Can’t compare any fee for Tarks with other players. Every deal is different. Ake might have had a relegation clause. Villa might have been desperate when they signed Mings.
Until a new man is through the door we shouldn’t sell for any price.

If Tarks was too leave us, I wonder if Worrall at Forest and Dawson at Watford are being lined up to replace him and Gibson. I imagine we could get both for less than £20m maybe!

Tarks interview just published on telegraph website...


James Tarkowski interview: ‘I feel forgotten by England but I want to be at the top level’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... 3mJwWn291W

That's a come and get me interview.

That's pretty much a Come and get me plea.

I used to like transfers. You lick your wrist and then put it on and there's always one of those flat bubblys to savour the event.

I think Southgate didn't pick him entirely to force his hand into moving to one of the teams in the Top 6. Same will likely be with Nick on Tuesday.

If he goes to Leicester commanding a place may not be initially as easy as he thinks. Evans and Soyuncu is quite a partnership and they are loved by the fans. Before anyone asks how often I watch Leicester its quite often as my family are season ticket holders and I go if one of them cant go. When Keane left he became an automatic selection (even in most cup games). His place has never been in doubt

Leicester is even more of a bum club and town than Blackburn.

Steddyman wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:22 pm

I think Southgate didn't pick him entirely to force his hand into moving to one of the teams in the Top 6. Same will likely be with Nick on Tuesday.

Pickford blows your theory out of the water, along with Mings and several other players.

Keep it real. He played 2 games for England. In one he gave away a penalty because he was clumsy in the box. Now, if he was 22 GS would put it down to lack of experience; but he was 25ish.
He's been absolutely outstanding for us this season, but I think his chances of playing for England are minimal given that Southgate is always looking at younger options.
If his motivation for a move was/is purely based on his international future he needs to give that serious thought.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:39 pm

Pickford blows your theory out of the water, along with Mings and several other players.

How exactly? PIckford plays for Everton who play play attacking football and usually alway finish in the top 10. He clearly thinks that Sean's system is flattering both Pope and Tarks, and it probably is.

That's Tarks out of the door then. This transfer window is turning into a bit of a carry on.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:07 pm

Does nothing for this message board having threads like this

Guessing articles like this do nothing either

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... top-level/

Steddyman wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:48 pm

How exactly? PIckford plays for Everton who play play attacking football and usually alway finish in the top 10. He clearly thinks that Sean's system is flattering both Pope and Tarks, and it probably is.

Your bizarre claim is Southgate wants Tarks to move to a top 6 club

He regularly picks players from outside the top 6, Inc an out of form GK and a CB who was in a relegation battle all season whilst ignoring the best English CB on stats and leaving 2nd placed Golden Glove GK on the bench.

Southgate has his favs, just like all previous England managers and they won't be shifted even if they're out of form.

If he had any intention of making someone else first choice GK then they would've started the Iceland game.

I think Tarks needs to be careful if Leicester are his only option.. yes they have champions league football this season, but with Arsenal, Chelsea and United strengthening, City and Liverpool already strong, Spurs likely to grind out some results and be challenging, he could easily find himself competing for a top 10 finish with ourselves again next year.

He won't be complaining at a no doubt massive wage rise though...

Row Z wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:01 pm

yes they have champions league football this season

No they don't

Southgate is always looking for younger options so that 'it's a team in development' and you won't be disappointed at the result. It's the default England setting since at least 1998.

'Oh we'll use this tournament as a marker for the next one'

BBC in Russia before the semi-final: 'AREN'T YOU REALLY IMPRESSED WE GOT THAT FAR????????!!!!!!!!!!!!'

The national team is government told to fail to kill the national mojo.

They don't want the party.

Pstotto wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:02 pm

Southgate is always looking for younger options so that 'it's a team in development' and you won't be disappointed at the result. It's the default England setting since at least 1998.

'Oh we'll use this tournament as a marker for the next one'

I totally agree with this.

matttheclaret wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:02 pm

No they don't

I had completely forgotten they bottled it.... even more reason!

bfccrazy wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:57 pm

Guessing articles like this do nothing either

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/20 ... top-level/

transcribed for those who don't subscribe

James Tarkowski interview: ‘I feel forgotten by England but I want to be at the top level’
'Any footballer can play a ball to his left-back, get it back and play it back to his keeper. The question is can he play under pressure?'

By Matt Law, FOOTBALL NEWS CORRESPONDENT
6 September 2020 • 10:00pm

The questions circling around James Tarkowski’s head will not have been answered by watching England from his living room.

