Wolves in for Tarkowski
-
- Posts: 1058
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:15 am
- Been Liked: 348 times
- Has Liked: 150 times
Wolves in for Tarkowski
But approach has been turned down....
https://thisisfutbol.com/2019/06/blogs/ ... -approach/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Will be a real statement of intent from the board if he's still in the squad when we play Southampton
https://thisisfutbol.com/2019/06/blogs/ ... -approach/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Will be a real statement of intent from the board if he's still in the squad when we play Southampton
-
- Posts: 4382
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1825 times
- Has Liked: 930 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
"Tarkowski was a key player for Wolves last season, making 42 appearances for the Premier League side"
Sloppy much?
Sloppy much?
-
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:17 am
- Been Liked: 13 times
- Has Liked: 5 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
What a terrible piece that is - according to this report, Tarks played for Wolves last season and he only has three months left on his contract!
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
"He still has three months left on his current deal with Burnley"
Very sloppy.
Very sloppy.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
I don’t know why Wolves need to put an offer in, according to the article he played for them 42 times last season. It also says Tarkowski has 3 months left on his contract so there’s no need to sell!
Not the best article I’ve ever read!!
Not the best article I’ve ever read!!
-
- Posts: 1058
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:15 am
- Been Liked: 348 times
- Has Liked: 150 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Granted the article is written by some muppet, but the tweet from the Times journalist was what carried the weight for me
-
- Posts: 18048
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3861 times
- Has Liked: 2070 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
They will of got it from the BBC gossip column.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
On "Molineux Mix" they seem to think Burnley will want over £20m (I think they could be right!!! ) and that that might be more than he's worth .
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
they can go and....
-
- Posts: 2338
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:01 am
- Been Liked: 546 times
- Has Liked: 51 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Read plenty of links about Wolves and Leicester wanting Tarky. With the prices being touted about for Maguire going to City or United, I’d hope we would accept nothing less than £50m with him having 3 years left on his contract. That being said I’d rather we keep him
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
If we could sell Wolves a player they already have that would be a neat piece of business.
These 5 users liked this post: tim_noone TheOriginalLongsider Chip Harrison bfcjg ClaretTony
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
- Been Liked: 4384 times
- Has Liked: 15117 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Harry Redknapps....the Agent For TarkowskiHipper wrote:If we could sell Wolves a player they already have that would be a neat piece of business.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
I heard when he signed his new long term deal, there was a release fee included. The release fee was said to be 50m.
Not saying we'll get that, not even saying he's worth that, but if he did go I'd expect it to be for far more than 20m.
Personally I think he might go this summer, and I'd like to think for somewhere in the region of 30m
Not saying we'll get that, not even saying he's worth that, but if he did go I'd expect it to be for far more than 20m.
Personally I think he might go this summer, and I'd like to think for somewhere in the region of 30m
-
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 12:42 pm
- Been Liked: 878 times
- Has Liked: 271 times
- Location: Bradford
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Least surprising news of the summer. £50m and no less.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
He’s theirs, for a very large and possibly extortionate fee. Else he’s ours.
-
- Posts: 2527
- Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 12:42 pm
- Been Liked: 878 times
- Has Liked: 271 times
- Location: Bradford
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Daily Mirror journalist on twitter suggesting we are close to agreeing a fee, but want a replacement first.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Craig Dawson, come on downMDWat wrote:Daily Mirror journalist on twitter suggesting we are close to agreeing a fee, but want a replacement first.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
It’s a shame Gibson isn’t a right sided replacement. Not sure who we should go after.
-
- Posts: 8128
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
- Been Liked: 3078 times
- Has Liked: 5042 times
- Location: Catterick N.Yorks
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
I cant believe that, unless Tarks has expressed a desire to go. We dont need the money, no matter how much they offer us. The only reason to lose him is if he would be upset by staying.MDWat wrote:Daily Mirror journalist on twitter suggesting we are close to agreeing a fee, but want a replacement first.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
He has 139 followers and is a Brentford fan. I’m expecting Tarks to leave but I’m not sure there’s much in this.
-
- Posts: 4452
- Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 1152 times
- Has Liked: 182 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Could be very good business as we make good money with Gibson ready to step in . It would have to be very good money though
-
- Posts: 15228
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3155 times
- Has Liked: 6742 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Totally agree with this.Colburn_Claret wrote:I cant believe that, unless Tarks has expressed a desire to go. We dont need the money, no matter how much they offer us. The only reason to lose him is if he would be upset by staying.
And we depended a great deal on the defensive qualities of Tarkowski and Mee, this is the kind of transfer out (if it should happen) that could see us relegated.
