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

Lambert09

Lambert09

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, FoxinNotts said:

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

Hmm paying over 30m for a 4th choice cb. We’ve grown as a club but not that much, we’re not man city yet. 

 

If were signingg both, Fofana would be loaned back for the season. But trust me, evans or cags wouldn’t be here  next season. Perhaps as others have mentioned Evans might not re-sign.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NaijaFox

NaijaFox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, theessexfox said:

Who starts out of him, Evans and Soy? Presuming that we don’t shift to 3 at the back.

1 hour ago, les-tah said:

Unless evans is also really struggling

1 hour ago, peach0000 said:

That's the one issue with this deal, we will have three CBs that are at the level where they will expect to play every game.

1 hour ago, dbtcity said:

Again I agree but like I said it just doesn’t seem like the kind of deal we do now a days, plus we have an established pairing so unless we’re planning on going 3 atb a younger player to bed in with a high celling ability wise probably makes more sense..... all that being said I rate JT and wouldn’t be against us signing him

We have more than enough games coming up this season to comfortably rotate among 3 starter-quality CBs (and there’s always the danger of injuries), but it also gives us the tactical flexibility of playing occasionally playing 3 at the back.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewquayFox

NewquayFox

Posted
Posted

Seems a decent no nonsense centre half, hopefully we get him but also hoping Soyuncu doesn’t go in the January window but with his mate Under joining us I hope he doesn’t go, just hope Tarkowski has recovered from his sore toe... :chant:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Earle

Steve Earle

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

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.

Fair play to you @dsr-burnley for your ever so slightly biased take on things, don't blame you at all , boot on other foot etc. 

 

I think (and that's all it is) that Burnley can be persuaded to sell Tarks for around £35m. They'll have one or two targets in mind at half that price, or less, to replace him. We'll see soon enough.

 

And in case that comes across as snarky, it's not meant to be. I've got a lot of time for Burnley & Dyche, and hope they finish well clear of the relegation dogfight once again

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted
Just now, Steve Earle said:

And in case that comes across as snarky ...

Not in the slightest.  

 

We're all biased, I suppose.  But if Burnley fans were offered a straight swap Maguire for Tarkowski, there would probably be a majority turn it down.  We didn't keep so many clean sheets by fluke.  And when Bournemouth, who kept few clean sheets, can sell their centre half for £40m plus, Tarkowski seems grotesquely undervalued.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pliskin

Pliskin

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, moore_94 said:

The article:

 

Brendan Rodgers has made a bid worth over £30 million for James Tarkowski, the Burnley centre-half.

 

Leicester have already had one offer turned down for the England international this month and are returning with a second proposal which they hope will persuade Burnley into agreeing a deal.

 

Rodgers, the Leicester manager, has identified a new centre-back as a priority in this transfer window and Tarkowski, 28, has been a long-term target for the club.

 

Leicester are operating under a restricted budget but have made a significant offer for Tarkowski, due to the pressing need for defensive reinforcements.

 

Burnley are demanding the £50m fee written into Tarkowski’s contract yet Leicester are hopeful of striking a compromise due to the severe impact of Covid-19 on football's finances.

 

It is understood that Tarkowski is interested in pursuing a move to the King Power Stadium.

 Brendan personally? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scotch

Scotch

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

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.

Gonna tell Dyche that? That fucher loves pleading poverty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Gonna tell Dyche that? That [] loves pleading poverty!

The chairman insists on keeping money back for a rainy day and Dyche thinks he's not spending enough.  We don't need to raise money, but we haven't got lots to spare.

 

One reason we don't spend fortunes on new players is that we're pretty good at keeping the ones we've got.  Michael Keane was the last expensive departure that they would have preferred to keep, and crucially, that was when we had his replacement (Tarkowski) already at the club and had been for 18 months.  

Edited by dsr-burnley
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NaijaFox

NaijaFox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

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.

In that case, we could throw in Benkovic to sweeten the deal. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
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...