Pope to Arsenal
-
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
- Been Liked: 217 times
- Has Liked: 543 times
Pope to Arsenal
According to Nixon, £10M ? you're having a laugh !, wouldn't sell for less than £40M.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... 1550388942" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... 1550388942" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Laughed at the fee of £10m. Arsenal would have to dig considerably deeper than that
This user liked this post: Alanstevensonsgloves
-
- Posts: 10328
- Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:36 pm
- Been Liked: 3342 times
- Has Liked: 1964 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Doesn’t seem to be an awful lot to that article.
-
- Posts: 2340
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:01 am
- Been Liked: 546 times
- Has Liked: 51 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
£10m ridiculous . We was absolutely outstanding last season. 40-50m in this market for an English goalkeeper who has 10 years at least to go in his career.
-
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 2881 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Foul rag with reputation of mendacity makes up story:SHOCK!
These 4 users liked this post: South West Claret. Putneyclaret Houseclaret MT03ALG
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Is it April already
-
- Posts: 9335
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4107 times
- Has Liked: 6590 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Pope to Arsenal
I’d like to think we’d want at least treble that. AT LEAST.
I’d also like to think we are now savvy enough to control this. We NEVER seem to be in control of any of our transfer dealings.
I’d also like to think we are now savvy enough to control this. We NEVER seem to be in control of any of our transfer dealings.
This user liked this post: tim_noone
-
- Posts: 1771
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:20 pm
- Been Liked: 688 times
- Has Liked: 917 times
- Location: The Park
Re: Pope to Arsenal
I don't think we do too bad to be fair. The only transfer fee in recent history that narks me a bit is Tripps to Spurs, but even then we had him for longer than anticipated due to a clause in his deal, so that was a sweetener. We have had great money for Keane and Vokes among others, and held out for as much as possible with the likes of Lafferty and Rodrieguez.bobinho wrote:I’d like to think we’d want at least treble that. AT LEAST.
I’d also like to think we are now savvy enough to control this. We NEVER seem to be in control of any of our transfer dealings.
Re: Pope to Arsenal
When I read the OP I was thinking that have things got so bad at "The Emirates" they need divine intervention....
Mind you in Abu Dhabi 2 weeks ago "Pope Francis" was in town and thats in The Emirates
10,000,000 way to low for Pope Nick, the Arsenil will have to dig deeper than that to get our "Blessing"
Mind you in Abu Dhabi 2 weeks ago "Pope Francis" was in town and thats in The Emirates
10,000,000 way to low for Pope Nick, the Arsenil will have to dig deeper than that to get our "Blessing"
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Surely the transfer fee for Jordan Pickford would have to be used as a benchmark?
Re: Pope to Arsenal
And then doubled, you mean?Spijed wrote:Surely the transfer fee for Jordan Pickford would have to be used as a benchmark?
This user liked this post: Guich
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Didn't Everton pay £25m rising to £30m? Pope would be number two whereas Pickford went straight in as number one so maybe they are not prepared to pay that much for a number two?
Re: Pope to Arsenal
In most places in Europe you pay the same for a Number Two as a Number One .... In Greece it's One Euro unless you pop into a cafe/bar and have a drinkmdd2 wrote:Didn't Everton pay £25m rising to £30m? Pope would be number two whereas Pickford went straight in as number one so maybe they are not prepared to pay that much for a number two?
This user liked this post: tim_noone
-
- Posts: 19422
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
- Been Liked: 3163 times
- Has Liked: 481 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Arsenal's current financial travails are well known - and while they have picked our pocket a number of times in the last few seasons Pope has a long term contract and won't go anywhere to be a number 2 and certainly not cheaply - What he should be working on every day is his ball skills at feet and kicking if he as any long term England ambitions - Southgate has made it abundantly clear that is what he values mostmdd2 wrote:Didn't Everton pay £25m rising to £30m? Pope would be number two whereas Pickford went straight in as number one so maybe they are not prepared to pay that much for a number two?
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Fair point but its not our concern how they plan to use him.Didn't Everton pay £25m rising to £30m? Pope would be number two whereas Pickford went straight in as number one so maybe they are not prepared to pay that much for a number two?
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Pope could be a one season wonder yet. Bit ridiculous to be claiming he's worth 40 million.
