A good buy if its true, hope it comes off for Jay, what a welcome he will receive on his debut, one thing is for sure he will give100% now that he is back where he belongs. Two sensible signings by the gaffer and i hope he can make a couple more before long, good business SD.

Great news

Brilliant news

I wonder how daft those people from last summer are feeling

The ones who were wanting the club to cough up that extra few million and break the bank for him, pay what WBA wanted etc etc etc
Then the grief they were throwing at the club because we didn't cough up the full amount...

Ah those were hilarious times

Havent seen this confirmed anywhere else

aggi wrote:But even though those players are leaving after two years they are part of a long-term strategy whereby they finance their replacements (and a bonus player too). For instance if Maguire goes they can sign Tarkowski and still have plenty of cash to spend elsewhere. They are leaving the club "up" when they go.

That isn't going to be the case with Pieters or Rodriguez (although they aren't necessarily bad signings) but we still need to balance the windows. It doesn't have to be an up and coming teenager, someone like Ben Gibson or Charlie Taylor is following the strategy, but the pattern at the moment seems to be signings who are gradually increasing in age, with that being matched by the squad. I'm not expecting us to sign a load of teenagers but at the moment we have one player under the age of 25 in our matchday squad. We have the next group of assets (Tarkowski, Pope, Taylor and Wood, Barnes and Heaton to a lesser extent) but not the one after that.

We can cope for a few years with signing players and making minimal profits but ultimately if we do that we'll run out of money.

Agree as it will come to a time where you are having to replace 4 / 5 maybe 6 players all in one or two windows and that is not good business

Well I didn’t see it on the north west news.

Mentioned on BBC northwest local news "...subject to a medical."

Together with a clip of him scoring for the Baggies.

Given that Dyche normally takes his medical, science, fitness, etc teams with him, and considering the facilities at The Campus in Portugal, i wonder if the medical will be in Portugal? Would ensure JR gets his Dyche pre-season. A calculated gamble?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:So with reports we've got Jay for £10 million ish, I wonder how daft those people from last summer are feeling

The ones who were wanting the club to cough up that extra few million and break the bank for him, pay what WBA wanted etc etc etc
Then the grief they were throwing at the club because we didn't cough up the full amount...

Ah those were hilarious times.

Hahaha I know they were proper well funny times weren’t they #makingmemories

So, assuming it goes ahead, we'll be giving WBA over £10m less compared to if we'd bought him last year. And people say sack OUR board

aggi wrote:But even though those players are leaving after two years they are part of a long-term strategy whereby they finance their replacements (and a bonus player too). For instance if Maguire goes they can sign Tarkowski and still have plenty of cash to spend elsewhere. They are leaving the club "up" when they go.

That isn't going to be the case with Pieters or Rodriguez (although they aren't necessarily bad signings) but we still need to balance the windows. It doesn't have to be an up and coming teenager, someone like Ben Gibson or Charlie Taylor is following the strategy, but the pattern at the moment seems to be signings who are gradually increasing in age, with that being matched by the squad. I'm not expecting us to sign a load of teenagers but at the moment we have one player under the age of 25 in our matchday squad. We have the next group of assets (Tarkowski, Pope, Taylor and Wood, Barnes and Heaton to a lesser extent) but not the one after that.

We can cope for a few years with signing players and making minimal profits but ultimately if we do that we'll run out of money.

Different argument though. And it's only one that works if you can afford to buy good bets - which is the first problem I identified; very often we can't now. In banking terms, we can afford the sub prime but not the triple A rated. You talk about the cycle- but Leicester look likely to spend 40 million on replacing Maguire, compared to the 12 million they spent on him 2 years ago as a fairly well established player. That suggests to me this cycle is not sustainable, even for Leicester.

No-one is saying we shouldn't look to bring in the sort of player you mention. But we currently have 3 players - Tarks, McNeil, Pope - who are conceivably worth £100 million, so the cupboard is hardly bare. And like I say, it's all part of a balanced programme. What I'm challenging isn't the idea we need some "investment" signings - it's the idea, pushed fairly aggressively by Long Time Lurker and others- that we should be focusing on that type of signing whilst being hostile to the sort of signing tgat has been extremely successful to us.

martin_p wrote:Well I didn’t see it on the north west news.

Maybe I dreamt it then!!

