• James Tarkowski in the news

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:17 am**

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... lause.html

Glad we have such a high release clause if true

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:19 am**

Bite their Hand off.....

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:22 am**

Isn't that the same story from the same club as a year ago?

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:24 am**

He did not “quickly establish himself” at Turf Moor - he had to wait over a season before he became a regular.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:32 am**

The interesting story in one of the tabloids is that Henderson the GK on loan to Sheff Utd will not sign a new contract with Man Utd unless he becomes No 1 keeper at Old Trafford-if you can believe this.

This has led the press to speculate that Chelsea would bid £55m for Henderson to solve their GK problem

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:35 am**

Id sell him for 30 mil

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:35 am**

jojomk1 wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:17 am
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... lause.html

Glad we have such a high release clause if true

If Gibson hadnt been a naughty boy this would have been a tempting situation. In fact would have been a no brainer. (Yes I know Gibson is a left footer).

If they offered £50m and we could strike a deal to get Keane back for less, then would be something to consider.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:44 am**

Wellsy1882 wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:35 am
Id sell him for 30 mil

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:52 am**

Wellsy1882 wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:35 am
Id sell him for 30 mil

Put that rod away

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:28 am**

I thought release clauses were banned in UK contracts?

Imagine Leicester now feel more comfortable about their CB situation than they did last year. If they weren’t prepared to splash £50m last year after selling Maguire I can’t see why they would now, having developed a decent pairing. If he did go, it may be for cover and that would not be good for his career.

Another opportunity will open up for him if his form continues.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:32 am**

100m for Tarky and Pope would be superb business. We’d need to splash to replace Tarky though

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:34 am**

AlargeClaret wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:32 am
100m for Tarky and Pope would be superb business. We’d need to splash to replace Tarky though

We'd need a backup/first team keeper, and with Gibson leaving too, we'd arguably need 2 CBs. It would be a challenge to replace them.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:59 am**

FactualFrank wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:34 am
We'd need a backup/first team keeper, and with Gibson leaving too, we'd arguably need 2 CBs. It would be a challenge to replace them.

Maybe, but surely we are prepared for it all. Tarks must be wanted by many atm and the shortlist for Gibson's replacement already being actioned.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:08 pm**

I'd rather keep Tarky than Pope or McNeil, if we were selling one.

The club could not turn down £100m for Pope and Tarkowski though, it just couldn't. That's almost like another seasons worth of Premier League income just given to us.

Tarky is an outstanding player though and would be nigh on impossible to replace like for like, but, Dyche knows how to make a CB a real player. I'd back him to get someone in and surprise us.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:11 pm**

If Leicester can sell Big Head for £80m then they can pay £80m for Tarky.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:27 pm**

BurnleyFC wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:11 pm
If Leicester can sell Big Head for £80m then they can pay £80m for Tarky.

Given there's a £50m release clause, I don't imagine they'd offer £80m.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:46 pm**

Not a chance I'd be selling tarkowski or anyone this summer unless we get absolute stupid amounts offered (80m plus for pope and similar for tarks). The reason being is the quick turnaround. It is absolutely imperative that we have the core of our team in place because they have a full understanding of our system. Any sales in crucial areas this summer doesn't leave a lot of time at all to become 'alligned' and 'dyche fit'. We simply don't have a full pre season to drill the system into any potential new partnership. A solution would be to start the season with long and mee and BPF but that would be a gamble.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:07 pm**

If we fail to get a club to hit the 50m release fee this summer, then I think we would struggle to get much more than 25m next summer when his deal would only have 12 months left on it, and he'd be free to talk to clubs from January of that season.

We might see it as the last chance to get the 50m, and to be fair it would be a great deal for this club, IF it meant Mr Dyche could bring in 2 or 3 players he wanted, that are upgrades on what we have, and can genuinely be considered first team players.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:20 pm**

With the current revenue situation we may see a few go for less than their worth.

BFC would never do that would they?

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:31 pm**

*Deleted Post*

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:35 pm**

Or is it this seasons? ive been wfh too long ha

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:35 pm**

Bfcboyo wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:20 pm
With the current revenue situation we may see a few go for less than their worth.

BFC would never do that would they?

If the market moves it’s all relative as the players we would be interested in buying would also be cheaper.

Luckily we have a £50m release clause which means we don’t have to sell.

Either way we have done a pretty incredible job with out transfer sales in the last 8 years so I’m not sure what you are getting at. It’s the reason our net spend is so little compared to almost every other team in the league and the reason why we have continued to post good profits despite the big increases in our wage bill.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:43 pm**

MACCA wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:07 pm
If we fail to get a club to hit the 50m release fee this summer, then I think we would struggle to get much more than 25m next summer when his deal would only have 12 months left on it, and he'd be free to talk to clubs from January of that season.

