He looks better than, the much more PL experienced, Hendrick did in centre mid, in my opinion (and the stats would back me up).
And I rated Hendrick before you suggest I'm one of the boo boys.
Why is it a lazy thing to say? I’ve been very impressed with Brownhill. He’s got a great engine, likes to drive forward with the ball and has a good tenacity to his play.welsbyswife wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:19 pmPeople talk some nonsense. "Looks raw at this level". Based on what? Lazy thing to say. Ok, the standard is higher but it's not a different sport. The lad knows how to play and you don't just lose that because you step up a league.
Not sure what stats you have to prove that. But I think it’s obvious that in Hendrick’s time here he contributed in ways that were appreciated more by Dyche than the fans, and I’ll include myself in that. Brownhill looks a very good signing, he’s brought something different to the side and I’m looking forward to seeing him develop. I think that he, and Dyche would likely agree that he is ‘raw’ at this level though.
Look at the underlying stats, simple stuff such as dribble success, pass completion, etc to the deeper stuff such as open play shot creating actions. Outperforms Hendrick pretty much across the board.Rileybobs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:31 pmNot sure what stats you have to prove that. But I think it’s obvious that in Hendrick’s time here he contributed in ways that were appreciated more by Dyche than the fans, and I’ll include myself in that. Brownhill looks a very good signing, he’s brought something different to the side and I’m looking forward to seeing him develop. I think that he, and Dyche would likely agree that he is ‘raw’ at this level though.
I had no idea either of them were gayDevils_Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:15 pm66 pages and all we've managed to sign is Will 'fuckin' Norris
I certainly don’t think that Stephens is the best we can do, and I’ve definitely not said that. I’ve argued the case for why the signing, in the circumstance makes sense. Happy to leave it at that though.Mattster wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:09 pmLook at the underlying stats, simple stuff such as dribble success, pass completion, etc to the deeper stuff such as open play shot creating actions. Outperforms Hendrick pretty much across the board.
And for all you thinking Dyche would say he's raw. Ask yourself, if Gudmundsson and Cork were both fit next week, does Brownhill lose his place. Because Hendrick did in those circumstances, I don't think Brownhill does.
This is going round in circles though. Clearly you think Dale Stephens is the best we can do and I won't change your mind. I strongly disagree and you're not going to change my mind either. Best just leave it.
The former is far more likely as he's more that sort of player. I'm glad we're signing him.!aiboforceN wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:24 pmIf it happens, let's hope Stephens turns out to be an Alexander or a Barton, rather than a Hart or a Lennon.
Mattster wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:09 pmLook at the underlying stats, simple stuff such as dribble success, pass completion, etc to the deeper stuff such as open play shot creating actions. Outperforms Hendrick pretty much across the board.
And for all you thinking Dyche would say he's raw. Ask yourself, if Gudmundsson and Cork were both fit next week, does Brownhill lose his place. Because Hendrick did in those circumstances, I don't think Brownhill does.
This is going round in circles though. Clearly you think Dale Stephens is the best we can do and I won't change your mind. I strongly disagree and you're not going to change my mind either. Best just leave it.
It’s such a sorry state of affairs that we’re looking at signings as purely additions.superdimitri wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:53 amGiven our crisis anything is better than nothing so a player like Stephens would be very welcome. Especially if so cheap..
How would signing Stephens not improve the quality of the squad?
Said it before a couple of years ago, and I'll say it again, Garlick stinks!
Why is ‘no better than what we’ve got’ trotted out as a bad thing when ‘what we’ve got’ have not only kept us the the Premier League but finished in the top half twice in the last three seasons.Boss Hogg wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:32 amHe’s alright as a squad filler. He’s no better than what we have and as we have an ageing squad I’m not sure we should be signing 31 year olds unless they are real quality. A bit like buying a washing machine you don’t need as you have one but you have it because it’s cheap as back up.
In fairness, Stephens would improve the quality of the squad given his experience - he was a first team regular last season, albeit in a team who’ve often finished below us.
Strive to improve or you stagnate or go backwards. Same for any team or business. This isn’t the same as saying what we already have isn’t good.martin_p wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:38 amWhy is ‘no better than what we’ve got’ trotted out as a bad thing when ‘what we’ve got’ have not only kept us the the Premier League but finished in the top half twice in the last three seasons.
Continue to give us players that are ‘no better than what we’ve got’ and I’ll be more than happy.
I do t think the 50% bit is anywhere near correct. Our income is mainly from TV revenue, which will reduce but the big loss is Matchday revenue where we earn the lowest in the league I think.Blyclaret wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:20 amWhat drugs are people on this board.
Since covid Burnleys income has probably dropped by about 50%.
Taking that into consideration we have no money or very little for transfers/wages etc.
Looking for us to spend 20m on a player is just utter madness in this environment.
So players like Stephens at that money is a very astute signing. 31 yes but solid with loads experience.
Stick with the club chairman manager players. They have given us 5 unbelievable years.
If you are correct about your assessment of our finances/income you have to ask what drugs our manager is on too?Blyclaret wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:20 amWhat drugs are people on this board.
Since covid Burnleys income has probably dropped by about 50%.
Taking that into consideration we have no money or very little for transfers/wages etc.
Looking for us to spend 20m on a player is just utter madness in this environment.
So players like Stephens at that money is a very astute signing. 31 yes but solid with loads experience.
Stick with the club chairman manager players. They have given us 5 unbelievable years.
