BFC TRANSFER NEWS Jan 2020(MUST CONTAIN LINK)

[FactualFrank]

Luckily theres a few out of contract this summer so we can have a bit of a clear out. Hart, Bardsley, Hendrick, Lennon and Brady? Along with Gibson and Vydra probably going as well. Gonna be a massive summer for us.

According to the squad list on here, these contracts run out in the summer:

Brady (option of 12 month extension)
Hendrick
Westwood (option of 12 month extension)
Hart (option of 12 month extension)
Lennon
Bardsley
Legzdins
Dunne (option of 12 month extension)
(and Aiden O’Neill)

[jrgbfc]

According to the squad list on here, these contracts run out in the summer:

Brady (option of 12 month extension)
Hendrick
Westwood (option of 12 month extension)
Hart (option of 12 month extension)
Lennon
Bardsley
Legzdins
Dunne (option of 12 month extension)
(and Aiden O’Neill)

I hadn't realised Westwood was out of contract as well. I'm a bit surprised we haven't offered him an extension really, unless we have and he's turned it down. I think it's looking likely all the others will be off.

[Iloveyoubrady]

According to the squad list on here, these contracts run out in the summer:

Brady (option of 12 month extension)
Hendrick
Westwood (option of 12 month extension)
Hart (option of 12 month extension)
Lennon
Bardsley
Legzdins
Dunne (option of 12 month extension)
(and Aiden O’Neill)

Out of these, we should be extending some, as well as selling others.
Brady, Hendrick, Westwood, possibly Hart/Lennon on low wages for back up.

Lugzdins can go, Dunne doesn’t seem to be able to cut it but who knows, Bardsley can be replaced by a younger right back with Lowton as reserve.

Then with Gibson and Vydra going we need to sign a young centre back and striker, both for the ‘conveyor belt.’ A starting right back is the must, and then anyone we loose, as well as potentially a new winger.

So in the summer, we will need to buy players in the mould of:
Fry (10m )
Bogle (10m )
Eliasson (10m)

Not too much to ask to spend 30m, when we will most likely get 20m in from Gibson and Vydra.

[claretandy]

He also has said in his press conference that "the club likes to keep a lot of money in the bank"

So there is money, but it's not necessarily available.

[Dark Cloud]

Out of these, we should be extending some, as well as selling others.
Brady, Hendrick, Westwood, possibly Hart/Lennon on low wages for back up.

Lugzdins can go, Dunne doesn’t seem to be able to cut it but who knows, Bardsley can be replaced by a younger right back with Lowton as reserve.

Then with Gibson and Vydra going we need to sign a young centre back and striker, both for the ‘conveyor belt.’ A starting right back is the must, and then anyone we loose, as well as potentially a new winger.

So in the summer, we will need to buy players in the mould of:
Fry (10m )
Bogle (10m )
Eliasson (10m)

Not too much to ask to spend 30m, when we will most likely get 20m in from Gibson and Vydra.

I'd have been seriously testing Bristol Titties resolve this window over Eliasson as he appears a good buy and would (possibly) be great for us. Bogle, unfortunately never impresses me (from TV) and appears overrated and possibly simply has a jolly good agent!

[jrgbfc]

Out of these, we should be extending some, as well as selling others.
Brady, Hendrick, Westwood, possibly Hart/Lennon on low wages for back up.

Lugzdins can go, Dunne doesn’t seem to be able to cut it but who knows, Bardsley can be replaced by a younger right back with Lowton as reserve.

Then with Gibson and Vydra going we need to sign a young centre back and striker, both for the ‘conveyor belt.’ A starting right back is the must, and then anyone we loose, as well as potentially a new winger.

So in the summer, we will need to buy players in the mould of:
Fry (10m )
Bogle (10m )
Eliasson (10m)

Not too much to ask to spend 30m, when we will most likely get 20m in from Gibson and Vydra.

