No Sam Vokes ?
-
- Posts: 1256
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:23 am
- Been Liked: 495 times
- Has Liked: 219 times
No Sam Vokes ?
Make-weight in a deal for Joe Allen?
-
- Posts: 12370
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5210 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Off to Canvey Island apparently
-
- Posts: 5548
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:40 pm
- Been Liked: 1448 times
- Has Liked: 1229 times
- Location: Ferkham Hall
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
If he can’t get on as a sub his days are numbered.
Making sure he doesn’t get injured before the sale?
Making sure he doesn’t get injured before the sale?
-
- Posts: 17272
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
- Been Liked: 6490 times
- Has Liked: 2918 times
- Location: Fife
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Joe Allen is to good for Canvey IslandDevils_Advocate wrote:Off to Canvey Island apparently
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Not starting him alongside Vydra was a bizarre decision which I can only put down to wanting to prove a point to the board or something.
Playing a team as good as City and we don’t want a target man as an outlet?? Madness.
Playing a team as good as City and we don’t want a target man as an outlet?? Madness.
These 2 users liked this post: Turfytop cricketfieldclarets
-
- Posts: 17272
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
- Been Liked: 6490 times
- Has Liked: 2918 times
- Location: Fife
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Wouldn't have mattered who we played we would still have got hammered,there was a little kid predicting results on football focus,he was an Accrington fan,fair play to the kid he said 5-0 even he knewSGr wrote:Not starting him alongside Vydra was a bizarre decision which I can only put down to wanting to prove a point to the board or something.
Playing a team as good as City and we don’t want a target man as an outlet?? Madness.
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Not saying we wouldn’t have lost, but why make such a decision? Vydra on his own up front wouldn’t have worked against whoever we played. Derby fans will tell you it didn’t work for them, he was signed on the back of a season in which he scored more than 20 goals from the number 10 spot behind the striker.Steve1956 wrote:Wouldn't have mattered who we played we would still have got hammered,there was a little kid predicting results on football focus,he was an Accrington fan,fair play to the kid he said 5-0 even he knew
This for me goes further than just a simple team selection.
These 2 users liked this post: Turfytop cricketfieldclarets
-
- Posts: 17272
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
- Been Liked: 6490 times
- Has Liked: 2918 times
- Location: Fife
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Ok...you win.SGr wrote:Not saying we wouldn’t have lost, but why make such a decision? Vydra on his own up front wouldn’t have worked against whoever we played. Derby fans will tell you it didn’t work for them, he was signed on the back of a season in which he scored more than 20 goals from the number 10 spot behind the striker.
This for me goes further than just a simple team selection.
-
- Posts: 10915
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
- Been Liked: 5560 times
- Has Liked: 208 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
The words “tin”, “foil” and “hat” spring to mind.SGr wrote:Not saying we wouldn’t have lost, but why make such a decision? Vydra on his own up front wouldn’t have worked against whoever we played. Derby fans will tell you it didn’t work for them, he was signed on the back of a season in which he scored more than 20 goals from the number 10 spot behind the striker.
This for me goes further than just a simple team selection.
-
- Posts: 10974
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 5188 times
- Has Liked: 804 times
- Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Actually the words "What", "a", "load", "of" and "b0llocks" spring to mind.TheFamilyCat wrote:The words “tin”, “foil” and “hat” spring to mind.
These 2 users liked this post: fidelcastro evensteadiereddie
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Vydra and Vokes does appear to be a very Burnley Championship winning forward line (Vokes/Ings, Vokes/Gray)
Has it been tried for a game? (Can't think off the top of my head)
Has it been tried for a game? (Can't think off the top of my head)
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Was the obvious front two today. Must have hurt sam to not even feature. The treatment of vokes is bizarre at times. Have to say i think hes off based on today.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
What about Vydra and Wood?JTClaret wrote:Vydra and Vokes does appear to be a very Burnley Championship winning forward line (Vokes/Ings, Vokes/Gray)
Has it been tried for a game? (Can't think off the top of my head)
Both have been the Championship top goalscorers in their own right, so those 2 together would be pretty mean.
