Snodgrass

Murger · Post by **Murger** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:29 pm

Game over if West Ham are in for him.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:30 pm

yep he has. On another note rumours around tonight that Slimani of LCFC could well be off to China......

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:36 pm

9 Pages of fun today. Time to pack up and shut it down.

Dazzler · Post by **Dazzler** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:38 pm

Has he signed yet ?

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:41 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:Ripon or Ripponden ?

Oh don't know Random. I lived next to an old mate of his who told me he travelled in from Rippon while he was with us..... when I saw his address after his problems it was Rippon way so I just assumed he was still in the same house.

SkiptonClaret · Post by **SkiptonClaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:41 pm

Not fussed. Pushing 30 and the only thing apparently bigger than his head is his not inconsiderable wages. For the reported astronomical amounts of money involved (for us) I think we should be aiming to buy younger, it shouldn't be all about the next 4 months.

Burnleybabe · Post by **Burnleybabe** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:43 pm

Until I see the picture of a player holding a Burnley shirt/ scarf at Turf Moor I believe nothing.

dermotdermot · Post by **dermotdermot** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:46 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:yep he has. On another note rumours around tonight that Slimani of LCFC could well be off to China......

Best news I've heard all day. Best place for him.

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:48 pm

Disappointing if we don't get him, he'd have been a great addition for the here and now, but its promising to see this sort of player on our radar.

There is definitely something to be said for aiming for players a little younger and with future resale value. Hopefully something comes of the Brady link, if the Snodgrass one is now dead, if it doesn't it's going to be an interesting few days on here.

For right now I think Snodgrass would have the biggest impact of the two. Longer term, I suspect it might well be Brady.

LawsCanalJump · Post by **LawsCanalJump** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:49 pm

Ramirez transfer request?
Think we should pursue Brady now, if Snodgrass chooses us then great but if not we need a quick turn around

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:51 pm

The players, nowadays get to choose where they play, mostly.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:53 pm

LawsCanalJump wrote:Ramirez transfer request?
Think we should pursue Brady now, if Snodgrass chooses us then great but if not we need a quick turn around

Don't think there is much doubt that we are actively pursuing a good few besides those we know of, most of whom we will get over the line ASAP if they can.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:58 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Don't think there is much doubt that we are actively pursuing a good few besides those we know of, most of whom we will get over the line ASAP if they can.

Sounds like a whole new team!

pureclaret · Post by **pureclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:01 pm

''it should not be about the next 4 months'' as a previous poster put it should not , but it is and if we spent £15million on a 30 year old and stay up the resale value of a few players is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I feel we are only just coming up short in our games by a small margine and that extra little quality from a player like Snodgrass may well be the difference.
Will be very disappointed if we do not get him and or Brady. But then ive followed Burnley for some 50 odd years so should have learned by now.

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:03 pm

If we do miss out on Snodgrass, we should pull all the stops out and get Grosicki even it means paying off his gambling debt. Hell of a player and in all probability better than Snodgrass.

charlyt · Post by **charlyt** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:23 pm

Bunley are, and have always been a sellng club.

Juan Tanamera · Post by **Juan Tanamera** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:31 pm

charlyt wrote:Bunley are, and have always been a sellng club.

That doesn't fit with what Sean Dyche said recently and I'm struggling to think who we last sold out of financial necessity since Charlie Austin.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:33 pm

We're not a selling club at all

mybloodisclaret · Post by **mybloodisclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:34 pm

3putt wrote:If we do miss out on Snodgrass, we should pull all the stops out and get Grosicki even it means paying off his gambling debt. Hell of a player and in all probability better than Snodgrass.

Nothing is done yet. Though I think he is going to the Hammers if reports are to be believed.

Don't think we have given up on Brady yet, and both play in similar positions and roles.

Jury is out on Grosicki for me. I was very excited in summer but, there's no guarantee he would take to the premiership immediately, and we need quick impact players to get those final remaining points. Whatever SD decides will be good enough IMO.

Belgianclaret · Post by **Belgianclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:36 pm

3putt wrote:If we do miss out on Snodgrass, we should pull all the stops out and get Grosicki even it means paying off his gambling debt. Hell of a player and in all probability better than Snodgrass.

No need to panic 3putt, or you'll soon be called 4putt

Caernarfon_Claret · Post by **Caernarfon_Claret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:36 pm

I don't think we'll get anyone in this window, I think we'll finish in 16th. Hopefully The Summer will be better.

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:45 am

Pay off a players gambling debt?

Are you out of your fu**ing mind?

HendricksHair · Post by **HendricksHair** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:06 am

elwaclaret wrote:Oh don't know Random. I lived next to an old mate of his who told me he travelled in from Rippon while he was with us..... when I saw his address after his problems it was Rippon way so I just assumed he was still in the same house.

