Wokingclaret wrote:Surprised Wolves are in for him, as Nuno had words with Tarky for a few rough tackles on him players.

I think, like most managers, he's a lot more concerned about tackles on his own players, than he is about tackles by his own players on opponents.

dsr wrote:I think, like most managers, he's a lot more concerned about tackles on his own players, than he is about tackles by his own players on opponents.

Perhaps he said, "I'll not have you do that to my players, I'll sign you for next season!"

Grumps wrote:I never mentioned just shirt sponsorship...skybet is sky, so about 120 million? Taking away the skybet for argument, what is the percentage of income generated by replical shirt sales, or matchday catering, if you think that our second largest income stream is 1% or less. You dont need to provide accounts to show it, just have a little common sense,unless you want to be really childish

What are you talking about skybet is Sky ? That’s obvious but we don’t get any money from skybet and they do not sponsor Burnley.

It’s a simple question as to how much we receive from our betting sponsors ? You can’t answer it - so you decide to come up with other income areas which are nothing to with betting sponsorship. You do realise we would get replica shirt income irrespective of the shirt sponsor ?

Our revenue last year was £140m so just show me where it says our income from our betting company sponsor and Ladbrokes was more than £1.4m....because if it was I doubt it was much more than this given the total commercial income we generate as a club.

TVC15 wrote:What are you talking about skybet is Sky ? That’s obvious but we don’t get any money from skybet and they do not sponsor Burnley.

It’s a simple question as to how much we receive from our betting sponsors ? You can’t answer it - so you decide to come up with other income areas which are nothing to with betting sponsorship. You do realise we would get replica shirt income irrespective of the shirt sponsor ?

Our revenue last year was £140m so just show me where it says our income from our betting company sponsor and Ladbrokes was more than £1.4m....because if it was I doubt it was much more than this given the total commercial income we generate as a club.

Lets turn the tables then, you show me the income was £140m and that only £1.4m was from betting sponsorship. By the way,have you seen the sky bet adds on the pitch side adverts, do them for free do they, or come as part of the sky package?

Grumps wrote:Lets turn the tables then, you show me the income was £140m and that only £1.4m was from betting sponsorship. By the way,have you seen the sky bet adds on the pitch side adverts, do them for free do they, or come as part of the sky package?

We have no choice over the skybet adds - it’s part of the package clearly.
Why do we have to turn the tables ? I asked the question initially as to whether it was around 1%....after your original comment that the money we got from gambling companies was key to our transfer dealings which is what this thread is about.
The context of my comment was firstly that the money we get from gambling sponsorship is definitely not key to our ability to make transfers given the profit we are making and secondly it’s a small percentage of our overall revenue.
You have then since made comments saying it’s a lot more than 1% and I have asked that you provide the evidence of that....clearly you can’t. It’s probably just easier that you admit that.
At least my rationale is based on being able to read and understand our accounts and knowing that up until recently we had never had a sponsorship deal worth more than a million a year.
I’m not sure what your rationale is based on other than you seem to be fully behind being sponsored by gambling companies and for some reason think this is a key part of our recent financial performance.

As for showing you that our revenue was nearly £140m have you not seen the last accounts ?

Skybet isn't owned by Sky TV, they just use their name under licence.

IanMcL wrote:Perhaps he said, "I'll not have you do that to my players, I'll sign you for next season!"

Tall Paul wrote:Skybet isn't owned by Sky TV, they just use their name under licence.

And their employees, and programmes like soccer saturday etc

TVC15 wrote:We have no choice over the skybet adds - it’s part of the package clearly.
Why do we have to turn the tables ? I asked the question initially as to whether it was around 1%....after your original comment that the money we got from gambling companies was key to our transfer dealings which is what this thread is about.
The context of my comment was firstly that the money we get from gambling sponsorship is definitely not key to our ability to make transfers given the profit we are making and secondly it’s a small percentage of our overall revenue.
You have then since made comments saying it’s a lot more than 1% and I have asked that you provide the evidence of that....clearly you can’t. It’s probably just easier that you admit that.
At least my rationale is based on being able to read and understand our accounts and knowing that up until recently we had never had a sponsorship deal worth more than a million a year.
I’m not sure what your rationale is based on other than you seem to be fully behind being sponsored by gambling companies and for some reason think this is a key part of our recent financial performance.