This user liked this post: houseboy
-
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 420 times
- Has Liked: 995 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
The usual made up crap from a toilet roll!
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Which is still a damn sight more than Pickfraud has ever been.jrgbfc wrote:Pope could be a one season wonder yet. Bit ridiculous to be claiming he's worth 40 million.
-
- Posts: 5642
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 pm
- Been Liked: 766 times
- Has Liked: 499 times
- Location: Devon
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Why on earth do some even consider reading such rubbish papers let alone anything else.AndyClaret wrote:According to Nixon, £10M ? you're having a laugh !, wouldn't sell for less than £40M.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football ... 1550388942" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 14571
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3437 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Pickford had one good season in the PL then moved for £30 million wasn't it?jrgbfc wrote:Pope could be a one season wonder yet. Bit ridiculous to be claiming he's worth 40 million.
-
- Posts: 4444
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1165 times
- Has Liked: 1301 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
I think Spurs were linked with him earlier. Not sure how much there is in this but I would expect there to be a lot of interest. I would expect Hart to move on so Pope would be in direct contention with Heaton, if Pope moves he will surely want to be first choice not as back up.
-
- Posts: 4196
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
- Been Liked: 2327 times
- Has Liked: 2697 times
- Location: Isles of Scilly
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Screwing up Pope's market value is another consequence of the bizarre decision to buy Hart. It was inevitable....you can't expect big bucks for your 3rd choice keeper, who's had a serious injury and bugger all chance to prove himself since.
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Well it is Arsenil.bob-the-scutter wrote:The usual made up crap from a toilet roll!
Wanting a Number Two.
How many more sh*t jokes can there be
This user liked this post: bob-the-scutter
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Pope to Arsenal
The £10 million fee basically says: "Don't bother reading this article, we've made it up".
So I didn't read it.
So I didn't read it.
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Agree, unfortunately. He's suffered a serious injury and will probably go through this season without making a first team appearance. Had he not suffered his unfortunate injury, and performed to last season's levels then we would have been looking at a big figure for him. Remains to be seen what the club will do in the summer with all three keepers - you would probably expect Hart to leave, and then depends if we're sticking with Heaton or looking to the future a bit more with Pope. Some big decisions to be made. Having said all that £10m would be far too low but we have to be a bit realistic with his potential value as it currently stands...jrgbfc wrote:Pope could be a one season wonder yet. Bit ridiculous to be claiming he's worth 40 million.
-
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2240 times
- Has Liked: 1618 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Pope to Arsenal
I think you are under-valuing Pickford bud. He is an extremely good young goalkeeper who has great command of his area and is very vocal. He has proved himself on many occasions and is rightly Southgates first choice. He had a great World Cup and fully deserved his place. Pope is great and I would much rather he stayed with us but I don't think, yet, that he is as good as Pickford. Maybe he will eventually be better but just now I wouldn't value him as much as Pickford. As someone has said in an earlier post he might (stress might) be a one-season-wonder yet, let's look at him in the longer term.BurnleyFC wrote:Which is still a damn sight more than Pickfraud has ever been.
-
- Posts: 2070
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 4:49 pm
- Been Liked: 819 times
- Has Liked: 26 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
I think we need to be realistic as to how much other teams value Burnley's third choice GK.
£10m would be a good deal for us.
£10m would be a good deal for us.
-
- Posts: 9335
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4107 times
- Has Liked: 6590 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Why are people obsessed with ????? Choice the keeper is?
Why do you think YOUR opinion of his position in the pecking order alters his value?
Judge him and value him on his ability, and compare him to others in the PL.
There.
See?
£30m all day long.
Why do you think YOUR opinion of his position in the pecking order alters his value?
Judge him and value him on his ability, and compare him to others in the PL.
There.
See?
£30m all day long.
-
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
- Been Liked: 217 times
- Has Liked: 543 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
10M for a 26 year old England international, you're having a laugh.claret2018 wrote:I think we need to be realistic as to how much other teams value Burnley's third choice GK.
£10m would be a good deal for us.
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Really?claret2018 wrote:I think we need to be realistic as to how much other teams value Burnley's third choice GK.
£10m would be a good deal for us.
Is Pickford any better, considering he went for £30 million?
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Stretching it a bit to call him an England international. 20 million tops.AndyClaret wrote:10M for a 26 year old England international, you're having a laugh.
