dsr wrote:You can't flog someone until he drops in a 38 game season.

You can with our style of play,we expend more energy chasing the ball than England's fielders recently.

Chester Perry wrote:I would be very interested to know where you will find that kind of money - our accounts in recent years have shown cash positions edging up to just over £20m and I wouldn't expect it to be higher than £25m when we see the next ones in March. It is amazing how many confuse book profits with cash position.

I may have been slightly conservative with my surplus cash estimations if Royboys figures are to be believed!

Scenario. It's nill nill with 15 minutes to go. The opposition bring on Crouch. How many on here would honestly say to themselves. "You watch, bet he bloody scores" I probably would, and you know what he probably would score too. I bet opposition fans when Crouch comes on for us will all be thinking that. So it probably is a good bit of business for s couple of months when we need a late winner or equaliser.

THEWELLERNUT70 wrote:Now come on chester are you happy with our dealings considering our current position?

I know for a fact one of our former superpowers aint happy with things at the moment!

Who is the superpower you refer to?

The optimism about Crouch doesn’t appear to be based on the recent past. His goal return has dwindled as he’s aged. He’s got something like 5 or 6 goals in the last 18 months. He’s also been part of a shite Stoke side during that period.

People are extolling his potential virtues as an impact sub, but he’s played that role this season at a level below the one we’re at. He’s scored a solitary goal and, judging by Stoke’s results, hasn’t done much to alter their fortunes.

Crouch has been a top player. He was even effective at times in his mid-30s, but 13 league goals in the last three and a half seasons, tells me that we’re asking him to rediscover something that has hasn’t delivered for a good while.

Vokes has 32 goals in the past three and a half years, including 17 in the Prem. He’s also almost 10 years younger. It’s hard to see this as maintaining the standard, let alone an upgrade.

Reading the comments from Dyche as to the reasoning behind the Vokes/Crouch deal he references several times the financial side of the deal and that any deals had to fit the Burnley business model, which this deal does he claims.

Since we appear to have made a profit on the deal it is almost as though Dyche is saying that he was given very limited funds to spend in the January window.

Dyche claims that he has all of the stats for Crouch, distances covered per game etc., and that they fit the criteria of what he is looking for in a player, so let's hope he is right.

We really need to get a song for him based on this...

https://youtu.be/hamKl-su8PE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting when people talk about Crouch's lack of goals.

We would have had a similar issue had we signed Austin as he's only got 16 in the last four seasons.

Spijed wrote:Interesting when people talk about Crouch's lack of goals.

We would have had a similar issue had we signed Austin as he's only got 16 in the last four seasons.

We haven’t signed Austin. Vintage spijed.

But those calling for Austin were just acting on sentimental reasons not common sense.

As for Crouch it’s a 4 month thing to make money in the Vokes deal. It made it happen. Crouch may sell a few shirts (novelty if nothing else). Abby Clancy might be photographed in a claret shirt. That’s a good thought. Oh and I expect him to play very few minutes until our position is safe.

No downsides with him coming as far as I am concerned. #allhailthebeanpole.

Spijed

Haven't even looked up the stats but would be pretty confident that Austin has played more minutes and scored more goals in the PL this season than Crouch has managed in the Championship.

Austin wanted to leave Southampton for MORE game time Crouch just wants thousands of pounds a week for a 10 minute cameo here and there.

This signing just looks like another case of Dyche giving one last Premier League contract to a player who's a nice guy, but is all but finished as a footballer and on the verge of retiring.

Not what we needed at all.

agreenwood wrote:We haven’t signed Austin. Vintage spijed.

Did I say we had? I was just making a comparison with a striker many wanted us to sign.

Would you be happy if we signed him with those stats?

Spijed wrote:Interesting when people talk about Crouch's lack of goals.

We would have had a similar issue had we signed Austin as he's only got 16 in the last four seasons.

What's that got to do with anything?

kentonclaret wrote:Spijed



Austin wanted to leave Southampton for MORE game time Crouch just wants thousands of pounds a week for a 10 minute cameo here and there.

You are again failing to factor in the whole Vokes deal. Stoke wouldn’t have bought Vokes unless Crouch was off their payroll so you have to take that into calculations. Crouch is with us on a four month contract only. Vokes is off our salary payroll for good. It’s not difficult to see that surely?

That's a fair post agreenwood. I would counter that last season Crouch got 5 goals in a relegated side and Vokes got 4. Crouch got 2 assists, Vokes 1.
Crouch has been a premier league player for a long long time, and I don't think his tally this year is necessarily indicative of his potential here as a bit part player. We sold a frustrated striker desperate to play first team football, and we brought in someone for 6 months who knows it's his last chance to have an impact in the premier league.
He's a veteran of two world cups, several hundred premier league games and is close to being on the top scorers chart. Have we bought that player? No course not, but this guy knows the top level inside and out much more than all of our squad. He's going to be hugely motivated, a boon to the squad and for 6 months I really don't see the downside.

