Scott Twine - Loan Confirmed - No option to buy

[Simon bristol]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

But what’s the point of an “option”. 
Manning knows him. Why would we need to have him on a 4 month trial?? It’s a waste of time and money. If we want him just buy him. 
If it’s too expensive, move on 

Theres others on here who know better than me, but i always considered the tgh loan was done with an option to buy for accounting purposes,,, making payments in the next accounting year may suit us in terms of when the scott money came in, or when certain salaries are likely to be off the books. either that, or they just fancy seeing how they bed in for a period of time before committing the full transfer fee?

[petehinton]

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

But what’s the point of an “option”. 
Manning knows him. Why would we need to have him on a 4 month trial?? It’s a waste of time and money. If we want him just buy him. 
If it’s too expensive, move on 

My only angle to understand would be that it gives us ‘first dibs’ in the summer, almost like we have for TGH, and we don’t need to ‘move money forward’ as BT & JL keep  referring too whenever asked. I.e we want to sign him but not for that fee now, but do in summer, so basically make his initial stay a loan before making it perm in summer rather than run a risk of losing out to someone else going in fresh from summer. 
 

All 2+2 on my part though. 

[Mr Hankey]

22 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

You do realise he was manager nearly 20 years ago? There's valid criticisms of Tinnion but "it's literally impossible for anyone to be better at a job than they were 20 years ago" really isn't one of them. 

I do realise that it was 20 years ago (mental how time works innit?) & i never said anything about people being better than they were 20 years ago…..listening to the shite he has spouted off over the past few months is enough for me to realise he isn’t any better than he was 20 years ago at a managment level.

Do i trust him with the clubs finances when it comes to transfers? Absolutely not (but i also don’t actually believe that the club would be stupid enough to do a deal like this for Twine on loan with an option to buy for £5mil in the summer).

Edited January 14 by Mr Hankey

[astrondrew]

7 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

It’s not harsh at all though, can you remember his stint as manager when he was involved in transfers? He’s great with the acadmey, but shouldn’t be in the job he currently has.

Based on your conjecture of what this possible deal might be?

[Loosey Boy]

From the Hull Forum……..

Bit of ITK for you from Burnley end. Twine looks about done for 5 million. Crazy fee if so. Benson and Zoury might be available as Kompany wants 4/5 new signings.

I really don’t see us spending £5m but who knows?

BT and JL having to be seen to back LM?

 

 

32 minutes ago

 

Edited January 14 by Loosey Boy

[Mr Hankey]

1 minute ago, bcfc01 said:

Again, where is it stated (other than social media/papers) that it is a loan and where is it stated its 5m ?

I have only seen it stated on here, which is why i have stated “assume” multiple times in the posts i have made. If it’s a loan for no money or a straigh transfer for less £3mil or less then happy ******* days!

[bcfc01]

Just now, Mr Hankey said:

I have only seen it stated on here, which is why i have stated “assume” multiple times in the posts i have made. If it’s a loan for no money or a straigh transfer for less £3mil or less then happy ******* days!

I've seen 5m stated, but don't believe it for one minute.

[Jose]

8 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

People will call for Lansdown to spend £5m on this lad, but then smash him if it goes wrong. That’s what happens. 

Again no one has said to spend 5m on him. 

[Charlie BCFC]

Loan and option to buy would do for me, if it’s a straight loan then I’d prefer it to gamble £5m on a player not proven at this level 

[Mr Hankey]

Just now, bcfc01 said:

I've seen 5m stated, but don't believe it for one minute.

I think it’s come from a “source” online, i think James Piercy did a piece where apparenlty Burnley wanted £5mil. I agree with you, i really can’t see it being that much either tbh.

If Burnley were to get relegated i could see them wanting close to that as they may use him in this league next year, but if they stay up i can’t see them demanding that as i don’t see how anyone would pay that much, especially as they only paid £4mil themselves.

[petehinton]

4 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I've seen 5m stated, but don't believe it for one minute.

5m fee came from James Piercy, who is 99% of the time totally spot on with his info. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

51 minutes ago, Cov 77 said:

Because Nige didn’t do loans , unlike 95% of the championship 

That's not correct.