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:So with reports we've got Jay for £10 million ish, I wonder how daft those people from last summer are feeling

The ones who were wanting the club to cough up that extra few million and break the bank for him, pay what WBA wanted etc etc etc
Then the grief they were throwing at the club because we didn't cough up the full amount...

Ah those were hilarious times.

And we would have not signed Vydra

summitclaret wrote:And we would have not signed Vydra

Omg stop it seriously!!! No Vydra? I’m gonna wet myself!!!

Hilarious times!!!

xxmunkyennuixx wrote: We got away with the Vokes/Crouch gamble and the lack of midfield lottery last year. I honestly believe that the club are on the right approach this time.

I think Stoke just bamboozled us into taking another risky gamble. This time at left back.

At a guess, the reason why we didn't go after Pieters at the start of the window, like we did with Walters and Bardsley, is that we weren't interested in him.

I think the Stoke Recruitment team sat down, discussed their need for a quality young left back who could offer them something going forward ( as well as defensively ), fit into their new formation, wouldn't break the bank and provide a reasonable chance of generating a healthy profit for them.

Then they put their heads together to come up with a plan to bring in some money and lower their wage bill. After a few minutes one of them mentioned that we needed a left back, having lost Ward to them, and they came up with the idea of offloading Pieters on to us.

The Crouch transfer was mentioned, everyone had a good laugh at our expense, and a couple of them voiced concerns that we probably wouldn't jump at the chance to take yet another of their unwanted players off their hands ( Bardsley not included, thanks for him Stoke ).

They looked at each other, more laughter, and one of them made the call to us as a bit of a giggle and we said " of course we are interested ".

The phone went quiet on their end, socks were put in mouths, people left the room, tongues were tied - anything to restrain the volcanic laughter that was pending to explode.

One of them, through sheer force of will, managed to speak into their end of the phone and say "ok, speak to his agent".

The phone went dead and they are still laughing, upon hearing about the two year contract with the option of another year a number of them lost control of their bodily functions. To protect them from serious side splitting harm we haven't told them the wages we offered or the sign on/agent fee.

... but I'm just guessing

What's that, offer Burnley Joe Allen .......... Medic!

Given our reluctance to step outside the domestic market and the time left in the window I can understand the Jay Rod move, although I still think £10m is too much to pay for him and I would have liked someone else.

Try as I might I still can't get my head around the Pieters one though. Nothing going forward and the ongoing potential to slip up on the left that will cause us to conceed a goal if he plays. With Crouch we ran the risk of not scoring, with Erik we run the risk of conceeding. Same outcome, different end of the pitch.

ksrclaret wrote:Hahaha I know they were proper well funny times weren’t they #makingmemories

Yeah they were actually funny, just watching some of the mardy tarts on here having their little tantrums was actually hilarious, nevermind anywhere else on social media.

The club played a blinder now, got rid of Vokes for a good fee, had a stand in for a few months wages and then got Jay for a reasonable price.
Yet still we get people questioning the clubs decisions in the transfer market.

As I said earlier Stoke fans would gladly swap places with us...

Long Time Lurker wrote:I think Stoke just bamboozled us into taking another risky gamble. This time at left back.

At a guess, the reason why we didn't go after Pieters at the start of the window, like we did with Walters and Bardsley, is that we weren't interested in him.

I think the Stoke Recruitment team sat down, discussed their need for a quality young left back who could offer them something going forward ( as well as defensively ), fit into their new formation, wouldn't break the bank and provide a reasonable chance of generating a healthy profit for them.

Then they put their heads together to come up with a plan to bring in some money and lower their wage bill. After a few minutes one of them mentioned that we needed a left back, having lost Ward to them, and they came up with the idea of offloading Pieters on to us.

The Crouch transfer was mentioned, everyone had a good laugh at our expense, and a couple of them voiced concerns that we probably wouldn't jump at the chance to take yet another of their unwanted players off their hands ( Bardsley not included, thanks for him Stoke ).

They looked at each other, more laughter, and one of them made the call to us as a bit of a giggle and we said " of course we are interested ".

The phone went quiet on their end, socks were put in mouths, people left the room, tongues were tied - anything to restrain the volcanic laughter that was pending to explode.

One of them, through sheer force of will, managed to speak into their end of the phone and say "ok, speak to his agent".

The phone went dead and they are still laughing, upon hearing about the two year contract with the option of another year a number of them lost control of their bodily functions. To protect them from serious side splitting harm we haven't told them the wages we offered or the sign on/agent fee.