Hendrick has obviously turned down whatever we've offered him up to now, and Hart has basically come out and said he can't wait to leave. Apart from Westwood I wouldn't be too bothered about keeping any of the others.

[Jakubclaret]

Hendrick has obviously turned down whatever we've offered him up to now, and Hart has basically come out and said he can't wait to leave. Apart from Westwood I wouldn't be too bothered about keeping any of the others.

Football's a short career he's waiting to see if the offer will be bettered, still legs in this 1, a final final last offer may get accepted or his agent as advised more money elsewhere. The club wouldn't haven't originally offered him a end offer take it or leave it style.

[Conroy92]

Can you honestly believe we will sign 5 first team players in the summer window? You have named 7 to go there, which I don't disagree with btw, but there's no way we can rebuild all that over one window. Signing another now gives us a chance.
[/quote]

Of MACCA's 7 names, Hart, Vydra and Gibson haven't been 1st team starters for a long time and Bards, Lennon, Brady and Hendrick we probably see no more than 2 in the starting line up at any time.

EDIT: and haven't we already for Joe Hart's replacement with us - and, just added Josh Brownhill for midfield...

So, maybe re-building isn't so great an ask?

UTC
[/quote]

If players go then the slots need filling. I think we should look to replace squad players with first team players. Your current first team players then become squad players. That's how you improve.

[kaptin1]

Problem is our wage bill is going through the roof with salaries for fringe players and bench warmers. The'll definitely need to be some pruning before we start recruiting in the summer.

And new deals for Barnes and Wood won’t have come cheap, plus potential need to offer Hendrick, Westwood etc extra to stay.

[Tricky Trevor]

UTC
[/quote]
If players go then the slots need filling. I think we should look to replace squad players with first team players. Your current first team players then become squad players. That's how you improve.
[/quote]

That would prove very expensive so won’t happen. A couple of starters and a couple for the future is far more likely. With our very slow player turn over even that might be pushing it.

[Down_Rover]

I have a great idea.

With all the experts on transfer dealing on this board, why don't we offer Mr Garlick the benefit of our experience. We could elect a committee to represent the intelligence on here and to replace Mr Rigg. If it works well we could replace Dyche as well.

Seems to me to be the only sure fire way of making sure we never make another mistake in the transfer market and that we pick the best team every week

[randomclaret2]

Its a football fans message board.Every club has one and theyll all be having similar discussions today.

[Conroy92]

I have a great idea.

With all the experts on transfer dealing on this board, why don't we offer Mr Garlick the benefit of our experience. We could elect a committee to represent the intelligence on here and to replace Mr Rigg. If it works well we could replace Dyche as well.

Seems to me to be the only sure fire way of making sure we never make another mistake in the transfer market and that we pick the best team every week

Good idea, what do you want to talk about instead, Brexit?
Think you'll find your on the wrong thread.

[Colburn_Claret]

It’s pathetic.

If there is no money, as has now been repeated twice by the manager, then the “well run club” mantra needs changing and quickly.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion, we are extremely well run. To keep a club the size of Burnley in the Premier League is a minor miracle. To achieve it without creating debt is equally miraculous. NOBODY has to work within the limits of our budget. NOBODY has achieved anywhere near as much as we have done, on a similar budget.
The fact is the vast majority of our 'money', the same as everyone else, goes on wages. There's no sugar daddy to paper any cracks, so if we spent 30-40 million on players, and ended up 30-40 million in debt, then we would cease to be well run. The consequences of that could be terminal, and as fans surely that would be the last thing we want.
Relegation, although it's not around the corner, is almost inevitable, eventually. When that happens we have 3 years of parachute payments, and what we have 'saved', to get back up again. If we fail to do it in those first 3 years then in all likelihood it will be another 30 years before we get another bite at the apple. Remaining a well run club isn't an option.

