Conversely, can you imagine the butthurt outrage if we had let him walk?ashtonlongsider wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:40 pmMust say I find it hard to believe we activated an extension clause for Brady.
Dyche & Garlick
-
- Posts: 1513
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:59 pm
- Been Liked: 987 times
- Has Liked: 1056 times
- Location: Yavin 4
Re: Dyche & Garlick
This user liked this post: Zlatan
-
- Posts: 8996
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
- Been Liked: 2013 times
- Has Liked: 2910 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
Must be some serious questions being asked about just how fragile his ribs really are. Why was that not flagged up prior to him signing?ashtonlongsider wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:40 pmMust say I find it hard to believe we activated an extension clause for Brady.
Re: Dyche & Garlick
With regard to our Centre-back situation, Ben Mee will surely be back in a few weeks, and with Tarkowski I would guess that it is a matter of waiting to see whether an offer comes in that we think is acceptable. Something around £40 million I would expect. If it doesn't he stays, if it does then I expect contingency plans are in place to fill the gap. As it stands, Long and Dunne have shown themselves to be suitable for numbers three and four, and if Tarkowski stays we will be well enough equipped there.
Another guess is that Gibson was brought in at a time when Ben Mee's situation was in doubt, and as Gibson was available it was thought wise to get him in. As it was, Mee and Tarkowski stayed fit throughout most of the season, and Gibson was left out, and left unhappy. I don't think we should bring in another expensive centre-back until it is certain that an acceptable offer has been made for Tarkowski and he will agree to move to the club that makes it.
Just guesses, but I this would seem to be the most likely situation at present.
Another guess is that Gibson was brought in at a time when Ben Mee's situation was in doubt, and as Gibson was available it was thought wise to get him in. As it was, Mee and Tarkowski stayed fit throughout most of the season, and Gibson was left out, and left unhappy. I don't think we should bring in another expensive centre-back until it is certain that an acceptable offer has been made for Tarkowski and he will agree to move to the club that makes it.
Just guesses, but I this would seem to be the most likely situation at present.
-
- Posts: 1513
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:59 pm
- Been Liked: 987 times
- Has Liked: 1056 times
- Location: Yavin 4
Re: Dyche & Garlick
The irony around the Gibson situation is funny. If he hadn't been such a little b*tch he would have probably played the last 10 Premier league games for Burnley, instead of being on Norwich's bench in the league below.
These 3 users liked this post: Steve-Harpers-perm JohnDearyMe DCWat
-
- Posts: 5792
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1884 times
- Has Liked: 841 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
Don’t really get the argument we should no longer buy an expensive player on the off chance he’s a massive baby and throws his toys out of the pram when he can’t get in the team.Erasmus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:56 pmWith regard to our Centre-back situation, Ben Mee will surely be back in a few weeks, and with Tarkowski I would guess that it is a matter of waiting to see whether an offer comes in that we think is acceptable. Something around £40 million I would expect. If it doesn't he stays, if it does then I expect contingency plans are in place to fill the gap. As it stands, Long and Dunne have shown themselves to be suitable for numbers three and four, and if Tarkowski stays we will be well enough equipped there.
Another guess is that Gibson was brought in at a time when Ben Mee's situation was in doubt, and as Gibson was available it was thought wise to get him in. As it was, Mee and Tarkowski stayed fit throughout most of the season, and Gibson was left out, and left unhappy. I don't think we should bring in another expensive centre-back until it is certain that an acceptable offer has been made for Tarkowski and he will agree to move to the club that makes it.
Just guesses, but I this would seem to be the most likely situation at present.
-
- Posts: 5543
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:05 pm
- Been Liked: 2340 times
- Has Liked: 1405 times
- Location: Costa del Padihamos beach.
Re: Dyche & Garlick
Gordaleman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:30 pmHow else do you bring players in? You have to give them contracts of some sort and so far as I'm aware, we can only have one loan player, who may still arrive.
None of the players who have left were worth keeping anyway, with the exception of Hendrick. So it's not as though we've lost key players. No one could have foreseen the injury situation, or the Tarky situation. (If he isn't injured.) Could that crunching tackle on JBG have been foreseen? Of course not. That only happened two weeks ago, so give the board a chance to do something about it.