... but I'm just guessing

What's that, offer Burnley Joe Allen .......... Medic!

Given our reluctance to step outside the domestic market and the time left in the window I can understand the Jay Rod move, although I still think £10m is too much to pay for him and I would have liked someone else.

Try as I might I still can't get my head around the Pieters one though. Nothing going forward and the ongoing potential to slip up on the left that will cause us to conceed a goal if he plays. With Crouch we ran the risk of not scoring, with Erik we run the risk of conceeding. Same outcome, different end of the pitch.

Doesn't matter to me, but you made an observation further up the thread about how important it was that posters understand and respect others and their opinions.

I take it you don't think that extends to respect for incoming signings who have played 160 Premier League games in 5 years (in a team who for most of that time were established in the top 10 or so of the Premier League), or indeed a willingness on your part to understand and respect the sound logic of any signing the club might choose to make which doesn't fit the policy you want the club to adopt?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I wonder how daft those people from last summer are feeling

The ones who were wanting the club to cough up that extra few million and break the bank for him, pay what WBA wanted etc etc etc
Then the grief they were throwing at the club because we didn't cough up the full amount...

Ah those were hilarious times

Or people who thought it was a backwards step last season and now think it’s even worse , that’s hilarious

Nixon - Aston Villa. Tried their luck with a lowish offer for Tom Heaton at Burnley. Not enough so far. Spinning a few keeper plates

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Yeah they were actually funny, just watching some of the mardy tarts on here having their little tantrums was actually hilarious, nevermind anywhere else on social media.

The club played a blinder now, got rid of Vokes for a good fee, had a stand in for a few months wages and then got Jay for a reasonable price.
Yet still we get people questioning the clubs decisions in the transfer market.

We didn't actually play a blinder though did we.

We went in for Jay with a generous opening offer and then we wasted away the window offering more and more. In the next window we took a huge risk by selling Vokes and bringing in Crouch.

If WBA had said okay we would have happily paid £18m for him, even though he was probably worth £10m at that point and no other clubs were interested.

We got lucky that the risk from the Vokes/Crouch deal didn't bite us and his appendix put an end to the "cross to Crouch" strategy that was dominating our end game to no effect.

We got Jay for £10m because WBA made a big mistake when they turned down our ridiculously extravagant offer. We were lucky that they saved us from ourselves.

claretspice wrote:Doesn't matter to me, but you made an observation further up the thread about how important it was that posters understand and respect others and their opinions.

I take it you don't think that extends to respect for incoming signings who have played 160 Premier League games in 5 years (in a team who for most of that time were established in the top 10 or so of the Premier League), or indeed a willingness on your part to understand and respect the sound logic of any signing the club might choose to make which doesn't fit the policy you want the club to adopt?

Crikey, two of the board's novelists going in on each other.

Natural selection in action. Who will win out and occupy this niche?

Bamboozled? He's a seasoned pro at a decent age for his position. I don't see him displacing Taylor who has improved enormously over the last season. He's with us to be eperienced cover. A finite budget with a glaring gap that needs filling - CM. This is a decent transfer if the other issues with the squad are rectified.

Long Time Lurker wrote:We didn't actually play a blinder though did we.

We went in for Jay with a generous opening offer and then we wasted away the window offering more and more. In the next window we took a huge risk by selling Vokes and bringing in Crouch.

If WBA had said okay we would have happily paid £18m for him, even though he was probably worth £10m at that point and no other clubs were interested.

We got lucky that the risk from the Vokes/Crouch deal didn't bite us and his appendix put an end to the "cross to Crouch" strategy that was dominating our end game to no effect.

We got Jay for £10m because WBA made a big mistake when they turned down our ridiculously extravagant offer. We were lucky that they saved us from ourselves.

We didn't overpay, we stayed in the PL, got good money for Vokes and got Jay for a reasonable price.

I'd say that's a blinder..
Especially as Jay has shown he can score at this level and Adams hasn't yet.

Long Time Lurker wrote:I think Stoke just bamboozled us into taking another risky gamble. This time at left back.

At a guess, the reason why we didn't go after Pieters at the start of the window, like we did with Walters and Bardsley, is that we weren't interested in him.

I think the Stoke Recruitment team sat down, discussed their need for a quality young left back who could offer them something going forward ( as well as defensively ), fit into their new formation, wouldn't break the bank and provide a reasonable chance of generating a healthy profit for them.

