Drinkwater going back to Chelsea

[burnleymik]

There’s been several loans you could say this about in the past, but not this one. This is an experienced, unwanted pro who we saved Chelsea a substantial part of his salary. We did them a favour.

The fact that he hasn’t played says a lot more about him, than it does us on this occasion.

Then why not just send him back or even bother putting him on the bench? Doesn't make sense if what you are implying is correct.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Is this to be laughed at or are you actually serious?

In fairness Chelsea have loaned us

Chalobah
Drinkwater
Bamford

Between them they started 3 games if I'm not mistaken? Why on earth would they loan any more here when they can either give them similar game time or send them to championship or abroad and they will play?

[Steve1956]

Even if we paid the entire £100k per week that Drinkwater reportedly earns, which we won’t be doing, then it would have cost the club a shade over £2m which is, like I said, relatively little in the grand scheme of things.

Let me get this right,in your world throwing 2 Million pounds away is ok,in a few seasons when we are back in the Championship and struggling like every club does when it falls off the gravy train,that 2 million pound might be needed ......wasting 2 million pounds is ok .....Wow.

[Reckoner]

I'm pretty sure getting injured in a fight in a nightclub and being injured and so, being unable to perform your job is classed as gross misconduct, a sackable offence in any role.

We cant sack a player we have on a loan agreement only Chelsea could do that. I know its frustrating that it hasnt worked out primarily due to his idiocy but the likelihood is even if we had sent him back the club would still be liable for the full term's costs so it is totally understandable if we kept him here.

[ClaretLoup]

Do you not think clubs will think twice about sending players on loan to us, given how little game time many loans players get for us?

If a club wants their loan player to play games to develop, it would be very odd for them to send said player to Burnley

I don't think game time is the issue, but style of play might be for some clubs, although Spurs did loan us that Georges wotsisname.

[ClaretTony]

Why is that difficult to comprehend?

Why would they send players here to warm the bench? Our starting 11 very rarely changes, so why would you send players here if you want them to get first team experience?

I can't believe you can view it any other way?

Why is it difficult to comprehend? How long was he unavailable because of an incident away from the club?

[UpTheClaretsFCBK]

Why is that difficult to comprehend?

Why would they send players here to warm the bench? Our starting 11 very rarely changes, so why would you send players here if you want them to get first team experience?

I can't believe you can view it any other way?

I'd have to agree on this. Almost every player we've ever loaned under Dyche hasn't worked out.

With the exception of Kightly and Keane.

Bamford, Chabaloah, Drinkwater, N'Koudou, Flanagan have all been a waste of time for both clubs and the players.

[Longsidelenny]

Watching them three play for us I think three games was far two many contributed nothing

[Reckoner]

In fairness Chelsea have loaned us

Chalobah
Drinkwater
Bamford

Between them they started 3 games if I'm not mistaken? Why on earth would they loan any more here when they can either give them similar game time or send them to championship or abroad and they will play?

Chalobah perhaps if Chelsea still felt at the time he had a chance of making it there, but the loans for Drinkwater and Bamford were not to give them experience / game time - they were to recoup costs while on Chelsea's wage books. I'm sure they would sell Drinkwater if they could but given his wages that may be impossible so loaning and saving some part of the wages is probably the best option.

[Steve1956]

In fairness Chelsea have loaned us

Chalobah
Drinkwater
Bamford

Between them they started 3 games if I'm not mistaken? Why on earth would they loan any more here when they can either give them similar game time or send them to championship or abroad and they will play?

Two of em were shite though,and the other was a dickhead

[ksrclaret]

Why is it difficult to comprehend? How long was he unavailable because of an incident away from the club?

It was obvious to everyone that our problem with loan players is not just with Drinkwater. He's the latest in a list of loan players that haven't featured with any sort of regularity, for whatever reason.