Was Ripponden. My grandma and grandad moved there a few years ago and told me that he lived nearby. He also says in his book that he met Simon Grayson at The Turnpike Inn which is just before the M62

mickleoverclaret · Post by **mickleoverclaret** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:55 am

Juan Tanamera wrote:That doesn't fit with what Sean Dyche said recently and I'm struggling to think who we last sold out of financial necessity since Charlie Austin.

Selling clubs don't just sell out of financial necessity. Southampton aren't poor but half their team goes every year because bigger clubs want them or because others can pay them more. That's why Ings, Trippier and Shackell are no longer here.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:03 am

3putt wrote:If we do miss out on Snodgrass, we should pull all the stops out and get Grosicki even it means paying off his gambling debt. Hell of a player and in all probability better than Snodgrass.

I was expecting comments this morning more along the lines of ' Snodgrass is no better than what we have' or 'a lot of money for a 30 year old' but asking for us to pay off a players gambling debts in order to just make a signing is a corker!

Tribesmen · Post by **Tribesmen** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:12 am

randomclaret2 wrote:We're not a selling club at all

Juke

bfcmik · Post by **bfcmik** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:41 am

Reading some of these posts I find myself amazed we have any Premier League standard players in our squad let alone think about trying to buy one.

Some posters seem to think that if any other club is also interested then that's curtains for us in trying to bring in any signings. We don't pay enough, we aren't attractive enough, we're too small - take your pick of why no half decent player would even dream of coming to play for BFC.

There is also a balance between those who think we need to splash out the cash whatever the price and those who think we should walk away from players who cost more than the poster seems to think is their value.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't!

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:09 am

Not a done deal yet, West Ham need to sell Payet to raise funds that's why the Hogan deal hasn't gone through yet, if Payet doesn't go then they won't sign Snodgrass.

jlup1980 · Post by **jlup1980** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:10 am

3putt wrote:If we do miss out on Snodgrass, we should pull all the stops out and get Grosicki even it means paying off his gambling debt. Hell of a player and in all probability better than Snodgrass.

I wouldn't pay off his gambling debt but there could be a logical way we could use his debt for our benefit!

Why not offer him a deal full of incentives around appearances, goals, assists and PL survival. It could be stipulated that the bonus payments are made in order to reduce his gambling debts. It might seem crass to prey on his gambling tendencies but it could actually work for both parties. He takes a gamble on himself; if he wins he can clear any debts he has whilst also putting himself in the shop window for bigger PL clubs and helping us stay in the league. I know it sounds ridiculous but I'm sure stranger things have happened with football deals over the years!

CrispyClaret · Post by **CrispyClaret** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:16 am

charlyt wrote:Bunley are, and have always been a sellng club.

We are a buying and selling club, just like the other 91 clubs. Some we buy and make a profit on, some we buy and let go for free. We certainly do not have a conveyor belt of youths coming through and getting sold on having proved their footballing prowess, so rely on the wheeler dealing of, hopefully, matured players.

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:17 am

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:I was expecting comments this morning more along the lines of ' Snodgrass is no better than what we have' or 'a lot of money for a 30 year old' but asking for us to pay off a players gambling debts in order to just make a signing is a corker!

Really? I'm glad to be of entertainment.

It's called brokering a deal. And if that debt settlement was part of the overall acquisition cost and that deal helps maintain our EPL status great business.

A few years ago I was in the company of one of our great players from the 60's. As we all know, money wasn't a real factor in those days, however, he signed for a one of our close neighbour rivals. They secured the deal by buying the then young man and his wife a house. Great incentive for him to sign.

It's called business!

LawsCanalJump · Post by **LawsCanalJump** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:17 am

The polish guy at squash says he hasn't gambled for a year and his debts are being dealt with!
That's enough for me!

CrispyClaret · Post by **CrispyClaret** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:19 am

I am glad your squash partner has got his gambling problem and finances back on track

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:21 am

Belgianclaret wrote:No need to panic 3putt, or you'll soon be called 4putt

Ouch Belgian

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:25 am

3putt wrote:Really? I'm glad to be of entertainment.

It's called brokering a deal. And if that debt settlement was part of the overall acquisition cost and that deal helps maintain our EPL status great business.

A few years ago I was in the company of one of our great players from the 60's. As we all know, money wasn't a real factor in those days, however, he signed for a one of our close neighbour rivals. They secured the deal by buying the then young man and his wife a house. Great incentive for him to sign.

It's called business!

Buying a house for a player and his family is a bit different to advocating paying off gambling debts when you have no idea who they are actually owed to!!!!

Inchy · Post by **Inchy** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:25 am

bfcmik wrote:Reading some of these posts I find myself amazed we have any Premier League standard players in our squad let alone think about trying to buy one.

Some posters seem to think that if any other club is also interested then that's curtains for us in trying to bring in any signings. We don't pay enough, we aren't attractive enough, we're too small - take your pick of why no half decent player would even dream of coming to play for BFC.

