A bit of a daft time to open windows given the weather outside but in just under an hour the January transfer window will open, closing at 11 p.m. on Monday, 1st February.

The usual thread is at the top of the board and I'll update it as and when the Premier League clubs make any signings.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52111

I think we will get some cover in but no first team starters, unless of course someone leaves, but I have already prepared myself to be underwhelmed this window. But here's hoping.

I think we will get at least 1 decent signing as I don’t think the new guys ego will let the opportunity to make a statement pass by

I think we will sell a few .

Assuming no major departures I'd be content with one signing and happy with two.

dyche has been our tom hanks saviour like in private ryan, now he needs the big guns from america to support him and honour the phenomenal work he and his under fire troops have undergone against all the odds.

MRG wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:14 pm

I think we will get at least 1 decent signing as I don’t think the new guys ego will let the opportunity to make a statement pass by

Was talking to a friend of mine today and said just that. When new people go into a club, owners, chairmen, managers, they usually want to make that early statement. Alan Pace will be eager to get the fans onside with a positive decision as soon as possible and that could be a significant, decent singing.

Would much rather we sign one quality player than several for cover.

Judging by the club's new year photo post on a very large social media site then Bardsley is already gone!

As long as we still have all the players we have now and the kiosk menu has changed then we'll be alright.

Chilli dogs, Pork Belly Tacos and 2ft Chicken Burritos

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:26 pm

Was talking to a friend of mine today and said just that. When new people go into a club, owners, chairmen, managers, they usually want to make that early statement. Alan Pace will be eager to get the fans onside with a positive decision as soon as possible and that could be a significant, decent singing.

let's say we make one decent signing - what position would you go for ?

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:12 am

let's say we make one decent signing - what position would you go for ?

Priority for me would be a central defender given the problems we had when Tarky & Ben were out or wide position given the lack of game time from JBG and Robbie Brady. In any case, we still need to replace Aaron Lennon.

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:57 pm

BFC2021.jpgJudging by the club's new year photo post on a very large social media site then Bardsley is already gone!

Who is second from right on the middle row?

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:15 am

Priority for me would be a central defender given the problems we had when Tarky & Ben were out or wide position given the lack of game time from JBG and Robbie Brady. In any case, we still need to replace Aaron Lennon.

I wonder if we do go for someone like Worral if we would let Long go or send Dunne out on loan again ?

We definitely need pace on the right too

And John Deary.

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:18 am

I wonder if we do go for someone like Worral if we would let Long go or send Dunne out on loan again ?

We definitely need pace on the right too

Long is out of contract in the summer. He's 30, wouldn't be a surprise to see him released.

Bardsley is on second row in between Wood & Benson.

Also means that those in the last 6 months of their contracts can already sign in advance to other clubs.
Brady
Gudmundsson
Bardsley
Long
Pieters

Decisions need to be made, particularly at right back.

The transfer window doesn’t close, it ‘slams shut’.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:20 am

Long is out of contract in the summer. He's 30, wouldn't be a surprise to see him released.

which if they sign someone this window it would make sense to try and get a little bit for him, got to be worth 500k to someone in the Championship surely !?

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:26 pm

Was talking to a friend of mine today and said just that. When new people go into a club, owners, chairmen, managers, they usually want to make that early statement. Alan Pace will be eager to get the fans onside with a positive decision as soon as possible and that could be a significant, decent singing.

I concur with this.

superdimitri wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:50 am

Also means that those in the last 6 months of their contracts can already sign in advance to other clubs.
Brady
Gudmundsson
Bardsley
Long
Pieters
Decisions need to be made, particularly at right back.

Lowton also ooc this summer

Pieters has an extension option that I think the club will trigger

Given the amount of appearances from the rest of the above would not be surprised to see them go especially Brady who turned down contract offers last summer

Bin Ont Turf wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:57 pm

As long as we still have all the players we have now and the kiosk menu has changed then we'll be alright.

Chilli dogs, Pork Belly Tacos and 2ft Chicken Burritos

There's enough been said about that Sex party on another thread .

I was just abouts to start my usual transfer thread but 1 already runing somewhere I think.

I can see a few clubs trying to cut costs, shipping out players who aren't getting a game to balance the books.

Lampard at Chelsea certainly said a few will be leaving that don't get game time. Not that we can afford them kind of wages.