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Was interesting in the 2017/18 accounts that we would have just about broken even without the Keane & Gray sales.Colburn_Claret wrote:I cant believe that, unless Tarks has expressed a desire to go. We dont need the money, no matter how much they offer us. The only reason to lose him is if he would be upset by staying.
Last season, only Vokes sold and some £20 million less from the Premier League money. So wrong to think we don’t need the money and Garlick highlighted that in his report that we would need to player trade.
Having said that, there are a lot of people believing things from some of these click bait websites.
-
- Posts: 15228
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3155 times
- Has Liked: 6742 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Don't we have £30m (ish) in the bank, CT?ClaretTony wrote:Was interesting in the 2017/18 accounts that we would have just about broken even without the Keane & Gray sales.
Last season, only Vokes sold and some £20 million less from the Premier League money. So wrong to think we don’t need the money and Garlick highlighted that in his report that we would need to player trade.
Having said that, there are a lot of people believing things from some of these click bait websites.
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
I wouldn’t have thought so. We made a £30 pre tax profit in 2017/18 based on the full fees for Keane & Gray.boatshed bill wrote:Don't we have £30m (ish) in the bank, CT?
I’ll be very interested to see the 2018/19 accounts next March with losses on player trading and significantly less Premier League money.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
If we need to sell before we buy them we are in the **** already
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
£30 profit? What’s that? A couple of twixes?ClaretTony wrote:I wouldn’t have thought so. We made a £30 pre tax profit in 2017/18 based on the full fees for Keane & Gray.
I’ll be very interested to see the 2018/19 accounts next March with losses on player trading and significantly less Premier League money.
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Three I thinkFoulthrow wrote:£30 profit? What’s that? A couple of twixes?
This user liked this post: Foulthrow
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
On a serious note we should be absolutely fleecing Wolves if they want Tarky. Haven’t they got billionaire owners? Fifty million should be a starting point.
-
- Posts: 9294
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4093 times
- Has Liked: 6568 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Not sure I get this `right sided - left sided` mullarkey at centre half. Well, I understand it but I don't for one minute believe it's an absolute `must have` for a decent defence. So many good teams have had two right footed centre halves but no-one bats an eyelid. Now, ones gotta be left footed, and the other right footed. Not buying it i'm afraid. Two decent left footed centre halves will do fine, and we have two.Blackrod wrote:It’s a shame Gibson isn’t a right sided replacement. Not sure who we should go after.
-
- Posts: 3880
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1280 times
- Has Liked: 681 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
[quote="ClaretTony"]Was interesting in the 2017/18 accounts that we would have just about broken even without the Keane & Gray sales.
That's not quite the case. We made an operating profit on all activities of £45.1m of which £30.7m was profit on sale of Keane and Gray. After tax of £8.5m the net profit for the year was £36.6m.
Cash at bank at June'18 was £34.4m.
That's not quite the case. We made an operating profit on all activities of £45.1m of which £30.7m was profit on sale of Keane and Gray. After tax of £8.5m the net profit for the year was £36.6m.
Cash at bank at June'18 was £34.4m.
-
- Posts: 6900
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2757 times
- Has Liked: 4324 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
The payment from the PL for 18/19 was around £12.4m down on 17/18 but presumably the amount paid out in bonuses will be down also.
-
- Posts: 6900
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 2757 times
- Has Liked: 4324 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Are there any leading sides who regularly play with 2 Left footed Centre Halves ?
-
- Posts: 8466
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
- Been Liked: 2461 times
- Has Liked: 1990 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
If he goes and I hope not there will be enough money for Gary Cahill's wages.
-
- Posts: 3880
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1280 times
- Has Liked: 681 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
That's spot on random. Down from just over £119m to £107m. The total Wage bill of £81.6m was heavily incentivised based on finishing 7th. The Wage bill therefore to Jun'19 will be significantly less and operating profit should be in the same ball park as the previous year. Plus of course the profit on sale of Sam Vokes and any further sales before the end of June.randomclaret2 wrote:The payment from the PL for 18/19 was around £12.4m down on 17/18 but presumably the amount paid out in bonuses will be down also.
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Hadn’t taken in the presumably lower bonuses although I’d suspect the general wage bill went up. Was the difference only £12.4 million? I’m surprised at that for eight places lower although we did get one extra TV game.randomclaret2 wrote:The payment from the PL for 18/19 was around £12.4m down on 17/18 but presumably the amount paid out in bonuses will be down also.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Keane left and we didn't have a problem.boatshed bill wrote:Totally agree with this.
And we depended a great deal on the defensive qualities of Tarkowski and Mee, this is the kind of transfer out (if it should happen) that could see us relegated.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
If it's so vital to have one left footer and one right footer, and bearing in mind that there are more right footers around than left footers, then clearly left footers will be at a premium price. So we sell Ben Mee for £100m and play Gibson and Tarkowski. Simples!