There is also a balance between those who think we need to splash out the cash whatever the price and those who think we should walk away from players who cost more than the poster seems to think is their value.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't!

I believe we can attract decent players, I just think we will find it difficult to attracted any decent premier league proven players.

I don't think its anything to do with the size of the club, more the wage structure. For some foreseeable time I think we are limited to buying player who are performing well in the football league, journey men Premier league players, young up and coming players who have not quite made it elsewhere, and foreign players who have gone under the radar of the richer clubs.

Its not just us limited to this but we will find it difficult to sign anyone when other premier league clubs are interested simply because we have a sensible board who are not willing to throw money at big wages.

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:26 am

mybloodisclaret wrote:Nothing is done yet. Though I think he is going to the Hammers if reports are to be believed.

Don't think we have given up on Brady yet, and both play in similar positions and roles.

Jury is out on Grosicki for me. I was very excited in summer but, there's no guarantee he would take to the premiership immediately, and we need quick impact players to get those final remaining points. Whatever SD decides will be good enough IMO.

I was also exited at the thought of signing him in the summer and I wish we had gone ahead. The club was obviously caught off guard at the final hour with the gambling debt revelation.

There's no guarantee with any player, but clearly SD wanted aim and thought he was a fit at the time.

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:35 am

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Buying a house for a player and his family is a bit different to advocating paying off gambling debts when you have no idea who they are actually owed to!!!!

Your point isn't made any more valid with an excessive use of exclamation marks.

Not really any different, it's about the overall cost of acquiring the player. Just give him the money to pay off the debt if you prefer. We are not talking about huge amounts in today's footballing terms.

Were you one of those strongly against signing Barton originally because of his history? And even more against his re-signing because of his football gambling revelations?

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:39 am

3putt wrote:Your point isn't made any more valid with an excessive use of exclamation marks.

Not really any different, it's about the overall cost of acquiring the player. Just give him the money to pay off the debt if you prefer. We are not talking about huge amounts in today's footballing terms.

Were you one of those strongly against signing Barton originally because of his history? And even more against his re-signing because of his football gambling revelations?

The two are incomparable.

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:42 am

Claretmatt4 wrote:The two are incomparable.

In your opinion not mine.

Actually, if you mean Barton, yes maybe. But asked the question because I wonder if it's a moral issue with harper?

If you refer to buying a house for a player to persuade him or pay off a gambling debt to persuade same thing in my opinion.

Thousands upon thousands of various deals will have been brokered over the years to gain a players signature. Naive to think otherwise.

jtv · Post by **jtv** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:42 am

3putt wrote:Were you one of those strongly against signing Barton originally because of his history? And even more against his re-signing because of his football gambling revelations?

To my mind it is not the amount of the debt but creating a precedent.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:44 am

Someone betting on football on average twice a week over 10 years, Most of that time when football betting was legal as long as you weren't involved (I think) is different to someone with a known addiction to gambling who has six figure debts (who to?) that he still hasn't paid even given he's healthy wage as a professional football for 10 years.

Yeah I think that's comparing Apples and pictures of Jeremy Clarkson dog.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:49 am

3putt wrote:Your point isn't made any more valid with an excessive use of exclamation marks.

Not really any different, it's about the overall cost of acquiring the player. Just give him the money to pay off the debt if you prefer. We are not talking about huge amounts in today's footballing terms.

Were you one of those strongly against signing Barton originally because of his history? And even more against his re-signing because of his football gambling revelations?

As far as we know Barton doesn't owe money to people does he? Presume you'd be happy with us underwriting any other debts our squad has?

taio · Post by **taio** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:50 am

Would be so wrong to have paid his gambling debts. Anyhow if he'd have signed he'd have been on enough money to take personal responsibility and pay off his own debts.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:51 am

I don't really care what someone does with a signing on fee. I do care about having a bad guy in our squad and so does SD. That is a big reason why are where we are.

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:54 am

Claretmatt4 wrote:Someone betting on football on average twice a week over 10 years, Most of that time when football betting was legal as long as you weren't involved (I think) is different to someone with a known addiction to gambling who has six figure debts (who to?) that he still hasn't paid even given he's healthy wage as a professional football for 10 years.

Yeah I think that's comparing Apples and pictures of Jeremy Clarkson dog.

Moral high ground then?

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:56 am

jtv wrote:Did Joey Barton ask us to pay off his gambling debts? To my mind it is not the amount of the debt but creating a precedent.

Joey won't have debt, he'll have winnings.

3putt · Post by **3putt** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:57 am

taio wrote:Would be so wrong to have paid his gambling debts. Anyhow if he'd have signed he'd have been on enough money to take personal responsibility and pay off his own debts.

So shouldn't the famous footballer that I referred to in the sixties been told to go and buy his own house like everybody else?

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:57 am

Don't think this signing will happen, with his wages being the deciding factor.

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:57 am

Steer clear, addiction is what it says.