He said several times he wasn't against loans, per se. But in his opinion they were the wrong option to take due to the state we found ourselves in at that time, ie based on both our financial position at the time and the type of squad we had at that time.

So anyone thinking he was against loans is just plain wrong, lazy and not listening to what he actually said. Probably because they were pushing an anti NP agenda.

Edited January 14 by Merrick's Marvels

[W-S-M Seagull]

15 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

People will call for Lansdown to spend £5m on this lad, but then smash him if it goes wrong. That’s what happens. 

I don't think there are many people calling for us to spend 5 million on one player in January. 

[bcfc01]

1 minute ago, petehinton said:

5m fee came from James Piercy, who is 99% of the time totally spot on with his info. 

I like Piercy and would say that he doesn't deal in bullshite and can only print what he's heard.

But I still can't see anyone actually paying 5m for Twine.

Anyone reporting a loan yet ?

[Cov 77]

16 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Again, where is it stated (other than social media/papers) that it is a loan and where is it stated its 5m ?

As you say lots of forums , socials and rags like the Bristol Post , there is genuinely no chance we pay 5 million for this player or pay a million loan fee , half of this in both cases , for all the chat Burnley are in deep shit and will get players out at best option so can bring a few in , he also can play up front just midfield so decent option , only 24 , and in the MK season got 20 goals and 13 assists, not too shabby league one withstanding 

Edited January 14 by Cov 77

[Cov 77]

6 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

That's not correct.

He said several times he wasn't against loans, per se. But in his opinion they were the wrong option to take due to the state we found ourselves in at that time, ie based on both our financial position at the time and the type of squad we had at that time.

So anyone thinking he was against loans is just plain wrong, lazy and not listening to what he actually said. Probably because they were pushing an anti NP agenda.

Say what you want , he said on many occasions he was not in favour of loans , didn’t want them around the place as did not think they brought anything and hindered the group , not lazy , not pushing anti NP agenda, you constantly push pro Nige , anti Lansdown etc but don’t call you out all the time 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Cov 77 said:

Say what you want , he said on many occasions he was not in favour of loans , didn’t want them around the place as did not think they brought anything and hindered the group , not lazy , not pushing anti NP agenda, you constantly push pro Nige , anti Lansdown etc but don’t call you out all the time 

 

We couldn't afford them, loans cost in fees and wages.. this was to a degree a negotiating position but we were in deep trouble with FFP and had 18 months to 2 years of downsizing and restraint to navigate.

[Lrrr]

13 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I like Piercy and would say that he doesn't deal in bullshite and can only print what he's heard.

But I still can't see anyone actually paying 5m for Twine.

Anyone reporting a loan yet ?

He's not saying its what anyone is paying though, he's saying its what Burnley's asking price was/is, from their perspective Twine is a Champ ready player who could be part of their squad should they drop down, why would they sell cheaply? (with Prem money in mind when I say cheap)

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, Cov 77 said:

Say what you want , he said on many occasions he was not in favour of loans , didn’t want them around the place as did not think they brought anything and hindered the group , not lazy , not pushing anti NP agenda, you constantly push pro Nige , anti Lansdown etc but don’t call you out all the time 

 

He said he was not in favour of loans because of the reasons @Merrick's Marvels explained. You've conveniently over looked thst bit and just focused on the not in favour of loans bit. 

[lenred]

14 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I don't think there are many people calling for us to spend 5 million on one player in January. 

Correct.   I’ll be fuming if we spend anywhere near that on him.  All the hard work done to get us back on an even keel will have been wasted, all to try and save face.  Really hope it’s not true.  

[bcfc01]

Just now, Lrrr said:

He's not saying its what anyone is paying though, he's saying its what Burnley's asking price was/is, from their perspective Twine is a Champ ready player who could be part of their squad should they drop down, why would they sell cheaply? (with Prem money in mind when I say cheap)

Which my first sentence states.

 

[Cov 77]

3 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

He said he was not in favour of loans because of the reasons @Merrick's Marvels explained. You've conveniently over looked thst bit and just focused on the not in favour of loans bit. 

Again as some say financial reasons may come into it , but Nige said on many occasions was not a fan of loans 

[PHILINFRANCE]

30 minutes ago, Harry said:

See, I also don’t understand the ‘loan with a view to buy’. 
Manning has already managed this player for a year. The most successful year both of them have had in football. 
We don’t need to ‘try before you buy’. 
Manning knows what he can bring and knows he can work with him. 

