Media down here saying that Villa are looking to loan him as cover to McGinn when we return him next week ???

You get that funny feeling that with a run of some games there he might turn out to be a good move. John Terry of course will know him

Let him play for them on NYD. He will still be pi55ed!

If rumours are true, and we've been subbing Chelsea's wage bill to the tune of £50,000 a week, for the privilege of trying to get Mr Drink(not)Water either interested or match-fit, then they are welcome ....

In retrospect, the thought does occur that if we'd sent him back after the " nightclub incident " on 31st August, and donated even half of the " alleged " £650,000 ( 13 weeks at £50k ) to BFC in the Community, the world would be a better place !!

Worst loan in a history of appalling loans. In fact a Wonga loan has more going for it.

bfcjg wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:36 pm

Worst loan in a history of appalling loans. In fact a Wonga loan has more going for it.

Villa’s interest isn’t as high as Wongas.

Clarets4me wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:33 pm

If rumours are true, and we've been subbing Chelsea's wage bill to the tune of £50,000 a week, for the privilege of trying to get Mr Drink(not)Water either interested or match-fit, then they are welcome ....

In retrospect, the thought does occur that if we'd sent him back after the " nightclub incident " on 31st August, and donated even half of the " alleged " £650,000 ( 13 weeks at £50k ) to BFC in the Community, the world would be a better place !!

This is THE most frustrating thing. For an apparently frugal, well run club we don't have spunk some money on loans.

I actually felt he was going to be an astute loan. How wrong was I. In fact I would go as far as saying the whole thing has been a disgrace. A very expensive insurance policy. We could have BOUGHT a player for that even in this day and age. Or spent it on overseas scouting etc.

It was a catch 22. Cause send him back after the nightclub incident and Hendrick does his ACL and we are totally snookered. So at that point we HAD to keep him.

Our whole approach to loans generally though is bizarre. With the odd couple of exceptions.

Maybe, just maybe he hasn't been receiving his full wage packet contribution from us
due to breach of contract and being unable to play as a result of his off-the-field activities.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:38 pm

Villa’s interest isn’t as high as Wongas.

Genius, hat's off to you for that one Riley !!

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:41 pm

Our whole approach to loans generally though is bizarre.

Dyche is not only a stickler for keeping the same starting 11 but also seems stubborn to never play a loan player unless they are on a season long loan with a clause to buy, effectively making them our player.

I thought this loan could have been different given the lack of game time Drinkwater has had since leaving Leicester, his history with Dyche and the fact we are crying out for an athletic, ball playing CM.

Doesn't do his request for more transfer funds any favours with signings like this, albeit DD does have to take partial blame for not being fit sooner, but he's been fit for weeks and cannot get on the pitch.

Row Z wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:14 am

Dyche is not only a stickler for keeping the same starting 11 but also seems stubborn to never play a loan player unless they are on a season long loan with a clause to buy, effectively making them our player.

I thought this loan could have been different given the lack of game time Drinkwater has had since leaving Leicester, his history with Dyche and the fact we are crying out for an athletic, ball playing CM.

Doesn't do his request for more transfer funds any favours with signings like this, albeit DD does have to take partial blame for not being fit sooner, but he's been fit for weeks and cannot get on the pitch.

According to some of my family who went, at Bournemouth the players all walked out and met the fans. Drinkwater walked round the back of the coach to avoid doing so.

Completely at odds with Dyches character assesments. I was convinced even until November he was going to get in the side and push on.

warksclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Media down here saying that Villa are looking to loan him...

Who's given them that story, DD's agent?
Given his lack of game time and other issues at Chelsea, then Burnley's signing of DD in September had an element of risk, though I and indeed it would seem the majority on here agreed with the BFC Board insofar as it looked like a risk worth taking. Now however, the AV Directors are reportedly making a similar consideration/decision with regard to securing DD's services, but seeing a CV which now includes his Burnley history too; unless they're being offered him for a lot less than the £50k/week we've reputedly paid, I find it hard to believe he still looks like a risk worth taking.

If DD wants a real experience he should try hitting on someone's girlfriend in Aston instead. I doubt he'd come out of an Aston pub alive.

I think we will sign him in January.

Danieljwaterhouse wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:40 am

I think we will sign him in January.

agree...and hope we do!

claretblue wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:53 am

agree...and hope we do!

Permanently?

Do you think Dyche hasn't been playing him to avoid him being in the shop window?

I can't see it myself. I also can't see him wanting to come and sit on the bench constantly. He'll have had enough time chatting to Gibson on our bench.

I think it was already in place as part of the loan. Dyche has just been flexing on DD and preparing him for the ‘culture’ of the club. I get the impression Dyche is a good man manager and very honest with players.

I hope so at least.

Making decent signings in January is notoriously difficult and yet we desperately seem in need of a freshen up. IMO SD could do a whole lot worse than asking Chelsea to let him stay and then, having spent ages getting him physically and mentally fit, let's start playing him and see what the second half of the season brings. Just an idea like!!

