BBC gossip

English goalkeeper Joe Hart, 32, could be allowed to leave Burnley on a free transfer this summer, with several Ligue 1 clubs interested. (Mail)


That was poor business then!

Surely we could get at least a few hot taps for him?

If it is true it isn't poor business then it's poor business NOW.

Hart is a quality keeper and if moving him on for free is the best that we can do then it doesn't say a lot about our ability to make deals and negotiate. Taking into account his transfer fee and wages already paid that would be about £6m -£7m which would cancel out the money we got for Vokes and probably some more.

Keepers have always been drastically undervalued, which could well be a carry over from the "last one picked in the playground ethos". However, with the increasing prominence of xG stats people have woken up to the fact that the last line of defence is almost as important as the first line of attack. Preventing goals is nearly as important as scoring goals when it comes to getting points from a match.

That has resulted in keeper prices rising relatively faster than other positions over the last couple of years. It is why we would be mad to sell Pope, the best young English keeper in the country and a future England number one for many years to come, at this juncture. His value is only going to go up and that doesn't take into account the fact that he could fill our keeper slot for the next decade. Neither does it take into account that his lack of visibility this year would lead to a lower price than he is truly worth.

A good keeper is truly worth his weight in gold these days and the correction is long overdue.

On the basis of "last in first out", more playing time for Hart and the potential value of Pope it should be Joe that moves on in the next window if one has to leave. However, Hart is easily worth £5m - £10m of any clubs money or failing that a paid for loan with wages covered. A Joe plus cash offer for a player could be another alternative.

I thought that Stade Rennais would have made a very good move for him. Rennes is a fantastic city and he would have an excellent chance of taking the number one spot. They are obviously in need of a keeper, although if rumours are true they have offered Ciprian Tătărușanu a 3 year contract in the past couple of days.

A free transfer would save us Hart's wages for next season, but it would be a very bad return for a very good player who could offer a lot to another team.

In an ideal world we’d recoup some money on Hart if we are to allow him to leave. However I don’t think it’s that bad a business if you consider that we are led to believe we wanted him on loan but city didn’t agree. Had they then we’d have highly likely had to pay a decent loan fee in the millions anyway, as that seems the going thing nowadays, especially for a premier league standard international goalie. In the end we probably paid 3 -5 million but perhaps a slightly smaller proportion of his wages to take him permanent. All in all it’s not ideal but not a disaster imo (obviously I’m only speculating)

A mistake file under Juke./Sordell and move on
A free is the best quick option

Cut our losses now. Give him away right now. The worst signing of recent recent and unfathomable, along with Crouch. Get rid of him immediately too.

People forget both Pope and Heaton were injured when he signed. We didn't do it for fun.

CombatClaret wrote:People forget both Pope and Heaton were injured when he signed. We didn't do it for fun.

Aye but they wouldn't like that little fact to get in the way of their predetermined view point.

Wasn’t Heaton fit for the Southampton opening game? Short term loan deal would have been more understandable.

CombatClaret wrote:People forget both Pope and Heaton were injured when he signed. We didn't do it for fun.

We had no choice but to sign him once Pope got injured because there was no guarantee that Heaton's shoulder was going to withstand a new season of PL football, considering he hadn't played properly for months previously.

Spijed wrote:We had no choice but to sign him once Pope got injured because there was no guarantee that Heaton's shoulder was going to withstand a new season of PL football, considering he hadn't played properly for months previously.

As I just posted short term loan would have been the sensible option we did also have other keepers on our books at the time. Also with regards to Heaton I’m sure they got an expert medical opinion on his shoulder which he has had no issues with.

Poor signing who’s probably costing us a fortune in wages. Thankfully Dyche remedied after the Everton debacle.

You’d think we didn’t have two other ‘Keepers on the books other than Heaton and Pope.

Welease Woger

Lord Beamish wrote:You’d think we didn’t have two other ‘Keepers on the books other than Heaton and Pope.

Lindegaard picked up a knock as well!

Also, Hart wouldn't join on loan, he wanted to fight for the #1 shirt.

Individually I don't think he played bad but he's not the sort of keeper for our style of play - imo he's better in a more attack minded team to execute more recovery saves and use his distribution.

Compared to the requirements of our keepers that requires great organisational & communication skills as well as command of an area.

An utterly baffling way to spunk around 5 or 6 million quid.

With Heaton very close to match fitness , Lindegaard having had a couple of decent showings and Pope well on the road to recovery.......it was inexplicable.

At worst the scenario called for an emergency loan for a few weeks at the most.

Once he said he didn’t want a loan deal we should have looked elsewhere.

Decent shot stopper as most are these days but poor command of box and very suspect to shots to his left.

Sell him to Man United, they’ll be after a new keeper come summer.