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
So are you predicting that we will be reporting a similar profit next March to the one we reported three months ago?Royboyclaret wrote:That's spot on random. Down from just over £119m to £107m. The total Wage bill of £81.6m was heavily incentivised based on finishing 7th. The Wage bill therefore to Jun'19 will be significantly less and operating profit should be in the same ball park as the previous year. Plus of course the profit on sale of Sam Vokes and any further sales before the end of June.
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
It’s strange but you can play two right footers but it doesn’t work with two left footers.dsr wrote:If it's so vital to have one left footer and one right footer, and bearing in mind that there are more right footers around than left footers, then clearly left footers will be at a premium price. So we sell Ben Mee for £100m and play Gibson and Tarkowski. Simples!
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
What's Nixon got to say about this?
-
- Posts: 3880
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1280 times
- Has Liked: 681 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Similar operating profit to June'19 of £14m before profit on player trading.ClaretTony wrote:So are you predicting that we will be reporting a similar profit next March to the one we reported three months ago?
-
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 6339 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
A certain poster on here will tell you it's because Keane was utter toss and we were better off without himSpijed wrote:Keane left and we didn't have a problem.
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Player trading is currently running at a significant loss though.Royboyclaret wrote:Similar operating profit to June'19 of £14m before profit on player trading.
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Keane was outstanding. We got a really good fee for him at the time but prices have soared since.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:A certain poster on here will tell you it's because Keane was utter toss and we were better off without him
These 2 users liked this post: Tricky Trevor Quickenthetempo
-
- Posts: 3880
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 12:57 pm
- Been Liked: 1280 times
- Has Liked: 681 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Included in the profit & loss account to Jun'19 will be one years amortisation on the costs of any incoming players offset currently by the profit on sale of Sam.ClaretTony wrote:Player trading is currently running at a significant loss though.
If Tarky is sold before the end of June (as I fully expect) the net profit for the year to Jun'19 will be higher than the £45.1m to Jun'18.
Last edited by Royboyclaret on Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This user liked this post: randomclaret2
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Agree with this - think with the Vokes sale we’ll be posting about £20m profit.Royboyclaret wrote:Similar operating profit to June'19 of £14m before profit on player trading.
We have generated significant cumulative profits in the last few years. Don’t mistake cash at bank for profit - 2 completely different things.
We should start this financial year with a nice little windfall from the sell on clause for Ings.
We have leeway to do some decent business in the market and not put the club at any risk. Our reserves from recent years profits even given us room to run the club at a loss. I don’t think we would do this but if we did I would only be concerned if our basic wage bill (without bonuses for where we finish) was increasing way beyond what it stands at now....which again I am pretty sure our chairman would never allow.
This user liked this post: randomclaret2
-
- Posts: 8525
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:22 pm
- Been Liked: 2889 times
- Has Liked: 1763 times
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
surely poor business to let a key player go to a rival club and then struggle to find the money to acquire a decent enough replacement.
If we need to sell at this stage, then the business side is in need of an overhaul, and quickly.
If we need to sell at this stage, then the business side is in need of an overhaul, and quickly.
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
Not sure whether that is relevant CT.ClaretTony wrote:Player trading is currently running at a significant loss though.
If you mean that we paid out more in transfer fees than we bought in last year - then it really isn’t that significant in the way the costs are amortised over the length of the contract. The annual amortised net cost of our transfers in the last 12 months will probably be largely covered by the Ings sell on fee....and more then covered when you add in the Vokes fee.
Of course if you have a number of consecutive years of incoming transfer fees being significantly higher than outgoing transfer fees that will eventually be a problem if you are not covering that by increased commercial revenue or finishing high up the league....but we have a very good track record of selling players at very good profits...and we don’t have a need to do that every single season.
-
- Posts: 67771
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
- Been Liked: 32393 times
- Has Liked: 5272 times
- Location: Burnley
- Contact:
Re: Wolves in for Tarkowski
If costs are amortised over the period of the contract then the accounts will surely also include part of the cost of signings from previous seasons.TVC15 wrote:Not sure whether that is relevant CT.
If you mean that we paid out more in transfer fees than we bought in last year - then it really isn’t that significant in the way the costs are amortised over the length of the contract. The annual amortised net cost of our transfers in the last 12 months will probably be largely covered by the Ings sell on fee....and more then covered when you add in the Vokes fee.
Of course if you have a number of consecutive years of incoming transfer fees being significantly higher than outgoing transfer fees that will eventually be a problem if you are not covering that by increased commercial revenue or finishing high up the league....but we have a very good track record of selling players at very good profits...and we don’t have a need to do that every single season.