It's crazy that the transfer window goes deep into the season, but until that changes, we just have to live with it.
How else do we bring players in? We could loan a few. They don't have to be given 3-5 year deals. We could opt for shorter term deals. I'm sorry but we couldn't have foreseen the injury situation? We knew very early on about our injury situation with a lot of key players, and again while the Brady and JBG are recent injuries, I don't buy the fact that they were unforseen because of their records of being available in previous seasons. It's just basic planning to get cover for injury prone players. The extention of the Brady contract in the first place was baffling and I can only assume it was because Dyche couldn't trust the board to bring in replacements in time.
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 605 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
"We could loan a few" So far as I'm aware, you are only allowed to loan one.gandhisflipflop wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:02 pmHow else do we bring players in? We could loan a few. They don't have to be given 3-5 year deals. We could opt for shorter term deals. I'm sorry but we couldn't have foreseen the injury situation? We knew very early on about our injury situation with a lot of key players, and again while the Brady and JBG are recent injuries, I don't buy the fact that they were unforseen because of their records of being available in previous seasons. It's just basic planning to get cover for injury prone players. The extention of the Brady contract in the first place was baffling and I can only assume it was because Dyche couldn't trust the board to bring in replacements in time.
"Shorter term deals" How many decent players would come on shorter-term deals? It's hard enough anyway without saying "We only want you for 12 months."
I agree that Brady was baffling, as I don't rate him at all, but you can't say JBG was 'Expected' to get clattered the way he did. Everyone thought he was ready for a full fitness season having stayed home during the international week purely to be fully ready.
Ben Mee was expected to be fit, so was Tarky (Fake injury or not.)
Had these things gone our way, we would have been fine.
-
- Posts: 3922
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 834 times
- Has Liked: 1331 times
- Location: burnley
Re: Dyche & Garlick
What evidence was there for JBG being ready for a full season and that Mee would be fit? In the latter case the physio should be sacked if he said that. I will vote for you for Chair of the Happy Clapper Club though.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:36 pm"We could loan a few" So far as I'm aware, you are only allowed to loan one.
"Shorter term deals" How many decent players would come on shorter-term deals? It's hard enough anyway without saying "We only want you for 12 months."
I agree that Brady was baffling, as I don't rate him at all, but you can't say JBG was 'Expected' to get clattered the way he did. Everyone thought he was ready for a full fitness season having stayed home during the international week purely to be fully ready.
Ben Mee was expected to be fit, so was Tarky (Fake injury or not.)
Had these things gone our way, we would have been fine.
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 605 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
So no comment on the fact that your multiple loan idea wouldn't work, or that players wouldn't come on short term contracts then?summitclaret wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:41 pmWhat evidence was there for JBG being ready for a full season and that Mee would be fit? In the latter case the physio should be sacked if he said that. I will vote for you for Chair of the Happy Clapper Club though.
Don't you think we would have already gone down those routes if they were feasible?
As for JBG , both he and Sean commented on how fit he was, coming into the season, so there isn't much that you got right. The fact that JBG is only going to be out for a relatively short time after that horrendous tackle, is probably, at least in part to his overall general fitness.
-
- Posts: 3922
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 834 times
- Has Liked: 1331 times
- Location: burnley
Re: Dyche & Garlick
What ?
-
- Posts: 3922
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
- Been Liked: 834 times
- Has Liked: 1331 times
- Location: burnley
Re: Dyche & Garlick
As for JBG. I think he is great, but he will do a hamstring not longer after he is back based on his track record.
Re: Dyche & Garlick
*cough*Gordaleman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:39 pmNo doubt then that you will offer your apologies when you turn out to be wrong then?
Where’s Goredaleman hiding?
This user liked this post: BabylonClaret
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 605 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
He's not hiding, he's just fed up of all the pointless whingeing on here.
What good does it do? Do you think the board will take the slightest bit of notice of what you say? Of course they won't. They are the guardians of our club, and like most other clubs in this window, they are being ultra cautious because of the Covid uncertainty.
Honestly, I've never ever known such whining babies in my life.
I'm glad you're not in charge, you can't even spell my name when it's written in front of you, let alone run a football club.