It said a lot to me that he wasn't at the supporters awards night instead opting to work on TV at the Manchester derby

Hey, we took a chance on signing Joe Hart, £3.5 million and 50% of reported wages of £110,000 per week - City paying the other half for 1 year. It didn't work out, we didn't win as many games with Joe in goal as we've done in the second half of the season with Tom back between the posts.

We signed Joe on a 2 year contract, but we don't know if wages for the 2nd year are £55,000 per week or double that. If you were Joe Hart would you have signed for a 50% cut in wages for the 2nd year?

We don't need 3 international keepers. We know that Tom Heaton is our no.1 (and we'd like Tom to be England's no.1). We'd also like Nick Pope to be with us for a number of seasons - at least I would. So, Joe's the one we have to let go. Joe's wages, if £55,000 per week = £2,860,000 - and £5,720,000, at £110,000 per week, plus another £800,000 in employer's NIC. So, potentially, £6,500,000 to keep Joe Hart for another season and he's free to move on July 2020.

What was done in August last year was done then. If my maths are anywhere near right, it's good business now to let Joe move on - with our best wishes and thanks for being part of the squad.

UTC

fatboy47 wrote:An utterly baffling way to spunk around 5 or 6 million quid.

With Heaton very close to match fitness , Lindegaard having had a couple of decent showings and Pope well on the road to recovery.......it was inexplicable.

At worst the scenario called for an emergency loan for a few weeks at the most.

It is a bit baffling I agree - but we don’t know the ins and outs of the deal and how it came about.
As for Pope being “well on the road to recovery” - are you sure ? I thought he was injured a few days before we signed Hart

He came in and did a job so some of the animosity is a bmit unfair. Whether we needed to sign that style of goalkeeper is debatable but he’s not moaned ( well who wouldn’t with that pay cheque! ) but it may have pushed Heaton on more. Heaton is a far better fit for us and Pope needs to push him if we can hopefully keep hold of him.

fatboy47 wrote:An utterly baffling way to spunk around 5 or 6 million quid.

With Heaton very close to match fitness , Lindegaard having had a couple of decent showings and Pope well on the road to recovery.......it was inexplicable.

At worst the scenario called for an emergency loan for a few weeks at the most.

I don't think the Premier League rules allow for 'Emergency Loans'.
We don't know what the prognosis report on Heaton's shoulder said - it could be, and his performance at Burton was very unTomlike, that it was believed he needed a few more months to regain full and painless use of the shoulder again.
Lindegaard was injured, Pope was injured for the foreseeable future at the time. This messageboard was full of people saying we needed to sign a good goalkeeper as a matter of urgency rather than rely on Ledgzins with the new PL season and future Europa League matches still to play.

Hart is a great keeper but, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, not the right sort of keeper for the Burnley FC system. He will do a decent job at the right sort of club.

Paul Waine wrote:Hey, we took a chance on signing Joe Hart, £3.5 million and 50% of reported wages of £110,000 per week - City paying the other half for 1 year. It didn't work out, we didn't win as many games with Joe in goal as we've done in the second half of the season with Tom back between the posts.

We signed Joe on a 2 year contract, but we don't know if wages for the 2nd year are £55,000 per week or double that. If you were Joe Hart would you have signed for a 50% cut in wages for the 2nd year?

We don't need 3 international keepers. We know that Tom Heaton is our no.1 (and we'd like Tom to be England's no.1). We'd also like Nick Pope to be with us for a number of seasons - at least I would. So, Joe's the one we have to let go. Joe's wages, if £55,000 per week = £2,860,000 - and £5,720,000, at £110,000 per week, plus another £800,000 in employer's NIC. So, potentially, £6,500,000 to keep Joe Hart for another season and he's free to move on July 2020.

What was done in August last year was done then. If my maths are anywhere near right, it's good business now to let Joe move on - with our best wishes and thanks for being part of the squad.

UTC

I would like to think City are paying half his wages for the full 2 years. That would account for our payment of £3.5m, being that they were considering letting him leave on a free previously.

If we are set to pay him £110,000 per week for next season then he isn't going to sign up for another team who are going to pay him any less than that. Unless it is a long term contract which could even out the short term financial loss. On a short term contract it would have to be on a free to make him remotely attractive to other clubs.

If City are only paying half his wages for this season it would represent the most ludicrous piece of transfer business that we have ever completed. We would have been better off playing Legzdins until Tom or Lindegaard was fit.

fatboy47 wrote:With Heaton very close to match fitness , Lindegaard having had a couple of decent showings and Pope well on the road to recovery.......it was inexplicable.

That’d be Heaton who was suffering from a different injury, with concerns over his long term fitness. Lindegaard who was now also injured and Pope ‘well on the road to recovery’ who had dislocated his shoulder a week before. So fairly explicable given the non-revised circumstances.

Other than that, everything you said was right, though.

