can admire their stance on this. 

The player I reckon will be off on a free once the contract runs out. He'll know he'll be an asset for most teams and will obtain a better wage elsewhere. West Ham are an embarrassment. 

  • Like 1
Guest Col city fan
Posted

Make it happen Leicester

I’m convinced Tarkowski would be a great addition 

Posted

I think you’d get him for 35m and to be fair he’s probably worth that. Solid, experienced and would be better with better around him but I don’t see us going for him now. 

Posted

I would ideally like 2 CBs this window - Fofana would be tremendous value for money at 19 years old with many years ahead of him. Tarkowski would be a great asset too, though I'm not sure if at £30-40m he'd be great value. There's no question that he'd be better off here than Wham though. That would be a huge step backward from Burnley. If we can get him in cheaply, I'm all for it.

  • Like 2
Guest Markyblue
Posted
1 minute ago, moore_94 said:

I wonder if we have gone back in for Tarkowski because we feel we can’t get Fofana?

All part of the game..

Posted
56 minutes ago, happy85 said:


The "numbers would need to be considerable" for James Tarkowski to leave Burnley during the transfer window, says manager Sean Dyche.
 

 

BBC

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.

Posted
10 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

I wonder if we have gone back in for Tarkowski because we feel we can’t get Fofana?

If they have turned down £31m from West Ham and we only have £20m upfront to buy a CB which St Etienne aren't happy about, what makes us think Burnely will accept £11m less than the dildo brothers bid?

  • Like 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

If they have turned down £31m from West Ham and we only have £20m upfront to buy a CB which St Etienne aren't happy about, what makes us think Burnely will accept £11m less than the dildo brothers bid?


West Ham bid was £25 M upfront with £6m add on

 

that what it was rejected and rightly so 


28 to 30 upfront with add on should do it

Posted
39 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

I wonder if we have gone back in for Tarkowski because we feel we can’t get Fofana?

Wouldn't make sense because Stone Cold Steve Austin wants £40m+ pound notes....

  • Haha 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Think old tange tash needs a  meeting with @Babylon

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.

Posted
56 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Found this beauty on a Burnley forum in a thread about Tarkowski lol

 

3A5E7B83-A0D8-44DD-B2D2-81622FD37F45.jpeg

I would argue they have probably bought a lot of pleasure to a lot of Thai people with the league win.

Posted
7 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

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.

Twas a tongue in cheek comment. 

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Twas a tongue in cheek comment. 

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.

Edited by dsr-burnley
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...