Nick Pope

[taio]

I suppose the alternative was to let him run down his contract and leave for nothing
The money we got wasn't bad and better than nothing

The alternative was to stand firmer in the knowledge there was ages to run in the transfer window. The money we got wasn't a fantastic bit of business which is what's being disputed.

[RVclaret]

The alternative was to stand firmer in the knowledge there was ages to run in the transfer window. The money we got wasn't a fantastic bit of business which is what's being disputed.

I think that cash was needed for our much needed rebuild and again, played into the hands of the buying club. We are in the Champ, fees received are naturally lower. He wouldn’t have been sold if we stayed in the PL.

Now there is Muric at £2.5m, 23 years old and suited to Kompany’s system, seems a very wise and decent replacement (so far). That could prove to be ‘fantastic business’.

[dougcollins]

30 yo is absolute prime time for a keeper.

As others have said, it was a travesty he was allowed to go for so little.

[taio]

I think that cash was needed for our much needed rebuild and again, played into the hands of the buying club. We are in the Champ, fees received are naturally lower. He wouldn’t have been sold if we stayed in the PL.

Now there is Muric at £2.5m, 23 years old and suited to Kompany’s system, seems a very wise and decent replacement (so far). That could prove to be ‘fantastic business’.

You know more than most if you know how the transfer deals - both in and out - have been structured. And that would be more plausible if we were only selling Pope rather significant revenue we have received in player sales. There are of course mechanisms to support cash flow which you have previously spoken in favour of.

Of course valuations decrease on relegation and we'd have kept Pope had we not been relegated.

I think it's too early to judge Muric and certainly to compare him to Pope.

[Dingo]

His performances this season are demonstrating why letting him go was the right choice, and the circumstances at the time meant the deal we got was a good one. He’s too good for the Championship and keeping him when his preference was to play in the PL would have had little benefit for us, particularly as our style has substantially changed. We wouldn’t have the same level of possession in our games so far if Pope was in goal as Muric has been key to building from the back, instead we’d be having to contest more 50/50s in the midfield.

[claretbob]

It did look like we needed an urgent sale to snatch Twine early in the window. If he’s as good as we think he is it could prove to be a master stroke however disappointing the sale price.

[Colburn_Claret]

For the sake of £7m net we would have been better keeping him and letting him walk away for nothing next year.
We did not have to sell him - he was under contract and he would have played for us.
You say comparisons are not relevant but you then bring out statistics about keepers over 30 and what they have been sold for which is completely irrelevant.

And of course there is relevance in what Wood was sold for - no other clubs were interested in him. If we would have got a derisory offer for him like we accepted for Pope we would not have sold Wood.

If you seriously think Pope was only worth a net £7m to Burnley this season then you are mad

There would have been a big question mark over Nick playing in VKs system. As much as some panic everytime Muric takes a back pass, he does exactly what the manager wants. AND if you panic when Muric gets the ball, you would have been a lot worse if Nick was in that position.
Nick is brilliant, as he showed again yesterday, but keeping him, now we've had 3 games under Kompany, wasn't really an option. So just maybe when we sold him, we knew it was for the best.

[Duffer_]

There would have been a big question mark over Nick playing in VKs system. As much as some panic everytime Muric takes a back pass, he does exactly what the manager wants. AND if you panic when Muric gets the ball, you would have been a lot worse if Nick was in that position.
Nick is brilliant, as he showed again yesterday, but keeping him, now we've had 3 games under Kompany, wasn't really an option. So just maybe when we sold him, we knew it was for the best.

Most people recognise we were going to sell Pope, although it is useful in terms of leverage to not publicly state that. A delay in selling him would not have meant we had to play him - look at Cornet. I like Muric and hope he proves to be fantastic but he wasn't our only option, likely not even our first choice given the new signing reveal featured Bart (VerBruggen) Simpson.

[firstclaret]

Bartman £5m minimal experience
Pope £10m England international
Bazunu £15 never heard of him beforehand

[quoonbeatz]

He's been the best English goalkeeper for years now. He'll unfortunately play a big part in Newcastle having a good season. It's a shame him, Trippier, Wood and Howe have gone there as they're sound people. Money talks though I guess.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

There was a third option - wait to see how the position changed in the remaining weeks of the window. Who could have foreseen Henderson burning his bridges at Man U, De Gea chucking one in? Not suggesting that Pope would have ended up at Man U but stranger things have happened and other situations may have developed.

