...his retirement from football, via Twitter

And what a career he’s had too

Shame, was hoping he would sign a 3 year deal and see off some of the lip tremblers

Well good luck to him in every thing he does.

That will stop the knee shaking, rant inducing thoughts in the darker recesses of these pages

Bosscat wrote:Well good luck to him in every thing he does.

That will stop the knee shaking, rant inducing thoughts in the darker recesses of these pages

They will still find something

Bosscat wrote:Well good luck to him in every thing he does.

That will stop the knee shaking, rant inducing thoughts in the darker recesses of these pages

Steady on, we still have David Jones training with us.

A good choice as his other interests are his future

"Burnley, really, was the ideal place to finish. I didn't make the biggest impact after I went there in January but I was so glad I went. Sean Dyche is a top manager and the boys are quality. They have a fantastic set-up and I loved going in every day. They are a great club."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... ed-up.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like he had a nice big jolly at our expense

This is almost like a new signing

Some people actually think he chose to get appendicitis and have an operation.

Anyway, as above, he's had a great career and seems like a nice guy but obviously the main thing is he signed a short term contract with us and illness prevented him from making an impact so let's hammer him.

I think the advert he has given our club is worth a few bob

Given we had an offer in the table for him, does this mean we will be looking to sign a replacement?

He has had a fantastic career, but in the end all we signed was a name.

As a footballer he was done. Looks like he knows that too.

agreenwood wrote:He has had a fantastic career, but in the end all we signed was a name.

As a footballer he was done. Looks like he knows that too.

As I said elsewhere, the penalty he won by heading the ball down the defender's arm in the last minute against Southampton meant that we finished above them in the league, making us 1.8 million pounds.

I will always be grateful for seeing his incredibly angled cushioned header out to the left wing on his home debut against Southampton.

It really was a thing of beauty.

Good luck Crouchy. At least he retired at the top

Quicknick wrote:As I said elsewhere, the penalty he won by heading the ball down the defender's arm in the last minute against Southampton meant that we finished above them in the league, making us 1.8 million pounds.

Which wouldn't have covered his wages, his signing fee, no doubt agent fee and probably some nominal type of fee to Stoke

Waste of a signing and took game time away from Vydra

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48964162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FeedTheArf wrote:Which wouldn't have covered his wages, his signing fee, no doubt agent fee and probably some nominal type of fee to Stoke

Waste of a signing and took game time away from Vydra

Why are we so afraid of losing Dyche? We have so many people on this board who can do a better job............

Quicknick wrote:As I said elsewhere, the penalty he won by heading the ball down the defender's arm in the last minute against Southampton meant that we finished above them in the league, making us 1.8 million pounds.

When's the parade?

He's had a very good career and seems like a really nice bloke. I'm sure he'll have a good career after football. Wish him all the best.

“All we signed was a name”
“He has a nice jolly at our expense”

I wasn’t in favour of selling Vokes and bringing in Crouch at the time but happy to admit that yet again I was wrong and Dyche was right....which is why I sit in the stands and pay to watch his team every week.
To say Crouch came here for a jolly and that Dyche signed him just because he was well known doesn’t make any sense...why would Dyche or Crouch do that ?
Crouch could have just seen out his contract at Stoke and got the same money and I can’t even think of a good reason why Dyche would sign a player for non footballing reasons....

Sam would not have gone to Stoke if Crouch had not signed for us.
We would have received less money now for Sam if he had gone in this window
Sean knew what he was doing so Crouch an excellent signing for us

DAVETHEVICAR wrote:Sam would not have gone to Stoke if Crouch had not signed for us.
We would have received less money now for Sam if he had gone in this window
Sean knew what he was doing so Crouch an excellent signing for us

"Sean knew what he was doing so Crouch an excellent signing for us[/quote]"

He had a great career. Seems a great guy but he really wasn't.

FeedTheArf wrote:Which wouldn't have covered his wages, his signing fee, no doubt agent fee and probably some nominal type of fee to Stoke

Waste of a signing and took game time away from Vydra

So you think we paid signing on and agents fees of around a million pounds for signing a player for 4 or 5 months ?

Why would a nominal fee be paid to Stoke ?
What are you talking about ?

Oh and we got a much bigger fee for Vokes than any of us expected so whilst a lot of people did not agree with the deal we made very good money and we stayed up.

DAVETHEVICAR wrote:Sam would not have gone to Stoke if Crouch had not signed for us.
We would have received less money now for Sam if he had gone in this window
Sean knew what he was doing so Crouch an excellent signing for us

I'm not having it that Dyche knew what he was doing, we are told every window that him and his team don't have a clue.

Cubanclaret wrote:I will always be grateful for seeing his incredibly angled cushioned header out to the left wing on his home debut against Southampton.

It really was a thing of beauty.

Good luck Crouchy. At least he retired at the top

Agreed

Also the post about him causing havoc leading to the pen against southampton

Glad he’s retired we can do better! That Carphone whorehouse advert was getting reet on mi paps

"I will be 39 in January but I am physically fit and could have carried on. What I didn't want to be was someone who was thrown on to have balls smashed up to them."