We might see it as the last chance to get the 50m, and to be fair it would be a great deal for this club, IF it meant Mr Dyche could bring in 2 or 3 players he wanted, that are upgrades on what we have, and can genuinely be considered first team players.

But he could bring more than £25m in value anyway. Sometimes losing a player towards the end of the contract isnt a bad thing. It means we have got longer out of them and they have paid their worth in a different way.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:08 pm**

Tarks will also be thinking about next years Euros and the best way to break into the team.
Based on last season and especially since the restart I don’t think there was an English centre back who played aswell as Tarks did.

Tarks will surely look at his mate Michael Keane and what happened to his form and England career when he joined Everton.
Hopefully Tarks will think continuing to stand out for Burnley as he does will get him in the team for a big international tournament which has got to be any players dream and his inevitable move to a bigger club will happen after.
And there is no reason I can see with Tarks that it can’t be one of the big 6 clubs - he’d walk into Chelsea Spurs, and Arsenal team in that position. He’s probably good enough to partner Maguire at United and Laporte at City and he’s been better than Gomez at Liverpool this season.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:13 pm**

TVC15 wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:08 pm
Tarks will also be thinking about next years Euros and the best way to break into the team.
Based on last season and especially since the restart I don’t think there was an English centre back who played aswell as Tarks did.

Tarks will surely look at his mate Michael Keane and what happened to his form and England career when he joined Everton.
Hopefully Tarks will think continuing to stand out for Burnley as he does will get him in the team for a big international tournament which has got to be any players dream and his inevitable move to a bigger club will happen after.
And there is no reason I can see with Tarks that it can’t be one of the big 6 clubs - he’d walk into Chelsea Spurs, and Arsenal team in that position. He’s probably good enough to partner Maguire at United and Laporte at City and he’s been better than Gomez at Liverpool this season.

Gomez is a prime example of a player looking better than he actually is because he plays next to VVD

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:30 pm**

I really don’t think selling Tarkowksi is the right move, even if a big offer comes in (I appreciate 50m might leave us no choice due to the release clause) I cannot think of one centre half we could realistically sign who would be remotely of his class, even if we spent the whole 50m.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:31 pm**

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:43 pm
But he could bring more than £25m in value anyway. Sometimes losing a player towards the end of the contract isnt a bad thing. It means we have got longer out of them and they have paid their worth in a different way.

Possibly, I'm not sure the board will see it like that though.

I think they know SD has been performing miracles keeping us up, and even with Tarky gone and a new CB brought in, I think we would still be ok.
Remember the aim of our board every season is to finish 17th or higher and make as much money as possible.

Hopefully if Tarky did leave for 50m, it would allow is to strengthen 3 areas of the team, and still post profits as we will hopefully have the net spend at 0

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:35 pm**

Would keep at all costs

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:54 pm**

It’s the lad’s career you’re talking about. He’s been terrific for us. If a large club comes in with a great offer, we have to let him take his chance. Bank the cash and use it to fund a few signings.

I’d sooner we kept McNeill, Pope and Mee.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:22 pm**

Hedontplayforyou wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:35 pm
Would keep at all costs

That's out of our hands should a club come in with 50m

Sad thing is, is when Brentford take their cut, we could be left with under 40m.
Its massive money to us, but it only gets us 1 or 2 proven premier league players at best.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:39 pm**

And then there's the taxman's cut as well.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:57 pm**

I feel he is our best player, would be gutted to see him go.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:38 pm**

Could we not extend his contract to prevent him being a "dimishing assett", unlike the Hendrick situation

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:58 pm**

No replacement on the bench so no sale for me unless the scouts have someone lined up, hopefully not Akela

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:19 pm**

MACCA wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:22 pm
That's out of our hands should a club come in with 50m

Sad thing is, is when Brentford take their cut, we could be left with under 40m.
Its massive money to us, but it only gets us 1 or 2 proven premier league players at best.

But JT wasn't a proven premier league player when we bought him - he was very good, and there should be more like him somewhere Mr Rigg?

Surely that is the pathway we have to follow - we don't have the financial clout (or even kudos) to battle against other top level clubs for proven PL players

Tarks still has a very good chance of getting to the Euro's next year but he will have to be playing every game, and it would be a big personal risk for him to move to another club when not certain to start

If we are serious about keeping this guy then a new contract offer should be on the table this summer

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:34 pm**

Maybe 20% of any fee is going to Brentford, they will be able to sign some real gems with a nest egg like that. I just hope we can keep Tarky for another season, he has been nothing short of excellent and I don't think we can really replace from within without taking a huge gamble on a youngster.