[Conroy92]

UTC

If players go then the slots need filling. I think we should look to replace squad players with first team players. Your current first team players then become squad players. That's how you improve.
[/quote]

That would prove very expensive so won’t happen. A couple of starters and a couple for the future is far more likely. With our very slow player turn over even that might be pushing it.
[/quote]

I'd be happy with that! When/if your youth becomes ready your first team players become the back up.
Still looks a big job like you say.

[rob63]

Out of these, we should be extending some, as well as selling others.
Brady, Hendrick, Westwood, possibly Hart/Lennon on low wages for back up.

Lugzdins can go, Dunne doesn’t seem to be able to cut it but who knows, Bardsley can be replaced by a younger right back with Lowton as reserve.

Then with Gibson and Vydra going we need to sign a young centre back and striker, both for the ‘conveyor belt.’ A starting right back is the must, and then anyone we loose, as well as potentially a new winger.

So in the summer, we will need to buy players in the mould of:
Fry (10m )
Bogle (10m )
Eliasson (10m)

Not too much to ask to spend 30m, when we will most likely get 20m in from Gibson and Vydra.

Very good, except Boro wanted £25m for Fry.

[Conroy92]

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion, we are extremely well run. To keep a club the size of Burnley in the Premier League is a minor miracle. To achieve it without creating debt is equally miraculous. NOBODY has to work within the limits of our budget. NOBODY has achieved anywhere near as much as we have done, on a similar budget.
The fact is the vast majority of our 'money', the same as everyone else, goes on wages. There's no sugar daddy to paper any cracks, so if we spent 30-40 million on players, and ended up 30-40 million in debt, then we would cease to be well run. The consequences of that could be terminal, and as fans surely that would be the last thing we want.
Relegation, although it's not around the corner, is almost inevitable, eventually. When that happens we have 3 years of parachute payments, and what we have 'saved', to get back up again. If we fail to do it in those first 3 years then in all likelihood it will be another 30 years before we get another bite at the apple. Remaining a well run club isn't an option.

I agree with nearly all you say Colburn but have a slightly differing view on purchases and assets. If we signed a 20m young player (maybe a Bowen type) and then posted a 10million loss for the season, it would seem a negative. However that player than transfers to be an asset for the club. A player like Bowen would retain value with potentially a bigger sell on fee. This for me is where we are missing a trick. I appreciate to some this comes across as "betting the ranch". But investing in assets is just another part of buisness and successful businesses do it well.
Question comes back to- would we rather post a positive balance sheet with less assets or a negative balance sheet with better/more assets? It needs to be a balance and I don't know the right answer before anyone starts!

[rob63]

I hadn't realised Westwood was out of contract as well. I'm a bit surprised we haven't offered him an extension really, unless we have and he's turned it down. I think it's looking likely all the others will be off.

They'll activate the one year extension with Westwood to give them time to make a new contract offer....... that's if they have enough ink left after offering terms to the 5-8 new players we're going to sign this summer!

[SGr]

I have a great idea.

With all the experts on transfer dealing on this board, why don't we offer Mr Garlick the benefit of our experience. We could elect a committee to represent the intelligence on here and to replace Mr Rigg. If it works well we could replace Dyche as well.

Seems to me to be the only sure fire way of making sure we never make another mistake in the transfer market and that we pick the best team every week

You’ve just about grasped the point of a supporter message board.

[ewanrob]

I have a great idea.

With all the experts on transfer dealing on this board, why don't we offer Mr Garlick the benefit of our experience. We could elect a committee to represent the intelligence on here and to replace Mr Rigg. If it works well we could replace Dyche as well.

Seems to me to be the only sure fire way of making sure we never make another mistake in the transfer market and that we pick the best team every week

Just look at little old Brentford, and what proper scouting is...I'm sorry but Burnley have had years to remedy this.

[rob63]

Prediction:

Bright Samuel continues to perform for QPR for the remainder of the season, summer arrives and we don’t bid because we’re now „priced out” of a move.