Joe Gomez performed well against Iceland, but the fact the Liverpool defender gave away a last-gasp penalty and seeing him partnering Eric Dier, a player who has only recently converted back from being a midfielder, will have only added to the confusion.

Add the possibility of England playing three centre-backs against Denmark, with Tarkowski not being rated good enough to be part of Gareth Southgate’s squad and available for selection, and it is understandable why the Burnley star is not sure what else he can do.

Tarkowski was statistically the best English central defender in the Premier League last season, playing every minute of every game for Burnley - the club that kept the same number of clean sheets (15) as champions Liverpool and were only bettered by Manchester City.

It was not only in England that Tarkowski’s statistics measured up well either, as he was part of the whoscored.com European team of the season. Based on their statistics, the former Brentford player and Virgil van Dijk were the best centre backs in a team that also included Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Robert Lewandowski and Timo Werner.

“The screenshot of that team went round my mates and my family,” said Tarkowski. “My mum sent it to me and a few of my mates, and it looks amazing to see your name on that list. It’s something I’m proud of, obviously.

“When you look at the players on that team, they are all world-class so to have made the list was incredible. It showed I was at a good level, even if people will argue statistics do not show the full picture.”

Given the statistics put him alongside the likes of Van Dijk and Messi, it is understandable why missing out on Southgate’s squad for the Iceland and Denmark Nations League games was the toughest of Tarkowski’s omissions.

He has not played for England since September 2018, when he won the second of his two caps against Switzerland having made an impressive debut in a draw with Italy.

“I do feel a little bit like I’ve been forgotten about,” said Tarkowski. “And that’s nothing against the lads who have been in front of me because they’ve probably had all really good seasons themselves. I just felt I had a really good season and the statistics looked in my favour. I was in the team that kept the second-most clean sheets, so defensively I was right up there.

“I expected to be closer than I was. Other squads, I had accepted I probably wouldn’t be involved because it was the same squad, but after the break and who was missing, maybe I just expected to be in a bit more than previously. This one was more disappointing than others.”

On the accusation from critics that his rivals for an England place are better on the ball, Tarkowski replied: “It is a lazy opinion in my view. I played a style of football at one team at Brentford which is maybe the complete opposite of what I’m playing now at Burnley, so I feel I’ve got a few strings to my bow.

“I think any professional footballer can play a ball to his left-back, get it back and play it back to his keeper. The question is can he play under pressure? Which I believe I can and I proved it at Brentford. We don’t play as much like that at Burnley, but it doesn’t mean I can’t go into a team that plays expansive football.”

Unsure what else he can do over the forthcoming season to get back in, Tarkowski may consider approaching Southgate for feedback when the time is right as he is still desperate to make the England squad for next summer’s European Championships.

“I’ve thought about it myself when I’ve not made it,” said Tarkowski. “‘What can I do to catch their eye?’ I wish I knew the answer, to be honest.

“Right now, the England team is away and it’s not the right time to try to speak to anybody. But maybe in the future, to try to get some feedback and see where they think I need to improve. My goal will still be to be involved in that tournament (the Euros) even though I have not been picked this time. I haven’t given up on that.”

Tarkowski was the subject of a £20million bid from West Ham United last Friday, but, while not addressing that offer, it appears his sights may be set higher.

Leicester City tried to sign the 27-year-old last summer and he is open about the fact that it is a dream of his to play in the Champions League.

“For me, with the age I am coming into my prime years and wanting to progress, I want to go for the top level,” said Tarkowski. “I want to play at the best level I can, club football and internationally. I want to test myself against the best. We will see what happens. I just want to play at the top level and if that opportunity came I don’t think it is something I could turn down.

“Champions League and playing for your country, playing in big tournaments, is playing at the top level, so that’s what I would want to do if the opportunities came.”

Surely they will come sooner, rather than later.

It will be interesting to see whether Tarks indicates to Burnley that he
wishes to leave. To Leicester presumably.
And we say fine but we won't let you leave unless we get what we think you're worth.
We don't wish to stop in your way but we think you're worth 50m.
And that's what we tell Leicester.

So Leicester know that Tarks wants to join them.
And they can play it out for another week or so.
Whilst we are getting increasingly worried and eventually have to accept 35m + add ons?

What a mess that could be.

Why do we have to accept anything below his release clause?
Do we really think he’d do a Gibson?
And if he wasn’t playing football and training away from the club - it would help him in a Euro’s year?

It pains me to say it but I can see it from Tarky’s perspective.

