Confirmed by SSN

gives us a better chance of keeping hold of Tarks imho

Was Never going to leave London

Even if we don't sign anybody else there will be plenty posting that they are completely happy with our transfer business and looking forward to January.

Good.

I think it's fairly obvious that unless there is a release clause in Tarkowski's contract we won't sell for any price unless we have a replacement lined up.

Unrelated, but Neal Maupay signs for Brighton for £20m. That's £40m dropped in the last few days!

I'm not particularly fussed about this as long as we don't now suddenly lose Tarks, but I do think he'll be a good signing for them and make them much better defensively.

ksrclaret wrote:Unrelated, but Neal Maupay signs for Brighton for £20m. That's £40m dropped in the last few days!

We dont need Maupay, so if we'd got him for 5 million it would have been a waste of money.
Fulham dropped 120 million, it didn't do them any good either.

Cahill would have been a good signing, but only if we needed him.
At the moment we dont need him, so it's all irrelevant really.

Colburn_Claret wrote:We dont need Maupay, so if we'd got him for 5 million it would have been a waste of money.
Fulham dropped 120 million, it didn't do them any good either.

Cahill would have been a good signing, but only if we needed him.
At the moment we dont need him, so it's all irrelevant really.

I wasn't criticising the club there, Colburn, so you may stand down.

ksrclaret wrote:I wasn't criticising the club there, Colburn, so you may stand down.

Sorry, I didn't think you were criticising the club, I was just adding to what you said.

Very disappointing to see this one slip away. I personally think he'll be the best signing in this window.

Excellent signing for them. Assuming they hold on to Zaha as good as takes them out of the relegation mix and gives them a realistic chance of being amongst the best of the rest/finishing above United

Tend to agree lengthens the odds on Tarkowski to Leicester with the clock ticking down to Thursday and their apparent reluctance to spend too much of their windfall all in one go.

Spijed wrote:I think it's fairly obvious that unless there is a release clause in Tarkowski's contract we won't sell for any price unless we have a replacement lined up.

I think its pretty likely that if we receive a bid of say £25m+ for him, our board will see the numbers written down, **** themselves and take it regardless of whether we have a replacement lined up or not. Not really a criticism, it's just as I see it. (Long and Gibson waiting...)

Personally, if they made it £40m+, i'd go for it. But I see us shaking hands on it waaaaaayyyyyyyy before that figure is reached.

bobinho wrote:I think its pretty likely that if we receive a bid of say £25m+ for him, our board will see the numbers written down, **** themselves and take it regardless of whether we have a replacement lined up or not. Not really a criticism, it's just as I see it. (Long and Gibson waiting...)

Personally, if they made it £40m+, i'd go for it. But I see us shaking hands on it waaaaaayyyyyyyy before that figure is reached.

I don't agree. Dyche would have to agree to it.

Let's say hypothetically we received offers for ALL our first team players. If they we all very good offers does anyone really think we would sell without any replacements come in?

I don't agree with any fan who thinks we would be weaker with Gibson in the team instead of Tarkowski.

But there you are, the excitement of football opinion.

Spijed wrote:I don't agree. Dyche would have to agree to it.

Let's say hypothetically we received offers for ALL our first team players. If they we all very good offers does anyone really think we would sell without any replacements come in?

I don’t agree. Dyche would be summoned to the boardroom and it would be explained to him that a club like Burnley couldn’t afford NOT to accept the offer. Not that it would need explaining. He’s been operating under these constraints since he arrived. We are a selling club, and that’s just how it is.

And to answer your question... no. I don’t think we would sell everyone, but it’s so unlikely as to make the argument invalid. We would most certainly sell our prized asset for a very good offer.

If BFC agree to sell Tarkowski for £25m (less the 25% due to Brentford) somebody will have had our trousers down and given us a good spanking.

bobinho wrote:I think its pretty likely that if we receive a bid of say £25m+ for him, our board will see the numbers written down, **** themselves and take it regardless of whether we have a replacement lined up or not. Not really a criticism, it's just as I see it. (Long and Gibson waiting...)

Personally, if they made it £40m+, i'd go for it. But I see us shaking hands on it waaaaaayyyyyyyy before that figure is reached.

What utter ********

ashtonlongsider wrote:Very disappointing to see this one slip away. I personally think he'll be the best signing in this window.

I agree. He pretty much bossed the show at Turf Moor when we lost at home 2 - 1.

Furthermore his extensive experience of playing more regularly against top class forwards might have given our back line a better chance of success against the top six sides. Aubemeyang ripped our lads to bits in the last game of the season and every time previously.

Archer wrote:What utter ********

Well you’re having the best of the argument so far. I particularly like the way you explain your point using all the facts (as you see then) at your disposal, and the eloquent way you get that across. Please feel free to continue your persuasive argument.

Palarse paying Gary £75k a week
A recipe for disaster on their gates and with current wage bill

Spijed wrote:I think it's fairly obvious that unless there is a release clause in Tarkowski's contract we won't sell for any price unless we have a replacement lined up.

I think it very obvious that he will have a release clause mainly because his agent will have insisted and also because we have been linked with other cbs. Hopefully that clause prevents him enacting it at this late stage as common sense would do. If not we are not in control of one of if not the most crucial of positions.

With Tarks, Mee, Gibson and Long, to spend £75k on a fourth CB with perhaps at best two years left in his legs, would be criminal for our football club. If we were to consider even getting close to paying this as a weekly wage then someone without a sick note for the middle of the park would be fairly high on most fans list.

Did you all seriously think he'd uproot his family from London. He’s clearly been hanging on for the best deal he could get closest to home. It’s not football manager this is real peoples lives.

Good. No proper pre-season, slow anyway. Legs won't last the two year deal.

bobinho wrote:I don’t agree. Dyche would be summoned to the boardroom and it would be explained to him that a club like Burnley couldn’t afford NOT to accept the offer. Not that it would need explaining. He’s been operating under these constraints since he arrived. We are a selling club, and that’s just how it is.

And to answer your question... no. I don’t think we would sell everyone, but it’s so unlikely as to make the argument invalid. We would most certainly sell our prized asset for a very good offer.

But that runs contrary to Dyche's unequivocal statement that we don't need to sell anyone. He's banged on about this for upwards of 2 years now and more so recently, so why would the club start rubbing their hands at offers if we don't actually need to sell, it is tantamount to accusing the board of being greedy. Dyche also said at weekend that no offers have been made and no discussions had and he expected Tarks to be in the side on Saturday. All this doesn't sound to me like he's on his way. As I said on the Tarks thread yesterday there are far to many people on here 'selling' Tarks before the club has even had an offer. Heaton went because he wanted to go and he was out of contract next summer so the board cashed in, not surprisingly, but the same situation does not arise with Tarks.

bobinho wrote:Well you’re having the best of the argument so far. I particularly like the way you explain your point using all the facts (as you see then) at your disposal, and the eloquent way you get that across. Please feel free to continue your persuasive argument.

Seems I was right

Scoured the internet for news of Tarkowski to Juve for £65m, but can’t seem to find it.

Care to elaborate Archer?

Cahill's not the future.

He's not even all that good anymore. Chelsea have binned him for a reason.

We have 3 better centre halves than Cahill at the club already.