This isn't in response to your thought out post but I've never wanted a signing to prove supporters wrong more than this one.

For all the message board misery I bet when Crouchy makes his 80th minute appearance the Turf will be rocking.

Welcome Peter Crouch

is it just me or are you all missing the point with all this should have could have talk. The whole scenario probably played out thus:
Stoke to Burnley: as you are not using Vokes can we have him for say 9 mill?
Burnley to Vokes:Sam, we are obliged to tell you that Stoke are interested-what do you think?
Vokes to Burnley: OK
Burnley to Stoke: Sam says ok but as a replacement can we have Peter Crouch thrown in seeing as you are not using him?
Stoke to Burnley: Ok, deal.

In short once Stoke came in for him it was up to the player to accept or not. We have exchange one impact sub for another and received a fee. I agree that we need better players with pace throughout the team and this is not the answer-but FFS calm down about this particular deal.

Welcome Peter. Don't listen to the drivel of the ne'er do wells.

Best way to shut 'em up? Get the net bulging with a powerful header !

We all know why the deal was done and I, for one, am happy for you and for Vokesy.

Enjoy your stay at the Club.

corporal jones wrote:is it just me or are you all missing the point with all this should have could have talk. The whole scenario probably played out thus:
Stoke to Burnley: as you are not using Vokes can we have him for say 9 mill?
Burnley to Vokes:Sam, we are obliged to tell you that Stoke are interested-what do you think?
Vokes to Burnley: OK
Burnley to Stoke: Sam says ok but as a replacement can we have Peter Crouch thrown in seeing as you are not using him?
Stoke to Burnley: Hahahahahahah. “Hey Nathan, Burnley want Crouchy!”. “Hahaha what? They’re Premier League right?”. “Yeah, I know hahahahhaha”. “Hahahahahhaah”

In short once Stoke came in for him it was up to the player to accept or not. We have exchange one impact sub for another and received a fee. I agree that we need better players with pace throughout the team and this is not the answer-but FFS calm down about this particular deal.

Fixed it for you

After sleeping on it, I think it’s a decent deal.

There no point in comparing Vokes and Crouch because Vokes understandingly wanted to leave. We got a fair price for him (even without Crouch)

Dyche did have money to spend - hence the bids for Che Adams.

Crouch is going to play a watered down Vokes roll in the squad, He is a threat in the box with his height, he can hold the ball up and he can provide assists. He knows his job and it only until the end of the season.

It reminds me a bit when we lost Andy Gray and we signed Andy Cole. There was no pressure on him he came and did the job he was asked to do.

claptrappers_union wrote:After sleeping on it, I think it’s a decent deal.

There no point in comparing Vokes and Crouch because Vokes understandingly wanted to leave. We got a fair price for him (even without Crouch)

Dyche did have money to spend - hence the bids for Che Adams.

Crouch is going to play a watered down Vokes roll in the squad, He is a threat in the box with his height, he can hold the ball up and he can provide assists. He knows his job and it only until the end of the season.

It reminds me a bit when we lost Andy Gray and we signed Andy Cole. There was no pressure on him he came and did the job he was asked to do.

The only difference being Premier League survival and £100’s millions in the bank compared to we had to sell to pay the wages.

But apart from that it’s the same.

There was very little movement in the window on a whole.

I think we can all agree we wanted Sam to stay. But that’s football.

I think given the circumstances, I think it’s a decent deal because we have sold a player who wanted a new challenge, and we have an ample replacement for the short term.

To me, all this discussion about what Crouch may or may not bring to the party misses the real point, which is that he is merely a distraction.

imagine the uproar if, with us 4th bottom of the table and hoping to spend a bit of money on somebody who could make a difference, all we did yesterday was raise another £10m or so selling a player who has been an integral member of the first team over the last six years. As it is, all people are talking about is why the f*** we’ve brought in a player who will only be, at most, a Dyche-style last five minutes sub, and who will almost certainly retire at the end of the season.

Vokes - and the lack of a credible replacement- is the real story here, not Crouch.

claptrappers_union wrote:There was very little movement in the window on a whole.

I think we can all agree we wanted Sam to stay. But that’s football.

I think given the circumstances, I think it’s a decent deal because we have sold a player who wanted a new challenge, and we have an ample replacement for the short term.

Agreed if you mean 10 mins per game by short term.

Very sad to see Sam leave but I feel quite positive about Crouch signing. Definitely has something to offer.

summitclaret wrote:Agreed if you mean 10 mins per game by short term.

Probably. Like Vokes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06lj2xc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If (when) Crouchie does score for us, he'll be the first player to score for 8 Premier League clubs. Quite the stat that, definitely one for the trivia merchants somewhere along the line!