Well Peter, you made the right decision.

DAVETHEVICAR wrote:Sam would not have gone to Stoke if Crouch had not signed for us.
We would have received less money now for Sam if he had gone in this window
Sean knew what he was doing so Crouch an excellent signing for us

Vokes wanted to move on, allegedly he had agreed with the manager that any reasonable offer would see him allowed to talk to the other club. Stoke put in the offer and we let Sam make his choice. He was going somewhere whether we signed Crouch or not. I don't think we would have signed Crouch if Sam had stayed though.

Crouch looked so far away from being a Premier League footballer in that final appearance against Arsenal it was unreal.

It’s nice that he won a header that led to a penalty in the game against Southampton, but the reasons being cited for him being a good signing are pretty flimsy and most appear to be based on speculation as to what may or may not have happened if we hadn’t signed him.

Feel free to correct me by listing his on field contributions in the 4 months he was here.

By the way, I’m not arguing that he didn’t have a fine career. I’m not arguing that his signing was in anyway detrimental to our season. I’m simply arguing that as a footballer he was finished at the top level.

TVC15 wrote:“All we signed was a name”
“He has a nice jolly at our expense”

I wasn’t in favour of selling Vokes and bringing in Crouch at the time but happy to admit that yet again I was wrong and Dyche was right....which is why I sit in the stands and pay to watch his team every week.
To say Crouch came here for a jolly and that Dyche signed him just because he was well known doesn’t make any sense...why would Dyche or Crouch do that ?
Crouch could have just seen out his contract at Stoke and got the same money and I can’t even think of a good reason why Dyche would sign a player for non footballing reasons....

My post wasn't serious just having fun with the way Crouch's comments were worded.

Ive always liked Crouch and wish him well and as a means to an end to allows us to cash in as we did on Vokes I thought it was good business.

My only concerns about the deal would have been if a) we had a chance to sign someone like Che Adams in Jan but took a safe option like Crouch (we'll never know either way for sure on that one so not gonna worry about it) and b) had we give him and extra year (we didn't so happy days)

It was all worth it just to see that paper sign "mind your head Crouchie" on the Covet

agreenwood wrote:Crouch looked so far away from being a Premier League footballer in that final appearance against Arsenal it was unreal.

It’s nice that he won a header that led to a penalty in the game against Southampton, but the reasons being cited for him being a good signing are pretty flimsy and most appear to be based on speculation as to what may or may not have happened if we hadn’t signed him.

Feel free to correct me by listing his on field contributions in the 4 months he was here.

By the way, I’m not arguing that he didn’t have a fine career. I’m not arguing that his signing was in anyway detrimental to our season. I’m simply arguing that as a footballer he was finished at the top level.

What you said is that Dyche signed him because of his name - doesn’t make any sense at all.
If Dyche thought he was finished why do you think he signed him ? What would “his name” bring to the team or to the club ?
Clearly he did not have long left but he thought he could offer something.
He didn’t just win the penalty against Southampton btw - he nearly scored a couple of goals and also involved in that goal at Anfield.
Never agreed with the signing personally but I can at least accept Dyche had good reasons for it

Devils_Advocate wrote:My post wasn't serious just having fun with the way Crouch's comments were worded.

Ive always liked Crouch and wish him well and as a means to an end to allows us to cash in as we did on Vokes I thought it was good business.

My only concerns about the deal would have been if a) we had a chance to sign someone like Che Adams in Jan but took a safe option like Crouch (we'll never know either way for sure on that one so not gonna worry about it) and b) had we give him and extra year (we didn't so happy days)

Don’t think it had any impact on Adams deal personally - I just don’t think he wanted to come to Burnley and that Southampton were already making promises to him in January that we were never going to match - they were talking to him then aswell as us.
My biggest gripe about selling Vokes and bringing in Crouch at the time was that we were still in big relegation trouble and I didn’t think we needed to take the risk. If Woods or Barnes (or both) would have got injured or sent off then we would have been left with a player who could not start a game / last longer than 30 minutes or a player in Vydra that he did not want to start or even bring on most weeks.
At least with Vokes he had no qualms about starting him.

But it all turned out fine - even though it was partly down to luck than judgement IMHO

It seems like this is a really difficult chain of events for some people to understand, but we sold Vokes because he wanted to leave. That made Crouch available at Stoke, and he was deemed fit to fill Vokes' role of 10 minute target man for the rest of the season until we had time to sort out a proper replacement (Rodriguez.) I also have no doubt that his experience was beneficial to other squad members and that he accepted his role of back up striker in a way that another signing might not have.

Was it a bit of a gamble? Sure, I don't think any of us wanted to see Crouch starting matches if Barnes / Wood had got injured but part of what enables us to bring good players to this club is that we also allow them to leave when the time is right.