As for showing you that our revenue was nearly £140m have you not seen the last accounts ?

Your first line answers all the questions......go on,tell us all how much that package is worth, pound notes or percentage,either way its fine.

Tall Paul wrote:Skybet isn't owned by Sky TV, they just use their name under licence.

Sky still own 20% of the company.

Grumps wrote:Your first line answers all the questions......go on,tell us all how much that package is worth, pound notes or percentage,either way its fine.

You are talking utter sh-ite.
We do not receive the money from Sky because of skybet.
We get it because we are in the Premier League and that product is sold all round the world. They choose to advertise one of their many products at games just like other companies pay sky to advertise on their channels. It’s like saying we receive money from Nivea or McDonald’s because their adverts are shown at half time during one of our televised games. It’s skybet who pay sky to advertise.

You seem to be really struggling with answering the simple question as to how much Burnley football club receive from betting companies. If you think we receive one penny from Skybet then feel free to evidence it.

And all this diversion from answering the question which you say anyone with any sense would know the answer to is just a distraction from the original point you made (which was also utter sh-ite) that the money we get from betting companies is key to our transfer spend.

This us another thread of interest that is denegerating into a row between 2 posters.

Grumps wrote:And their employees, and programmes like soccer saturday etc

Yes, they have a commercial relationship with Sky TV, that doesn't mean "Skybet is Sky".

Grumps wrote: Sky still own 20% of the company.

Not since the Stars Group acquired Skybet last year.

Star group aquired an 80% stake in sky bet in 2015 with sky retaining 20%.....unless thats changed

randomclaret2 wrote:This us another thread of interest that is denegerating into a row between 2 posters.

is
Ok, i agree and will withdraw.

Grumps wrote:Star group aquired an 80% stake in sky bet in 2015 with sky retaining 20%.....unless thats changed

Nope, that was CVC Capital Partners. The acquisition by the Stars Group was last year.

Spijed wrote:Keane left and we didn't have a problem.

That's because we had already signed Tarks as a ready made replacement.

boatshed bill wrote:That's because we had already signed Tarks as a ready made replacement.

What's Gibson, if he isn't ready to step in?

Spijed wrote:What's Gibson, if he isn't ready to step in?

A left sided defender.

claretspice wrote:A left sided defender.

So if Mee never gets injured he'll never play for us, barring the odd game here and there.

I bet he's really glad as to how his career is going.

Spijed wrote:So if Mee never gets injured he'll never play for us, barring the odd game here and there. I bet he's really glad as to how his career is going.

I’d have no concerns over Mee/Gibson but was he signed for a back3?

claretspice wrote:A left sided defender.

This, as usual, is a really poor argument. Nobody ever cares if there are two right footed centre halves so why is two left footed centre halves such a problem? Gibson is a very good footballer. He's more than capable of using his right foot and/or maneuvering the ball from a right sided centre half position. ALL Middlesboro fans can't be wrong and the general consensus from them is that they think he's an excellent defender.

Gibson is a ready made replacement for Tarkowski. Get as much money as we can for Tarkowski and give Gibson a regular slot - he deserves it.

Jakubs Tash wrote:This, as usual, is a really poor argument. Nobody ever cares if there are two right footed centre halves so why is two left footed centre halves such a problem? Gibson is a very good footballer. He's more than capable of using his right foot and/or maneuvering the ball from a right sided centre half position. ALL Middlesboro fans can't be wrong and the general consensus from them is that they think he's an excellent defender.

Gibson is a ready made replacement for Tarkowski. Get as much money as we can for Tarkowski and give Gibson a regular slot - he deserves it.

It's the same reason there are a lot more right footed left backs than left footed right backs. Right footed centre halves get experience on the left because there aren't enough left footers to always fill the berth; clearly the same doesn't apply in reverse.

Gibson might prove to be the exception but he's played all his football on the left side, having started, like Mee, at left back when he first broke into senior football. Big ask to move to the mirror image position in his mid 20s.

claretspice wrote:It's the same reason there are a lot more right footed left backs than left footed right backs. Right footed centre halves get experience on the left because there aren't enough left footers to always fill the berth; clearly the same doesn't apply in reverse.