More than anything we need a coupe of younger players with pace. Maybe take a punt on a couple of Champioship/League 1 players. But apart from that we can mange with what we have providing nobody goes.

ClaretAL wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:11 am

I was just abouts to start my usual transfer thread but 1 already runing somewhere I think.

Thanks for your past efforts but I think someone else should takeover now and hopefully bring a bit more luck.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:23 am

I can see a few clubs trying to cut costs, shipping out players who aren't getting a game to balance the books.

Lampard at Chelsea certainly said a few will be leaving that don't get game time. Not that we can afford them kind of wages.

Wouldn't mind Tomori and/or Gilmour on loans. 5 - 6 months of higher wages would not break the bank

Same short term financials would apply to the likes of Lingard

jojomk1 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:12 am

Wouldn't mind Tomori and/or Gilmour on loans. 5 - 6 months of higher wages would not break the bank

Same short term financials would apply to the likes of Lingard

I think Gilmour might be out of our reach but Tomori would be a good replacement for Tarks. We were linked with him when he was at Derby.

jojomk1 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:12 am

Wouldn't mind Tomori and/or Gilmour on loans. 5 - 6 months of higher wages would not break the bank

Same short term financials would apply to the likes of Lingard

I'd be happy with Gilmour.

superdimitri wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:50 am

Also means that those in the last 6 months of their contracts can already sign in advance to other clubs.
Brady
Gudmundsson
Bardsley
Long
Pieters

Decisions need to be made, particularly at right back.

Thought they could only sign pre-contracts with clubs in different countries?

Unless the rules have changed recently those 5 players wouldn't be able to talk/sign with any clubs in England.

jojomk1 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:12 am

Wouldn't mind Tomori and/or Gilmour on loans. 5 - 6 months of higher wages would not break the bank

Same short term financials would apply to the likes of Lingard

Both very good players but we need to bring starters in to make an impact. Gilmour has a chance of playing but Dyche won't break up a Tarky/Mee partnership for nobody.

superdimitri wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 12:50 am

Also means that those in the last 6 months of their contracts can already sign in advance to other clubs.
Brady
Gudmundsson...

I hope not; they barely stay fit from one week to the next whilst presumably trying to earn/secure a future contract, should they instead be in the position of protecting a future contract elsewhere, we'll never see them playing for Burnley again!

I honestly think it's unrealistic and unfair to get too excited or giddy about this window because of the VERY recent takeover. I expect us to be a bit more competitive in the market and expect we'll make one or two (maybe 3) hopefully considered,reasoned, good value and astute signings who probably won't be expecting to initially be in the starting XI, but will bolster us going into the second half of the season and give us a better chance of avoiding the trap door. In the summer, providing we're still in the PL, I'd probably expect a bit more starting XI action!!! I don't expect or even want these new guys to start chucking really stupid money around in the transfer market as it's a recipe for disaster.

FactualFrank wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:24 am

I'd be happy with Gilmour.

Even as a short term signing he'd be fantastic offers something different to what we currently possess, now whether Lampard would let him go out on loan is another question, but he's been out injured for a good few months, so the carrot of 1st team footy might appeal to him and Chelsea.

Sadly our past loans from them haven't worked out too well, Chalobah & Drinkwater barely played let alone made an impact.

Would Dyche drop Cork, Westwood or Brownhill for a loan player? No chance. Lampard seems to rate Gilmour quite highly anyway he's probably got as much chance of plaaying by staying at Chelsea.

There’s more chance of us signing Happy Gilmore than Billy Gilmour.

Looking through Gilmour's eyes would you want to come to the Turf with Corky about to return ?

Worrall arriving would be my guess for one of the incomings.

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 01, 2021 11:57 pm

BFC2021.jpgJudging by the club's new year photo post on a very large social media site then Bardsley is already gone!

Middle row 2nd from right circled

Great piece on things to remember about the Transfer Window from @Marcotti for ESPN

Transfer window principles: Seven things to remember in January
Dec 23, 2020 - Gabriele Marcotti - Senior Writer, ESPN FC

The transfer window reopens on Jan. 1 and to judge by what we're hearing from clubs and agents, the twin forces of COVID-19 and bad contracts will dominate. The former because the global pandemic has left clubs short of immediate cash (zero or few spectators in the stands, rebates on TV money) and mid-term revenue (less money in the pockets of sponsors and fans, which translates into less cash from broadcasters). The latter because the impact of paying somebody far more than they're actually contributing weighs heavier when there's less money coming in. (In fact, they were less of an issue pre-pandemic where, at some clubs, revenue was growing by 10 percent or more every year.)

