Scott Twine - Signed on Four Year Deal - Official

[Major Isewater]

8 hours ago, Son of Fred said:

I believe Barry Cryer wrote for them.....a true great & one of the naturally funniest of people - always a story to tell.

 

 

[Port Said Red]

2 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

 

I think Ben Elton (one of the newer comic writers anyway) said they wrote one of the monologues for Corbett and were a bit taken by surprise when Corbett, came up to them and asked where "all the umm, errs and chuckles" were. 

All the bits that always seemed so improvised by him were actually scripted as well. I guess his talent was in making it look off the cuff.

[supercidered]

14 hours ago, downendcity said:

Reminds me of the 2 Ronnie's "and now the news" item.

Police investigating the theft of 10 rabbits from Peter's Pet Shop in the High Street report that so far they have recovered 20 of the stolen animals!

They also did the sketch which went something like:

Lord Lucan has finally been found.

He has been playing right back for Bristol City.

Cheeky C**** 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

22 minutes ago, supercidered said:

They also did the sketch which went something like:

Lord Lucan has finally been found.

He has been playing right back for Bristol City.

Cheeky C**** 

Centre Forward, surely?

Just now, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Centre Forward, surely?

And it was a news bulletin on Not The Nine O Clock News.

[slartibartfast]

1 minute ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Centre Forward, surely?

And it was a news bulletin on Not The Nine O Clock News.

Apart from that, spot on !

[supercidered]

2 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Centre Forward, surely?

And it was a news bulletin on Not The Nine O Clock News.

Could've sworn it was the Two Ronnies.

Age doesn't come alone!!

Still cheeky C**** though!

[marksy]

11 hours ago, FNQ said:

Burnley scratching their head, Manning scratching his head, Twine scratching his head, us fans scratching our heads… Steve Lansdown scratching his arse.

Has he got piles? He doesn’t need to suffer, there’s plenty of creams you can purchase over the counter at the chemist rather than spending you cheeks at the doctors. 

[supercidered]

2 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

Apart from that, spot on !

It was definitely not centre forward but if either programme were on now then centre forward or Number 10 would be more apt.

[supercidered]

13 minutes ago, marksy said:

Has he got piles? He doesn’t need to suffer, there’s plenty of creams you can purchase over the counter at the chemist rather than spending you cheeks at the doctors. 

It may not be Piles it could be Worms.

I've got to say it's nice to get off topic for a while but maybe we've gone a bit too far. 

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Centre Forward, surely?

And it was a news bulletin on Not The Nine O Clock News.

Agreed, it appeared the NTNON annual I got that Xmas, along with an advert for Subbuteo Swimming!!

[SuperDziek]

Instead of a 10, we need a 4 (candles)!

[downendcity]

12 hours ago, BCFC31 said:

Surely at this point with the season starting and twine being our number one target and our desperate need for a 10 city just pays the asking price ? Burnley must be scratching there head ! Surely there must be about 1m different in it just pay it ffs it will pay off when we get the value on the pitch.

I wonder whether, if Burnley had not changed manager, the deal would already have been done.

Could be that Parker is weighing up his options and wants to evaluate Twine before letting him go. If so, then it isn't necessarily our fault that it hasn't yet been finalised.

 

[astrondrew]

1 minute ago, downendcity said:

If so, then it isn't necessarily our fault that it hasn't yet been finalised.

 

Definitely part of it. The other major thing being that the clubs can't agree a fee. Hardly a rare occurrence.

[downendcity]

Classic OTIB.

Catching up on a thread about signing  a player from Burnley I've read a debate as to what position Lord Lucan played for us, the potted history of great comedy writers and diagnosis of Steve Lansdown's problems with his arse - although how his son got into the thread I don't know!

P.S. if ever you go to the doctor with a sore backside, when he/she asks " whereabouts is it sore?", is the right  answer  " the entrance"? 

 

 

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I wonder whether, if Burnley had not changed manager, the deal would already have been done.

Could be that Parker is weighing up his options and wants to evaluate Twine before letting him go. If so, then it isn't necessarily our fault that it hasn't yet been finalised.

 

Think the only thing that stopped this happening is City won’t pay what Burnley want.  They bought and sold without Parker in situ, think that’s just an excuse.  I don’t think City should pay Burnley’s valuation either, but City aren’t prepared to budge from theirs either (which appears to low for a player that they said is both key and wanted).  Stalemate. Move on.

[astrondrew]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Move on.

What if the Twine is, in the opinion of the manager, worth waiting for in comparison to the other options (perhaps due to being a known quantity) and there is a, not unreasonable belief, that as time ticks on Burnley might budge?

Seems reasonable enough to me.

[Sir Geoff]

22 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I wonder whether, if Burnley had not changed manager, the deal would already have been done.

Could be that Parker is weighing up his options and wants to evaluate Twine before letting him go. If so, then it isn't necessarily our fault that it hasn't yet been finalised.

 

Those days have gone imo. He is Burnleys player not Parkers. If Burnley received the fee they wanted in June he would now be  Bristol City player, whatever Parker thought of it.

Or...we could have bought him before Parker even had a chance to assess him. By delaying it we have risked him impressing Parker and Parker now telling Burnleys owners that he wants Twine as an integral part of his squad.

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, astrondrew said:

What if the Twine is, in the opinion of the manager, worth waiting for in comparison to the other options (perhaps due to being a known quantity) and there is a, not unreasonable belief, that as time ticks on Burnley might budge?

Seems reasonable enough to me.

Perfectly reasonable.  I guess what’s another 3 weeks when you’ve already taken 8 months!

