Wout Weghorst

[RicardoMontalban]

1.9 million followers isn’t enough for you?

The Maurice chap that’s been posted up the thread has under 700 and 83 posts.

[Burnley1989]

Buy someone for £12 million then loam him out until his contract ends and let him walk for free.
Pace strikes again!
Ridiculous. Just get him sold and at least recoup something.
I have had it with the club letting everyone walk for free and putting ridiculously small release clauses in everyones contracts. It is amateur and is costing us.

A club like Burnley will only get decent players with release clauses, there’s absolutely nothing we can do about that.
As for players walking for free, you pay for a service, which you get over their 4 year contract.

[Newcastleclaret93]

The Maurice chap that’s been posted up the thread has under 700 and 83 posts.

Yes and he’s just retweeting the stuff from TRTspor

They have 1.9m followers and are verified. They are followed by all the top journalists.

They are saying Besiktas have opened talks on a loan deal.

[RicardoMontalban]

Yes and he’s just retweeting the stuff from TRTspor

They have 1.9m followers and are verified. They are followed by all the top journalists.

They are saying Besiktas have opened talks on a loan deal.

Must be true then.

[Boss Hogg]

I’d hope we sell instead of loan out. Why would we loan other than to save wages short term. He’s hardly going to be of use if we get back into the top flight and clearly not up for the Championship challenge. No Thanks.

[clarethomer]

Can anyone sense check the logic below?

I can’t recall what we spent on him but let’s say it was £12.5m and it’s a 4 year deal.

I presume we pay that £12.5 over the 4 years so it’s £3.125m per year.

If we have a release clause of say £15m and someone pays that then and they have him 4 year deal then I presume that we would receive £3.75m each year.

So we would actually cover the £3.125m with this and eventually recoup our money back as the final payment would eventually repay the initial payment we have made?

Is that how it works?

[Newcastleclaret93]

Can anyone sense check the logic below?

I can’t recall what we spent on him but let’s say it was £12.5m and it’s a 4 year deal.

I presume we pay that £12.5 over the 4 years so it’s £3.125m per year.

If we have a release clause of say £15m and someone pays that then and they have him 4 year deal then I presume that we would receive £3.75m each year.

So we would actually cover the £3.125m with this and eventually recoup our money back as the final payment would eventually repay the initial payment we have made?

Is that how it works?

I’m sure one of the finance guys can give more info but that looks about right.

[RVclaret]

Can anyone sense check the logic below?

I can’t recall what we spent on him but let’s say it was £12.5m and it’s a 4 year deal.

I presume we pay that £12.5 over the 4 years so it’s £3.125m per year.

If we have a release clause of say £15m and someone pays that then and they have him 4 year deal then I presume that we would receive £3.75m each year.

So we would actually cover the £3.125m with this and eventually recoup our money back as the final payment would eventually repay the initial payment we have made?

Is that how it works?

Yes it can work like that. However deals can be structured in different ways. For example Chris Wood’s reported £25m sale, it seems £12.5m was received at the time, with the second £12.5m coming in January 2023. So that full amount was received a lot quicker than your example.

[clarethomer]

Yes it can work like that. However deals can be structured in different ways. For example Chris Wood’s reported £25m sale, it seems £12.5m was received at the time, with the second £12.5m coming in January 2023. So that full amount was received a lot quicker than your example.

You’re right we did. It feels like it’s the same principle that we will hopefully have been smart enough to ensure that the fee is covered regardless of outcome.

If we can’t achieve his release clause then that’s going to be the issue.

[NewClaret]

Can anyone sense check the logic below?

I can’t recall what we spent on him but let’s say it was £12.5m and it’s a 4 year deal.

I presume we pay that £12.5 over the 4 years so it’s £3.125m per year.

If we have a release clause of say £15m and someone pays that then and they have him 4 year deal then I presume that we would receive £3.75m each year.

So we would actually cover the £3.125m with this and eventually recoup our money back as the final payment would eventually repay the initial payment we have made?

Is that how it works?

I think it depends on the terms of the release clause, or, if there isn’t one, what we agree to.

I think the payments always being evenly spread over the course of the contract is confused by how the accounting works for player transfers, which can be different to the payment schedule.

Also, the total value of a player sale also often incurs performance-related clauses so we hear £15m but £3m may never be paid, or paid very quickly if the targets are met.

In WW’s case, I’d hope that any release clause was payable up front or in very few instalments. Woodys was two, although that may be due to his contract length. I’d hope that if the clauses were triggered by relegation we’d have also protected our position that the payments must be made in fewer instalments because we’d need the cash.

[claretandy]

Latest is that fenerbache can't afford his wages.
https://twitter.com/BerkBekgoz/status/1 ... JvBpg&s=19

[Rileybobs]

Transfer fees are paid in accordance with the terms agreed by the selling team and the buying team. There isn’t a hard and fast rule.