ClaretsPlayer interview with Crouch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY4fnZpRD1A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

claptrappers_union wrote:Probably. Like Vokes

You still don't get it. The risk is if wood/barnes are out for any length of time. Vokes can do 90. PC can't.

Can't Vydra do 90?

And if the argument is "well, what if he gets injured?"

Then just what sort of squad do we have to carry "just to be on the safe side"?

Reading the statement from Dyche and comments on this board it appears that the deal to bring in Crouch was purely financial to get Vokes off the books. Nothing to do with football since I am sure no other PL clubs (not even those struggling at the bottom along with us) were challenging us for Crouch's signature. I am certain that if he was not good friends with Dyche away from football we would not have signed him. Dyche places a lot of store by signing players who he trusts.

He may come on in a cameo role and score but just as likely he could miss a sitter as well, that's football.

Hopefully Woods, Barnes and Vydra stay fit and Crouch is just an option from the bench.

Terry Cochrane wrote:You are again failing to factor in the whole Vokes deal. Stoke wouldn’t have bought Vokes unless Crouch was off their payroll so you have to take that into calculations. Crouch is with us on a four month contract only. Vokes is off our salary payroll for good. It’s not difficult to see that surely?

People can see & understand that, I think some people are questioning why the 2 deals were intertwined, the whole idea is supposed to be upgrading from the deal not downgrading with a makeweight, it seems daft really & doesn’t make much sense, I’m quite happy to eat humble pie if the bloke turns out to be a success. It seems a strange idea of selling something but only if you agree to buy something substandard in return & something you don’t really need, surely other options would have been better explored.

I am finding the media coverage interesting. It very much reads as Sam being a make weight in the Peter Crouch deal rather than the other way around.

I think both strikers are at the poor but not terrible end of the spectrum of prem players. We’ve got a lot for an okay player who was getting frustrated. If we stay up and if we spend in the summer then all is well.

andyh wrote:I am finding the media coverage interesting. It very much reads as Sam being a make weight in the Peter Crouch deal rather than the other way around.

Bonkers!

Peter Crouch has a full page article every Saturday in the Daily Mail so no surprise with contacts in journalism that his return to the PL is not devoid of column inches.

Be interesting to read what he writes in his article tomorrow. Plenty of comment on his friendship and admiration for Sean Dyche of that I am certain.

We've now got our "Eye of the Crouching Tiger." I'm sure one of the team will also step up as our "Hidden Dragon." Maybe that is Ashley Barnes - but Ash doesn't hide his fire. Maybe it will be Dwight McNeil.

Welcome to Turf Moor and the Clarets, Peter Crouch. I will enjoy the next 14 games.

UTC

If Crouchy does well - well we know who our big summer signing will be don’t we

kentonclaret wrote:...it appears that the deal to bring in Crouch was purely financial to get Vokes off the books.

Vokes wanted to leave.

ElectroClaret

Vokes may well have wanted to leave but many posters on here (Terry Cochrane etc) are saying that Stoke would not have signed Vokes unless they were unable to offload Crouch and get him off their payroll.

Just because Vokes wanted to leave doesn't mean we had to sign Peter Crouch (financially it seems that we did).

In losing Vokes, we lost a man who was intended to be a big sub to cause havoc at corners if we're a goal down and chasing the game. Crouch replaces him in that respect. Three forwards are not enough, we need four; not necessarily for full games, but for substitutions.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Can't Vydra do 90?

And if the argument is "well, what if he gets injured?"

Then just what sort of squad do we have to carry "just to be on the safe side"?

Dyche hasn’t trusted Vydra all season.

We shouldn’t be in a position where we are weaker now than we were when the window opened. We are a Premier League club and, frankly, still have a Championship mentality. Another transfer window squandered and you have to ask how much longer this can continue to go on. We’re just lucky we have a great manager who gets the best out of his players because our transfer policy over the last few years has been shocking.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Can't Vydra do 90?

And if the argument is "well, what if he gets injured?"

Then just what sort of squad do we have to carry "just to be on the safe side"?

We had 4 and now have 3.2.

Seen post that said the rest of the PL was laughing at us.

City season ticket holder next door thought it was a great signing for us.

Graham Alexander was 94 years old and he could still knock em in, penalties that is.

We shoud have utter trust on our Manager. he is in dire need of a full fledged and ready made strike .Crouch is experienced ,tall and possesses hard kicks .I have an admiration for him and will deliver the goods expected from him .

good bit of business imo moved big sam on for a good price and got a top class (though end of career) pro who just might become a real cult hero

Good for the dressing room, good "lad" and perhaps good for a goal or two.. Welcome to Burnley Peter Crouch! UTC!

Surely with us being the long balliest of long ball teams in the history of the Premier League, it makes sense to sign the talliest of tall players in the history of the Premier League?

A match made in heaven I say.