Then they put their heads together to come up with a plan to bring in some money and lower their wage bill. After a few minutes one of them mentioned that we needed a left back, having lost Ward to them, and they came up with the idea of offloading Pieters on to us.

The Crouch transfer was mentioned, everyone had a good laugh at our expense, and a couple of them voiced concerns that we probably wouldn't jump at the chance to take yet another of their unwanted players off their hands ( Bardsley not included, thanks for him Stoke ).

They looked at each other, more laughter, and one of them made the call to us as a bit of a giggle and we said " of course we are interested ".

The phone went quiet on their end, socks were put in mouths, people left the room, tongues were tied - anything to restrain the volcanic laughter that was pending to explode.

One of them, through sheer force of will, managed to speak into their end of the phone and say "ok, speak to his agent".

The phone went dead and they are still laughing, upon hearing about the two year contract with the option of another year a number of them lost control of their bodily functions. To protect them from serious side splitting harm we haven't told them the wages we offered or the sign on/agent fee.

... but I'm just guessing

What's that, offer Burnley Joe Allen .......... Medic!

Given our reluctance to step outside the domestic market and the time left in the window I can understand the Jay Rod move, although I still think £10m is too much to pay for him and I would have liked someone else.

Try as I might I still can't get my head around the Pieters one though. Nothing going forward and the ongoing potential to slip up on the left that will cause us to conceed a goal if he plays. With Crouch we ran the risk of not scoring, with Erik we run the risk of conceeding. Same outcome, different end of the pitch.

Even by your high standards this is at the extreme end of the USS (Utter Sh-ite Scale)

Long Time Lurker wrote:I think Stoke just bamboozled us into taking another risky gamble. This time at left back.

It really is time for you to go and lie down in a dark room. This is an international player for comparative peanuts in a position that needs filling. Whoever we signed you’d be moaning.
If he’s here 2 years and never plays it’s a good deal.

Long Time Lurker wrote:I think Stoke just bamboozled us into taking another risky gamble. This time at left back.

Surprising anyone could see this as a risky gamble. The opposite is true - it's not really a gamble at all.

claretspice wrote:Different argument though. And it's only one that works if you can afford to buy good bets - which is the first problem I identified; very often we can't now. In banking terms, we can afford the sub prime but not the triple A rated. You talk about the cycle- but Leicester look likely to spend 40 million on replacing Maguire, compared to the 12 million they spent on him 2 years ago as a fairly well established player. That suggests to me this cycle is not sustainable, even for Leicester.

No-one is saying we shouldn't look to bring in the sort of player you mention. But we currently have 3 players - Tarks, McNeil, Pope - who are conceivably worth £100 million, so the cupboard is hardly bare. And like I say, it's all part of a balanced programme. What I'm challenging isn't the idea we need some "investment" signings - it's the idea, pushed fairly aggressively by Long Time Lurker and others- that we should be focusing on that type of signing whilst being hostile to the sort of signing tgat has been extremely successful to us.

I'd argue that the type of signing that has been extremely successful for us has been the investment signing.

Fletcher, Austin, Trippier, Mee, Ings, Vokes, Barnes, Keane, Gray, Tarkowski,Pope,(Hendrick to a lesser extent), Taylor - we signed at least one promising player in their early twenties pretty much every season. That was good for the team in that we had players who'd been trained in the tactics ready to come through and good for the finances because we made a lot of money on them.

Taking the view that we can't afford to do that might work in the short-term but we'll come unstuck eventually.

Burnley take highly rated Swedish striker mumbongo on trial.

The 20 year old is a free transfer from Verona.

According to Pete O’Rourke

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:Burnley take highly rated Swedish striker mumbongo on trial.

The 20 year old is a free transfer from Verona.

According to Pete O’Rourke

Two trialists are with the u23s. One of them is likely to be the Norwich goalkeeper.

JRod deal not on “Done Deals” on sky app, yet.

Newcastleclaret93 wrote:Burnley take highly rated Swedish striker mumbongo on trial.

The 20 year old is a free transfer from Verona.

According to Pete O’Rourke

He drinks it in the Congo

aggi wrote:I'd argue that the type of signing that has been extremely successful for us has been the investment signing.

Fletcher, Austin, Trippier, Mee, Ings, Vokes, Barnes, Keane, Gray, Tarkowski,Pope,(Hendrick to a lesser extent), Taylor - we signed at least one promising player in their early twenties pretty much every season. That was good for the team in that we had players who'd been trained in the tactics ready to come through and good for the finances because we made a lot of money on them.