-
- Posts: 7066
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2240 times
- Has Liked: 1618 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Depends on your idea of a footballers value. I don't think any footballer anywhere in the world is worth 30m so no, Pope isn't worth 30m. Even by todays standards of stupidity he isn't worth that. He's had one good season (and not even a full season really) where he was great and we were blessed to have him in reserve but to start claiming he's worth that kind of money is daft.bobinho wrote:Why are people obsessed with ????? Choice the keeper is?
Why do you think YOUR opinion of his position in the pecking order alters his value?
Judge him and value him on his ability, and compare him to others in the PL.
There.
See?
£30m all day long.
-
- Posts: 1950
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:06 am
- Been Liked: 688 times
- Has Liked: 133 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
The fact he's "third choice" isn't really the problem with the assertion he's worth 40 million. It's the fact he isn't playing first team football and hasn't done so since a major injury. Current value is very fluid, it almost rises and falls with form such is the fickle nature of the game and the immediacy in which people demand results and performances. Someone like Callum Wilson is a good example - currently worth £50+ million apparently. If he gets injured now, and comes back next season not getting a game do you think the same figure would be touted? Ney chance.
Pope looks like he'll be an excellent player, but he hasn't done it for long enough at the top to sustain an astronomical fee while being out nor is he playing currently, hence a lower current value.
Pope looks like he'll be an excellent player, but he hasn't done it for long enough at the top to sustain an astronomical fee while being out nor is he playing currently, hence a lower current value.
-
- Posts: 6975
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 1490 times
- Has Liked: 1848 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
We need to concentrating on moving on Joe Hart
We dont need to shift Nick but if he goes its go to be North of £40m
Arsenals makeweights maybe bring it down to £35 M depending who they are.
We dont need to shift Nick but if he goes its go to be North of £40m
Arsenals makeweights maybe bring it down to £35 M depending who they are.
This user liked this post: The Enclosure
-
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 am
- Been Liked: 1338 times
- Has Liked: 757 times
- Location: Nantwich
Re: Pope to Arsenal
As we don’t need to sell it’s about how much we want, not his ‘market value’. As we are hearing about Sala, the amount paid does not directly indicate his worth. If Arsenal want him bad enough, they will match our valuation not what they want to pay.jrgbfc wrote:Stretching it a bit to call him an England international. 20 million tops.
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Arsenal are doing the playing out from the back thing and dropped Cech because he's not good enough with his feet, and Cech isn't a keeper known for being bad with his feet.
I'd say the reason this is ******** is that the only part of Pope's game that is noticeably poor is his distribution. It's not a good fit.
I'd say the reason this is ******** is that the only part of Pope's game that is noticeably poor is his distribution. It's not a good fit.
-
- Posts: 5642
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 pm
- Been Liked: 766 times
- Has Liked: 499 times
- Location: Devon
Re: Pope to Arsenal
I refer you to post 20.
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Even if we moved on Joe Hart, Nick Pope will also want to leave if it's clear Tom Heaton has become first choice again.Woodleyclaret wrote:We need to concentrating on moving on Joe Hart
We dont need to shift Nick but if he goes its go to be North of £40m
Arsenals makeweights maybe bring it down to £35 M depending who they are.
If Heaton remains as number one it's inevitable that the other two will leave as they won't be happy sitting on the bench.
-
- Posts: 4151
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:39 pm
- Been Liked: 698 times
- Has Liked: 608 times
- Location: Wexford, Ireland. via Nelson.
Re: Pope to Arsenal
£10 mill ain't a whole lot but is about a £9 mill more than we paid, but then if you exclude training medical treatment and wages we won't have to much profit from £9 mill.
-
- Posts: 1313
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm
- Been Liked: 603 times
- Has Liked: 420 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Obviously, my first reaction to the unsubstantiated rumours of us selling Pope for £10m is to cast them in the bin where they belong. However, I'm inclined to place a bit more credence in them when Nixon is apparently singing from the same hymn sheet.
At the very least it strikes me as something of a "testing the waters" type of media release that is not wholly dissimilar to the recent ones about Wells and Lennon. I'm expecting a couple more, but I wouldn't personally subscribe to the wisdom of us doing anything silly like actually acting on all of them.