[NewClaret]

Latest is that fenerbache can't afford his wages.
https://twitter.com/BerkBekgoz/status/1 ... JvBpg&s=19

Wonder if he’ll unfollow them now?

[Lancasterclaret]

What I would say is that if he doesn't want to play for us, and we can't sell or loan him, then we've got a huge asset draining the wage bill and offering absolutely nothing

I hope that when Kompany takes over he can sort this out one way or the other

[BurnleyFC]

Latest is that fenerbache can't afford his wages.
https://twitter.com/BerkBekgoz/status/1 ... JvBpg&s=19

Hopefully Al will do the right thing by Wout and borrow some more money off the club to subsidise his wages.

[NewClaret]

What I would say is that if he doesn't want to play for us, and we can't sell or loan him, then we've got a huge asset draining the wage bill and offering absolutely nothing

I hope that when Kompany takes over he can sort this out one way or the other

I think he’s a top player and professional from what I’ve seen.

Don’t think it would effect his attitude or performances (and may just act as a motivation to get back on top form) if he weren’t to get a move.

[aggi]

Can anyone sense check the logic below?

I can’t recall what we spent on him but let’s say it was £12.5m and it’s a 4 year deal.

I presume we pay that £12.5 over the 4 years so it’s £3.125m per year.

If we have a release clause of say £15m and someone pays that then and they have him 4 year deal then I presume that we would receive £3.75m each year.

So we would actually cover the £3.125m with this and eventually recoup our money back as the final payment would eventually repay the initial payment we have made?

Is that how it works?

For some reason it's become accepted wisdom on here that transfer payments are spread over the life of the contract (I suspect people have got confused between the accounting treatment and what actually happens with the cash). That may be the case sometimes but it's the exception rather than the rule.

The maximum period transfer payments can be split over is the contract length but it's usually shorter.

[Lancasterclaret]

I think he’s a top player and professional from what I’ve seen.

Don’t think it would effect his attitude or performances (and may just act as a motivation to get back on top form) if he weren’t to get a move.

Wasn't he essentially on strike at Wolfsburg?

[KRBFC]

Just absolutely shocking business all around, you only had to watch him for 15 minutes to see he wasn't a head on legs type striker.

Poor management from Jackson too, Soton at home was the best performance in a long while and he was heavily involved despite missing an easy header, the following game Wolves at home was a scrappy team performance, he worked his arse off and the 1 moment of quality in the game, Wout slid it sideways for a game winning tap in.

Suddenly he barely gets on the pitch after a poor first half from everyone in a BFC shirt at Watford. He looked to have little confidence infront of goal but his work rate press from the front and hold up play was exactly what we needed in the final game, he comes on the pitch and suddenly we play 20 minutes of high press football.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

For some reason it's become accepted wisdom on here that transfer payments are spread over the life of the contract (I suspect people have got confused between the accounting treatment and what actually happens with the cash). That may be the case sometimes but it's the exception rather than the rule.

The maximum period transfer payments can be split over is the contract length but it's usually shorter.

It does make it easier for clubs and we can all see from the reports on places like Swiss Ramble that most clubs have outstanding transfer payments.

[taio]

Wasn't he essentially on strike at Wolfsburg?

I hadn't realised this - what happened and how long was he on strike for? I thought he played almost right up to leaving and I had assumed any disruption to normal training etc would have been for just a few days at the very end of his time there, once it was clear to Wolfsburg the deal would be done.

[claretandy]

It does make it easier for clubs and we can all see from the reports on places like Swiss Ramble that most clubs have outstanding transfer payments.

Yep, the amortisation spreads the fee over the length of the contract, this could be entirely different from the actual payment schedule. As with Wood, we get 2 payments of 12.5m, Newcastle may have put this down as 6.25m over 4 years.

[Lancasterclaret]

I hadn't realised this - what happened and how long was he on strike for? I thought he played almost right up to leaving and I had assumed any disruption to normal training etc would have been for just a few days at the very end of his time there, once it was clear to Wolfsburg the deal would be done.

I'm sure I read he was

I'll check it out

EDIT - more about him being annoyed at having a poor first half of the season (as did Wolfsburg) and the fans thinking he has dropped his performance levels a bit

Apologies!

[NewClaret]

Just absolutely shocking business all around, you only had to watch him for 15 minutes to see he wasn't a head on legs type striker.

Poor management from Jackson too, Soton at home was the best performance in a long while and he was heavily involved despite missing an easy header, the following game Wolves at home was a scrappy team performance, he worked his arse off and the 1 moment of quality in the game, Wout slid it sideways for a game winning tap in.