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that clubs will think long and hard about loaning us players. If you don't agree fine, but to suggest that comment is to be laughed at is downright rude

[cricketfieldclarets]

Chalobah perhaps if Chelsea still felt at the time he had a chance of making it there, but the loans for Drinkwater and Bamford were not to give them experience / game time - they were to recoup costs while on Chelsea's wage books. I'm sure they would sell Drinkwater if they could but given his wages that may be impossible so loaning and saving some part of the wages is probably the best option.

Perhaps true. Although Bamford was still young and has again proved he can score.

But are they likely to recoup any more after sending them to Burnley who won't play him than keep them and sell or loan to another team who will play them and sell...

[burnleymik]

Why is it difficult to comprehend? How long was he unavailable because of an incident away from the club?

He has been on the bench for 8 games and featured in none of them and he missed 9 through his own antics.

Are you telling me there was no call for any midfield changes in any of those 8 games?

[Rileybobs]

Let me get this right,in your world throwing 2 Million pounds away is ok,in a few seasons when we are back in the Championship and struggling like every club does when it falls off the gravy train,that 2 million pound might be needed ......wasting 2 million pounds is ok .....Wow.

Whoa. Don’t say that in my world throwing £2m is ok because that’s not what I said. I said that even if it cost £2m, which it definitely won’t have done, then that is a relatively small amount of money. It’s a fact. I’m not talking about in a few seasons time in the Championship, I’m talking about now in relation to our income.

And in any case I wouldn’t advocate throwing any money away. Paying players salaries is not throwing money away. It’s a cost associated with running a business. Some players will be worth the salary, others won’t. Every signing is a risk. Most people on here I seem to recall we’re in favour of the Drinkwater signing at the time so using the benefit of hindsight to say that it’s wasted money is pretty lame.

[Steve1956]

Whoa. Don’t say that in my world throwing £2m is ok because that’s not what I said. I said that even if it cost £2m, which it definitely won’t have done, then that is a relatively small amount of money. It’s a fact. I’m not talking about in a few seasons time in the Championship, I’m talking about now in relation to our income.

And in any case I wouldn’t advocate throwing any money away. Paying players salaries is not throwing money away. It’s a cost associated with running a business. Some players will be worth the salary, others won’t. Every signing is a risk. Most people on here I seem to recall we’re in favour of the Drinkwater signing at the time so using the benefit of hindsight to say that it’s wasted money is pretty lame.

Two million pound is NOT a small amount of money,remember when we didn't have a pot to pi$$ in?

[aggi]

So aside from the loan deals that haven’t been a waste of time our loans have been a waste of time? Sounds about right.

It’s difficult to get good loan deals when you’re a middle/lower end Premier League side because the players that the better sides are willing to loan out are generally no better than what we have. I can’t think of many loan signings that didn’t work out that have gone onto better things.

I don’t think that many comparable clubs to ours have a load of success in the loan market. It’s a low-risk, low-cost way to fill gaps in the squad and in the case of Drinkwater a chance to get our foot in the door to sign a player who would in normal circumstances be out of our league. In this case it didn’t pay off but in the grand scheme of things has cost us relatively little.

I'd say there's more that have had success than haven't. If you look at players like Harry Wilson, Dean Henderson, Aaron Mooy, Djibril Sidibé, Ibrahim Amadou, Jetro Willems they are all regular first team players and there's a variety of others with less regular appearances.

Under Dyche I don't think we've ever had a loan who has been a regular first-team player (other than Kightly maybe who we were set to buy). I understand why, his mantra is commitment to the group and a loan player may not fit that image but if we are going to plead poverty then we are going to have to look elsewhere for first-team players and loans is one route.

[ClaretTony]

It was obvious to everyone that our problem with loan players is not just with Drinkwater. He's the latest in a list of loan players that haven't featured with any sort of regularity, for whatever reason.

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that clubs will think long and hard about loaning us players. If you don't agree fine, but to suggest that comment is to be laughed at is downright rude

No it is not downright rude at all. The comment is laughable given Drinkwater's unavailability for much of his loan.