Gareth Bale became the epitome of this at Real Madrid. Last season, his contract paid him more than $40 million, easily making him one of the 10-highest-paid players in the world. He started a total of 14 games in all competitions, scoring three goals and playing 1,258 minutes. His salary was so high that the club couldn't find a buyer last summer and so he ended up going to Tottenham on loan, with the proviso that Real Madrid are still paying a considerable chunk -- some reports suggests more than half -- of his salary.

Bale's struggles may or may not be his fault. He's had injuries, he's had managers who perhaps didn't rate him, he's been unlucky... but nobody would dispute the fact that, from Madrid's perspective, they're not getting what they paid for. So here are seven principles to remember when assessing contracts and transfers, some of which are too often ignored by media and commentators.

1. If you're acquiring a player, you need to look at cost + wages together
Club accountants already do this; we in the media too often forget. When Juventus signed Cristiano Ronaldo from Real Madrid in the summer of 2018, they paid €100m ($120m) in transfer fees and €12m ($14.6m) in commissions to agents, solidarity payments to his previous clubs (in accordance with FIFA regulations), and a commitment to pay him €54.25m ($66.3m) in annual wages through June 2022. The total cost (we'll leave bonuses out of it for the sake of convenience) over four years: €329m ($402m). That works out to €82.25m ($100.5m) a season.

The most basic criteria in judging whether that was a good deal is this: Is he offering Juventus $100m worth of value?

2. Value comes in different forms
At the most basic level, players earn money for a club by generating box-office revenue (which can mean selling out stadiums, allowing you to increase ticket prices or, ideally, both), by improving the team's performance in the league and cups (which generate more prize money), and by driving sponsorship and commercial revenue. Some will have more of an impact than others -- Ronaldo may help sell x amount of club merchandise at Juventus, Alex Telles less so at Manchester United -- but everybody will have some. (And, by the way, that commercial value isn't absolute: Telles will generate more at United because they're a bigger club than he would at, say, Brighton.)

There are also intangibles in this. Some players may be good leaders, some may appeal to supporters and some may simply help a team play better. Some might make your coach happy, and a happy coach tends to coach better. In the case of some signings, your club can make a quantum leap forward as a brand: again, Ronaldo at Juventus is often cited as such an example.

It's difficult to put a numerical value on this, but it's something a good club considers.

3. Opportunity cost matters... but not always in the way it is presented
Last September, Arsenal signed Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang to a contract extension through 2023 and gave him a big raise, up to a reported £18m ($24m) a season. It made him one of the highest-paid players in the Premier League. Two of the justifications were that if they hadn't extended it, they would have lost him for nothing as a free agent in July 2021, and that bringing in a player of comparable quality would have cost at least £60m ($80m).

If you assume that a £60m forward will expect to earn at least £10m a season, then even if that player signs a five-year deal, it's cheaper to keep Aubameyang, who is already settled and productive.

The argument holds merit if certain conditions are met.

One, you want to win straight away, and you're less worried about what happens in a few years' time when you'll still need to replace Aubameyang. Maybe you think Eddie Nketiah or somebody else in-house can replace him, or maybe you think conditions are ripe to challenge straight away.

Two, you don't think you can get a cheaper, younger alternative to Aubameyang, whether this past summer or in the summer of 2021 (when his previous contract expired). Not necessarily somebody who will be as good as Aubameyang straight away, mind you, but who you think will become as good eventually.

Three, you're not worried that his presence (and his minutes on the pitch) will stunt the growth of the young players you already have at the club: Bukayo Saka, Gabriel Martinelli, Nketiah, Emile Smith Rowe, and so on.

Four, you're not overly concerned that giving him a big contract will hurt your leverage in other contract negotiations with forwards at the club, like, say Alexandre Lacazette. (Or you don't want to keep him anyway.)

All of the above are things Arsenal would have thought about when extending Aubameyang's deal. They would have weighed up the factors and come to their own conclusion. Whether right or wrong, time will tell.

