Will their injuries today encourage us to get some deals over the line a bit earlier? Easier said than done, I know.

Wait and see , lets not get too upset just yet please .

Can't see anyone getting upset.

West Ham being reported as having a £3m bid in for snoddy. I know we can't see the likes of West Ham off in a bidding war, but aren't we all being told that the £10m we paid for hendrick is the going rate for that type of midfielder?

3m for Snodgrass is in keeping with a bid we would have put in

Neither injuries sounded too good

£3million would be the first of half a dozen bids from us, resulting in our final bid of £3.5million.

NRC wrote:3m for Snodgrass is in keeping with a bid we would have put in

I would imagine it is.

Hypothetically, would you swap hendrick for snodgrass?

I suppose the point im making is there doesn't really seem to be any parity in players values/players quality.

I'd trade Hendrick for snodgrass all day long, but (without knowing his contract situation) if West Ham get him for £3m I'll show my arse in Burton's window.

From Chris Boden's twitter:

"SD hopes Gudmundsson and Arfield are "minor" hamstrings. Flanagan (knee) and Boyd slight niggle. Bamford ill"

Spijed wrote:From Chris Boden's twitter:

"SD hopes Gudmundsson and Arfield are "minor" hamstrings. Flanagan (knee) and Boyd slight niggle. Bamford ill"

Bamford ill??
Are we really going to keep him for the season? Waste of a squad place, though not much he can do about it himself.

Bamford has a touch of thirtygrandaweekfordoingnothingitis apparently. Can be quite debilitating long term.

Gudmundsson's hamstring is becoming a cause for concern. Twice now.

Sidney1st wrote:£3million would be the first of half a dozen bids from us, resulting in our final bid of £3.5million.

Haven't West Ham followed this approach with their bids for Defoe?

Sean will sort it.

UTC

Cannot for the life of me understand why we took Bamford on loan in the first place. Failed to get any real game time at Crystal Palace and the loan arrangement was terminated early and he returned to Chelsea complaining that the experience had been "terrible" just sitting on the bench and never being asked to play. Failed to make any impression whilst on loan at Norwich and was described by the Daily Telegraph as a "lame duck" and not up to PL standard. Experience at Burnley will be similar to what the player went through at Palace.

boatshed bill wrote:Bamford ill??
Are we really going to keep him for the season? Waste of a squad place, though not much he can do about it himself.

Bamford's illness is "cuptiedavoidance" I'm guessing.

Aren't the papers saying that Bamford will be recalled by Chelsea then moved to Boro?

If so, we have space for a new loanee.

UTC

I don't know what the big issue is. Bamford was only signed as cover for Gray's suspension in any case.

Will he go back? Who knows? I suppose it depends on whether we have other striker targets or not.

fidelcastro wrote:I don't know what the big issue is. Bamford was only signed as cover for Gray's suspension in any case.

Will he go back? Who knows? I suppose it depends on whether we have other striker targets or not.

The issue is he is crap and a waste of a loan.

Big_Ears_BFC wrote:The issue is he is crap and a waste of a loan.

Not sure how you know that he's crap when he's hardly featured, unless you think the reason why he's hardly featured is because he's crap?

I doubt you saw many of our strikers in the old division four days if you really do think he's crap!

What's the best word for worse than crap, if Bamford is crap?

Big_Ears_BFC wrote:The issue is he is crap and a waste of a loan.

It would be hard to prove that he's crap, Big Ears, where's the evidence?

You prove to me and show me the evidence that he is worth a place in our squad. He has done sod all apart from his loan at boro.

I would suggest none of us in in a position to say Bamford is crap given how little we've seen of him. I for one wish we'd seen rather more of him so that we could actually form a proper opinion, but what we can say is that SD is probably the best judge about his abilities and he really doesn't seem to rate him enough to give him much time on the field. What I would also say is a shame is that assuming his illness is genuine AND that Chelsea had no issue with him playing, it's probably robbed him of a starting place today which would have been good for us and for him.

kentonclaret wrote:Cannot for the life of me understand why we took Bamford on loan in the first place. Failed to get any real game time at Crystal Palace and the loan arrangement was terminated early and he returned to Chelsea complaining that the experience had been "terrible" just sitting on the bench and never being asked to play. Failed to make any impression whilst on loan at Norwich and was described by the Daily Telegraph as a "lame duck" and not up to PL standard. Experience at Burnley will be similar to what the player went through at Palace.