Gibson might prove to be the exception but he's played all his football on the left side, having started, like Mee, at left back when he first broke into senior football. Big ask to move to the mirror image position in his mid 20s.

Absolutely spot on.

And if Gibson is as good as Tarky why aren't Wolves bidding for him instead?

boatshed bill wrote:Absolutely spot on.

And if Gibson is as good as Tarky why aren't Wolves bidding for him instead?

Maybe because he isn't playing!

As for not being as good:
https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/18/middlesb ... n-6646977/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

claretspice wrote:It's the same reason there are a lot more right footed left backs than left footed right backs. Right footed centre halves get experience on the left because there aren't enough left footers to always fill the berth; clearly the same doesn't apply in reverse.

Gibson might prove to be the exception but he's played all his football on the left side, having started, like Mee, at left back when he first broke into senior football. Big ask to move to the mirror image position in his mid 20s.

I'm not so sure it is such a big ask for a Premier League standard centre half. He's a professional footballer who earns thousands of pounds...

I'd be pretty confident that Gibson can play as a right sided centre half. If not, Gibson would come across as a very strange signing given that Tarkowski was always the one who would 'train on' and be sold for big money.

Spijed wrote:Maybe because he isn't playing!

As for not being as good:
https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/18/middlesb ... n-6646977/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's not played this season (very much) because he can't displace Ben Mee, so how he's suddenly going to be an adequate replacement for an excellent right-side centreback such as Tarkowski is beyond me.

Jakubs Tash wrote:I'm not so sure it is such a big ask for a Premier League standard centre half. He's a professional footballer who earns thousands of pounds...

I'd be pretty confident that Gibson can play as a right sided centre half. If not, Gibson would come across as a very strange signing given that Tarkowski was always the one who would 'train on' and be sold for big money.

Well, we'll find out. Never convinced by the "he's paid thousands a week" line - he's paid to be a specialist, we'd not expect him to be a front line left back, which is one position in the opposite direction - and of course, he wasn't our first choice signing last summer, but rather our back up plan when Dawson didn't work out (and of course signed when Mee wasn't so guaranteed to stay here because he hadn't signed a new contract, so your premise Tarks was always more likely to leave may not be entirely right).

claretspice wrote:Well, we'll find out. Never convinced by the "he's paid thousands a week" line - he's paid to be a specialist, we'd not expect him to be a front line left back, which is one position in the opposite direction - and of course, he wasn't our first choice signing last summer, but rather our back up plan when Dawson didn't work out (and of course signed when Mee wasn't so guaranteed to stay here because he hadn't signed a new contract, so your premise Tarks was always more likely to leave may not be entirely right).

Yes, I think we will find out. Because when Tarkowski is sold, Gibson is likely to be the man who will replace him (whether having two left footed centre halves in the same team makes you feel wobbly or not). Mepham and Ake do ok....

Jakubs Tash wrote:Yes, I think we will find out. Because when Tarkowski is sold, Gibson is likely to be the man who will replace him (whether having two left footed centre halves in the same team makes you feel wobbly or not). Mepham and Ake do ok....

Not special.

boatshed bill wrote:He's not played this season (very much) because he can't displace Ben Mee, so how he's suddenly going to be an adequate replacement for an excellent right-side centreback such as Tarkowski is beyond me.

Because he’s a good centre half regardless of which foot he kicks with?

I think if tarks does end up leaving and gibson doesnt get a chance he wont be far behind him

Reecey1987 wrote:I think if tarks does end up leaving and gibson doesnt get a chance he wont be far behind him

I'm sure Gibson was signed for two reasons: one was to balance left and right footed central defenders in the squad, the second was that Ben Mee had been stalling over a new contract. Mee signed and Gibson dropped to the bench.
I doubt that Gibson, who I do rate highly, was ever going to be a replacement for Tarkowski.

boatshed bill wrote:I'm sure Gibson was signed for two reasons: one was to balance left and right footed central defenders in the squad, the second was that Ben Mee had been stalling over a new contract. Mee signed and Gibson dropped to the bench.
I doubt that Gibson, who I do rate highly, was ever going to be a replacement for Tarkowski.