In the past Sean has had ready replacements to step in, now, after the Gibson mess, it is just Long, who sadly has relegation written all over him (at this level). There is huge pressure on our transfer activity now, Dyche, Garlick and the recruitment guy need to get this right.

jurek wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:07 pm

It will be interesting to see whether Tarks indicates to Burnley that he
wishes to leave. To Leicester presumably.
And we say fine but we won't let you leave unless we get what we think you're worth.
We don't wish to stop in your way but we think you're worth 50m.
And that's what we tell Leicester.

So Leicester know that Tarks wants to join them.
And they can play it out for another week or so.
Whilst we are getting increasingly worried and eventually have to accept 35m + add ons?

What a mess that could be.

From what I was told the other day, he already has made his views on moving known. Just hope the other news I got told was rubbish/jumping to conclusions because that would be a grim window. Least we could replace Pope with BPF if he left though.

Father Jack wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:17 pm

Why do we have to accept anything below his release clause?
Do we really think he’d do a Gibson?
And if he wasn’t playing football and training away from the club - it would help him in a Euro’s year?

He refused to play against us for Brentford, not sure why this would be different.

If Leicester are going to cough up a good fee we need to take it asap and use it to replace him and improve the squad elsewhere.

We won’t stand in his way when a good offer comes in. Dyche is fair like that. One of the problems supporting a club like ours is that when we are fortunate enough to see very talented players, we are also likely to see them leave for bigger opportunities. That said, if he is to leave we need to hold out for a good deal, particularly as we are very light in that department.

We shouldn’t be pushed around. He’s not in his final year of contract so why let him go on the cheap. Whilst every player has their price, we don’t need to sell.
Time to dig in Mr Garlic.

Father Jack wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:23 pm

We shouldn’t be pushed around. He’s not in his final year of contract so why let him go on the cheap. Whilst every player has their price, we don’t need to sell.
Time to dig in Mr Garlic.

Depends on his attitude.
If he's not happy we have to sell,ASAP, and get a quality replacement in.
This whole deal (should it happen) is unlikely to see us show a profit.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:27 pm

Depends on his attitude.
If he's not happy we have to sell,ASAP, and get a quality replacement in.
This whole deal (should it happen) is unlikely to see us show a profit.

How would we not make a profit from selling Tarkowski as things stand?

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:31 pm

How would we not make a profit from selling Tarkowski as things stand?

20/25%??? To Brentford

Would leave us with 20?mil to replace Tark.

We’d be left with a player who costs us half of what we value Tark at, as his replacement- that’s if we spend all the money we get for him on a like for like replacement.

bfccrazy wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:35 pm

20/25%??? To Brentford

Would leave us with 20?mil to replace Tark.

We’d be left with a player who costs us half of what we value Tark at, as his replacement- that’s if we spend all the money we get for him on a like for like replacement.

The deal doesn’t include us buying a player. Just asking how we wouldn’t make a profit from this deal.

bfccrazy wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:35 pm

20/25%??? To Brentford

Would leave us with 20?mil to replace Tark.

We’d be left with a player who costs us half of what we value Tark at, as his replacement- that’s if we spend all the money we get for him on a like for like replacement.

And that is assuming we get the money up front.

That’s why it’s got to be his release clause and nothing less.
Leicester are the masters of getting top dollar for their players.
Why shouldn’t we do the same?

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:38 pm

The deal doesn’t include us buying a player. Just asking how we wouldn’t make a profit from this deal.

I think that’s why it said “this whole deal” which means moving him on and someone in to replace .... and as stated above, that’s if we were paid the full fee up front which is rarer these days.

bfccrazy wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:40 pm

I think that’s why it said “this whole deal” which means moving him on and someone in to replace .... and as stated above, that’s if we were paid the full fee up front which is rarer these days.

Well we’re obviously not going to be able to sell Tarkowski, pay a sell-on-fee to Brentford and sign a player as good as Tarkowski for less money and on a longer contract are we. That’s not how the world works. We would still make a good profit by selling Tarkowski though and we would spend a portion of it on a replacement player with a view to repeating the feat in a few years.

Tarks will play in our first league game of the season. But what color shirt will he be wearing ?

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:44 pm

Well we’re obviously not going to be able to sell Tarkowski, pay a sell-on-fee to Brentford and sign a player as good as Tarkowski for less money and on a longer contract are we. That’s not how the world works. We would still make a good profit by selling Tarkowski though and we would spend a portion of it on a replacement player with a view to repeating the feat in a few years.

The only way we could show a profit out of this is to have already signed a shoe-in replacement at a lower fee, as we did when we signed Tarks as a replacement for Michael Keane.

boatshed bill wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:48 pm

The only way we could show a profit out of this is to have already signed a shoe-in replacement at a lower fee, as we did when we signed Tarks as a replacement for Michael Keane.

