• Ross Barkley

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:07 am**

We are interested in a January loan move according to Nixon

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:19 am**

AndyClaret wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:07 am
We are interested in a January loan move according to Nixon

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:22 am**

Good, it shows the new owners are going after better players.

He didn't look happy on the Chelsea bench yesterday, obviously thinks he should be on the pitch for them.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:30 am**

He hardly makes the Chelsea match day squad this season and if the player demonstrates commitment to a 6 month loan to us this reported move by the club gets my support

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:56 am**

I’m just waiting for the poster that states he’s not good enough for us and genuinely believes it

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:00 pm**

Burnley1989 wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:56 am
I’m just waiting for the poster that states he’s not good enough for us and genuinely believes it

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:04 pm**

Something drastic needed in Jan. He would be a great addition-a midfielder who can score. Other than Westwood we are woeful in the CM department for scoring. Would also allow a 451 set up, which is the only other formation to 442 that SD is prepared to play

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:09 pm**

Massive massive upgrade on what we have now.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:22 pm**

There's a really good player in there and SD might just be the person to bring out the best in him. No brainer if we can get him and afford his wages. Might turn out to be another Trippier, Mee or Keane.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:32 pm**

AndyClaret wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 11:07 am
We are interested in a January loan move according to Nixon

The interest in August was Chelsea contacting us

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:32 pm**

He's usually only good for 6 mths of the season so that's fine for us.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:37 pm**

I'd rather have Weston McKennie.
this speculation from last summer might actually get over the line. Juventus is hemorrhaging money right now, and while he does play, a lucrative offer might be too good to pass up.

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/08/31/r ... -mckennie/

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:55 pm**

ClaretTony wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:32 pm
The interest in August was Chelsea contacting us

Is that because they were able to steal money from us with Drinkwater last season

And seriously, we said no ?

Loftus Cheek showed yesterday that these so called spent players can turn it around

If there is any chance, the likes of Loftus Cheek, Barkley, Oxlade Chamberlain, Winks or even Delph are available in Jan we need a major upgrade on central midfield and they would do so

Is Dale back on the grass yet

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:58 pm**

jojomk1 wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:55 pm
Is that because they were able to steal money from us with Drinkwater last season

And seriously, we said no ?

Loftus Cheek showed yesterday that these so called spent players can turn it around

If there is any chance, the likes of Loftus Cheek, Barkley, Oxlade Chamberlain, Winks or even Delph are available in Jan we need a major upgrade on central midfield and they would do so

Is Dale back on the grass yet

Chelsea want their loanees to have guaranteed game time, decent loan fees and, where possible, wages covering to a degree.

Liverpool and City tend to have the same sort of demands and that wouldn't suit Dyche, being told who to pick.

Loftus cheek has put in the effort to get back on track after that injury, you can see it when he's playing.

Winks is an interesting suggestion, but Spurs will want silly money.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:00 pm**

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:58 pm
Winks is an interesting suggestion, but Spurs will want silly money.

We saw how difficult it was to deal with Spurs when we tried to get Kane on loan

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:09 pm**

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:58 pm
Chelsea want their loanees to have guaranteed game time, decent loan fees and, where possible, wages covering to a degree.

Liverpool and City tend to have the same sort of demands and that wouldn't suit Dyche, being told who to pick.

Loftus cheek has put in the effort to get back on track after that injury, you can see it when he's playing.

Winks is an interesting suggestion, but Spurs will want silly money.

Wasn't it also reported that Chelsea weren't offering to cover any of his wages?

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:10 pm**

If we carry on as we are we will be too far adrift to attract decent players.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:12 pm**

Would be a huge upgrade, would allow us so much flexibility in terms of changing the shape.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:18 pm**

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:58 pm
Chelsea want their loanees to have guaranteed game time, decent loan fees and, where possible, wages covering to a degree.

Liverpool and City tend to have the same sort of demands and that wouldn't suit Dyche, being told who to pick.

Loftus cheek has put in the effort to get back on track after that injury, you can see it when he's playing.

Winks is an interesting suggestion, but Spurs will want silly money.

I’ve seen this suggested before, but read it to relate more to their promising younger players, than players such as Barkley, who they obviously want rid of as opposed to caring if he plays or not.