Have they been tried?
-
- Posts: 11530
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:33 pm
- Been Liked: 3189 times
- Has Liked: 1870 times
- Contact:
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Apparently Stoke are interested in him, along with Austin
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -mark.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
£9m? Adios Sam!
£9m? Adios Sam!
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Would only make sense if SD rates Vydra. I know Wood-Barnes is our best front two but it leaves little in reserve.claretdj wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -mark.html
£9m? Adios Sam!
Or is McNeil going up top?
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Or maybe we are in for Vincent Janssen after all.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
More chance of us signing vincent van gogh.Grimsdale wrote:Or maybe we are in for Vincent Janssen after all.
This user liked this post: basil6345789
-
- Posts: 4486
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:29 am
- Been Liked: 990 times
- Has Liked: 3266 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
I saw a guy with one ear in a Renault Clio filling up with petrol in Padiham yesterday. ??FactualFrank wrote:More chance of us signing vincent van gogh.
This user liked this post: Leisure
-
- Posts: 976
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:38 pm
- Been Liked: 391 times
- Has Liked: 2107 times
- Location: Rossendale
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
To be fair, you’re not a proper Padihamer if you have both your ears. Renault Clio - was he from the posh end?The Enclosure wrote:I saw a guy with one ear in a Renault Clio filling up with petrol in Padiham yesterday. ??
-
- Posts: 2111
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2015 8:31 am
- Been Liked: 1150 times
- Has Liked: 1621 times
- Location: Worsthorne
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
If his neck was thick then he'll be local, if not he may have been the originalThe Enclosure wrote:I saw a guy with one ear in a Renault Clio filling up with petrol in Padiham yesterday. ??
-
- Posts: 18095
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3874 times
- Has Liked: 2073 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
He can't of been local, as most locals won't fill up there.
Lots of shenanigans go on at that station allegedly.
Lots of shenanigans go on at that station allegedly.
-
- Posts: 4405
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:43 am
- Been Liked: 1467 times
- Has Liked: 997 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
I would take that IF we can pull it off. Essentially £6m plus our 3rd choice striker for Janssen.
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
I saw Vokes and Joe Allen crossing the motorway bridge in opposite directions at a Charnock Richard Services this morning...
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Should have played 90 mins yesterday! Don’t normally criticise the Boss but he needs minutes and we needed him
-
- Posts: 1468
- Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:55 pm
- Been Liked: 534 times
- Has Liked: 506 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Vydra was hung out to dry yesterday. Playing up top on his own with his team mates sat 50 metres away from him was never going to work. I felt sorry for him tbh.
Wonder if this was SD was trying to make various points?!
As for Vokes. I've always liked him as a player. He can hold the ball up, links up well and scores important impact goals. If he goes then I'm sure we'll all wish him luck as he's been a good servant.
Wonder if this was SD was trying to make various points?!
As for Vokes. I've always liked him as a player. He can hold the ball up, links up well and scores important impact goals. If he goes then I'm sure we'll all wish him luck as he's been a good servant.
Last edited by WestMidsClaret on Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Why give the lad a 3 year deal and then completely deprive him of match time... and then if he does get himself back in favour does Dyche think he’s going to be match fit having not played any real minutes since Boxing Day?? Bonkers decision not to play him yesterday and I feel sorry for him.
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Name my factual errors.Bin Ont Turf wrote:Actually the words "What", "a", "load", "of" and "b0llocks" spring to mind.
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Maybe he is being used as a bargaining chip / makeweight in a deal and so we didn’t want to risk him getting injured. That’s the only reasonable explanation I can think of for not using him. Either that or he is carrying a slight knock and was just making up the numbers on the bench in case of emergency.
-
- Posts: 5726
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 2833 times
- Has Liked: 141 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Hope this isn't true because he's still a player I really like and rate - unfortunately, right now, we don't have the other bits in the jigsaw to get the best out of him, but I still think he's got something to offer at this level.