A Pittance for Pope, Popers Paradise and Pope Pinched for Pennies might make good alliteration for a Claret Tony tagline but anything less than £30m would be very bad business. Every player has their price, because football is a commercial arena as much as it is a competitive arena, but £10m is a long way off the price I would expect us to accept for Nick.
The fact that Nick lost his place in the squad through injury has admittedly lowered his visibility and for some people that might somehow equate to a reduction in price. Even if I accept that argument it only means that now is definitely not the time to sell him. Good business is about selling when the price for something is perceived to be high, it's not about selling when the expectant price is perceived to be lower than it actually should be.
Personally, if Nick wants more active game time I would look at a contract extension and a loan to another club (with them paying a healthy fee as well as his wages). Ideally it would be somewhere nice and sunny that is a long way away from the squads of any clubs that we might be competing with in the Premier league next year. The loan would be at the start of the season for a six month period and in the following window Hart could go out. At the end of the season the club could sit down and re-evaluate the matter.
If the decision to move on any one of our three England keepers is set in stone then I would set their asking prices to influence the buyers decision making. Tom stays put ( 50m seems to be the hands off price these days ), Pope can go for £30m plus or you can have Joe for £10-15m. All of them are very good keepers with not a lot between them, although they have their differences.
All of a sudden Hart would look like the most attractive player to buy, especially for any new entrants to the league, and he would arguably benefit the most from guaranteed first team appearances at this stage in his career. Nick is a young keeper with more time on his hands, and some extra work on his distribution would take his game and value to the next level. So he could shoulder ( I think enough time has passed to make that pun ) a drop to our pseudo number two slot even if his competitive desires have him chomping at the bit for a return to first team action.
The thing about Pope is that he still has the potential to become even better than he already is. We can sell him on and watch another team reap the greater rewards as he unlocks that potential or it can be our club that benefits from it. If he can improve on his distribution he will be a solid lock for the England number one spot, Pickford won't get a look in, and that is what we might be thinking of selling to bring in money that we don't desperately need.
In relation to having two England keepers on our books, who both want game time, I don't see that as a problem. As I said previously all of our keepers have different strengths and weaknesses and I don't see why that shouldn't play a part in team selection. If we tailor our choice of starting keeper to our opponents we can increase our effectiveness and share out the first team opportunities.
The experience of Martin Hodge, as a player and opposition analyst, in tandem with the knowledge of Billy Mercer should be enough to pick out games where playing one keeper will work better than playing another ( fine margins ).
In conjunction with the refreshed cup match schedule that should be enough to keep two keepers happy. So if we are pushed into selling one of the three it has to be Hart out of the door for me. He seems like a decent bloke and he looks to have settled in well, despite our results he made also some excellent saves. I wish we could keep all three of them, but if my arm is twisted it is a simple case of last in first out as far as I'm concerned.
Do I think we will do any of those things?
No, I think we will sell Nick early in the window for a laughable price that we will be too embarrassed to disclose. The Vokes transfer could be seen as a softener and the shape of things to come. Nick will be sold to bring in money to cover our upcoming transfer expenditure in the next window and the justification for his sale will be
"Nick needs to be playing every week at this point in his career. He didn't want to leave us, but after a bit of a chat he came round to the idea of moving on. The club didn't want to lose a young keeper of his quality, who could increase in value and set us up for the next decade, but we felt it was the right move for the player and the club at this particular point in time."
After Nick has left we will place all the money we receive from his sale into the hands of Mike Rigg, who will combine the proceeds with what we got for Vokes and boost it with a healthy chunk from the dry powder store along with any cash that is raised from other player sales. Flushed with cash Rigg will then proceed to waste it all by championing a cavalcade of unwise purchases, just like he did at QPR and Fulham. First and last it wasn't me, like **** it wasn't, if you set menu you don't get to blame the diners for eating the poison fruit on offer.
Our only hope is that Sean will keep his predilection for destructive squad overhauls firmly in check or we lock him in a cupboard during all of our transfer windows along with an abacus, a copy of The Art Of War by Sun Tzu and a curly wurly for sustenance.
To conclude, and turn the direction of the topic back towards Arsenal, the only piece of recruitment business that we should be doing in relation to them is pulling out all the stops in a serious attempt to bring Sven Mislintat to the club as our Sporting Director or Head of Global Recruitment.