Taking the view that we can't afford to do that might work in the short-term but we'll come unstuck eventually.

Surely that is why they spent the money on the academy, so they didn’t have to scout for the youngsters it’s just not fully up to speed yet. That said I don’t expect out business is finished yet.

Tricky Trevor wrote:JRod deal not on “Done Deals” on sky app, yet.

Won’t be - nothing has been confirmed

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:We didn't overpay, we stayed in the PL, got good money for Vokes and got Jay for a reasonable price.

I'd say that's a blinder..
Especially as Jay has shown he can score at this level and Adams hasn't yet.

Although the flip side of that is would Rodriguez have improved our results last year (and if not why are we signing him)? A few more wins and he may have earned us more than the difference in price through either league places or going further in the Europa League.

ClaretTony wrote:Won’t be - nothing has been confirmed

But have you got your mouse pointer hovering over the upload button with article ready?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I wonder how daft those people from last summer are feeling

The ones who were wanting the club to cough up that extra few million and break the bank for him, pay what WBA wanted etc etc etc
Then the grief they were throwing at the club because we didn't cough up the full amount...

Ah those were hilarious times

So you think those fans who wanted us to buy him for a higher amount last season were wrong. What is hilarious that our Board and Manager also seemed keen to pay a much higher figure than his current fee so presumably they will be feeling daft now too. How daft would you have been feeling had we been relegated instead. We played well after the January transfer window its true but we took an almighty risk that it would work out, no-one here knew Dwight McNeil would make such a difference at that time.

aggi wrote:Although the flip side of that is would Rodriguez have improved our results last year (and if not why are we signing him)? A few more wins and he may have earned us more than the difference in price through either league places or going further in the Europa League.

I think it's generally agreed the issue with results was at the back of the team, namely the defence.

Now I know we like to move players around on here but ....

LaLigaClaret wrote:So you think those fans who wanted us to buy him for a higher amount last season were wrong. What is hilarious that our Board and Manager also seemed keen to pay a much higher figure than his current fee so presumably they will be feeling daft now too. How daft would you have been feeling had we been relegated instead. We played well after the January transfer window its true but we took an almighty risk that it would work out, no-one here knew Dwight McNeil would make such a difference at that time.

The club had a figure they wanted to pay, they didn't feel he was worth what WBA wanted and stuck to their offer.

We weren't relegated.....

Spijed wrote:But have you got your mouse pointer hovering over the upload button with article ready?

Been written a while. Had three ready, one used, one I should use and who knows on the third.

Apparently we've taken Joel Mumbongo on trial.

Pretty sure the lad from Verona is on some of the pics the club tweeted from Poland earlier today

ClaretTony wrote:Been written a while. Had three ready, one used, one I should use and who knows on the third.

I did notice you online most of the day, so thought there was more due. That said I think the Erik release was only due to him being spotted in the picture at the airport. So if i was in charge of the release news and taking in to account the unrest in fans at lack of signings, then I would probably spread the releases out too. But then you wouldn't still be online....... or would you

Anything in this Tomori link?

randomclaret2 wrote:Pretty sure the lad from Verona is on some of the pics the club tweeted from Poland earlier today

I’ve just posted somewhere that there are two trialists in Poland with the u23s. One is likely to be the Norwich keeper so he could be the other.

ClaretTony wrote:Been written a while. Had three ready, one used, one I should use and who knows on the third.

Hmm, interesting...

Chelsea youngster?

Mumbongo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suKj9RtkX1I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Make your own mind up.

I'm totally ok with the Pieters deal and would be perfectly reasonable as a backup to Taylor. JayRod is a brilliant deal for the money so I'm very happy with our transfers so far. At the time we were enquiring about JayRod in the last window the fee was also reasonable as it was what we thought was needed at that particular time.

We still need a tough tackling , ball holding midfielder and a fast, younger midfielder who can support the strikers and can score goals. If we sell Tarkowski the money for these should be there plus a CM like Tomori or similar. Another striker like Maupay could be obtained by selling Vydra and Wells. So far so good.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I think it's generally agreed the issue with results was at the back of the team, namely the defence.

Now I know we like to move players around on here but ....

Well a large part of the trouble was also midfield and according to some Rodriguez would have allowed us to play a better 4-5-1 which would have increased our midfield presence and aided the defence ...