Barkley is a huge step up in quality, if he can be motivated to deliver week in and week out.

Quite why we didn’t address a part of central midfield in the summer is anyones guess - it’s been a glaring issue for more than a few windows.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:19 pm**

AshevilleNCClaret wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:37 pm
I'd rather have Weston McKennie.
this speculation from last summer might actually get over the line. Juventus is hemorrhaging money right now, and while he does play, a lucrative offer might be too good to pass up.

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/08/31/r ... -mckennie/

I’d sell a limb for Weston Mckennie & agree Juventus probably need to sell, but Spurs, West Ham & Arsenal are all interested, apparently. London clubs who’d pay more than us. No chance, sadly.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:24 pm**

I have no problem with taking on Barkley on loan but worry that we may putting our eggs all into one basket. The squad needs some new faces though out to catch up on under investment over the last few years, financing Barkley’s wages might restrict any long term recruitment.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:24 pm**

Boss Hogg wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:10 pm
If we carry on as we are we will be too far adrift to attract decent players.

I think that’s a real risk at the moment. We’re playing well, no doubt about that, but we’ve all seen teams that play decent football go down.

As things stand we might need to look to January as an opportunity to sign players that will take us straight back up vs. Prem quality players.

If we’re in with a shout of staying up come January, I think Barkley would be top drawer and could be the difference.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:43 pm**

DCWat wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:18 pm
I’ve seen this suggested before, but read it to relate more to their promising younger players, than players such as Barkley, who they obviously want rid of as opposed to caring if he plays or not.

Barkley is a huge step up in quality, if he can be motivated to deliver week in and week out.

Quite why we didn’t address a part of central midfield in the summer is anyones guess - it’s been a glaring issue for more than a few windows.

I think it very much about control. Burnley are far more attractive for a loan once the season is shaping up. Chelsea can send players where they best suit Chelsea, giving clubs the ammo to take out their rivals while offsetting the cost of depriving clubs of long term planning. It is why the biggest clubs are so desperate to mop up every bit of talent; they may not play but they deprive other clubs of building a base to improve long term.

The club was clearly trying to ‘get by’ having not been able to meet the demands of players we wanted, something that can only be addresses sensibly as contracts run out and free up extra budget as their is unlikely to be many takers willing to offer more to the players than Burnley currently pay them.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:46 pm**

DCWat wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:18 pm
I’ve seen this suggested before, but read it to relate more to their promising younger players, than players such as Barkley, who they obviously want rid of as opposed to caring if he plays or not.

Barkley is a huge step up in quality, if he can be motivated to deliver week in and week out.

Quite why we didn’t address a part of central midfield in the summer is anyones guess - it’s been a glaring issue for more than a few windows.

We tried to sign Ryan Christie who can play across midfield, inc as an attacking cm, but he chose Bournemouth instead.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:52 pm**

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:58 pm
Chelsea want their loanees to have guaranteed game time, decent loan fees and, where possible, wages covering to a degree.

Liverpool and City tend to have the same sort of demands and that wouldn't suit Dyche, being told who to pick.

Loftus cheek has put in the effort to get back on track after that injury, you can see it when he's playing.

Winks is an interesting suggestion, but Spurs will want silly money.

Gilmour on loan at Norwich isn't getting a game.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:05 pm**

Miles better than any of our midfielders.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:16 pm**

AndyClaret wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 1:52 pm
Gilmour on loan at Norwich isn't getting a game.

4 league appearances so far, played 90mins for 3 of them and 80 mins in the other.

He's doing alright there for game time

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:26 pm**

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:16 pm
4 league appearances so far, played 90mins for 3 of them and 80 mins in the other.

He's doing alright there for game time

The panel on soccer saturday were talking about him, saying he wasn't getting enough game time but he is on loan for the season unless Chelsea have a break clause in January if he isn't playing.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:30 pm**

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:58 pm
Chelsea want their loanees to have guaranteed game time, decent loan fees and, where possible, wages covering to a degree.

Liverpool and City tend to have the same sort of demands and that wouldn't suit Dyche, being told who to pick.

Loftus cheek has put in the effort to get back on track after that injury, you can see it when he's playing.