I'm sure that titles are supremely important to some people, but I prefer to think that it is always the job specification and area of influence that truly matters. So we could call him The Eponymous Fluffy Pink Bunny From Mars for all I care, whatever floats his boat and gets him through the door. As long as we make damn sure we keep any promises that we make to him we should be okay.
Supporting Rigg by bringing in somebody with recognised talent spotting ability ( evidenced by a rock solid track record ) is the best way to secure our future and ensure the successful evolution of our recruitment department. Although, I'm not sure that Rigg would be willing to put the club first and his ego to one side in support of such a proposal. However, it might be the best way for him to avoid having another glaring calamity on his CV at our expense.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for the guys head right out of the gate, because we have a long standing history of taking rubbish from other clubs and polishing it all up until it shines like a crown jewel. I can't see why things should be any different when it comes to Rigg, but from the embryonic patterns I'm seeing we have a lot of work to do before he is what we need.
I just hope that he has the humility and self awareness to recognise that. Like so many of the aspects related to our club he is a long way from being the finished product. The fact that Technical Directors are entrusted with the formulation of long term strategic visions and he hasn't lasted more than two years in that specific position should tell him something.
I don't think anything I've said is libellous, but if it is then I am happy to repost any of my questionable opinions along with a secondary post that includes a career timeline for Rigg along with documented factual evidence in support of them. It didn't take long to assemble, a quick and cursory fact finding exercise generated numerous points of concern relating to his transfer history pedigree and it painted a very clear picture of how he likes to operate.
To say that I was surprised by what I discovered would be seriously playing down the impact of my findings. While other people might be filled with an inner golden light at the thoughts of what our new recruitment Messiah will bring to the club, I'm currently shitting enough bricks to build us a new stadium.
At the very least it strikes me as something of a "testing the waters" type of media release that is not wholly dissimilar to the recent ones about Wells and Lennon. I'm expecting a couple more, but I wouldn't personally subscribe to the wisdom of us doing anything silly like actually acting on all of them.
A Pittance for Pope, Popers Paradise and Pope Pinched for Pennies might make good alliteration for a Claret Tony tagline but anything less than £30m would be very bad business. Every player has their price, because football is a commercial arena as much as it is a competitive arena, but £10m is a long way off the price I would expect us to accept for Nick.
The fact that Nick lost his place in the squad through injury has admittedly lowered his visibility and for some people that might somehow equate to a reduction in price. Even if I accept that argument it only means that now is definitely not the time to sell him. Good business is about selling when the price for something is perceived to be high, it's not about selling when the expectant price is perceived to be lower than it actually should be.
Personally, if Nick wants more active game time I would look at a contract extension and a loan to another club (with them paying a healthy fee as well as his wages). Ideally it would be somewhere nice and sunny that is a long way away from the squads of any clubs that we might be competing with in the Premier league next year. The loan would be at the start of the season for a six month period and in the following window Hart could go out. At the end of the season the club could sit down and re-evaluate the matter.
If the decision to move on any one of our three England keepers is set in stone then I would set their asking prices to influence the buyers decision making. Tom stays put ( 50m seems to be the hands off price these days ), Pope can go for £30m plus or you can have Joe for £10-15m. All of them are very good keepers with not a lot between them, although they have their differences.
All of a sudden Hart would look like the most attractive player to buy, especially for any new entrants to the league, and he would arguably benefit the most from guaranteed first team appearances at this stage in his career. Nick is a young keeper with more time on his hands, and some extra work on his distribution would take his game and value to the next level. So he could shoulder ( I think enough time has passed to make that pun ) a drop to our pseudo number two slot even if his competitive desires have him chomping at the bit for a return to first team action.
The thing about Pope is that he still has the potential to become even better than he already is. We can sell him on and watch another team reap the greater rewards as he unlocks that potential or it can be our club that benefits from it. If he can improve on his distribution he will be a solid lock for the England number one spot, Pickford won't get a look in, and that is what we might be thinking of selling to bring in money that we don't desperately need.
In relation to having two England keepers on our books, who both want game time, I don't see that as a problem. As I said previously all of our keepers have different strengths and weaknesses and I don't see why that shouldn't play a part in team selection. If we tailor our choice of starting keeper to our opponents we can increase our effectiveness and share out the first team opportunities.