No good speculating about a replacement, I'll leave that to Dyche!

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:44 pm**

warksclaret wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:38 pm
Could we not extend his contract to prevent him being a "dimishing assett", unlike the Hendrick situation

Only if he was willing to sign one. Which I'm not sure he would, realistically if he wants to further his career he needs to move on in the next year or so. He's coming into his prime and this could be his only chance of getting a big move.

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 7:51 pm**

If Tarky wants to stay at Burnley,He will,If he doesnt he will move,does he want to move ,the grass is not always greener,Sean will sort it!

Posted: **Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:00 pm**

If £80m for Maguire is the benchmark, I’d be surprised if someone doesn’t offer the release fee, and Tarkowski will probably go for the higher wages and to enhance his England chances.

For all his frequent visits to the Turf, Southgate seems reluctant to pick our players. On last seasons form, he and Pope should be shoo-ins for the squad, if not the team.

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:01 am**

Do Brentford have a sell on clause?

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:34 am**

wickdkewlclaret wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:01 am
Do Brentford have a sell on clause?

25% sell on fee I think. Rumours of Everton's interest for £40 million. Nixon suggested Brentford would get £10 million of that so. If true, they'd get £12.5 million of a £50 million deal.

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 am**

BenWickes wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:34 am
25% sell on fee I think. Rumours of Everton's interest for £40 million. Nixon suggested Brentford would get £10 million of that so. If true, they'd get £12.5 million of a £50 million deal.

This is one thing that we need to nip in the bud, giving substantial sell-on clauses, i'd rather pay a little more in the first place and lower the sell-on clauses.

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:57 am**

C'mon folks, this is the Daily Mail.
As if they are privy to any information about a release clause.
If there is one at all.

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:50 pm**

cricketfieldclarets wrote: ↑
Wed Aug 05, 2020 10:35 am
If Gibson hadnt been a naughty boy this would have been a tempting situation. In fact would have been a no brainer. (Yes I know Gibson is a left footer).

If they offered £50m and we could strike a deal to get Keane back for less, then would be something to consider.

What did Gibson do to be a naughty boy?

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:17 pm**

claretandy wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 am
This is one thing that we need to nip in the bud, giving substantial sell-on clauses, i'd rather pay a little more in the first place and lower the sell-on clauses.

If only it was that easy mate

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:31 pm**

claretandy wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:48 am
This is one thing that we need to nip in the bud, giving substantial sell-on clauses, i'd rather pay a little more in the first place and lower the sell-on clauses.

But if you pay more you always lose. Paying out of realised profits is always safer

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:47 pm**

Much rather have a sell on to pay from a large profit from any transfer. Guarantees the player and normally the club has done well at the same time.

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:49 pm**

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:17 pm
If only it was that easy mate

We paid peanuts for Ben Mee but City have a 40% sell-on, now hopefully Ben won't ever be sold. Tarky on the other hand, if we'd have payed a bit more up front to lower the sell-on from 25% to 15%, that could be worth £5M.

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:55 pm**

claretandy wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:49 pm
We paid peanuts for Ben Mee but City have a 40% sell-on, now hopefully Ben won't ever be sold. Tarky on the other hand, if we'd have payed a bit more up front to lower the sell-on from 25% to 15%, that could be worth £5M.

It's another of those after the fact, just as it was with a few posters on here saying we shouldn't have signed Gibson because Mee or Tarky didn't get injuries.

A higher sell-on fee in exchange for paying less, lowers the risk from our end, as we didn't know he'd turn into a £50m player. Also, Brentford may have refused a lower % anyway and probably would have / did, as they are renowned for selling players with high sell-on clauses.

Posted: **Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:15 pm**

FactualFrank wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:55 pm
It's another of those after the fact, just as it was with a few posters on here saying we shouldn't have signed Gibson because Mee or Tarky didn't get injuries.

A higher sell-on fee in exchange for paying less, lowers the risk from our end, as we didn't know he'd turn into a £50m player. Also, Brentford may have refused a lower % anyway and probably would have / did, as they are renowned for selling players with high sell-on clauses.

It could also be us not willing to pay the fee, it costs you more in the long run, especially when you end up with a Pope or Tarkowski worth 50m + each.

James Tarkowski in the news

James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news

Re: James Tarkowski in the news