I think we took a reasonable risk that Hart would play his way into a move which recouped his outlay after twelve months, whilst he retained his full salary. It didn’t work, we move on.

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Wasn’t Heaton fit for the Southampton opening game? Short term loan deal would have been more understandable.

Yes, he was on the bench, something people dom’t seem to want to register.

Wasn't Joe OOC with City at the end of 2018-19 season hence City paying 50% of his City salary for 12 months but from 2019-20 he is under our salary structure and I assume £55k/week. I suspect the money we paid City were his wages for the remaining 50% if the fee was £3.5million. So £55k x 52 +20% VAT is almost £3.5million and our salary cap is not breached.

Swizzlestick wrote:Yes, he was on the bench, something people dom’t seem to want to register.

But there was no guarantee he would have been the same keeper after that injury and even now that shoulder will be suspect

bfcmik wrote:I don't think the Premier League rules allow for 'Emergency Loans'.
We don't know what the prognosis report on Heaton's shoulder said - it could be, and his performance at Burton was very unTomlike, that it was believed he needed a few more months to regain full and painless use of the shoulder again.
Lindegaard was injured, Pope was injured for the foreseeable future at the time. This messageboard was full of people saying we needed to sign a good goalkeeper as a matter of urgency rather than rely on Ledgzins with the new PL season and future Europa League matches still to play.

Hart is a great keeper but, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, not the right sort of keeper for the Burnley FC system. He will do a decent job at the right sort of club.

He hasn’t been great at his last 3 clubs. Not sure our system is to blame for this or West Ham’s.

Imagine the comments on here if we didn’t sign him and went into the season without a premier league quality keeper. Imagine if those injuries ended up running for half the season..

We did start the season without a Premier League quality keeper.

gandhisflipflop wrote:It said a lot to me that he wasn't at the supporters awards night instead opting to work on TV at the Manchester derby

It said a lot to me that he was chucking his arms round all his City mates after Sunday's game. Should have gone back on the bus with em.

The conjecture continues, didn't realise so many know how much he earns. £140k someone told me.

Anyone else want to come up with a random figure. Hopefully he will go so the rubbish posted about him will stop.

It said a lot to me that despite being on the bench he celebrated like a maniac when Dwight McNeil scored against wolves.

NL Claret wrote:The conjecture continues, didn't realise so many know how much he earns. £140k someone told me.

Anyone else want to come up with a random figure. Hopefully he will go so the rubbish posted about him will stop.

His wages were nowhere near that figure, or Paul Waine's.

NL Claret wrote:The conjecture continues, didn't realise so many know how much he earns. £140k someone told me.

Anyone else want to come up with a random figure. Hopefully he will go so the rubbish posted about him will stop.

Hi NL, media reports at the time of the transfer are basis for my statement that Joe Hart's City contract was £110k per week - and that City agreed to pay half of this amount after Joe had transferred to Burnley, as there was only 1 season left on his City contract.

I don't think anything has been reported about Joe's wage for this coming season. Logic suggests that it will be £55k, i.e. the wage that Burnley have been reported to be paying this season.

Before we let any keeper go, presumably we'll want to get Heaton tied down to another deal - as I understand it his current contract expires next summer (2020), and so far as I'm aware he's not yet signed a new one.

mdd2 wrote:Wasn't Joe OOC with City at the end of 2018-19 season hence City paying 50% of his City salary for 12 months but from 2019-20 he is under our salary structure and I assume £55k/week. I suspect the money we paid City were his wages for the remaining 50% if the fee was £3.5million. So £55k x 52 +20% VAT is almost £3.5million and our salary cap is not breached.

Hi mdd2, agree most of what you say. But, is VAT charged on transfer fees? I've never seen VAT mentioned in relation to any transfers.

Long Time Lurker wrote:I would like to think City are paying half his wages for the full 2 years. That would account for our payment of £3.5m, being that they were considering letting him leave on a free previously.

If we are set to pay him £110,000 per week for next season then he isn't going to sign up for another team who are going to pay him any less than that. Unless it is a long term contract which could even out the short term financial loss. On a short term contract it would have to be on a free to make him remotely attractive to other clubs.

If City are only paying half his wages for this season it would represent the most ludicrous piece of transfer business that we have ever completed. We would have been better off playing Legzdins until Tom or Lindegaard was fit.

Hi Long Time, as others have posted JH only had 1 season left on his City contract, so no reason why City would pick up any of his wages beyond the end date of his contract with them.

"Most ludicrous piece of transfer business" is only a judgement after the event. It would have been brilliant transfer business if the results in the first half of the season, with Joe in goal, had matched the results in the second half of the season - whether it was with Tom or Joe continuing in goal.

Report in today's Times that Suarez, Arsenal has cost them £3.5 million loan fee - and only played a little over 90 minutes.