The experience of Martin Hodge, as a player and opposition analyst, in tandem with the knowledge of Billy Mercer should be enough to pick out games where playing one keeper will work better than playing another ( fine margins ).
In conjunction with the refreshed cup match schedule that should be enough to keep two keepers happy. So if we are pushed into selling one of the three it has to be Hart out of the door for me. He seems like a decent bloke and he looks to have settled in well, despite our results he made also some excellent saves. I wish we could keep all three of them, but if my arm is twisted it is a simple case of last in first out as far as I'm concerned.
Do I think we will do any of those things?
No, I think we will sell Nick early in the window for a laughable price that we will be too embarrassed to disclose. The Vokes transfer could be seen as a softener and the shape of things to come. Nick will be sold to bring in money to cover our upcoming transfer expenditure in the next window and the justification for his sale will be
"Nick needs to be playing every week at this point in his career. He didn't want to leave us, but after a bit of a chat he came round to the idea of moving on. The club didn't want to lose a young keeper of his quality, who could increase in value and set us up for the next decade, but we felt it was the right move for the player and the club at this particular point in time."
After Nick has left we will place all the money we receive from his sale into the hands of Mike Rigg, who will combine the proceeds with what we got for Vokes and boost it with a healthy chunk from the dry powder store along with any cash that is raised from other player sales. Flushed with cash Rigg will then proceed to waste it all by championing a cavalcade of unwise purchases, just like he did at QPR and Fulham. First and last it wasn't me, like **** it wasn't, if you set menu you don't get to blame the diners for eating the poison fruit on offer.
Our only hope is that Sean will keep his predilection for destructive squad overhauls firmly in check or we lock him in a cupboard during all of our transfer windows along with an abacus, a copy of The Art Of War by Sun Tzu and a curly wurly for sustenance.
To conclude, and turn the direction of the topic back towards Arsenal, the only piece of recruitment business that we should be doing in relation to them is pulling out all the stops in a serious attempt to bring Sven Mislintat to the club as our Sporting Director or Head of Global Recruitment.
I'm sure that titles are supremely important to some people, but I prefer to think that it is always the job specification and area of influence that truly matters. So we could call him The Eponymous Fluffy Pink Bunny From Mars for all I care, whatever floats his boat and gets him through the door. As long as we make damn sure we keep any promises that we make to him we should be okay.
Supporting Rigg by bringing in somebody with recognised talent spotting ability ( evidenced by a rock solid track record ) is the best way to secure our future and ensure the successful evolution of our recruitment department. Although, I'm not sure that Rigg would be willing to put the club first and his ego to one side in support of such a proposal. However, it might be the best way for him to avoid having another glaring calamity on his CV at our expense.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for the guys head right out of the gate, because we have a long standing history of taking rubbish from other clubs and polishing it all up until it shines like a crown jewel. I can't see why things should be any different when it comes to Rigg, but from the embryonic patterns I'm seeing we have a lot of work to do before he is what we need.
I just hope that he has the humility and self awareness to recognise that. Like so many of the aspects related to our club he is a long way from being the finished product. The fact that Technical Directors are entrusted with the formulation of long term strategic visions and he hasn't lasted more than two years in that specific position should tell him something.
I don't think anything I've said is libellous, but if it is then I am happy to repost any of my questionable opinions along with a secondary post that includes a career timeline for Rigg along with documented factual evidence in support of them. It didn't take long to assemble, a quick and cursory fact finding exercise generated numerous points of concern relating to his transfer history pedigree and it painted a very clear picture of how he likes to operate.
To say that I was surprised by what I discovered would be seriously playing down the impact of my findings. While other people might be filled with an inner golden light at the thoughts of what our new recruitment Messiah will bring to the club, I'm currently shitting enough bricks to build us a new stadium.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
Re: Pope to Arsenal
After coming to Burnley and failing Hart is going to be seen as a busted flush, if he wasn't already. Not a cat in hells chance anyone will pay 10 or 15 million for him. And Pope has had one good season, till he plays some games there is a question mark over his shoulder as well. Anyone suggesting he's worth 30 or 40 million is living in cloud cuckoo land. IMO Dyche has to choose his long term number 1 this summer and the other 2 need to go, it's as simple as that. None of the 3 will be happy being backup.Long Time Lurker wrote:Obviously, my first reaction to the unsubstantiated rumours of us selling Pope for £10m is to cast them in the bin where they belong. However, I'm inclined to place a bit more credence in them when Nixon is apparently singing from the same hymn sheet.
