Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Reading between the lines when WHU were pursuing him, a bid of £31/32M with add-ons seemed likely to succeed. There's no way in hell he goes anywhere for £50m, and as others have pointed out, that release clause only applies to the NW Big 3. I don't think any reputable source has said 'Burnley are holding out for £50M'.

 

If we could get Tarks for about £32/33M with a few bob in add-ons, that'd be great business. Yes, it goes against the model, but there was little or no resale value in Wes, Huth or Simpson when we signed them, and that worked out fine. The model stays, but it can't be used for every purchase. Sometimes you need experience, players in their prime. This has always felt the better, safer option (than Fofana) for me. Just not as exciting!

 

As @The People's Hero has suggested, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that we get Tarks & Little Wes, though any excitement at that possibility probably has to be tempered by a loan back arrangement for Fofana.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, foxes_rule1978 said:

It is possible we could land Tarkowski, and also get Fofana with loaning him back, with the payment for Fofana not being paid till next season. 

The only reason St. Etienne would agree to that is if they don't think he will improve enough to command an even higher fee next summer. If he's that good, they would much rather reject our offer, keep him one more season, then sell him for €40m+ to a bigger club than us in 2021.

 

If St. Etienne are that tight for cash they may be swayed if we offered them say €10-20m this summer and the rest next summer, but if they've rejected bids of €32m then they really can't be that desperate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jeffschlupp said:

The only reason St. Etienne would agree to that is if they don't think he will improve enough to command an even higher fee next summer. If he's that good, they would much rather reject our offer, keep him one more season, then sell him for €40m+ to a bigger club than us in 2021.

 

If St. Etienne are that tight for cash they may be swayed if we offered them say €10-20m this summer and the rest next summer, but if they've rejected bids of €32m then they really can't be that desperate.

It is thought that they will sell him to us if we loan him back, so felt maybe this was the best for all clubs 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Odd - we don’t usually publicise stuff and if JP is reporting it then it’s with the club’s approval .....

 

so why would we stick this into the public domain. ???

 

this is a tweet that little wes won’t be ‘liking’! 

Wes needs to start earning his wage now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

It is thought that they will sell him to us if we loan him back, so felt maybe this was the best for all clubs 

We wlll realistically need both if we want to go to 3 centre backs and compete on 3 fronts.

 

Evans/Soy/Fof/Tarks. 3 from those; other on the bench of rested.

 

Fuchs/Knight/Morgan to fill in as required

 

Benko presumably to be waved goodbye.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

It is thought that they will sell him to us if we loan him back, so felt maybe this was the best for all clubs 

I agree that's a possibility, but only if we were to pay the majority of the fee this summer. Otherwise there's nothing in it for them if they think he can be world class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sell on fee means that Burnley would be mad to sell.  It is better value for them to get two more seasons out him and let him go free rather than accept less than half of £30m.

 

I think that this bid was made for St. Etienne's benefit in the full knowledge that it would be knocked back.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

imo at least

1 fofana

 

2 tah

3 tarkowski

 

 

Tark is not bad at all. Great player, but I would play 30-33 million ish for him max. If we do not get fofana, just go and get tah. Cheaper than both tark and fofana, and stil young enough to improve, while also being old enough to have good experience. Best of both worlds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steve Earle said:

Reading between the lines when WHU were pursuing him, a bid of £31/32M with add-ons seemed likely to succeed. There's no way in hell he goes anywhere for £50m, and as others have pointed out, that release clause only applies to the NW Big 3. I don't think any reputable source has said 'Burnley are holding out for £50M'.

 

If we could get Tarks for about £32/33M with a few bob in add-ons, that'd be great business. Yes, it goes against the model, but there was little or no resale value in Wes, Huth or Simpson when we signed them, and that worked out fine. The model stays, but it can't be used for every purchase. Sometimes you need experience, players in their prime. This has always felt the better, safer option (than Fofana) for me. Just not as exciting!

 

As @The People's Hero has suggested, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that we get Tarks & Little Wes, though any excitement at that possibility probably has to be tempered by a loan back arrangement for Fofana.

I don't know whose lines you were reading between.  I think more accurately, you could have said that certain members of the press thought that Burnley were strapped for cash (we aren't) and assumed we wanted to sell.

 

The point of a release clause is that if Man C, Man U or Liverpool bid £50m then Burnley are forced to accept it and Tarkowski can leave.  If Leicester (or anyone else not on the list) bid £50m then Burnley can decide not to sell.  And if there is no way in hell he goes anywhere for £50m, then that is good news for Burnley.

 

The Burnley board know that selling Tarkowski to Leicester would be a great deal for Leicester and a rotten deal for Burnley.  Which is why it won't happen.  Unless two other things happen first - one, Tarkowski plays silly beggars (which it looks worryingly like he might be doing) and two, Burnley sign a quality defender for less than the net £24m or so we would get.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

It is possible we could land Tarkowski, and also get Fofana with loaning him back, with the payment for Fofana not being paid till next season. 

If Under turns out decent, that could mean we have already spent 60m of next summer's budget.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Steve Earle said:

They all do. There'll be over 100 CB games to play this season and no one's playing 50...

 

Hope that makes sense??!?

Yeah I understand that there will be lots of games and certainly a need for at least three competent CBs, but I think almost every team with a back four would tend to have a first choice partnership, and then one who is clearly behind the other two but capable and happy to step in when fixture congestion is heavy. I think partnerships and a degree of consistency is especially important at CB. I can’t really work out who the first choice two would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

If we sign both tark and Fofana I’ll be utterly gobsmacked. 

 

It could only only mean one thing.... we only have 1 more year of Cags 

It clearly doesn’t. Surely the start to the season we’ve had, suspensions and injuries, tells you all you need to know, that we need at least 4 top quality CBs to fight on all fronts inc Europe

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Evans deal expires next summer. 

 

No noise about a new one. 

Yeah, had been wondering about this.

 

The articles about that Fofana deal would be accepted if we loan straight back to them, could make sense for us if we are losing evans next year, Soyuncu has one maybe two season left probably also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...