[BOYSIE31]

I'd say there's more that have had success than haven't. If you look at players like Harry Wilson, Dean Henderson, Aaron Mooy, Djibril Sidibé, Ibrahim Amadou, Jetro Willems they are all regular first team players and there's a variety of others with less regular appearances.

Under Dyche I don't think we've ever had a loan who has been a regular first-team player (other than Kightly maybe who we were set to buy). I understand why, his mantra is commitment to the group and a loan player may not fit that image but if we are going to plead poverty then we are going to have to look elsewhere for first-team players and loans is one route.

Have you ever thought that it might just be our manager being a very stubborn person ??

[jedi_master]

I think discussion of previous loans and comparing them to Drinkwater is silly.

Do we all really think Drinkwater wasn't playing because he was a loan player? This was a Premier League winner, who Dyche had at Watford, who cost Chelsea £35m a couple years ago. I am absolutely certain that if he was fit, and, more importantly, bothered, he would have been in the starting eleven every week.

I am amazed people are having a go at the club with this one. They brought in a winner on big money to try and improve the first eleven, the fact that he has wasted his opportunity to redeem his career is on Drinkwater not Burnley. They can't win.

[BOYSIE31]

No it is not downright rude at all. The comment is laughable given Drinkwater's unavailability for much of his loan.

We have been poor for the last 6 games where a change would not have done any harm in the centre of the park to have a look.
Drinkwater has been on that bench.

[BOYSIE31]

I think discussion of previous loans and comparing them to Drinkwater is silly.

Do we all really think Drinkwater wasn't playing because he was a loan player? This was a Premier League winner, who Dyche had at Watford, who cost Chelsea £35m a couple years ago. I am absolutely certain that if he was fit, and, more importantly, bothered, he would have been in the starting eleven every week.

I am amazed people are having a go at the club with this one. They brought in a winner on big money to try and improve the first eleven, the fact that he has wasted his opportunity to redeem his career is on Drinkwater not Burnley. They can't win.

And how do you know its all his fault ????

[ClaretTony]

We have been poor for the last 6 games where a change would not have done any harm in the centre of the park to have a look.
Drinkwater has been on that bench.

I'm fully aware of that and have said so, but how many times was he available before those games? That's what I was clearly referring to.

[ClaretTony]

I think discussion of previous loans and comparing them to Drinkwater is silly.

Do we all really think Drinkwater wasn't playing because he was a loan player? This was a Premier League winner, who Dyche had at Watford, who cost Chelsea £35m a couple years ago. I am absolutely certain that if he was fit, and, more importantly, bothered, he would have been in the starting eleven every week.

I am amazed people are having a go at the club with this one. They brought in a winner on big money to try and improve the first eleven, the fact that he has wasted his opportunity to redeem his career is on Drinkwater not Burnley. They can't win.

You are spot on - the club just can't win with some people now. You can't even have a sensible debate with some of them because they are just eagerly searching for sticks to beat up the club with.

[jedi_master]

And how do you know its all his fault ????

Historically the guy has proven he is a bit of a nob, he then acted it within his first month here (which clearly showed he didn't give a **** about the opportunity we had given him).

Why would I choose to think Drinkwater has sat there like a good little boy waiting for his chance with baited breath and busting a gut in training more than Cork/Westwood for a chance ahead of Sean Dyche clearly deeming him unfit, and unworthy of gametime?

[burnleymik]

No it is not downright rude at all. The comment is laughable given Drinkwater's unavailability for much of his loan.

He has been available for more games than he has missed, that is a fact.

He has missed 9 through injury. Started in the Carabao cup, pre injury and also against Man City. The rest of the time he has sat on the bench, not even making it on as a sub in games where there was good justification to bring him on.

[Papabendi]

Drinkwater looked on paper to be one of the few loan signings capable of a first team place.