At the very least it strikes me as something of a "testing the waters" type of media release that is not wholly dissimilar to the recent ones about Wells and Lennon. I'm expecting a couple more, but I wouldn't personally subscribe to the wisdom of us doing anything silly like actually acting on all of them.
A Pittance for Pope, Popers Paradise and Pope Pinched for Pennies might make good alliteration for a Claret Tony tagline but anything less than £30m would be very bad business. Every player has their price, because football is a commercial arena as much as it is a competitive arena, but £10m is a long way off the price I would expect us to accept for Nick.
The fact that Nick lost his place in the squad through injury has admittedly lowered his visibility and for some people that might somehow equate to a reduction in price. Even if I accept that argument it only means that now is definitely not the time to sell him. Good business is about selling when the price for something is perceived to be high, it's not about selling when the expectant price is perceived to be lower than it actually should be.
Personally, if Nick wants more active game time I would look at a contract extension and a loan to another club (with them paying a healthy fee as well as his wages). Ideally it would be somewhere nice and sunny that is a long way away from the squads of any clubs that we might be competing with in the Premier league next year. The loan would be at the start of the season for a six month period and in the following window Hart could go out. At the end of the season the club could sit down and re-evaluate the matter.
If the decision to move on any one of our three England keepers is set in stone then I would set their asking prices to influence the buyers decision making. Tom stays put ( 50m seems to be the hands off price these days ), Pope can go for £30m plus or you can have Joe for £10-15m. All of them are very good keepers with not a lot between them, although they have their differences.
All of a sudden Hart would look like the most attractive player to buy, especially for any new entrants to the league, and he would arguably benefit the most from guaranteed first team appearances at this stage in his career. Nick is a young keeper with more time on his hands, and some extra work on his distribution would take his game and value to the next level. So he could shoulder ( I think enough time has passed to make that pun ) a drop to our pseudo number two slot even if his competitive desires have him chomping at the bit for a return to first team action.
The thing about Pope is that he still has the potential to become even better than he already is. We can sell him on and watch another team reap the greater rewards as he unlocks that potential or it can be our club that benefits from it. If he can improve on his distribution he will be a solid lock for the England number one spot, Pickford won't get a look in, and that is what we might be thinking of selling to bring in money that we don't desperately need.
In relation to having two England keepers on our books, who both want game time, I don't see that as a problem. As I said previously all of our keepers have different strengths and weaknesses and I don't see why that shouldn't play a part in team selection. If we tailor our choice of starting keeper to our opponents we can increase our effectiveness and share out the first team opportunities.
The experience of Martin Hodge, as a player and opposition analyst, in tandem with the knowledge of Billy Mercer should be enough to pick out games where playing one keeper will work better than playing another ( fine margins ).
In conjunction with the refreshed cup match schedule that should be enough to keep two keepers happy. So if we are pushed into selling one of the three it has to be Hart out of the door for me. He seems like a decent bloke and he looks to have settled in well, despite our results he made also some excellent saves. I wish we could keep all three of them, but if my arm is twisted it is a simple case of last in first out as far as I'm concerned.
Do I think we will do any of those things?
No, I think we will sell Nick early in the window for a laughable price that we will be too embarrassed to disclose. The Vokes transfer could be seen as a softener and the shape of things to come. Nick will be sold to bring in money to cover our upcoming transfer expenditure in the next window and the justification for his sale will be
"Nick needs to be playing every week at this point in his career. He didn't want to leave us, but after a bit of a chat he came round to the idea of moving on. The club didn't want to lose a young keeper of his quality, who could increase in value and set us up for the next decade, but we felt it was the right move for the player and the club at this particular point in time."
After Nick has left we will place all the money we receive from his sale into the hands of Mike Rigg, who will combine the proceeds with what we got for Vokes and boost it with a healthy chunk from the dry powder store along with any cash that is raised from other player sales. Flushed with cash Rigg will then proceed to waste it all by championing a cavalcade of unwise purchases, just like he did at QPR and Fulham. First and last it wasn't me, like **** it wasn't, if you set menu you don't get to blame the diners for eating the poison fruit on offer.