I'm glad we're not relying on him next season (and I guess we'll never know the nature of the offer that was supposedly on the table) but the bellyaching about us signing Crouch in January is more than a bit daft.

I said at the time his signing was an embarrassment and nothing has happened in the meantime to change my point of view. Having said that, Crouch has been a good professional and at his best he was a good footballer. I wish him and his family all the best for the future.

I wonder if this ever came up at the training ground...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/48964756" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good luck to him. He’s been an excellent player throughout his career and seems to be a genuinely good bloke.

Rick_Muller wrote:I wonder if this ever came up at the training ground...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/48964756" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The one time Hart decides to come off his goal line eh !!!

TVC15 wrote:What you said is that Dyche signed him because of his name - doesn’t make any sense at all.
If Dyche thought he was finished why do you think he signed him ? What would “his name” bring to the team or to the club ?

I’m not getting in semantics. Clearly Dyche thought he might have something to offer.

My point stands. Crouch made very little impact on the field. We got a name. A personality. There wasn’t much of a footballer left.

claretcarrot93 wrote:"Sean knew what he was doing so Crouch an excellent signing for us

"

He had a great career. Seems a great guy but he really wasn't.[/quote]

How much did Sam cost Stoke?

Brilliant news for us, what a pile of tosh he was, not sure how anyone can say he was anything but an awful stop gap signing.

TVC15 wrote:So you think we paid signing on and agents fees of around a million pounds for signing a player for 4 or 5 months ?

Why would a nominal fee be paid to Stoke ?
What are you talking about ?

Oh and we got a much bigger fee for Vokes than any of us expected so whilst a lot of people did not agree with the deal we made very good money and we stayed up.

Whichever way you want to look at it, we paid for Crouch. Either by reducing the fee we got for Vokes in a part exchange or by paying a fee for him if they were treated as stand alone deals. I’d be astounded if there wasn’t a signing fee of some sort, even with a short contract. However the bottom line is, justifying signing a 38yr old has been who couldn’t cut in the championship by saying we finished a place higher doesn’t stack up as any financial advantage would have been negligible at best.

We didn’t get more than we expected for Sam. Have you seen the transfer market lately?? A Premier League, international striker with his experience of getting promoted from the Championship on top and a decent amount of time left on his contract fully justifies the fee we got.

Quicknick wrote:As I said elsewhere, the penalty he won by heading the ball down the defender's arm in the last minute against Southampton meant that we finished above them in the league, making us 1.8 million pounds.

Possibly. Although we may have beaten Leicester with a sub that wasn't the ineffective Crouch so it's swings and roundabouts.

agreenwood wrote:I’m not getting in semantics. Clearly Dyche thought he might have something to offer.

My point stands. Crouch made very little impact on the field. We got a name. A personality. There wasn’t much of a footballer left.

Not really semantics though is it ?
You said we only bought him because of his name which and even now you are still saying it’s because he was a name....a personality - so is Joe Pasquale...maybe that was Dyche’s plan B ?

agreenwood wrote:I’m not getting in semantics. Clearly Dyche thought he might have something to offer.

My point stands. Crouch made very little impact on the field. We got a name. A personality. There wasn’t much of a footballer left.

A number of players made very little impact on the field last season. We have a squad of circa 25 players and Crouch filled one of those places. As Bacchus said above, he was a temporary stop gap to allow Vokes to leave (who had also become increasingly ineffective) and allow us to sign Rodriguez in this window (the legwork of this deal had clearly been done before).

Crouch didn’t make much of an impact in his 5 or 6 minute cameos but then again substitutes brought on for such a short period of time generally don’t. He still wasn’t as bad as most are making out.

Anyway, good luck to Crouch. A very good career and seems like a genuinely down to earth bloke.

"What I didn't want was to be somebody who was brought on to have balls smashed up to them"

Surely, that's what Crouch has been doing throughout his career isn't it?

TVC15 wrote:Don’t think it had any impact on Adams deal personally - I just don’t think he wanted to come to Burnley and that Southampton were already making promises to him in January that we were never going to match - they were talking to him then aswell as us.
My biggest gripe about selling Vokes and bringing in Crouch at the time was that we were still in big relegation trouble and I didn’t think we needed to take the risk. If Woods or Barnes (or both) would have got injured or sent off then we would have been left with a player who could not start a game / last longer than 30 minutes or a player in Vydra that he did not want to start or even bring on most weeks.
At least with Vokes he had no qualms about starting him.

But it all turned out fine - even though it was partly down to luck than judgement IMHO

Agree with your point about us being in a relegation scrap at the time as thinking back that was another big concern about the deal.

TVC15 wrote:Not really semantics though is it ?
You said we only bought him because of his name which and even now you are still saying it’s because he was a name....a personality - so is Joe Pasquale...maybe that was Dyche’s plan B ?

It is when you’re suggesting I said something I didn’t. I said “in the end all we got was a name”. A hindsight view I grant you, bit I wasn’t overly enthusiastic about the signing in Jan. I didn’t say Dyche only signed him because of his name.