Could NOT agree more. It smacked utterly of simply making up the numbers. Never a Dyche type player in a million years. Apart from being paid handsomely, I feel sorry for Bamford...utter waste of time for him. He was NEVER going to get game time.

A thread about injuries turns into a tirade on Bamford who has hardly been given a chance to do anything. How many minutes of injury time has he been given?

I can't imagine anyone would say we didn't need to sign another forward when Vokes was the only one available. The only problem is that Bamford evidently isn't good enough in the managerr's opinion.

Ability or attitude ? One of them will give you the reason

fidelcastro wrote:I don't know what the big issue is. Bamford was only signed as cover for Gray's suspension in any case.

Will he go back? Who knows? I suppose it depends on whether we have other striker targets or not.

I don't think we can just send him back, Chelsea would have to re-call him.

Bit of a dickish move from Dyche by taking him on loan and not giving him a sniff at all, the young lad is trying to develop and could have gone elsewhere and got regular games, he came here and hasn't been given a sniff. He's certainly worthy of a chance too, he's proven himself to be a top level Championship player. Top level Championship players aren't always good enough for the PL but you never know until you actually give them more than 30 seconds at the end of a game. The lads career is being wasted playing for our development squad, either give him a chance or send him back, for his sake.

Dark Cloud wrote:I would suggest none of us in in a position to say Bamford is crap given how little we've seen of him. I for one wish we'd seen rather more of him so that we could actually form a proper opinion, but what we can say is that SD is probably the best judge about his abilities and he really doesn't seem to rate him enough to give him much time on the field. What I would also say is a shame is that assuming his illness is genuine AND that Chelsea had no issue with him playing, it's probably robbed him of a starting place today which would have been good for us and for him.

So you ignore what he has done for the last two seasons at other clubs , complete waste of a loan .

KRBFC wrote:Bit of a dickish move from Dyche by taking him on loan and not giving him a sniff at all, the young lad is trying to develop and could have gone elsewhere and got regular games, he came here and hasn't been given a sniff. He's certainly worthy of a chance too, he's proven himself to be a top level Championship player. Top level Championship players aren't always good enough for the PL but you never know until you actually give them more than 30 seconds at the end of a game. The lads career is being wasted playing for our development squad, either give him a chance or send him back, for his sake.

Dickish is wrong but find it hard to disagree with the rest.

HiroshimaClaret wrote:

Dickish is wrong but find it hard to disagree with the rest.

Has he really proven himself to be a 'top level championship player'?

He's had one good season Michael Ricketts and Marvin Sordell managed that! I'd trust Dyche and the rest of the coaching staff who see him on a daily basis.

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:Has he really proven himself to be a 'top level championship player'?

He's had one good season Michael Ricketts and Marvin Sordell managed that! I'd trust Dyche and the rest of the coaching staff who see him on a daily basis.

One season is the nature of the beast in football. Didn`t Ings do the same (not comparing the two AT ALL)?

Just because Dyche doesn't rate him doesn't mean he not up to it. He didn't rate Stanislas either and he's gone on to prove himself a comfortable Premiership player.

Stanislas was offered contract to stay with us for last premiership season!
Junior chose to leave (probably) to ensure increased game time

[quote="jrgbfc"]Just because Dyche doesn't rate him doesn't mean he not up to it. He didn't rate Stanislas either and he's gone on to prove himself a comfortable Premiership player.[/quote

As above he offered Stanislas a new deal which would suggest he did actually rate him.

We offered him a new deal but it was blatantly obvious he wouldn't get much football. He only really played in the promotion season when Dyche didn't really have a choice.

Any news on their injuries?

HiroshimaClaret wrote:One season is the nature of the beast in football. Didn`t Ings do the same (not comparing the two AT ALL)?

in fairness Ings did well in a relegated side in 14/15 and was playing well for Liverpool before his injury

HendricksHair wrote:in fairness Ings did well in a relegated side in 14/15 and was playing well for Liverpool before his injury

You`re right of course. Just threw Ings in there as an example. Not comparing the two - have seen nothing of Bamford for the clarets whilst Ings was magnificent for us.