I think he's ooc this summer, although there could be an optional year- but it's unlikely as i think he's only been there 18 months

[SGr]

I think he's ooc this summer, although there could be an optional year- but it's unlikely as i think he's only been there 18 months

Fair enough. Quality if they can get it done but that relied on us offering the most attractive wage package to a player who will be high in demand......

[Taffy on the wing]

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion, we are extremely well run. To keep a club the size of Burnley in the Premier League is a minor miracle. To achieve it without creating debt is equally miraculous. NOBODY has to work within the limits of our budget. NOBODY has achieved anywhere near as much as we have done, on a similar budget.
The fact is the vast majority of our 'money', the same as everyone else, goes on wages. There's no sugar daddy to paper any cracks, so if we spent 30-40 million on players, and ended up 30-40 million in debt, then we would cease to be well run. The consequences of that could be terminal, and as fans surely that would be the last thing we want.
Relegation, although it's not around the corner, is almost inevitable, eventually. When that happens we have 3 years of parachute payments, and what we have 'saved', to get back up again. If we fail to do it in those first 3 years then in all likelihood it will be another 30 years before we get another bite at the apple. Remaining a well run club isn't an option.

Well said!......We're a minor miracle.

[rob63]

According to the squad list on here, these contracts run out in the summer:

Brady (option of 12 month extension)
Hendrick
Westwood (option of 12 month extension)
Hart (option of 12 month extension)
Lennon
Bardsley
Legzdins
Dunne (option of 12 month extension)
(and Aiden O’Neill)

Anybody think Bardsley might be offered a coaching role next season in the light of his interview recently about a move into coaching?

I presume they're still a man light at U-23 level with the Steve Stone situation unresolved & he could act as back up to our (hopefully) new RB till one of the 3 lads in the U-23's push themselves forward to the subs bench.

[Colburn_Claret]

I agree with nearly all you say Colburn but have a slightly differing view on purchases and assets. If we signed a 20m young player (maybe a Bowen type) and then posted a 10million loss for the season, it would seem a negative. However that player than transfers to be an asset for the club. A player like Bowen would retain value with potentially a bigger sell on fee. This for me is where we are missing a trick. I appreciate to some this comes across as "betting the ranch". But investing in assets is just another part of buisness and successful businesses do it well.
Question comes back to- would we rather post a positive balance sheet with less assets or a negative balance sheet with better/more assets? It needs to be a balance and I don't know the right answer before anyone starts!

What you are saying only works if the player in question, let's use Bowen, doesn't have other options. We could buy Bowen, but only if we offered him more in wages than the rest of his pursuers. You always end up back in the same scenario. Other clubs can afford, and even if they can't afford, are willing to pay more than us. It always boils down to Income to wages ratio. I'm sure West Ham are offering more than Palace, and a lot more than we could afford, for his wages, and he's still apparently stalling for more.

[Paul Waine]

I agree with nearly all you say Colburn but have a slightly differing view on purchases and assets. If we signed a 20m young player (maybe a Bowen type) and then posted a 10million loss for the season, it would seem a negative. However that player than transfers to be an asset for the club. A player like Bowen would retain value with potentially a bigger sell on fee. This for me is where we are missing a trick. I appreciate to some this comes across as "betting the ranch". But investing in assets is just another part of buisness and successful businesses do it well.
Question comes back to- would we rather post a positive balance sheet with less assets or a negative balance sheet with better/more assets? It needs to be a balance and I don't know the right answer before anyone starts!