4. You're not paying for what a footballer has achieved, you're paying for what folks believe they WILL achieve
It's like the disclaimer when buying mutual funds: "Past performance is not an indicator of future results." Obviously, somebody signing Harry Kane will expect him to continue scoring a ton of goals since he's 27 years old and has scored them continuously throughout his career. But it's not guaranteed. In fact, it's much harder to predict what will happen the further you get from a player's peak years (usually 23 to 30).

Young players have a limited track record and can be affected by events like, say, becoming adults (or not: see Balotelli, Mario for more information). Older players often become less productive and more injury-prone as they age. This is something many observers seem to forget when they say stuff like, "but X is a former Footballer of the Year and top scorer in 2017!" Discussing what happened in 2017 is only marginally relevant when you're guessing what will happen in 2022.

5. Resale matters, which means age matters and wages matter
At some point, clubs will need to sell players, either because they haven't been good enough, because they've done extremely well and somebody bigger and better wants to sign them, or because clubs can no longer afford to keep them. When that happens, buyers look at two things: age and contract. If the player is still on the younger side, he's more attractive. If the player doesn't have a long-term contract with massive wages, he's more attractive.

Think back to the opportunity cost argument above and the Aubameyang case. What if Arsenal had elected not to extend his deal and, instead, acquired, say, Marcus Thuram instead? I'm not suggesting they're like-for-like players, though they're both the sons of professionals of similar status, both are right-footed forwards who cut in from the left, and Thuram isn't far off from what Aubameyang was at age 23. This is just an example to illustrate the economics, so for a moment put the counterarguments (including the fact that Thuram's agent is Mino Raiola) to one side.

Thuram, who is 23 and has been capped by France, might cost you, say, €50m ($60m) and you may need to offer a five-year deal at €4m ($4.85m) per season. That means that on Arsenal's books, Thuram would cost around $16.85m a season, which is considerably less than the $24m given to Aubameyang. But the upshot is that if Thuram flops, you can still let him join another club in a couple of years and get a big chunk of that €50m fee back, because he'll still be 25 and won't be making monster wages.

Equally, if he does phenomenally well, you either build around him for the next decade or you let him leave at a handsome profit. Either way, you have options (including the nearly $8m extra you're saving on Aubameyang, which you can use to strengthen elsewhere). With Aubameyang, for better or worse, you are likely stuck with him until the end of his contract.

Again, maybe Arsenal felt they couldn't get Thuram or an alternative to him at a price they liked, or maybe they were wedded to Aubameyang all along. But the point is you can't just look at a contract in a vacuum; you have to project down the road. And when you do that, wages and age are critical.

6. At the top end, there's no such thing as a "free transfer"
There may be no transfer fee to pay for a player who is out of contract, but many times you end up paying heftier commissions to the agents involved as well as giving the players themselves a bigger contract. Juventus spent a whopping €15.86m ($19.3m) in commissions to sign Emre Can when he left Liverpool, as well as lesser fees on Adrien Rabiot (€1.4m/$1.7m ), Sami Khedira (€1.3m/ $1.6m) and Aaron Ramsey (€3.6m/$4.4m).

The argument is that since you're not paying a transfer fee, you can pay more in wages and more to the agent for "delivering the player." Sometimes it's worth it. Other times, less so.

7. No such thing as a "going rate"
The Transfermarkt website has a nifty tool that tells you how much a player is "worth." They've been around for 20 years and have a ton of credibility to the point that some clubs have cited them in their fiscal reports. But ultimately, they're just assessments made by individuals, often volunteers who do this for fun. The fact of the matter is that so much goes into determining a player's price that any notion of treating them like commodities, and putting a "valuation" on them, is going to be both an inexact science and a moving target.

A player with 18 months or less on his contract will have his valuation depressed. So too, relative to one of equal ability, will a player who is on big wages with many years left on his contract. (All things being equal, a player with a long-term contract and more manageable wages should see his valuation rise.)

Beyond that, much depends on the clubs involved. How badly does the club want or need to sell? How badly does the player want to leave? How badly does a club want or need to buy? And -- people often ignore this -- where is the player going?

If Manchester City come calling for a player, they will be quoted a far higher price than if, say, West Ham ask for the same guy. The seller will assume that City wants the player and because they can afford to pay more, they will charge more. This happens all the time.

It's basic psychology. If a guy with a $100,000 watch rocks up in his Bentley and wants to buy your house, you will probably try to charge him more than the guy in ripped jeans and dirty baseball cap who hops off a city bus.