Winks is an interesting suggestion, but Spurs will want silly money.

I think Chelsea would like to see Barkley playing just to get other clubs interested in him being taken off their books permanently

As for silly money - what do we, or other clubs for that matter, consider to be a reasonable amount to give us a better chance of more Premier League football (and financial rewards)

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:33 pm**

I am surprised Gilmour is not playing for Norwich. When I saw him playing for Chelsea last season or indeed in the Euros against England (for Scotland) he looked outstanding.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:45 pm**

AndyClaret wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:26 pm
The panel on soccer saturday were talking about him, saying he wasn't getting enough game time but he is on loan for the season unless Chelsea have a break clause in January if he isn't playing.

He's played just under half the available league game time plus some time in the cup.

Now I don't know the clauses in the contract, none of us do, but that's still pretty good.
There's a difference between getting no game time to not enough.
The Norwich manager has come out and said Gilmore will get it on merit though.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:54 pm**

Nobody can deny we need a goal scoring midfielder, and if Barkley is available in Jan we'd be mad to not at least consider him, especially as Cornet will be away on international duty for several crucial games in the new year.

And even if he only makes the difference in 3 or 4 games, that could ultimately prove vital to our survival prospects.

Wages might be high, but if it's only for a few months surely we have to take a modest gamble.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:58 pm**

It wouldn’t be a gamble tiger, he is far better than anything we have in central midfield. I know I am repeating myself but we need a total upgrade in midfield.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:04 pm**

Bad attitude, no thanks

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:07 pm**

Vino blanco wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:58 pm
It wouldn’t be a gamble tiger, he is far better than anything we have in central midfield. I know I am repeating myself but we need a total upgrade in midfield.

I don't disagree and I just hope we've got enough to keep ourselves in the PL before we carry out that upgrade next summer, for me we need a minimum of 2 CM'S.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:10 pm**

joey13 wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:04 pm
Bad attitude

Really? Beyond the control of SD ??

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:12 pm**

Barkleys biggest issue at the moment is staying away from the bar, his footballing future hangs in the balance.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:13 pm**

“Bad attitude “, it would be like bringing someone like Joey Barton into the club, wouldn’t it.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:29 pm**

Vino blanco wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:13 pm
“Bad attitude “, it would be like bringing someone like Joey Barton into the club, wouldn’t it.

I'm not sure anyone ever questioned Barton's desire or commitment, or wonder if he'd turn up and put a shift in when needed etc.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:45 pm**

Vino blanco wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:13 pm
“Bad attitude “, it would be like bringing someone like Joey Barton into the club, wouldn’t it.

Joey Barton didn’t have a bad attitude, questionable character maybe .

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 4:08 pm**

The drink?
No pun intended but it sounds like it could be Drinkwater MKIi.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 4:36 pm**

https://fanbanter.co.uk/video-drunk-ros ... -security/

Lower down there are some comments from Villa fans. The difference between him and Drinkwater seems to be that Villa got a very few good games out of him first.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:04 pm**

Barkley would be a brilliant addition, imagine actually having a cool headed ,powerful ,technically excellent attacking midfielder as opposed to the rubbish we have now.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:12 pm**

If we had Barkley I could see our midfield/attack lining up as follows

Roberts McNeil Brownhill Barkley
*********Cornet Woods***********

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:14 pm**

We haven’t seen what a fit Dale Stephens can do yet

… alright, just saying.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:15 pm**

What was the last thing Barkley did wrong for this bad attitude tag?

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:18 pm**

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:12 pm
If we had Barkley I could see our midfield/attack lining up as follows

Roberts McNeil Brownhill Barkley
*********Cornet Woods***********

Nah.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:29 pm**

We won’t be the only club interested in him if he is made available in January he’ll be on a few radars.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:41 pm**

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 6:12 pm
If we had Barkley I could see our midfield/attack lining up as follows

Roberts McNeil Brownhill Barkley
*********Cornet Woods***********

I think we could stop up with that formation.

Posted: **Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:05 pm**

joey13 wrote: ↑
Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:04 pm
Bad attitude, no thanks

Ross Barkley

Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley

Re: Ross Barkley