Such a shame.Thought it was going to be a great signing when it happened (same feeling as signing Joey), but even the most positive claret would struggle to find a good reason to keep him

What baffles me though is the persistence in having him on the bench knowing he wont come on, and the scene in a few of our recent defeats was right for him to come on (particularly with Hendrick refusing to sign). Lets hope his wages are used wisely and promptly

The fault lies mainly with Drinkwater imo. He has had a couple of cameos and looked for all the world, disinterested.

He hasn't gone out of his way to endear himself to the fans even to the point of looking surly in his initial media appearence.

The other problem is a sport that pays massive money to people prepared to contribute little towards doing their job.

Oh how football needs reforming, realistic salaries with performance related bonus schemes across all Clubs not just ones at the bottom of the pile.

That money isn't going to be here forever and we currently see players with less than a seasons worth of appearences across their whole career retiring as millionairres.

For the record, I was delighted when we announced his loan and thought he was going to be our seasons star player.

Chelsea obviously know better.

JohnMac wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:57 am

thought he was going to be our seasons star player

still 18 games to go John!

I was sceptical about Lampard at Chelsea but he has been much better than I thought. He was very much bang on about the busted flushes that are David Luiz and Danny Drinkwater.....and shipped them out.

Still curious as to why he wasn't fit when he arrived...that was before his night club incident. As a registered Chelsea player he was surely both obliged and entitled to full preseason training from them.

Given our ropey performances recently and the fact he hasn't had any game time at all since City I'd be amazed if we extended his loan spell

Conte and Sarri are managing Inter and Juve who occupy the top two slots in Serie A, and they gave Drinkwater 5 EPL starts between them, all under Conte in the honeymoon period. Frank bombed him out the door after pre-season and Dyche has more or less cold-shouldered him re team selection.

So it looks like a bit of a pattern developing

Re the alleged Villa interest, if there is any I imagine that will soon dissipate once Terry gets on the phone to his old mate Frank and asks him for the low down.

IMHO Chelsea ought to loan us Giroud for the rest of the season by way of compensation and pay his wages.

It's a shame he hasn't been the midfield player we need, but not really a surprise as his own club clearly don't rate him and he hasn't shown any genuine class for three years.

I was excited by him coming, very disappointing so far but mainly the players fault and not being SD fit. Given effort has been put in to get him fit plus the money spent I would hope that he stays and gets in the team, it will be difficult enough given the loyalty SD shows to the squad. However he sees him in training and if he thinks he could make a difference then hopefully he will put him in, however having not played 90 min's for so long it will be difficult in the beginning, but the current midfield is not what I call great or what I had hoped for.

I'd love to see him go to Villa.

Would like to think that if he is going then let a place on the bench tomorrow go to a more deserving squad player, or someone from the U-23's

Looking back at the last transfer window I suspect signing someone as high profile as DD was a smoke screen for our lack lustre efforts at signing anyone that could benefit the team-and its back fired and been dam expensive. Seem to recall the only other signings were Jay Rod and Pieters when we had only escaped relegation by a few points

Does his loan end today or Jan 1st or 31st?

mdd2 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:30 pm

Does his loan end today or Jan 1st or 31st?

For some reason I think it ends on the 6th?

Thinks its 6 Jan

Thanks
Seems an odd date, Monday Jan 6th

Thanks
Seems an odd date, Monday Jan 6th

...or it’s the first Monday in January...

He's been a monumental waste of money. Shame we couldn't have punted him back to Chelsea after his night club incident. May as well have had an U23 on the bench

Petersa wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:54 am

Still curious as to why he wasn't fit when he arrived...that was before his night club incident. As a registered Chelsea player he was surely both obliged and entitled to full preseason training from them.

This has puzzled me also! He was not an 'out of contract player',although, many such players strive to keep their fitness up(hungry fighters and all that). Chelsea perhaps said "yeh, yeh, he's had a pre season and all that stuff".

Row Z wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:14 am

I thought this loan could have been different given the lack of game time Drinkwater has had since leaving Leicester, his history with Dyche and the fact we are crying out for an athletic, ball playing CM.

I dare say the Man City game wasn't the best to judge his ball playing skills, but I didn't see much sign of athleticism.

Turning out to be a ridiculous signing. We pay him a fortune, he sits on the bench and rarely gets on.
If Dyche has no intention of playing him why put him on the bench, it would be far better having one of the under 23 lads sat there.
Beginning to think that their is a pay has you play clause written into his contract

I don't know why anyone actually loans us any players considering the little playing time they actually receive.

Think we can all see by now that Dyche will not make a change to the team unless under exceptional circumstances.

Drinkwater has fluffed up his lines with the incident but he has been fit now for some time and is clearly an upgrade to what we already have in the centre of the park.

How can a guy who has played so little in the last two years and shows little enthusiasm or ability when on for his cameos be an called an upgrade.