Our only hope is that Sean will keep his predilection for destructive squad overhauls firmly in check or we lock him in a cupboard during all of our transfer windows along with an abacus, a copy of The Art Of War by Sun Tzu and a curly wurly for sustenance.
To conclude, and turn the direction of the topic back towards Arsenal, the only piece of recruitment business that we should be doing in relation to them is pulling out all the stops in a serious attempt to bring Sven Mislintat to the club as our Sporting Director or Head of Global Recruitment.
I'm sure that titles are supremely important to some people, but I prefer to think that it is always the job specification and area of influence that truly matters. So we could call him The Eponymous Fluffy Pink Bunny From Mars for all I care, whatever floats his boat and gets him through the door. As long as we make damn sure we keep any promises that we make to him we should be okay.
Supporting Rigg by bringing in somebody with recognised talent spotting ability ( evidenced by a rock solid track record ) is the best way to secure our future and ensure the successful evolution of our recruitment department. Although, I'm not sure that Rigg would be willing to put the club first and his ego to one side in support of such a proposal. However, it might be the best way for him to avoid having another glaring calamity on his CV at our expense.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for the guys head right out of the gate, because we have a long standing history of taking rubbish from other clubs and polishing it all up until it shines like a crown jewel. I can't see why things should be any different when it comes to Rigg, but from the embryonic patterns I'm seeing we have a lot of work to do before he is what we need.
I just hope that he has the humility and self awareness to recognise that. Like so many of the aspects related to our club he is a long way from being the finished product. The fact that Technical Directors are entrusted with the formulation of long term strategic visions and he hasn't lasted more than two years in that specific position should tell him something.
I don't think anything I've said is libellous, but if it is then I am happy to repost any of my questionable opinions along with a secondary post that includes a career timeline for Rigg along with documented factual evidence in support of them. It didn't take long to assemble, a quick and cursory fact finding exercise generated numerous points of concern relating to his transfer history pedigree and it painted a very clear picture of how he likes to operate.
To say that I was surprised by what I discovered would be seriously playing down the impact of my findings. While other people might be filled with an inner golden light at the thoughts of what our new recruitment Messiah will bring to the club, I'm currently shitting enough bricks to build us a new stadium.
Re: Pope to Arsenal
We had no choice but to get another decent keeper once Pope had got injured in the Aberdeen game. Madness otherwise. Heaton's shoulder dislocation was untested and had he been injured in the first game against Southampton we would have been playing Legzdins as Lindegaard then got injured.fatboy47 wrote:Screwing up Pope's market value is another consequence of the bizarre decision to buy Hart. It was inevitable....you can't expect big bucks for your 3rd choice keeper, who's had a serious injury and bugger all chance to prove himself since.
This user liked this post: boatshed bill
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Trouble is with Pickford he does tend to make big mistakes quite often, and he also plays to the cameras making routine saves look spectacular - a dangerous game in itself.houseboy wrote:I think you are under-valuing Pickford bud. He is an extremely good young goalkeeper who has great command of his area and is very vocal. He has proved himself on many occasions and is rightly Southgates first choice. He had a great World Cup and fully deserved his place. Pope is great and I would much rather he stayed with us but I don't think, yet, that he is as good as Pickford. Maybe he will eventually be better but just now I wouldn't value him as much as Pickford. As someone has said in an earlier post he might (stress might) be a one-season-wonder yet, let's look at him in the longer term.
He'll fling himself across the goal when it's clear the ball is going well wide.
This user liked this post: houseboy
-
- Posts: 4388
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1826 times
- Has Liked: 930 times
Re: Pope to Arsenal
Being 3rd choice is a problem to a valuation but values are subjective.
Pickford went from 1st Choice Sunderland > 1st Choice Everton. They knew they were taking a 1st choice keeper and inserting him as theirs. It was for both a clubs 'a big deal'.
Pope 2nd/3rd choice > Arsenal 2nd/3rd Choice
Regardless of if Pope is equal to Pickford's ability that factor will see we don't get near Pickford's price.
Pickford went from 1st Choice Sunderland > 1st Choice Everton. They knew they were taking a 1st choice keeper and inserting him as theirs. It was for both a clubs 'a big deal'.
Pope 2nd/3rd choice > Arsenal 2nd/3rd Choice
Regardless of if Pope is equal to Pickford's ability that factor will see we don't get near Pickford's price.