Suddenly he barely gets on the pitch after a poor first half from everyone in a BFC shirt at Watford. He looked to have little confidence infront of goal but his work rate press from the front and hold up play was exactly what we needed in the final game, he comes on the pitch and suddenly we play 20 minutes of high press football.

Absolutely agree with this.

Same against Newcastle - looked miles better after he came on.

Difficult to think that we might have got more from the last three games had he started. But in any event we look a much better team with him in it.

[CoolClaret]

Just absolutely shocking business all around, you only had to watch him for 15 minutes to see he wasn't a head on legs type striker.

Poor management from Jackson too, Soton at home was the best performance in a long while and he was heavily involved despite missing an easy header, the following game Wolves at home was a scrappy team performance, he worked his arse off and the 1 moment of quality in the game, Wout slid it sideways for a game winning tap in.

Suddenly he barely gets on the pitch after a poor first half from everyone in a BFC shirt at Watford. He looked to have little confidence infront of goal but his work rate press from the front and hold up play was exactly what we needed in the final game, he comes on the pitch and suddenly we play 20 minutes of high press football.

Spot on

[Newcastleclaret93]

Absolutely agree with this.

Same against Newcastle - looked miles better after he came on.

Difficult to think that we might have got more from the last three games had he started. But in any event we look a much better team with him in it.

I think this fans getting confused with good looking football and effective football.

He looked good but he was highly ineffective in nearly every game he played.

[KRBFC]

I think this fans getting confused with good looking football and effective football.

He looked good but he was highly ineffective in nearly every game he played.

You have no idea what you're talking about, holding the ball and passing to a teammate is effective. Rolling the ball sideways for your strike partner to tap in, is effective. Granted he looked to lose all confidence infront of goal, the rest of his game was effective more often than not.

[NewClaret]

I think this fans getting confused with good looking football and effective football.

He looked good but he was highly ineffective in nearly every game he played.

Disagree. Unless you call pressing and great hold up play as being ineffective.

When we played it in to his feet, he got us going & we played some brilliant football (post-Dyche). The issue was that we didn’t finish anywhere near enough of the chances we created.

Wout wasn’t exactly blameless on that front, and to be honest for that reason I think he owes us a season in the Championship & getting us back up.

But I fail to see how “effective” Barnes (the chosen alternative) was over Wout. We battled but didn’t create any chances in any of the games he played (until Wout came on).

[Newcastleclaret93]

You have no idea what you're talking about, holding the ball and passing to a teammate is effective. Rolling the ball sideways for your strike partner to tap in, is effective. Granted he looked to lose all confidence infront of goal, the rest of his game was effective more often than not.

Like you said so effective he was dropped for our final three games.

He got bullied nearly every game he played.

[NewClaret]

Like you said so effective he was dropped for our final three games.

He got bullied nearly every game he played.

Only part of this I agree with is that he got dropped for the last three games.

When our results dropped off as well. Not a coincidence in my view.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Only part of this I agree with is that he got dropped for the last three games.

When our results dropped off as well. Not a coincidence in my view.

The last three were considerably harder opponents

[KRBFC]

Like you said so effective he was dropped for our final three games.

He got bullied nearly every game he played.

So the only effective possible action in football is scoring a goal?

yeah and how did dropping him for the final 3 games go? we lost all momentum and got relegated. Hard to justify that decision and team selection for the final game.

[Lancasterclaret]

He's clearly a much better player than Barnes

I think the selection of Barnes was based on people (who should know better) assuming that he's the Barnes of two/three years ago, and he clearly isn't

In his defence, he did well coming on at Watford, but not enough to suggest he could lead the line in our remaining games to try to avoid relegation

[NewClaret]

The last three were considerably harder opponents

Don’t disagree with that, but in all three we looked better and created more chances when he came on.

We/he didn’t finish those chances.

I could understand your point to some degree had Barnes offered anything at all, but he actually just gave away a penalty and scored one and was otherwise anonymous.

[beddie]

No where near good enough. Got muscled out of situations so many times, slow and for his height he was so ineffective,
shocking purchase.

[BabylonClaret]

He's clearly a much better player than Barnes

I think the selection of Barnes was based on people (who should know better) assuming that he's the Barnes of two/three years ago, and he clearly isn't

In his defence, he did well coming on at Watford, but not enough to suggest he could lead the line in our remaining games to try to avoid relegation

The trouble is Lancaster that Weghorst was absolutely anonymous at Watford. To be fair mist of the team were after conceding (the last 15 minutes kind of turned us round a bit but the rest of the game was drifting to Norwich mk 2)

Barnes has been great for us and really committed to the cause in those last games but this season's appearances have shown he's nowhere near where he was before the long lay off last year so for me I just don't buy the idea that the management team don't see that either. There weren't any options other than play a dud I guess - he's far too slow and too lacking in confidence in the box. I guess they thought Barnes would at least get us higher up the pitch and win free kicks.