Newcastle's offer was so low that we should have been able to reject it and hold out for more. The fact that we didn't, even worse if we couldn't, is rightly imo attracting a proportionate amount of criticism.

It's people whinging for the sake of it tbh

When we didn't sell Tarks and he left for free, people weren't happy.
We sold Pope, he wanted to go, it's a world cup year etc and people aren't happy

There was no guarantee anyone else was coming for him.
We all know how good he is, the stats are there, but Newcastle were the only club to cough up and get it done.

How many other keepers have gone for big money this window?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The alternative was to stand firmer in the knowledge there was ages to run in the transfer window. The money we got wasn't a fantastic bit of business which is what's being disputed.

How many keepers have gone for big money this window?

[taio]

How many keepers have gone for big money this window?

I don't know and I don't really need to know because that wouldn't in any way alter my viewpoint that Newcastle paying us £10m for Pope was not fantastic business for us.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Ok, you can take that view, clearly you're not going to change it

The point is keepers aren't moving for big money this summer, so it was going to take the stars aligning for us to get a huge offer and we didn't have much, if any, advantage like a long contract etc.

[taio]

Ok, you can take that view, clearly you're not going to change it

The point is keepers aren't moving for big money this summer, so it was going to take the stars aligning for us to get a huge offer and we didn't have much, if any, advantage like a long contract etc.

I certainly won't alter my view that it wasn't a fantastic deal for us. Don't care what other keepers were sold for - I see that totally irrelevant to me not thinking £10m for Pope was fantastic. Do you think it was fantastic business for us?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I certainly won't alter my view that it wasn't a fantastic deal for us. Don't care what other keepers were sold for - I see that totally irrelevant to me not thinking £10m for Pope was fantastic. Do you think it was fantastic business for us?

I think we did well getting what we did, but you're fixated on the word Fantastic so unless I say that, you're going to dismiss what I say out of hand

[taio]

I think we did well getting what we did, but you're fixated on the word Fantastic so unless I say that, you're going to dismiss what I say out of hand

That's because people were questioning the view that it was fantastic business for us. That's why...because that's what was stated. If you think we did well, fine. I and many others don't think £10m was enough.

[LeadBelly]

NICK POE . . (no longer) . IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR GOAL
NICK POE . . (no longer) . IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR GOAL

Wonder if the Geordies will do that (original version) one?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

That's because people were questioning the view that it was fantastic business for us. That's why...because that's what was stated. If you think we did well, fine. I and many others don't think £10m was enough.

What fee would've been enough for you and the rest of the gang?

Taking into consideration all of the relevant factors of course...

[taio]

What fee would've been enough for you and the rest of the gang?

Taking into consideration all of the relevant factors of course...

I can't speak for others. Taking into account all the relevant factors I would say £16.75m.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I can't speak for others. Taking into account all the relevant factors I would say £16.75m.

Didn't someone further up say we could get £15 million Inc add-ons?

[taio]

Didn't someone further up say we could get £15 million Inc add-ons?

I don't believe that to be correct.

[KRBFC]

RVclaret acting like an ALK employee again

[RVclaret]

RVclaret acting like an ALK employee again

Weirdo following me around saying the same thing again and again because I have a differing opinion to you.

[TomtheClaret]

Nick Pope's dad was at Watford on friday. Had a chat, gave nothing away, other than that had we stayed up, he was willing to stay.
Said Burnley were nothing but professional with him throughout.
Good to see Pope snr still attending local games for him.

[Chester Perry]

For the sake of £7m net we would have been better keeping him and letting him walk away for nothing next year.
We did not have to sell him - he was under contract and he would have played for us.
You say comparisons are not relevant but you then bring out statistics about keepers over 30 and what they have been sold for which is completely irrelevant.

And of course there is relevance in what Wood was sold for - no other clubs were interested in him. If we would have got a derisory offer for him like we accepted for Pope we would not have sold Wood.

If you seriously think Pope was only worth a net £7m to Burnley this season then you are mad

It is lower than that if you consider we also had to pay Charlton £2m+ in sell on fees (reports being a clause in the high %20's) and it should be acknowledged that some of the fee (including interest) to Macquarie was spent to Charlton's advantage not ours, if as I presume, we have paid Charlton in full (the absurdity of the alternative, delaying Charlton's payments to the Newcastle payment schedule, is a horror I do not want to think about)

[taio]

It is lower than that if you consider we also had to pay Charlton £2m+ in sell on fees (reports being a clause in the high %20's) and it should be acknowledged that some of the fee (including interest) to Macquarie was spent to Charlton's advantage not ours, if as I presume, we have paid Charlton in full (the absurdity of the alternative, delaying Charlton's payments to the Newcastle payment schedule, is a horror I do not want to think about)

When you consider the £10m gross fee, any sell-on fee to Charlton, the payment schedule to Newcastle* and replacement costs, I'm not sure it should ever be seen as a great deal for us and one that was essential at that time in order to materially pump-prime our transfer activity.