He does go, it's another member of the core of the squad that got us here gone, and I do worry about whether that means eroding the foundations of our success a bit. But if its what he wants for first team football, we shouldn't stand in his way, provided we've got a suitable alternative lined up and the deal is reasonable for us financially.
He does go, it's another member of the core of the squad that got us here gone, and I do worry about whether that means eroding the foundations of our success a bit. But if its what he wants for first team football, we shouldn't stand in his way, provided we've got a suitable alternative lined up and the deal is reasonable for us financially.
This user liked this post: cricketfieldclarets
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
I agree re the core squad part. He’s a popular player and a dressing room character, who I’m sure is important in that regard. But for me, he isn’t as useful on the pitch as either Wood or Barnes, for varying reasons.claretspice wrote:Hope this isn't true because he's still a player I really like and rate - unfortunately, right now, we don't have the other bits in the jigsaw to get the best out of him, but I still think he's got something to offer at this level.
He does go, it's another member of the core of the squad that got us here gone, and I do worry about whether that means eroding the foundations of our success a bit. But if its what he wants for first team football, we shouldn't stand in his way, provided we've got a suitable alternative lined up and the deal is reasonable for us financially.
It’s sad really, but we have to start being more ruthless. Quality is what really makes the difference. Maximum effort is the minimum requirement, as per Dyche’s own words.
-
- Posts: 2597
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 pm
- Been Liked: 674 times
- Has Liked: 244 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Should we be looking to evolve or just try and re-sign Boyd, Arfield and Jones because they played a big part for us over recent years?claretspice wrote:Hope this isn't true because he's still a player I really like and rate - unfortunately, right now, we don't have the other bits in the jigsaw to get the best out of him, but I still think he's got something to offer at this level.
He does go, it's another member of the core of the squad that got us here gone, and I do worry about whether that means eroding the foundations of our success a bit. But if its what he wants for first team football, we shouldn't stand in his way, provided we've got a suitable alternative lined up and the deal is reasonable for us financially.
I agree that Vokes has played a big part in what has been achieved over the last 5 years or so. However, he's now 29 and hasn't looked up to it at this level for the last 18 months or so in my opinion. For someone of his size he doesn't let the defenders know he's up against them like Barnes does, for example. He looks ponderous and slow. Can he head a ball? Yes, he can. He's very good at that...but we need more than that.
If letting Sam go means we can 'wheel and deal' a little bit or replace him with an upgrade then I am all for this. At the time he signed his new contract, I mentioned it was strange and maybe it was to ensure we got a half decent fee for him as opposed to him being part of the future.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Breaking up the foundations doesn't correlate with what's best for us. Chris Wood is similar(ish), but a much better player. I don't think it's anything to do with the 'other bits of the jigsaw' as that suggests he's somebody we should be building a team around. Wood can do everything Vokes can do, but more.claretspice wrote:Hope this isn't true because he's still a player I really like and rate - unfortunately, right now, we don't have the other bits in the jigsaw to get the best out of him, but I still think he's got something to offer at this level.
He does go, it's another member of the core of the squad that got us here gone, and I do worry about whether that means eroding the foundations of our success a bit. But if its what he wants for first team football, we shouldn't stand in his way, provided we've got a suitable alternative lined up and the deal is reasonable for us financially.
-
- Posts: 9905
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
- Been Liked: 2351 times
- Has Liked: 3181 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
If we ae looking at players who've been really good for us in the past, does anyone know how Andy Lochhead is these days? or Brian O'Neil?
Things is there's a date on our birth certificates and every year that goes by we get a year older. There are very few exceptions - though Graham Alexander created a new lease of life for himself - and centre forwards need all of their sharpness, speed, reactions, heading ability and more to make it and maintain it in the Premier League.
Let's see what the next few days bring.
UTC
Things is there's a date on our birth certificates and every year that goes by we get a year older. There are very few exceptions - though Graham Alexander created a new lease of life for himself - and centre forwards need all of their sharpness, speed, reactions, heading ability and more to make it and maintain it in the Premier League.