For various reasons, it hasn't worked, but the intent was at least positive.

We simply have to find a way (either loan /permanent signings) to improve the first 11 this January. This is the only task.

[burnleymik]

You are spot on - the club just can't win with some people now. You can't even have a sensible debate with some of them because they are just eagerly searching for sticks to beat up the club with.

This says more about you than the people you are having a go at with this comment.

Criticism is part and parcel of being a fan and so is debating ideas. You will find that plenty of the critics also have good things to say within their comments if you care to look for them, but you seem obsessed that anyone who criticises Dyche or the club are just doing it for the sake of it. They aren't, they are doing it because, like you, they care.

[ksrclaret]

Drinkwater looked on paper to be one of the few loan signings capable of a first team place.

For various reasons, it hasn't worked, but the intent was at least positive.

We simply have to find a way (either loan /permanent signings) to improve the first 11 this January. This is the only task.

I agree the intent was positive with this one, and Drinkwater must take at least half of the blame for why this hasn't worked out.

I must say though, if we announce a loan signing this window, I won't be confident at all that the player will make the difference for us, looking at our recent history with loans. I hope to be proven wrong, because loans can be a great addition to the team, like those listed in one of the posts above.

[Rileybobs]

Two million pound is NOT a small amount of money,remember when we didn't have a pot to pi$$ in?

Read what I said. I said it is a relatively small amount of money, which it is in relation to our income. It obviously isn’t a small amount of money in relation to when we didn’t have a pot to p!ss in, in the same way it isn’t a relatively small amount of money to me.

[ClaretTony]

Drinkwater looked on paper to be one of the few loan signings capable of a first team place.

For various reasons, it hasn't worked, but the intent was at least positive.

We simply have to find a way (either loan /permanent signings) to improve the first 11 this January. This is the only task.

It did look a very good signing, but he was out for ages with the injury, then struggled to get up to match fitness. My only query is that after his hour against Spurs, there have been opportunities to get more minutes into his legs.

It's been clear for some time that he'd be going back, or that's how I've viewed Dyche's comments when asked about him. That can't be a surprise to be honest although the player was very positive about his time at the club and the way he's been looked after when he did a recent interview.

He does need to be replaced, the squad needs a refresher with a couple of new faces.

[ClaretLoup]

I certainly hope it has not put off other clubs lending us players as we have some gaps in the squad which by the sound of it are not going to be filled by permanent signings.

I believe the top priority is a fit and energetic right-back who can get up and down the line a bit better than Bardsley, aback up/replacement for central midfield and a right-winger/midfielder to cover for JBG. There must be some lads in the top 6/7 clubs who can't get a game who could fill in and maybe even find themselves a permanent berth, especially at right-back with Lowton out of form and Bardsley out of contract.

There is certainly game time available there for the right individuals.

[Braindead]

Joke of a decision to sign him and then not play him.

His August issues aside, if a former £30 million plus midfielder in his late 20's who is a PL winner as well as a relatively recent England international, cannot get a game ahead of the perennially crap Jack Cork then something is seriously amiss at this club.

He has been in the squad since the end of November, during which time we have been consistently awful.
We all know Dyche hates changing the starting eleven, but this leads to complacency from the incumbent players, hence poor performances from the midfield two, the centre backs and the front two, because Barnes' groin issues aside, these players are undroppable and in my opinion Dyche needs to be way more ruthless after bad performances.

[Papabendi]

The point is Drinkwater must have been signed with a view to displacing either Cork or Westwood, but he hasnt been fit enough or showed enough form to allow it to happen.

[ClaretTony]

The point is Drinkwater must have been signed with a view to displacing either Cork or Westwood, but he hasnt been fit enough or showed enough form to allow it to happen.

You might even question his fitness even now.