If Manning wants him then just buy him. What’s the point of a ‘try before you buy’. 

Of course Manning has already managed him, but that was not in The Championship, a huge step up from League One, as you well know.

Whilst, presumably/hopefully, Manning will be confident he can carry on as before, albeit at a higher level, this has yet to be proven (it was certainly not demonstrated at Burnley - injuries noted - nor strikingly at Hull), so a loan with a (reasonable) option to buy would seem the ideal solution (for us).

22 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

But to have the £3mil option after the loan, then surely we would be paying at least a million (you would assume) for the 6 months loan that we have him, then if we don’t exercise the option at least Burnley would look at it as having gained a million as they certainly won’t be letting him come on loan for nothing, so that would total (completely assuming here btw) a transfer fee of £4mil all in…..which in my opinion is far too much money for a player whose best season has not even been at this level.

Seems mental to me, either buy him now or wait until the summer, a loan is pointless. If we were top 4 of the league then i could understand, but not in our currebt position

I agree a full loan would be pointless (and expensive), were we to agree a loan on terms similar to TG-H, where the amount of his loan fee is deducted from any final transfer fee, then why not?

Provided the transfer fee is not £5M!

[bpexile]

6 hours ago, alexukhc said:

I know people are saying 5million is a lot, but today’s prices is it? Yes we should’ve got him free back then, but we didn’t, but had he joined us he’d prob wouldn’t be half the player is now, name a better player or players we could get for 5 million?

Or at Bournemouth 

[astrondrew]

25 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

If Burnley were to get relegated i could see them wanting close to that as they may use him in this league next year, but if they stay up i can’t see them demanding that as i don’t see how anyone would pay that much, especially as they only paid £4mil themselves.

Why would his price not have increased by a million?

Arguably, they'd want at least that.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, chowie said:

Do you think there could be an option scenario like below?

Loan with Option to buy:

At say £5m if Burnley are relegated.

At say £2.5m if Burnley remain in the Premier League.

Honest answer, not a clue.

[Simon bristol]

Not sure how the massengo to burnley fee was structured, perhaps we could waive any sell on fee for him we may have agreed?

[lenred]

1 minute ago, Ghost Rider said:

When will you be fuming though? Let’s just say we spent £5m on him and we announced it on Wednesday. Would you be fuming then or would you wait until it’s mathematically not possible that we couldn’t reach the Premier League for you to be fuming? Because if we paid £5m, and he was the missing piece we needed, and we got to the Prem, you’d look a bit silly to be fuming about someone spending money that isn’t even yours on a player that got us to the Premier League.

Being fuming is a bit of a minefield isn’t it.

 

If you seriously think that Scott Twine is going to deliver us to the Prem I’ll have some of what you’re having. 

[italian dave]

1 minute ago, Ghost Rider said:

When will you be fuming though? Let’s just say we spent £5m on him and we announced it on Wednesday. Would you be fuming then or would you wait until it’s mathematically not possible that we couldn’t reach the Premier League for you to be fuming? Because if we paid £5m, and he was the missing piece we needed, and we got to the Prem, you’d look a bit silly to be fuming about someone spending money that isn’t even yours on a player that got us to the Premier League.

Being fuming is a bit of a minefield isn’t it.

 

This is OTIB. People fume when they want to and regardless of the circumstances. People like fuming! 
(Not directed at you @lenred!)

[Mr Hankey]

8 minutes ago, astrondrew said:

Why would his price not have increased by a million?

Arguably, they'd want at least that.

Based on his stats (which i know you can’t always judge by) at this level, i would argue he hasn’t done enough for his price to of increased. Burnley overpaid for him to begin with in my opinion, but due to parachute payments they were able to do so without it being a massive risk.

I think anyone buying him now aren’t buying him for what he has done so far at this level, but more so for what he done at MK & Newport with the apparent potential to do the same at this level. So in my opinion his value hasn’t increased higher than the money Burnley paid, if anything i think £4mil would be a million too much.

Burnley may very well want at least £5mil but they would struggle to find a buyer at that price.