So he's "certainly" not the best we can do but you're happy with it and think it makes sense? Think that sums it up. If there's by far better we can do then why should we settle for much less than that on big wages (thus limiting our other options)?claretonthecoast1882 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:55 amWhat stats are you using to decide that anyone has stated that they think Stephens is the best we can do. Nobody has said that anywhere, just because some aren't moaning about the signing with every post doesn't mean they think that is the best we can do.
Blyclaret wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:20 amWhat drugs are people on this board.
Since covid Burnleys income has probably dropped by about 50%.
Taking that into consideration we have no money or very little for transfers/wages etc.
Looking for us to spend 20m on a player is just utter madness in this environment.
So players like Stephens at that money is a very astute signing. 31 yes but solid with loads experience.
Stick with the club chairman manager players. They have given us 5 unbelievable years.
There's damning with faint praise and then there's that.rufus lumley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:18 amHe will be a better addidition to the squad than Drinkwater was.
Not sure where you have got those figures from but I would think they will be heavily reduced because of the current situation.ClaretMov wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:28 amIt's utter b s we don't have money for transfers.....we have spent the last 5 years in the premier league and all the money that comes with it. We don't spend anything like what all the other clubs do on transfers infact our spending is in the black, we have year in year out one of the smallest wage Bill's, we must of taken 600+ million out of the premier league over the last 5 year's
Just last season we made 127.3 million
league position: 10th
Equal share: £31.8m
Facility fees: £12.3m
Merit payment: £19.5m
Overseas TV income: £58.7m
Commercial revenue: £5m
Total: £127.3m
yet we still have no money ?????
Me thinks thou hast forgotten the rebate to ST holders, the reduced coorporate monies, the reduced Sky monies the cost of SD and Covid testing and the continued payments to those under contract as well as the usual running cost for games.ClaretMov wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:28 amIt's utter b s we don't have money for transfers.....we have spent the last 5 years in the premier league and all the money that comes with it. We don't spend anything like what all the other clubs do on transfers infact our spending is in the black, we have year in year out one of the smallest wage 's, we must of taken 600+ million out of the premier league over the last 5 year's
Just last season we made 127.3 million
league position: 10th
Equal share: £31.8m
Facility fees: £12.3m
Merit payment: £19.5m
Overseas TV income: £58.7m
Commercial revenue: £5m
Total: £127.3m
yet we still have no money ?????
I take it you’ve been sent our July 20 year end accounts ? That’s great - especially since they are a lot better than Garlick was saying...and no reduction in revenue from the TV contracts either as a result of Covid.ClaretMov wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:28 amIt's utter b s we don't have money for transfers.....we have spent the last 5 years in the premier league and all the money that comes with it. We don't spend anything like what all the other clubs do on transfers infact our spending is in the black, we have year in year out one of the smallest wage Bill's, we must of taken 600+ million out of the premier league over the last 5 year's
Just last season we made 127.3 million
league position: 10th
Equal share: £31.8m
Facility fees: £12.3m
Merit payment: £19.5m
Overseas TV income: £58.7m
Commercial revenue: £5m
Total: £127.3m
yet we still have no money ?????
And what is the net profit from what the club have been paid? This is what is being used to fund the transfers (Not betting the ranch).ClaretMov wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:28 amIt's utter b s we don't have money for transfers.....we have spent the last 5 years in the premier league and all the money that comes with it. We don't spend anything like what all the other clubs do on transfers infact our spending is in the black, we have year in year out one of the smallest wage Bill's, we must of taken 600+ million out of the premier league over the last 5 year's
Just last season we made 127.3 million
league position: 10th
Equal share: £31.8m
Facility fees: £12.3m
Merit payment: £19.5m
Overseas TV income: £58.7m
Commercial revenue: £5m
Total: £127.3m
yet we still have no money ?????
A ham sandwich would be a better addition than Drinkwater.rufus lumley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:18 amHe will be a better addidition to the squad than Drinkwater was.
I'd be a bit shocked if we had to wait for a fixture for it to be convenient to talk to somebody.Gordaleman wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:52 amNot exactly sure just how transfers are finalised these days, whether or not there are face to face talks with directors etc. but Brighton are at Preston tomorrow in the Carabao Cup, so it might be an easy opportunity to conclude the deal for Stephens. That said, we are of course at Millwall, but I'm sure Mike Garlick wouldn't be too upset at missing that game.
Wow what a weird post.Mattster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:16 amSo he's "certainly" not the best we can do but you're happy with it and think it makes sense? Think that sums it up. If there's by far better we can do then why should we settle for much less than that on big wages (thus limiting our other options)?
Let's just think about this. We've got Hart, Lennon, Hendrick and Gibson off the wage bill that probably saves us around £120k a week (assuming we're still paying some of Gibson's). Norris in on ~£10k a week, so that's £110k. Then we'll want to save some money due to COVID losses, let's be kind and assume Garlick only wants to knock £20k a week off the budget. That's our available wage budget at £90k. Stephens isn't going to take a pay cut but let's be kind and assume no increase so he'll be on £30k. So potentially a third of our wage budget will be taken up by someone you're happy to admit is "certainly" not the best we can do, will eventually be 4th choice in his position in a matter of months then sit around on big wages for a what remains of his deal (at least a 2 year one) before eventually leaving for nothing, probably only just sneaking into double figures for starts.
I didn't say it was the only way, just a convenient one. You might be right about Stephens but it's not him that decides the fee.Jakubs Tash wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:01 amI'd be a bit shocked if we had to wait for a fixture for it to be convenient to talk to somebody.
Stephens should have been making his way up here yesterday! He couldn't wait to get in his car and start the drive up north 4 years ago....
I agree. But budget and SD's preference to working hard vs being technically gifted, makes this unlikely. It is what we are crying out for though.