Hi Conroy, so we sign a player for £20m - let's say it's a 4 year contract - and we assume wages are the same as the wages for the outgoing player - then net £5m is charged to accounts for the season. Where is the rest of the loss coming from? And, let's take it in financial terms, we sign a player for £20m the club has an asset of £20m - and at the end of each season charges £5m to the accounts - so, at the end of season 1 the asset is worth, in the accounts, at £15m. So, let's assume we've got a young and up and coming star, and our £20m signing improves season by season (and wages aren't too much) - the "asset" at the end of season 1 is still £15m. If the player becomes worth, let's say, £30m, we will only have the £30m asset (a "gain" of £15m on the £15m asset value) if we sell the player. That's great the club is +£15m.... But, the club now needs to replace that player and, so our net gain is the £30m sale value above the £15m asset value = £15m less whatever we have to pay to sign the replacement player above £15m. And, if our "star" has gone from £20m when we signed him to £30m a season later, then maybe his replacement will also cost nearer to £30m - and, if not, maybe we are weakening the squad and not strengthening it....

The assets always sit on the positive side of the balance sheet, btw - it's not possible to have a "negative balance sheet with better/more assets."

[Erasmus]

I agree that Brentford have an excellent scouting system, but it is also the case that the owner of the club, Matthew Benham, has put in over a hundred million pounds to support their efforts. That is a very significant factor in what they have been able to achieve and partly explains why their recruitment has been successful.

And one should bear in mind that their 'natural' income is not much less than ours and that even with that substantial support from the owner they are still a weaker team than Burnley. We are out-performing them by some considerable margin.

[creepingdeath]

SSN

BURNLEY REJECT SECOND GIBSON BID

Burnley have rejected a second offer for Ben Gibson from Watford.

[creepingdeath]

60k a week jeez

BOWEN TO WEST HAM STALLS

The Deadline Day deal for Jarrod Bowen to join West Ham has stalled – over personal terms.

The Hull City attacking midfielder has been offered a 5 and a half year deal – with a £20m fee agreed between the clubs.

Bowen had been asking for around £60k-a-week.

His medical is continuing and there’s still a hope that a deal on wages can be agreed.

[Conroy92]

Hi Conroy, so we sign a player for £20m - let's say it's a 4 year contract - and we assume wages are the same as the wages for the outgoing player - then net £5m is charged to accounts for the season. Where is the rest of the loss coming from? And, let's take it in financial terms, we sign a player for £20m the club has an asset of £20m - and at the end of each season charges £5m to the accounts - so, at the end of season 1 the asset is worth, in the accounts, at £15m. So, let's assume we've got a young and up and coming star, and our £20m signing improves season by season (and wages aren't too much) - the "asset" at the end of season 1 is still £15m. If the player becomes worth, let's say, £30m, we will only have the £30m asset (a "gain" of £15m on the £15m asset value) if we sell the player. That's great the club is +£15m.... But, the club now needs to replace that player and, so our net gain is the £30m sale value above the £15m asset value = £15m less whatever we have to pay to sign the replacement player above £15m. And, if our "star" has gone from £20m when we signed him to £30m a season later, then maybe his replacement will also cost nearer to £30m - and, if not, maybe we are weakening the squad and not strengthening it....

The assets always sit on the positive side of the balance sheet, btw - it's not possible to have a "negative balance sheet with better/more assets."

As you might be able to tell with the negative/positive balance sheet Vs assets I am no businessman I would be the first to recognise this. Just seems to be that we concentrate a lot on a positive balance sheet but not really concerned on the value of assets growing. Surely there is a middle ground which sees profits drop slightly and value of assets increase? I am by no means trying to slag the club off, it just seems like something we are not doing currently.

[Rileybobs]

Just look at little old Brentford, and what proper scouting is...I'm sorry but Burnley have had years to remedy this.

If Brentford’s scouting is so fantastic then why are the results of said scouting so much poorer? We have been extremely successful in the transfer market and on the pitch for a number of years.

Another point to note, Brentford play in the Championship where it is far easier to ‘blood’ raw talent. You don’t see many Premier League sides bringing in a number of unproven players to develop because the price of failure is so high.

[boatshed bill]

60k a week jeez

BOWEN TO WEST HAM STALLS

The Deadline Day deal for Jarrod Bowen to join West Ham has stalled – over personal terms.