Edited January 14 by Mr Hankey

[BCFC31]

8 minutes ago, lenred said:

If you seriously think that Scott Twine is going to deliver us to the Prem I’ll have some of what you’re having. 

Twine when  played behind the striker through the moddle is a very talented player he scored 20 goals and got 13 assists from midfield the level below no one puts those numbers up at his age unless they have something about them. He was shoved out wide for both burnley and Hull he isn't a winger he hasn't got the pace he plays in the hole he scores goals and links up play manning could be playing a blinder I'd imagen he will play where knight does and then it will be hickman and Knight in the middle. Plus twine is only 24 it isn't like he's finished his best years are still yet to come

Edited January 14 by BCFC31

[astrondrew]

Deleted.

 

Edited January 14 by astrondrew

[italian dave]

I think I can confidently predict that if we sign Twine it will be for “undisclosed fee”.

[GrahamC]

6 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Not sure how the massengo to burnley fee was structured, perhaps we could waive any sell on fee for him we may have agreed?

There was no fee.

There was compensation & it wasn’t structured.

It appears to have been circa £500k, a one off payment.

[lenred]

Just now, BCFC31 said:

Twine played behind the striker is a very talented player he scored 20 goals and got 13 assits from midfield the level below no one puts those numbers up at his age unless they have something about them.

Again, if you think Scott Twine will take us to the Prem this season, I’ll happily take the name of your provider / preferred drink.   How’s about this though….. If he does I’ll give £500 to charity. If he doesn’t you give £50? Fancy it? 

[Davefevs]

51 minutes ago, Harry said:

See, I also don’t understand the ‘loan with a view to buy’. 
Manning has already managed this player for a year. The most successful year both of them have had in football. 
We don’t need to ‘try before you buy’. 
Manning knows what he can bring and knows he can work with him. 

If Manning wants him then just buy him. What’s the point of a ‘try before you buy’. 
 

Again, I just wouldn’t spend resource on a loan at all. I also wouldn’t spend £5m on him. 
But if LM sees him as key then just buy him. Why bother with a loan 

Manning hasn’t seen him perform at this level with this team…that’s a good reason for me!

37 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I've seen 5m stated, but don't believe it for one minute.

think it was James Piercy who wrote about it.

13 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

He's not saying its what anyone is paying though, he's saying its what Burnley's asking price was/is, from their perspective Twine is a Champ ready player who could be part of their squad should they drop down, why would they sell cheaply? (with Prem money in mind when I say cheap)