Last edited by Gordaleman on Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2065
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:21 pm
- Been Liked: 217 times
- Has Liked: 97 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
Hello MikeGordaleman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:17 pmHe's not hiding, he's just fed up of all the pointless whingeing on here.
What good does it do? Do you think the board will take the slightest bit of notice of what you say? Of course they won't. They are the guardians of our club, and like most other clubs in this window, they are being ultra cautious because of the Covid uncertainty.
Honestly, I've never ever known such whining babies in my life.
-
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:25 pm
- Been Liked: 313 times
- Has Liked: 285 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
Those guardians are in for some serious bunceGordaleman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:17 pmHe's not hiding, he's just fed up of all the pointless whingeing on here.
What good does it do? Do you think the board will take the slightest bit of notice of what you say? Of course they won't. They are the guardians of our club, and like most other clubs in this window, they are being ultra cautious because of the Covid uncertainty.
Honestly, I've never ever known such whining babies in my life.
I'm glad you're not in charge, you can't even spell my name when it's written in front of you, let alone run a football club.
-
- Posts: 3982
- Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:04 pm
- Been Liked: 855 times
- Has Liked: 605 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
Really? You must have heard something the rest of us haven't. Or are you just guessing again?
Re: Dyche & Garlick
Over a billion spent by Premier League clubs this window.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:17 pmThey are the guardians of our club, and like most other clubs in this window, they are being ultra cautious because of the Covid uncertainty.
This user liked this post: Rumbletonk
-
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:25 pm
- Been Liked: 313 times
- Has Liked: 285 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
I can only give my word. Take that as you will
Re: Dyche & Garlick
Do please name these other ultra cautious Premier League clubs.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:17 pmHe's not hiding, he's just fed up of all the pointless whingeing on here.
What good does it do? Do you think the board will take the slightest bit of notice of what you say? Of course they won't. They are the guardians of our club, and like most other clubs in this window, they are being ultra cautious because of the Covid uncertainty.
Honestly, I've never ever known such whining babies in my life.
I'm glad you're not in charge, you can't even spell my name when it's written in front of you, let alone run a football club.
This user liked this post: Rumbletonk
Re: Dyche & Garlick
That's a number without context. The point the poster was making above was that there has been a depression. Last summer saw PL clubs spend approx £1.4b. This summer looks to be down by anywhere between £300m and £400m. The Championship has also slumped by about £100m, down to approx £70m+ but rising (last I saw a few days ago) from £175m last year. Around one pound in every three spent on PL transfer fees this summer have come from two clubs - Chelsea and City - who for obvious reasons (political ones) operate according to a different logic to most other clubs, to say nothing of the fact they were already incredibly wealthy to begin with. Aye, a billion has been spent, but that doesn't make the arguments that there has been a bit of a squeeze invalid.
This user liked this post: GodIsADeeJay81
-
- Posts: 7361
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 8:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2220 times
- Has Liked: 2211 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
People are certainly keeping Dwight's imminent transfer very quiet.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:35 pmReally? You must have heard something the rest of us haven't. Or are you just guessing again?
Re: Dyche & Garlick
He didn’t say “a bit of a squeeze”. He said “ultra-cautious“.Spiral wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:19 pmThat's a number without context. The point the poster was making above was that there has been a depression. Last summer saw PL clubs spend approx £1.4b. This summer looks to be down by anywhere between £300m and £400m. The Championship has also slumped by about £100m, down to approx £70m+ but rising (last I saw a few days ago) from £175m last year. Around one pound in every three spent on PL transfer fees this summer have come from two clubs - Chelsea and City - who for obvious reasons (political ones) operate according to a different logic to most other clubs, to say nothing of the fact they were already incredibly wealthy to begin with. Aye, a billion has been spent, but that doesn't make the arguments that there has been a bit of a squeeze invalid.
And surely your context only provides proper context if you say how much was spent by the incredibly wealthy City and A.N Other last summer. I’ve not looked but I’d be surprised if it was significantly different.
-
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:06 pm
- Been Liked: 982 times
- Has Liked: 205 times
Re: Dyche & Garlick
I do hope that our 2 china figurines (Brady & JBG) were wrapped in bubble wrap before they set off for International Duty.