[BabylonClaret]

Don’t disagree with that, but in all three we looked better and created more chances when he came on.

We/he didn’t finish those chances.

I could understand your point to some degree had Barnes offered anything at all, but he actually just gave away a penalty and scored one and was otherwise anonymous.

He also broke in the final third to commit a defender leading to a free kick which led to the goal.

Don't get me wrong I was disappointed that we seemed to be relying on Ashley to recapture his form form 18 months ago which was about as Hail Mary as you can get in football but the alternative was playing the static, weak unremarkable forward instead.

We sold a proven goalscorer and bought someone who looks like he might do something but then rarely does

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't get why one bad performance v Watford (in which everyone had a poor game) after a couple of very decent performances at home results in getting dropped for someone who clearly isn't up to the premier league anymore

All moot now of course, but I hope we utilise him a lot better next season

[KRBFC]

He also broke in the final third to commit a defender leading to a free kick which led to the goal.

Don't get me wrong I was disappointed that we seemed to be relying on Ashley to recapture his form form 18 months ago which was about as Hail Mary as you can get in football but the alternative was playing the static, weak unremarkable forward instead.

We sold a proven goalscorer and bought someone who looks like he might do something but then rarely does

Yet the proven goalscorer had less goal involvements than the player who ''looks like he might do something but then rarely does'' in the exact same team.

The proven goalscorer also had the entire team and style set up to play to his strengths.

[aggi]

It does make it easier for clubs and we can all see from the reports on places like Swiss Ramble that most clubs have outstanding transfer payments.

Well it's better for the buying club, not so much the selling club. Like anything you make the deal, pay upfront and get a discount or pay in a few installments and pay more. Some of those installments are also triggered by appearances, promotions, etc

[BabylonClaret]

I don't get why one bad performance v Watford (in which everyone had a poor game) after a couple of very decent performances at home results in getting dropped for someone who clearly isn't up to the premier league anymore

All moot now of course, but I hope we utilise him a lot better next season

It wasn't just Watford though was it? Other than a couple of games early on where he looked decent he has looks way off the pace most games. And as you say it doesn't seem to be much logic to play Barnes does it? Unless you are desperate?

I hope he can do better next season but I am a bit less confident than most on here seem to be. Something clearly isn't right when we need to win the last game and the management teM don't think he can be useful at the start (unless the plan was to stay level and then add him in to be more attacking if we wanted to push on for a win)

[Rileybobs]

I don't get why one bad performance v Watford (in which everyone had a poor game) after a couple of very decent performances at home results in getting dropped for someone who clearly isn't up to the premier league anymore

All moot now of course, but I hope we utilise him a lot better next season

I suspect his hissy fit after being taken off at Watford, and subsequent reaction to Jackson after we won the game didn’t do him any favours.

[BabylonClaret]

Yet the proven goalscorer had less goal involvements than the player who ''looks like he might do something but then rarely does'' in the exact same team.

The proven goalscorer also had the entire team and style set up to play to his strengths.

Not saying he was doing well this season but to make out he was shitter than Weghorst is wrong. And it's debatable whether the play style was to accommodate Wood or the players we had (or the preferred approach of the manager)

I think LTL posted a few times about our shift in style being less beneficial for Wood.

[Quickenthetempo]

I suspect his hissy fit after being taken off at Watford, and subsequent reaction to Jackson after we won the game didn’t do him any favours.

Definitely this. MJs pride was a big part in our relegation in my opinion.
There's no other explanation. Nobody of sane mind would start Barnes for the last game.

[BabylonClaret]

I thought the hissy fit was overegged and the general consensus here was it was storm ina teacup?

If not then his attitude is **** anyway and we are well shut

[Quickenthetempo]

Like you said so effective he was dropped for our final three games.

He got bullied nearly every game he played.

I hate the term bullied in football. It implies WW was scared of going anywhere near their defenders.

Defenders win about 85% of battles or there would be far more goals in the game.

[Newcastleclaret93]

I hate the term bullied in football. It implies WW was scared of going anywhere near their defenders.

Defenders win about 85% of battles or there would be far more goals in the game.

No it implies that any time he had to have a physical challenge with a defender he was eased off the ball at ease.

His aerial presence and hold up play was embarrassing at times.

[Lancasterclaret]

I suspect his hissy fit after being taken off at Watford, and subsequent reaction to Jackson after we won the game didn’t do him any favours.

And I think that shows the inexperience of Jackson as the caretaker manager as well

Frustrated players are part and parcel of the game

[Rileybobs]

And I think that shows the inexperience of Jackson as the caretaker manager as well

Frustrated players are part and parcel of the game

Possibly. Undermining authority less so though.

[Milltown1882]

If we can get back what we paid then that’s a great deal. Awful player.