Let's see what the next few days bring.
UTC
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
I've love to be one of thosePaul Waine wrote:Things is there's a date on our birth certificates and every year that goes by we get a year older. There are very few exceptions
I know what you mean, though.
-
- Posts: 6693
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1702 times
- Has Liked: 790 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
BFC is first and foremost a business. As a result there is a right time to buy and sell a player. We cannot live on emotion, and now is definitely the time to consider offers for this great servant. We know the January window leads to panic buying pushing values up-right now there will be a few Championship sides either in the running to stay in the top six wanting to strengthen their chances of staying there, or a club that's slipped but in a small way going to bet the ranch to catapult themselves into the play-off zone. Lets cash in.
What this will do is force the Board to make another purchase-we only have two serious strikers in Barnes/Wood-another in Vydra where the jury is still out, and Wells and Walters as good as gone. Not even BFC can operate with such a small band of strikers
If £9m is being banded then it potentially puts us in a far better position to go for pace, quality and a proven record. Lets not go the budget route though, or for players in their twilight years-our record of buying strikers since Eddy Howe went has not been brilliant
What this will do is force the Board to make another purchase-we only have two serious strikers in Barnes/Wood-another in Vydra where the jury is still out, and Wells and Walters as good as gone. Not even BFC can operate with such a small band of strikers
If £9m is being banded then it potentially puts us in a far better position to go for pace, quality and a proven record. Lets not go the budget route though, or for players in their twilight years-our record of buying strikers since Eddy Howe went has not been brilliant
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
That would be a very nice transfer fee.
-
- Posts: 30707
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11052 times
- Has Liked: 5659 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
so we can get 9 million + for himPaddy1882 wrote:Why give the lad a 3 year deal and then completely deprive him of match time... and then if he does get himself back in favour does Dyche think he’s going to be match fit having not played any real minutes since Boxing Day?? Bonkers decision not to play him yesterday and I feel sorry for him.
These 2 users liked this post: FactualFrank summitclaret
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
This.Vegas Claret wrote:so we can get 9 million + for him
-
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:37 am
- Been Liked: 26 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
17 PL goals in 37 PL starts
2 back to back 20 goal hauls in The Chanpionship
2 promotions so knows his way around that.
Target man. British. 29 years old. International.
£9m is a STEAL for him. If he wants to go then, for him, id let him go, but it will cost £20/£25m to replace the guaranteed output he gives us.
And downgrading for some random stale foreign unknown at Spurs wouldn’t be wise.
2 back to back 20 goal hauls in The Chanpionship
2 promotions so knows his way around that.
Target man. British. 29 years old. International.
£9m is a STEAL for him. If he wants to go then, for him, id let him go, but it will cost £20/£25m to replace the guaranteed output he gives us.
And downgrading for some random stale foreign unknown at Spurs wouldn’t be wise.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
We paid £15 million for Chris Wood - who is better. I think Sam Vokes is a great player and is the best winner of the long ball that's ever existed in the history of football.ClaretShaun wrote:17 PL goals in 37 PL starts
2 back to back 20 goal hauls in The Chanpionship
2 promotions so knows his way around that.
Target man. British. 29 years old. International.
£9m is a STEAL for him. If he wants to go then, for him, id let him go, but it will cost £20/£25m to replace the guaranteed output he gives us.
And downgrading for some random stale foreign unknown at Spurs wouldn’t be wise.
But Chris Wood is better.
-
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:37 am
- Been Liked: 26 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Wood and Barnes, as a pairing, are the best we have and we need to hush stick with those 2 in a 442 now and get that’s familiarity back.FactualFrank wrote:We paid £15 million for Chris Wood - who is better. I think Sam Vokes is a great player and is the best winner of the long ball that's ever existed in the history of football.
But Chris Wood is better.