(* 'after an initial payment, Newcastle are set to pay the remaining transfer fee for Pope in yearly instalments of £2,334,000 in 2023 and £2,333,000 in 2024 and 2025 – totalling £7million')

[Neil]

Had a few cans last night and watched match of the day. Just wanted to say good luck Nick Pope in my tippsy, nostalgic state. Wasn't in any way intended to spark a two page debate on his transfer fee and the inevitable ensuing petty arguments. Good luck Nick.

[Chester Perry]

When you consider the £10m gross fee, any sell-on fee to Charlton, the payment schedule to Newcastle* and replacement costs, I'm not sure it should ever be seen as a great deal for us and one that was essential at that time in order to materially pump-prime our transfer activity.

not forgetting that 6 days before the related Macquarie charge date we had to make a £5m repayment to MSD ((I lean towards believing this was part of a total £20m repayment triggered by relegation and not an optional one - which I do not think is possible in most circumstance)

[Claretnick]

Had a few cans last night and watched match of the day. Just wanted to say good luck Nick Pope in my tippsy, nostalgic state. Wasn't in any way intended to spark a two page debate on his transfer fee and the inevitable ensuing petty arguments. Good luck Nick.

You should have known
I think we all wish Nick and rest of ex Clarets in the PL the best. It was good to read the post that seems to show the Pope family hold the club in a higher regard than seemingly some of our supporters.

[Neil]

Claretnick - agree with all three sentences!

[Taffy on the wing]

10 million for a goalkeeper of his class given away to pay debts

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[KRBFC]

Weirdo following me around saying the same thing again and again because I have a differing opinion to you.

I have never said that before, you're taking the stance to quickly support ALK as fantastic at every given opportunity though. Pace gave a nothing interview to the club with obviously pre set up easy questions (as expected) and you claimed it was a ''fantastic interview''. Academy downgraded and you were on here pretending to be ALK's spokesman. Pope sold for probably £7m+ add ons and you're the only person claiming that is a ''fantastic deal''.

You've quickly turned from a reasonable poster into taking this weird everything about ALK is fantastic stance. Not entirely sure why, I suspect you're trolling. I doubt even Alan Pace himself would say the Pope deal was a fantastic deal for the club, probably a deal out desperation.

[elwaclaret]

When you consider the £10m gross fee, any sell-on fee to Charlton, the payment schedule to Newcastle* and replacement costs, I'm not sure it should ever be seen as a great deal for us and one that was essential at that time in order to materially pump-prime our transfer activity.

(* 'after an initial payment, Newcastle are set to pay the remaining transfer fee for Pope in yearly instalments of £2,334,000 in 2023 and £2,333,000 in 2024 and 2025 – totalling £7million')

I don’t disagree with any off your working out, but it does not allow for saved wages… a substantial consideration. But he’s gone and things are what they are. One thing is certain wishing the board to fail now does nothing to help Burnley football Club.

There is zero point complaining and nothing can come of constant debate about sales we had no power to stop in the first place.

[Jakubclaret]

Comparing to Pickford and Ramsdale isn’t really relevant.

Both were in their early 20s (paying for potential as well) and both have more desirable attributes for a modern keeper at top clubs. Again, no disrespect to Pope who was outstanding for us and I loved watching.

Comparing to Wood also isn’t really relevant, that was a mid season gamble by Newcastle to also put us (relegation rival) in a bit of a hole. And Wood is a proven Prem scorer, there is a premium for them compared to keepers.

The fact is no other Prem team in the league wanted Pope enough to bid, Newcastle held all the cards in the deal (like I said at the time but was shot down) and we got one of the highest fees ever for an over 30 goalkeeper.

If we had refused Newcastle’s bid, we were risking him not being sold, which wouldn’t have suited both Pope or us. (See Pope’s interview with the Athletic where he made it clear he needed to stay in the PL to be in with a World Cup shout).

"In a bit of a hole" that's certainly 1 way of describing it!