I think you’re over complicating this. If we sell Tarkowski and benefit by more than what we have paid for him the we’ve made a profit on the player. His replacement, should we sign one, could be for £1m or £100m, but that would be a totally different transaction.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:44 pm

Well we’re obviously not going to be able to sell Tarkowski, pay a sell-on-fee to Brentford and sign a player as good as Tarkowski for less money and on a longer contract are we. That’s not how the world works. We would still make a good profit by selling Tarkowski though and we would spend a portion of it on a replacement player with a view to repeating the feat in a few years.

You're making a management consultant point there- accurate but useless.

As far as accountancy profit goes, we would make a fat profit selling Tarkowski because we bought him relatively cheaply. If he had cost vastly more then we would perhaps break even or make a loss.

But that's utterly irrelevant to the decision. The question is, what would it gain or cost the club, financially and otherwise, if we sell him. And in that question, what he cost 5 years ago has no impact.

dsr wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:55 pm

You're making a management consultant point there- accurate but useless.

As far as accountancy profit goes, we would make a fat profit selling Tarkowski because we bought him relatively cheaply. If he had cost vastly more then we would perhaps break even or make a loss.

But that's utterly irrelevant to the decision. The question is, what would it gain or cost the club, financially and otherwise, if we sell him. And in that question, what he cost 5 years ago has no impact.

It’s not useless, it’s how we conduct our business. We buy players cheap, and sell them high. Rinse and repeat.

We won’t stand in a players way if they are offered a move to a bigger club. We will never be able to replace that player like for like for less money, or said bigger club would sign the other player. We make shrewd signings and develop them.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:00 am

It’s not useless, it’s how we conduct our business. We buy players cheap, and sell them high. Rinse and repeat.

We won’t stand in a players way if they are offered a move to a bigger club. We will never be able to replace that player like for like for less money, or said bigger club would sign the other player. We make shrewd signings and develop them.

You're still missing the point.

Here's the question. The club may have to decide whether to sell Tarkowski. In making the decision, how much weight should they put on how much he cost five years ago?

Reckon we will sell at 40, would be criminal if we sold him for 30.

dsr wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:50 am

You're still missing the point.

Here's the question. The club may have to decide whether to sell Tarkowski. In making the decision, how much weight should they put on how much he cost five years ago?

Not much weight. But I wasn’t suggesting that the club should sell Tarkowski was I? I was responding to a poster who said that we wouldn’t make a profit on this deal, which we obviously would.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:53 am

Not much weight. But I wasn’t suggesting that the club should sell Tarkowski was I? I was responding to a poster who said that we wouldn’t make a profit on this deal, which we obviously would.

Don't you think the English language is flexible enough that "profit " has more than one meaning? If someone reckons that the money we gain from selling will be spent on replacing so we will be no better off, can you categorically say that he is wrong to say there is no profit in it?

dsr wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 07, 2020 1:03 am

Don't you think the English language is flexible enough that "profit " has more than one meaning? If someone reckons that the money we gain from selling will be spent on replacing so we will be no better off, can you categorically say that he is wrong to say there is no profit in it?

I can’t be bothered with semantics. Someone said that we wouldn’t make a profit if we sold Tarkowski, I said that we would. I am right.

Just goes to show that people will argue about anything with people that they want to disagree with.

Maybe Leicester will throw in Wes morgan Ha! Ha!

The Sun, via BBC say West Ham will have to almost double their bid. Clearly Tarkowski has dreams of playing in the Champions League. So lets rule West Ham out. Nearest he'd get with them with the word Champion in is a league below.
If Leicester start like they ended last season they'll be nowhere near top six. Any other runners and riders? City, Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Wolves? Don't see any of them knocking and Spurs definitely can't afford £50 million.
He'd be better staying another year, keep performing and see where next summer takes us. Gives us time to replace and we could be prepared to let him go for less if a top 6 club come in for him.

I've no problem with him wanting "champions league football", Leicester can't give him that.

We’d clearly make a profit by selling Tarks, to suggest otherwise is to overthink it all......where does it stop, do you consider that by having Tarks it allowed us to seek
Keane for £30m etc, how do you factor that in?

Selling Tarka at this stage would be huge and as pointed out above we’d have to get the incomings that follow right or we’d potentially be in big trouble.

If I had a choice around selling one star to fund a few incomings is pick Pope as I think he’d be easier to replace.

Talking of Tarks replacements I’d not be surprised if we go after the lad at Preston.