BUT, as a club, we’re now at a place where we are having to pay £15m for players for our bench. Because our players are that good we can’t afford to just get better and if we can afford the fee to but better, we rightly won’t change our wage/bonus structure to be able to sign that better player.
So my point was.... it’ll cost us double, probably, to just replace the output Vokes gives us. Even then it’ll be a risk. But if he wants the move then it’s right to let him go.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
That's how football is going. Players cost more than 2 years ago. Wood was a bargain. One of our best players, easily. What you say is how the financial world is.ClaretShaun wrote:Wood and Barnes, as a pairing, are the best we have and we need to hush stick with those 2 in a 442 now and get that’s familiarity back.
BUT, as a club, we’re now at a place where we are having to pay £15m for players for our bench. Because our players are that good we can’t afford to just get better and if we can afford the fee to but better, we rightly won’t change our wage/bonus structure to be able to sign that better player.
So my point was.... it’ll cost us double, probably, to just replace the output Vokes gives us. Even then it’ll be a risk. But if he wants the move then it’s right to let him go.
-
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:37 am
- Been Liked: 26 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
I think we’re saying the same thing, tbh. Vokes is worth far more than £9m, probably double.FactualFrank wrote:That's how football is going. Players cost more than 2 years ago. Wood was a bargain. One of our best players, easily. What you say is how the financial world is.
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Not sure he's worth £18 million. I know - and I say this before certain posters chime in who can see the future - he's not an £18 million player. £9 million is much more accurate.ClaretShaun wrote:I think we’re saying the same thing, tbh. Vokes is worth far more than £9m, probably double.
-
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:37 am
- Been Liked: 26 times
- Has Liked: 7 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
So Burnley are looking for a 3rd/4th striker for our bench....
And a British target man in his late 20s with a PL goal ratio of 1 every 2 starts plus regular 20 goal seasons in the division below crops up as available. He slides into the salary structure fine and carries heavy international expererience. We sign him for £9m. A steal.
And a British target man in his late 20s with a PL goal ratio of 1 every 2 starts plus regular 20 goal seasons in the division below crops up as available. He slides into the salary structure fine and carries heavy international expererience. We sign him for £9m. A steal.
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
I would hope we're looking for a striker who improves our starting XI. As you say there's no point selling Vokes and bringing in another squad player.ClaretShaun wrote:So Burnley are looking for a 3rd/4th striker for our bench....
And a British target man in his late 20s with a PL goal ratio of 1 every 2 starts plus regular 20 goal seasons in the division below crops up as available. He slides into the salary structure fine and carries heavy international expererience. We sign him for £9m. A steal.
This user liked this post: Jakubs Tash
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
That is one hell of a strange way of looking at football.ClaretShaun wrote:So Burnley are looking for a 3rd/4th striker for our bench....
And a British target man in his late 20s with a PL goal ratio of 1 every 2 starts plus regular 20 goal seasons in the division below crops up as available. He slides into the salary structure fine and carries heavy international expererience. We sign him for £9m. A steal.
Not sure I can be bothered to show you how it actually works.
This user liked this post: Jakubs Tash
-
- Posts: 6693
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1702 times
- Has Liked: 790 times
Re: No Sam Vokes ?
Don't know where people are getting their stats
Last 19 months ie one and a half seasons plus, played 60 /8 goals
His entire career at Burnley, played 267 / 64 goals
Ratio is falling. Easy to read for most PL defences, slow, great in the air but needs a number of chances with his feet to score. No longer a PL striker. How many PL clubs are after him-not even Cardiff or Huddersfield. If we get £9m or close its as good a bit of business as Wayne Thomas when he went to Southampton
Last 19 months ie one and a half seasons plus, played 60 /8 goals
His entire career at Burnley, played 267 / 64 goals
Ratio is falling. Easy to read for most PL defences, slow, great in the air but needs a number of chances with his feet to score. No longer a PL striker. How many PL clubs are after him-not even Cardiff or Huddersfield. If we get £9m or close its as good a bit of business as Wayne Thomas when he went to Southampton