[Jakubclaret]

10 million for a goalkeeper of his class given away to pay debts

He was under contract what should have happened is we should have kept him for a season in the championship & held firm we would have got that amount for him if not more plus the additional season thus enhancing our promotion prospects, some people will argue blah blah he wanted to go but contracts are there for a reason so people don't up sticks wily nilly, yes the urgency to pay debts was the reason.

[fidelcastro]

He was under contract what should have happened is we should have kept him for a season in the championship & held firm we would have got that amount for him if not more plus the additional season thus enhancing our promotion prospects, some people will argue blah blah he wanted to go but contracts are there for a reason so people don't up sticks wily nilly, yes the urgency to pay debts was the reason.

No way was he going to stay once a PL club came in for him.

If we'd blocked the move and then not gone straight back we'd lose him for nothing.

[Jakubclaret]

No way was he going to stay once a PL club came in for him.

If we'd blocked the move and then not gone straight back we'd lose him for nothing.

We held all the cards it wasn't worth the gamble not for that amount, it's been suggested the club had the option of extending the year in their favour if that's true you are effectively looking at 2 years.

[fidelcastro]

We held all the cards it wasn't worth the gamble not for that amount, it's been suggested the club had the option of extending the year in their favour if that's true you are effectively looking at 2 years.

How did we hold all the cards?

We had an England goalie who wanted to stay in the PL going into the final year of his contract. No guarantee anyone else would have paid more before his contract ran out, so I don't see what else the club could have done.

[Stayingup]

I think that cash was needed for our much needed rebuild and again, played into the hands of the buying club. We are in the Champ, fees received are naturally lower. He wouldn’t have been sold if we stayed in the PL.

Now there is Muric at £2.5m, 23 years old and suited to Kompany’s system, seems a very wise and decent replacement (so far). That could prove to be ‘fantastic business’.

Could be. Yes could. But so far he hasn't had a shot to save so we dont know how good he is. Personally I dont like him.playing sweeper.

[Jakubclaret]

How did we hold all the cards?

We had an England goalie who wanted to stay in the PL going into the final year of his contract. No guarantee anyone else would have paid more before his contract ran out, so I don't see what else the club could have done.

So it must be fair to say then had we been on a even keel debt free we would have done exactly the same thing & the fact we was up to the eyeballs in debt that wasn't even a consideration, is that what you are saying?

[boatshed bill]

If we are seen to block the (upward) career path of our best players we will be much less likely to attract decent young prospects.

[fidelcastro]

So it must be fair to say then had we been on a even keel debt free we would have done exactly the same thing & the fact we was up to the eyeballs in debt that wasn't even a consideration, is that what you are saying?

Inevitable after relegation is what I'm saying. There is no point in keeping a player here who has his sights set on a move to the PL.

[Jakubclaret]

Inevitable after relegation is what I'm saying. There is no point in keeping a player here who has his sights set on a move to the PL.

If that's how you feel we might as well rip everybody's contract up & open the door.

[fidelcastro]

If that's how you feel we might as well rip everybody's contract up & open the door.

Why?

[Indecisive]

If we are seen to block the (upward) career path of our best players we will be much less likely to attract decent young prospects.

Hadn’t actually viewed it this way but it’s a fair point.

Either way it really would be unfair for Pope not to be allowed to move on. He’s a model pro, and he clearly desperately wanted us to stay in the premier league.

He deserves to be on the plane to the World Cup, and in my view, deserves to be the number one. We’d be robbing him of that by not allowing him the move, and for someone who has been so fantastic for us, I’d actually be disappointed for him if we had played hard ball.

Unfortunately I think he was going to require a bidding war for us to realize his true value… and unfortunately both the perception of now the top clubs needing a ‘ball playing’ keeper, and maybe the financial fair play restrictions, meant that didn’t happen.

[Stayingup]

The prime example of how the club has been shafted by the previous owners. Having to sell a prime asset at a giveaway price to pay off a debt.

[boatshed bill]

The prime example of how the club has been shafted by the previous owners. Having to sell a prime asset at a giveaway price to pay off a debt.

Is it really?

So what specific sale price would negate your comment?

[Stayingup]

Is it really?

So what specific sale price would negate your comment?

25 million for a top class international goalkeeper who probably has another 8 or 9 years in him. But you've missed the pount haven't you.

[boatshed bill]

25 million for a top class international goalkeeper who probably has another 8 or 9 years in him. But you've missed the pount haven't you.

So the fact that no club would pay that much becomes the board's (old or new?) fault, then?