That’s the angle City / us need to bear in mind….if they get relegated they've got some in-house.

~~~~~

This whole Twine rumour is one designed to test logic!

[astrondrew]

4 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

Based on his stats (which i know you can’t always judge by) at this level, i would argue he hasn’t done enough for his price to of increased. Burnley overpaid for him to begin with in my opinion, but due to parachute payments they were able to do so without it being a massive risk.

I think anyone buying him now aren’t buying him for what he has done so far at this level, but more so for what he done at MK & Newport with the apparent potential to do the same at this level. So in my opinion his value hasn’t increased higher than the money Burnley paid, if anything i think £4mil would be a million too much.

Burnley may very well want at least £5mil but they would struggle to find a buyer at that price.

OK but Burnley won't see it that way and they are part of the negotiation.

So you go back to them with discussions on loan to buy with a loan fee etc.

[johnheadbcfc]

Some of you moan when we don't make signings, then moan when we do

[BCFC31]

4 minutes ago, lenred said:

Again, if you think Scott Twine will take us to the Prem this season, I’ll happily take the name of your provider / preferred drink.   How’s about this though….. If he does I’ll give £500 to charity. If he doesn’t you give £50? Fancy it? 

Who said scott twine will take us to the prem this season I certainly never... we need 3 or 4 twine level of signings and even then we're looking at next season at best so manning has a full pre season with HIS players and I'd be delighted if twine was 1 of those players

Edited January 14 by BCFC31

[Jeez]

Realistically - Twine is going to cost at least 4m as Burnley will look to recoup their investment - equally there just isn’t many attacking players with Championship experience that we can attract.

Unfortunately 4-5m is what it will cost us unless we try a league one punt but for every Sykes is an Eisa.

I say go for it - we’re desperately lacking in this type of position.

[BCFC31]

1 minute ago, johnheadbcfc said:

Some of you moan when we don't make signings, then moan when we do

There is honestly no pleasing some people on here it's ridiculous.

[lenred]

Just now, BCFC31 said:

Who said scott twine will take us to the prem this season I certainly never... we need 3 or 4 twine level of signings and even then we're looking at next season at best so manning has a full pre season with HIS players and I'd be delighted if twine was 1 of those players

Guess that’s a no then……

2 minutes ago, johnheadbcfc said:

Some of you moan when we don't make signings, then moan when we do

Who has moaned about not signing anyone who is now questioning Twines fee? 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

Based on his stats (which i know you can’t always judge by) at this level, i would argue he hasn’t done enough for his price to of increased. Burnley overpaid for him to begin with in my opinion, but due to parachute payments they were able to do so without it being a massive risk.

I think anyone buying him now aren’t buying him for what he has done so far at this level, but more so for what he done at MK & Newport with the apparent potential to do the same at this level. So in my opinion his value hasn’t increased higher than the money Burnley paid, if anything i think £4mil would be a million too much.

Burnley may very well want at least £5mil but they would struggle to find a buyer at that price.

I agree. 

5 minutes ago, BCFC31 said:

Twine played behind the striker is a very talented player he scored 20 goals and got 13 assists from midfield the level below no one puts those numbers up at his age unless they have something about them. He was shoved out wide for both burnley and Hull he isn't a winger he hasn't got the pace he plays in the hole he scores goals and links up play manning could be playing a blinder I'd imagen he will play where knight does and then it will be hickman and Knight in the middle.

In fairness he played mostly on the left, albeit kinda halfway between left and centre…a bit like Semenyo did for us last season, neither a winger or centre-forward.  He played more as a 10 at Newport though.

Twine’s Heatmap 21/22:

Having said all that, I agree, I’d want him to play central.

4 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

There was no fee.

There was compensation & it wasn’t structured.

It appears to have been circa £500k, a one off payment.

FWIW I believe we did agree a fee with Burnley rather than taking it to PFCC Tribunal. It’s quite possible that transfer included a sell-on fee and add-ons.  But I obviously don’t know any more than that.  The person I know who would know won’t tell me…nor do I blame him!

[johnheadbcfc]

1 minute ago, lenred said:

Guess that’s a no then……

Who has moaned about not signing anyone who is now questioning Twines fee? 

I'm not gonna track through pages of posts because I cannot be assed,but looking as you disagree but someone else agrees with me we are pretty much at a stalemate.

 

[lenred]

Just now, johnheadbcfc said:

I'm not gonna track through pages of posts because I cannot be assed,but looking as you disagree but someone else agrees with me we are pretty much at a stalemate.

 

So, no one then.  

[johnheadbcfc]

Just now, lenred said:

So, no one then.  

Nah no one

[JoeAman08]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

See, I also don’t understand the ‘loan with a view to buy’. 
Manning has already managed this player for a year. The most successful year both of them have had in football. 