I'm sure Burnley paid the transfer fee so that Burnley would held his contract and could make decisions about "what comes next." Moving on Joe Hart, at £55k per week is good business - even it is on a free - if we have 2 other keepers who can both fulfil the first team role.

I cant believe how thick some people are.

1 pope and heaton (and lindergaard) were injured
2 even if pope wasnt injured he had still less than one full prem season under his belt. In fact prior to that he had only played 20 odd at champonship level - once.
3 people keep saying heaton was nearly fit. Nearly fit and fit are two totally different things. Especially after being out for a year. Brady and Defour have been nearly fit for about the same time... inagine taking a risk on a keeper a) getting back to fitness and b) being the same player after a serious shoulder injury

As it happens Heaton came back and Hart did the job we signed him for. He won us some crucial points non more so than cardiff away.

To let him go for free is sensible business. We lose a big wage off the books and we no longer need him.

To compare it to the crouch signing is laughable.

Also to add. Had he ended up being as good as his reputation once was. We would have had 60m worth of goalkeepers on our books for a combined transfer outlay of about 5m.

This is the same Joe Hart that got the MOM on numerous occasions from us right?
Bad signing in hindsight, and didn't work for us, but to be making out he was awful is very unfair - and it's difficult to know if there was dressing room unrest as a result of him

He’s definitely become a scapegoat for our early east form when actually he was one of our better players.
The form of Mee, Cork and the likes of Taylor ant Lowton were the main reasons we shipped so many goals.
If you also think of the different systems we played, no McNeil, Chris Wood playing poorly and Barnes not starting the season then there are tons of other reasons we were so poor.

Since Heaton came into the side - yes he has been brilliant...but Mee, Taylor, McNeil, Westwood, Barnes and Wood have all had an excellent 3 or 4 months since Boxing Day....whilst it would be lovely to think that’s all down to Tom we all know that it isn’t true.
The other big thing is we have gone back to 4-4-2 and we have also played the same side and formation a lot more than we did before Christmas.
A few players like Lowton and JBG also know that they can and will be dropped now if they are not playing well enough - we now need that real competition in centre midfield and up front rather than the bench only being used in case of injury or the last 10 of a game we are losing.

Back to Hart personally I do not think he is as good a keeper (now) as he used to be or as good as Pope or Heaton.....and as brilliant as Tom has been I still think Pope was better than Tom last year

I thought he was consistently the best player in the team when he played but we shipped goals for fun until Heaton came back, almost like the rest of the side went on strike until they got their wish of Heaton back in goal.

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Wasn’t Heaton fit for the Southampton opening game? Short term loan deal would have been more understandable.

Until he injured it again (could easily have happened but thankfully didn't) after the loan ended and we were stuck with what we had in reserve.

Paul Waine wrote:Hi mdd2, agree most of what you say. But, is VAT charged on transfer fees? I've never seen VAT mentioned in relation to any transfers.

Yes, there's VAT on UK to UK transfers (seem to remember the rules are a bit more complex for overseas ones). Transfer fees are normally declared net of VAT though as obviously it is just reclaimed (although it is one reason why clubs can often end up in hock to the taxman, not paying the VAT on transfers).

cricketfieldclarets wrote:I cant believe how thick some people are.

1 pope and heaton (and lindergaard) were injured
2 even if pope wasnt injured he had still less than one full prem season under his belt. In fact prior to that he had only played 20 odd at champonship level - once.
3 people keep saying heaton was nearly fit. Nearly fit and fit are two totally different things. Especially after being out for a year. Brady and Defour have been nearly fit for about the same time... inagine taking a risk on a keeper a) getting back to fitness and b) being the same player after a serious shoulder injury

As it happens Heaton came back and Hart did the job we signed him for. He won us some crucial points non more so than cardiff away.

To let him go for free is sensible business. We lose a big wage off the books and we no longer need him.

To compare it to the crouch signing is laughable.

You say all that but our club spending £3.5m on a 3rd choice goalkeeper is madness when they won’t offer abit more for players that’ll be first choice. Or spending in key areas (CM)

The club waste money away like no tomorrow. Anything under say £4/5m they really don’t care.

It’s similar to those people who spend a fiver on **** each and everyday. And wonder why at the end of the month their £150 down.

Most unfair that Hart is having to carry the blame from some of our supporters for our early season lack of form.
In most of his matches Hart was our star performer and blameless. I put our poor start down to injuries, lack of form, poor pre season due to the europa league fiasco, and poor management

IanMcL wrote:BBC gossip

English goalkeeper Joe Hart, 32, could be allowed to leave Burnley on a free transfer this summer, with several Ligue 1 clubs interested. (Mail)


That was poor business then!

League 1, surely?

We should let Hart go but for some kind of fee, not on a free, surely a championship club would take him