The Hull City attacking midfielder has been offered a 5 and a half year deal – with a £20m fee agreed between the clubs.

Bowen had been asking for around £60k-a-week.

His medical is continuing and there’s still a hope that a deal on wages can be agreed.

Isn't he refusing to sign a relegation wage reduction clause?

[creepingdeath]

SSN

'GIBSON FRUSTRATED'

Sky Sports News reporter Peter Stevenson at Burnley:

“Ben Gibson is frustrated with a lack of game-time but the only way Burnley will do business today is if they can get in a replacement. But it appears at the moment, Gibson will remain a Burnley player. A loan deal has been rejected from Watford with Burnley saying it fell well below their valuation.”

[Firthy]

SSN

BURNLEY REJECT SECOND GIBSON BID

Burnley have rejected a second offer for Ben Gibson from Watford.

Same will apply to a third bid. We simply can't afford to let him go and just have Long as back up.

[SGr]

Gibson has been frustrated for about 18 months I’m sure he can manage another 5

[jrgbfc]

Maybe Bowen just isn't that bothered about going to West Ham so he's trying his luck? If it causes the move to collapse so be it. Isn't he a free agent this summer as well? If so it would give him more choice and he'd pocket a fat signing on fee.

[Giftonsnoidea]

West Ham are a team of misfits and mercenary’s he will fit in well there

[COBBLE]

60k a week jeez

BOWEN TO WEST HAM STALLS

The Deadline Day deal for Jarrod Bowen to join West Ham has stalled – over personal terms.

The Hull City attacking midfielder has been offered a 5 and a half year deal – with a £20m fee agreed between the clubs.

Bowen had been asking for around £60k-a-week.

His medical is continuing and there’s still a hope that a deal on wages can be agreed.

No wonder we didn't put much effort, if any, into trying to sign Bowen.

[SGr]

Maybe Bowen just isn't that bothered about going to West Ham so he's trying his luck? If it causes the move to collapse so be it. Isn't he a free agent this summer as well? If so it would give him more choice and he'd pocket a fat signing on fee.

Nah. It’s the agent trying to drive up the wage, it’ll get done surely.

Either way I’m no longer bothered, it is beyond our range now.

[kaptin1]

Said it before, but we really need to find a way of giving more of our squad game time. Problem is that whenever we rotate we start losing matches. I think this is partly down to the squad players being not up to the same standard as the first eleven but maybe also reflects their lack of game time. Very hard for players who haven’t had first team football for months to come in and hit the ground running, no matter how much training they have done. It also means we risk having a reputation for not giving players enough of a chance, which may be detrimental to our attractiveness as a club, especially when trying to recruit to enhance competition for an incumbent player rather than to replace them. The situation with Gibson is particularly strange, given his reputation and how much we spent on him. If he’s just not deemed good enough then we should have got rid last summer rather than hang on to him for another season. If he is deemed good enough, why hasn’t he been given a chance when Mee or a Tarkowski have had a dip in form, which they both have had over the past 18 months?

[randomclaret2]

Harold Moukoudi has joined Boro on loan

[Grumps]

Nixon saying we're trying swaps to get Gibson deal done

[randomclaret2]

Dawson.? Andre Gray ?

[Jambounchained]

Must surely be Dawson?

[FactualFrank]

Nixon saying we're trying swaps to get Gibson deal done

I'd take Deulofeu!

[Bigvince]

Dawson right back, and centre back

[bfcmartin]

Hughes and Dawson about the same value as Gibson

[Hedontplayforyou]

Could only be Dawson or Gray I’d imagine, maybe the lad Success but doubtful, and a slim chance of Will Hughes but regardless of it isn’t Dawson we still need a defensive replacement !

[ksrclaret]

I struggle to think that Watford have anybody that they'd be happy to let go, and we would be happy to take.

[jrgbfc]

Boden denying it. Do we trust him or Nixon more when it comes to our transfer dealings?