We don’t need to ‘try before you buy’. 
Manning knows what he can bring and knows he can work with him. 

If Manning wants him then just buy him. What’s the point of a ‘try before you buy’. 
 

Again, I just wouldn’t spend resource on a loan at all. I also wouldn’t spend £5m on him. 
But if LM sees him as key then just buy him. Why bother with a loan 

I would guess to see if he can be the main man a team? Yes he has managed him in that role in L1 but fair to see whether he can handle it at this level. My opinion on it anyway

[lenred]

Just now, johnheadbcfc said:

Nah no one

Well actually prove it then instead of just chucking out bullshit. 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, lenred said:

Guess that’s a no then……

Who has moaned about not signing anyone who is now questioning Twines fee? 

Agree, we have people on both sides of the potential signing, I don’t see any overlap other than a small Venn diagram of people saying they would be happier to sign him at a much lower fee.

[Harry]

I’ve seen a few comments about him not being capable (or at least unproven) at this level. 
 

He was very unlucky at Burnley. Signed for big money and then injured on his debut. By the time he got back to fitness agin he’d missed 6 months of football and Burnley were on a tremendous run and so it was hard for him to get back in as a starter. 
He only started 5 games and scored 3 assisted 1. That’s not actually too bad really is it. 
 

Many have said “he’s not done anything at Hull”. 
Ok, so he’s played 25 I think. Scored 4, assisted 3. Ok, could be better.  But he’s also been shunted to left and right at times when his best role is central. 
However, and I’m sure @Davefevs could dig out that stats, but I believe he’s contributed hugely when it comes to ‘key passes’. 
So whilst his assist stat is only 3, I believe he’s been key to setting up big chances, or even assisting the assist. His key passes stats, from what I can see, are in the 95th percentile in the champ this season. 
That basically means you are getting a highly creative player. Which is exactly what we need. 
 

All that said, I still stand by the fact I wouldn’t pay £5m!! But for people to say he’s not proven at champ level, well, that’s just wrong - he’s among the most creative players in the league this season. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

25 minutes ago, Cov 77 said:

Again as some say financial reasons may come into it , but Nige said on many occasions was not a fan of loans 

BECAUSE OF THE REASONS @Merrick's Marvels POSTED. 

Jeeeeeeeeeez. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Agree, we have people on both sides of the potential signing, I don’t see any overlap other than a small Venn diagram of people saying they would be happier to sign him at a much lower fee.

I'll be delighted if we signed him, as in I will be delighted to see us play for us. 

I am however concerned about the financials. 

It's possible to hold both those views which I think some are struggling to understand. 

[lenred]

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I'll be delighted if we signed him, as in I will be delighted to see us play for us. 

I am however concerned about the financials. 

It's possible to hold both those views which I think some are struggling to understand. 

A few are struggling to comprehend or have very very short memories of the shit show we were in only recently and the pain it took to get out of it.   Or both.   

Edited January 14 by lenred

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

I’ve seen a few comments about him not being capable (or at least unproven) at this level. 
 

He was very unlucky at Burnley. Signed for big money and then injured on his debut. By the time he got back to fitness agin he’d missed 6 months of football and Burnley were on a tremendous run and so it was hard for him to get back in as a starter. 
He only started 5 games and scored 3 assisted 1. That’s not actually too bad really is it. 
 

Many have said “he’s not done anything at Hull”. 
Ok, so he’s played 25 I think. Scored 4, assisted 3. Ok, could be better.  But he’s also been shunted to left and right at times when his best role is central. 
However, and I’m sure @Davefevs could dig out that stats, but I believe he’s contributed hugely when it comes to ‘key passes’. 
So whilst his assist stat is only 3, I believe he’s been key to setting up big chances, or even assisting the assist. His key passes stats, from what I can see, are in the 95th percentile in the champ this season. 
That basically means you are getting a highly creative player. Which is exactly what we need. 
 

All that said, I still stand by the fact I wouldn’t pay £5m!! But for people to say he’s not proven at champ level, well, that’s just wrong - he’s among the most creative players in the league this season. 

I still think he is unproven!

He’s played the equivalent of 25 games, albeit his output from those is pretty good:

There is of course plenty of caveats, playing for Burnley helps!

.

.

 

I think he’s a good player, just not £5m good!

[Harry]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I still think he is unproven!

He’s played the equivalent of 25 games, albeit his output from those is pretty good:

There is of course plenty of caveats, playing for Burnley helps!

.

.

 

I think he’s a good player, just not £5m good!

I got mine from here :

 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

8 minutes ago, lenred said:

A few are struggling to comprehend or have very very short memories of the shit show we were in only recently and the pain it took to get out of it.   Or both.   

