EarbyClaret wrote:There seems to be quite a lot of posts along the lines of (to paraphrase) "can see why Tom wants a move but club have made a mistake selling to a relegation rival"
There must be footballing reasons behind this as far as Tom is concerned, moving to a club where he will effectively be undisputed 'number one' with a view to forcing his way back into the England reckoning ahead of the Euros - in which case, bearing in mind 12/14 PL clubs will be mindful of relegation, if he decided he wanted to leave then it was pretty much inevitable he'd sign for a so-called rival. The club can't pick and choose who's interested in signing our players. They seem to be pretty much in a no-win situation on this occasion.
Once Tom had decided not to sign a new deal there's no outcome that would have made everybody happy. Seems to me the club have handled this as well as they could under the circumstances. Blocking the move would have been the wrong thing to do on every level and completely contrary to the ethos SD has worked so hard to instill, with massively successful results, since he arrived.
This is spot on. People who say “little old Burnley” are often the ones who are also calling this bad business. It’s not only the fact that unrest with Heaton would be caused by denying this move, despite the fact we have a younger and, at least in my eyes, equally capable replacement available to us right now - it’s the precedent it sets with incoming players.
We will, for most younger players, be a stepping stone club. And that’s ok, if players want a move higher, they’ve got to earn it through performances, which we will benefit from. But if they earn a move to a higher salary, and it’s seen that we’d simply prevent them from doing so, then why would players sign in the first place?
£8m rising to £10m, goalkeeper or not, is a good deal for a 33 year old with one year left, when we have a replacement.
These 4 users liked this post: Longsider tim_noone rob63 Siddo