[warksclaret]

Braindead-totally agree. SD's loytalty or to be more pointed stubborness could cost us our PL status and his job (or both). Is he inside a soft touch and not enjoy dropping people and telling them. In which case how does he handle the likes of Gibson, Vydra and recently Danny when we have been on such a long losing run and playing badly, then he refuses to play them

[jrgbfc]

Let's be fair, Dyche was never gonna drop one of his favourites for a loan player was he?

[ClaretAndJew]

Let's be fair, Dyche was never gonna drop one of his favourites for a loan player was he?

He's hardly dropping the injured Barnes for Jay Rod so no.

His rigidity will be his downfall. Lack of adaption means he'll never get a bigger job.

[Murger]

When players like DD, J Rod, Vydra and Gibson can't displace massively underperforming players, there is only 1 person at fault.

[Woodleyclaret]

Can we stop this thread now please its getting very tedious

[Murger]

Can we stop this thread now please its getting very tedious

You could always stop reading it.

[Jakubs Tash]

I'd have to agree on this. Almost every player we've ever loaned under Dyche hasn't worked out.

With the exception of Kightly and Keane.

Bamford, Chabaloah, Drinkwater, N'Koudou, Flanagan have all been a waste of time for both clubs and the players.

The problem with our loans is the way we use the loan market. My personal view is it would be an ideal opportunity to bring someone in who we ordinarily would have next to no chance in signing permanently but would make a difference to our starting XI. The manager uses the loan market to fill the squad out with back-up options who may never really play.

[Rileybobs]

The problem with our loans is the way we use the loan market. My personal view is it would be an ideal opportunity to bring someone in who we ordinarily would have next to no chance in signing permanently but would make a difference to our starting XI. The manager uses the loan market to fill the squad out with back-up options who may never really play.

Which is exactly what this signing was. The fact that Drinkwater picked up a non-football related injury couldn’t have been foreseen. Although it seems like many on here seem to have predicted it.

[Vino blanco]

I've been told by a guy who has a box (he keeps his old conkers in it up in his loft) that he is going back because, in training, he can't launch the ball far enough up the training pitch in one go. Good luck to the lad, he'll always be a claret legend in my eyes.

[Vegas Claret]

looking forward to see who we now bring in then cause if we continue with the current midfield there is only one way we are heading

[claretspice]

A shame, but not a disaster.

It is a move that clearly hasn't worked out as it might have - he appeared a decent signing on paper but his self-inflicted injury set him back months and he's not been able to displace Cork or Westwood since. I don't think too much blame can be apportioned to Dyche or anyone else for that.

The priority now is to replace him in the squad Clearly you'd now expect us to be heavily in the market for a central midfielder as well a right back this window. Three options is simply not enough, and as a minimum we need cover, potentially in the shape of a younger player who can develop into a replacement for Cork or Westwood in due course.

I am though worried about the stick that Cork is being given, both on this thread and elsewhere. We're talking about an experienced player who has played over 250 premier League games in his career, which in itself demonstrates that he's rarely been anything other than a regular since he arrived at this level with Southampton 7-8 years ago. For my money he's been in decent enough form this season overall, which is why he's kept his place ahead of Drinkwater, and I find the extent to which players like him are now being written off to be a troubling trend. We take these sorts of professionals for granted at our peril.

[ClaretAndJew]

Confirmed officially at press conference.

Dyche says that incomings are unlikely due to money/options available.

[Murger]

How predictably depressing the presser is.

[BurnleyFC]

Confirmed officially at press conference.

Dyche says that incomings are unlikely due to money/options available.

[ClaretTony]

Now confirmed by the club

https://www.uptheclarets.com/burnley-co ... ter-return

[Spijed]

The priority now is to replace him in the squad Clearly you'd now expect us to be heavily in the market for a central midfielder as well a right back this window. Three options is simply not enough, and as a minimum we need cover, potentially in the shape of a younger player who can develop into a replacement for Cork or Westwood in due course.

Sounds like any hope of a central midfielder or right back is highly unlikely.

It's got the makings of the Dean Marney situation when we got relegated.