I suggest that's pretty much spot on, but I'd add that we also expected (hoped) for a run in the Europa league through the Autumn and maybe further and Gibson was penciled in to play in that so others didn't have to play twice a week.

boatshed bill wrote:He's not played this season (very much) because he can't displace Ben Mee, so how he's suddenly going to be an adequate replacement for an excellent right-side centreback such as Tarkowski is beyond me.

Especially when you condsider that by the same argument, Tarkowski couldn't displace Mee or Keane so clearly he couldn't be an adequate replacement either.

It's a bit like the man whose mother-in-law gave him two ties for Christmas, and he went to see her wearing one of them; she said "Don't you like the other one, then?".

Dark Cloud wrote:I suggest that's pretty much spot on, but I'd add that we also expected (hoped) for a run in the Europa league through the Autumn and maybe further and Gibson was penciled in to play in that so others didn't have to play twice a week.

I dont think the management expected a long run in the europa league, and didnt sign anyone in the hope of having one

And presumably it's the same with wingers. If your winger is used to playing on the left, he can't then play on the right, or vice versa.

And as for the people who suggest that McNeil's future may be in the centre of the field - well, if a quality left footed centre half can't play as a right sided centre half because the change is too much to cope with, then there's not much chance of a winger moving inside.

Just think what a career Ryan Giggs might have had if he had stuck to his wing instead of floating round the pitch!

Remember when Caldwell couldn’t be replaced, then Carlisle, then Shackell, then Keane, and there was no way we could stay in the league with Long and Mee?

If we lose Tarks for £25m+ then I’m pretty happy there is a plan in place.

dsr wrote:Especially when you condsider that by the same argument, Tarkowski couldn't displace Mee or Keane so clearly he couldn't be an adequate replacement either.
.

I don't believe Tarkowski was bought for any other reason than that we knew Keane wanted away, similarly Gibson was bought because Mee was stalling, had Mee not re-signed we'd have had no left side central defender.

boatshed bill wrote:I don't believe Tarkowski was bought for any other reason than that we knew Keane wanted away, similarly Gibson was bought because Mee was stalling, had Mee not re-signed we'd have had no left side central defender.

Though as has already been pointed out, right footed players have little trouble playing on the left so we wouldn't need a left sided centre half. It's having no right footers that is the recipe for failure.

dsr wrote:Though as has already been pointed out, right footed players have little trouble playing on the left so we wouldn't need a left sided centre half. It's having no right footers that is the recipe for failure.

I would totally agree with this, so Gibson and Mee in central defence?

boatshed bill wrote:I don't believe Tarkowski was bought for any other reason than that we knew Keane wanted away, similarly Gibson was bought because Mee was stalling, had Mee not re-signed we'd have had no left side central defender.

Where did that idea that we wanted two players for every position go?

I remember a game at Millwall. One centre back got sent off, the other went off injured. Two centre backs out in the early part (20 minutes) of one game. How did we manage, not just for the rest of that game - which we lost - but the next game?

boatshed bill wrote:I don't believe Tarkowski was bought for any other reason than that we knew Keane wanted away

That's complete tosh. So Keane wanted away in January 2016? It was only towards the second half of the 16/17 season we realised Keane was going to leave.

Jakubs Tash wrote:That's complete tosh. So Keane wanted away in January 2016? It was only towards the second half of the 16/17 season we realised Keane was going to leave.

I'm sure we had an inkling.

Or maybe the 'inkling' was that Duff didn't have too much left in the tank and we needed another centre half, not only for the future but also for the run in that season....

Jakubs Tash wrote:Or maybe the 'inkling' was that Duff didn't have too much left in the tank and we needed another centre half, not only for the future but also for the run in that season....

Yes, there was also that situation. Either way we were going to need a quality centre back, and I believe we will need another one quite soon.

Left footed or not I think people are dismissing how good Gibson was during his time at Boro.

You don't get linked with the top clubs if you are not a good player.

If Tarkowski does go, then one of Gibson or Mee will be lining up against Southampton on the right side, and my bet would be Gibson.

We certainly won't be signing anyone else until at the least the last day of the window.

This mornings daily paper. Man U expected to go for Maguire from Leicester (80 mill suggested ). If that proceeds Leicester intend to go for Tarky, if that's the case then I would hope that we are looking for at least £59 mill.

Sorry if it's been asked before but do Brentford have a sell on clause?