I think the general consensus is that most will be happy to see him play for us. 

But certainly not for 5 million because of what you mention. 

[Finley_Smith10]

A player that plays in the number 10 position, creates loads of chances and also has scored very good goals over the years. Why are people against it? 

 

 

 

[BCFCGav]

I reckon we’re gonna do this, and announce tomorrow night/Tuesday latest. I reckon the Weimann deal is long done but we’ve said to WBA ‘please delay your announcement until we have a replacement, else we may have rioters’. And they will be announced simultaneously before WHU at the gate.

I just bloody hope that, if I’m right, it’s a perm not a loan!

[George Rs]

Would be very suprised if we do end up shelling out 5m. 
 

That’s Manning getting almost as much in his first window as Nige had in all of his

 

Aside from that I think we are getting to the point where improvements will cost big money, was said in the summer countless times “to improve on what we have will be very costly.”
 

I don’t expect every transfer to be this expensive but young English attackers come at a premium, and although this g/a might not accurately reflect it Twine is one of the more creative players in the league. And as he’s already worked with Manning go for it I say. 

Edited January 14 by George Rs

[Davefevs]

@Harry different definitions of key passes I guess.

1 minute ago, Finley_Smith10 said:

A player that plays in the number 10 position, creates loads of chances and also has scored very good goals over the years. Why are people against it? 

 

 

 

The fee!

[George Rs]

.

Edited January 14 by George Rs

[Finley_Smith10]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

@Harry different definitions of key passes I guess.

The fee!

We’re obviously in a position to spend that sort of money so it shouldn’t bother us. No one even knows the exact fee or if it’s even happening atm. At least we’re actually willing to pay some fees now if true and show some ambition.

[Cov 77]

18 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

BECAUSE OF THE REASONS @Merrick's Marvels POSTED. 

Jeeeeeeeeeez. 

Jeez to you , ffs it’s NOT just those  reasons , you know that as well as I do , not everything you rant is right , patronising git 

[Jeez]

8 minutes ago, BCFCGav said:

I reckon we’re gonna do this, and announce tomorrow night/Tuesday latest. I reckon the Weimann deal is long done but we’ve said to WBA ‘please delay your announcement until we have a replacement, else we may have rioters’. And they will be announced simultaneously before WHU at the gate.

I just bloody hope that, if I’m right, it’s a perm not a loan!

Sounds good on paper, move on Weimann & bring in Twine. Even if it just till the end of the season it feel like an upgrade & if he really gels then we can make it Permanent.  

I don’t get what’s not to like about this 

Why is everyone so fixated on the finances? 

[petehinton]

1 minute ago, Jeez said:

Sounds good on paper, move on Weimann & bring in Twine. Even if it just till the end of the season it feel like an upgrade & if he really gels then we can make it Permanent.  

I don’t get what’s not to like about this 

Why is everyone so fixated on the finances? 

Because it took us 3 seasons & 3 years of all of our lives watching a team basically just struggle to stay afloat, to sort our finances out. And we absolutely don’t want to go reverse and go to through all that again!

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Finley_Smith10 said:

We’re obviously in a position to spend that sort of money so it shouldn’t bother us. No one even knows the exact fee or if it’s even happening atm. At least we’re actually willing to pay some fees now if true and show some ambition.

That’s fine if that’s your view on spending that sort of money.  Of course we don’t know the fee, but if it is £5m, then my view is we are overpaying.

Azaz for £2.5m was much better value imho.

Thats the debate.  If the rumours were £2.5m we’d be having a different discussion.

We could spend £20m if we wanted to.  Doesn’t mean you do.

[Jerseybean]

Haven’t read every post in this thread, so not sure if this has been mentioned, but should we sign him is it likely to undo the work NP did to ensure our wage structure was much more equitable?  

[Jeez]

Just now, petehinton said:

Because it took us 3 seasons & 3 years of all of our lives watching a team basically just struggle to stay afloat, to sort our finances out. And we absolutely don’t want to go reverse and go to through all that again!

Very conservative point of view, that mentality keeps you mid table at best.

it was only a few months ago everyone lost it because we did sign a replacement for Scott but we don’t want to spend the going rate for Twine who is literally the best option we can get.

I sense it’s mostly because a poster on here advised the club to sign him on a free & was snubbed that’s the thrust of why people are mooning about the price tag:

 

 

[petehinton]

3 minutes ago, Jeez said:

Very conservative point of view, that mentality keeps you mid table at best.

it was only a few months ago everyone lost it because we did sign a replacement for Scott but we don’t want to spend the going rate for Twine who is literally the best option we can get.

I sense it’s mostly because a poster on here advised the club to sign him on a free & was snubbed that’s the thrust of why people are mooning about the price tag:

 

 

FFS hahahahah

[Jeez]

1 minute ago, petehinton said:

FFS hahahahah

So who do you think we should sign then?

Edited January 14 by Jeez