[Sir Geoff]

6 minutes ago, astrondrew said:

What if the Twine is, in the opinion of the manager, worth waiting for in comparison to the other options (perhaps due to being a known quantity) and there is a, not unreasonable belief, that as time ticks on Burnley might budge?

Seems reasonable enough to me.

Why should Burnley budge ? 

Did we budge last summer with Scott ?

[Mr Popodopolous]

It's hard to say with Twine.

B-P-F clear fringe player, offload irrespective.

Someone like Twine.. not must keep but not obvious offload no plan either, may delay a bit between managers but Parker will have had time by now, problem at our end I suspect.

[astrondrew]

1 minute ago, Sir Geoff said:

Why should Burnley budge ? 

Did we budge last summer with Scott ?

They might not. They might though. Teams do. 

[Davefevs]

Just now, astrondrew said:

They might not. They might though. Teams do. 

Maybe they might if City do too!  They are miles apart as it stands.  Some coming together is needed.

One thing I heard in the last 48 hours (no I’m not gonna say what) gives it more hope than earlier this week, when I’d have said absolutely no chance.  I think a lot of pissing about has to stop though for that hope to materialise.

[astrondrew]

It seems not unreasonable to imagine that City might move if more of the Tommy money is up front...

[Sir Geoff]

1 minute ago, astrondrew said:

They might not. They might though. Teams do. 

Iirc his amortisation value is circa £3 million. If they sell for less than that then it will show as a loss in their books.

They still have 3 windows to sell him, if needs be. Or make a profit if loaned out via loan fee and wages paid 

Burnley dont need to sell him now.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, astrondrew said:

It seems not unreasonable to imagine that City might move if more of the Tommy money is up front...

I think Burnley might see that as “City have more money”!!!!

[astrondrew]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think Burnley might see that as “City have more money”!!!!

"not as much as you parachute guys. Meet half way?"

[38MC]

21 minutes ago, astrondrew said:

What if the Twine is, in the opinion of the manager, worth waiting for in comparison to the other options (perhaps due to being a known quantity) and there is a, not unreasonable belief, that as time ticks on Burnley might budge?

Seems reasonable enough to me.

I think this is where we made a rod for our own backs, and created this situation back in January. 

We almost empowered Liam Manning far too much at that point. Clearly Twine was 'his' man. But football clubs shouldn't be run like that, especially for a new manager taking a promotion into a League that was unfamiliar. This wasn't an established manager like Nigel (I really don't want to open that can of worms) getting established players and dressing room enforcers to make cultural changes in King and James. This was giving a relative rookie power to have the club a little bit over a barrel in terms of what he sees as attributes and almost bypassing the recruitment department. 

Fast forward and it seems it's very much my man or no man. The reality is we should have fronted up to Manning weeks ago and said 'we aren't paying it, so he isn't coming, dust yourself off and these are your alternative options'. But now that's very difficult because any alternative is clearly someone who Manning is going to see as a lesser option. 

Edited August 9 by 38MC

[Ashton Fete]

I think its a bit embarrassing tbh if he’s our number 1 target we aren’t just stumping up the extra £1m or similar especially given TC is on his way out. 

I guess the only caveats would be needing the TC money or the valuations being way out such as £2.5m v £5m

Either way the ways it been handled in terms of comms discipline including to IG is just a bit amateurish which just didn’t need to happen and shouldn’t have happened. 

Perhaps lessons learnt given BT hasn’t been seen or heard for a while

[LondonBristolian]

21 minutes ago, astrondrew said:

What if the Twine is, in the opinion of the manager, worth waiting for in comparison to the other options (perhaps due to being a known quantity) and there is a, not unreasonable belief, that as time ticks on Burnley might budge?

Seems reasonable enough to me.

Then it will come down to the result of the gamble and we'll have a better idea on August 31.

Either:

a) We sign Twine at a lower price, and it was a good decision.

b) We sign Twine at the price Burnley are demanding, in which case it was a waste of time to hold on.

c) We sign an alternative we want at a price we want to pay, in which that's fine and part of what happens.

or

d) We either bring nobody in or a player we didn't really want at the wrong price, in which it was a very poor decision indeed.

Ultimately I come back, once again, to the Nketiah situation, and the risks of putting all your eggs in one basket. If it works, brilliant. However, if Twine does not come at a lower price, serious questions have to be asked about why we ever thought that might happen. 

[38MC]

1 minute ago, BCFC K said:

This is just guesswork, no where has there been any indication that Manning has said “my man or no man”, in fact he said on the radio that you need different options. So much guesswork. 

Absolutely it's guess work, I opened with 'I think' and plenty of 'it seems' 

I would say a very public, summer long pursuit, with no hint of moving on to other targets and the only other 'number 10' even linked was Bradley Dack does indicate that, but I respect your opinion. 

[LondonBristolian]

6 minutes ago, BCFC K said:

Do we actually know what Burnley are asking for?lots of rumour but no evidence.

No. But figures within the club obviously will and I'd expect them to internally be critiquing the club's performance in the transfer window against our initial targets.

[38MC]

8 minutes ago, BCFC K said:

If anything it’s the opposite of what you’re saying if the club are unwilling to budge on their offer also not many people had an insight into Mayulu or Yu so we have kept things under wraps we will have other targets I’m sure. 

I'm not sure Mayulu or Yu necessarily do back up that point. Those show a decisiveness to get deals done, over the line quickly and without any leak. Twine is quite different, it's slow, sluggish and very public. And Mayulu came because another striker we chased ended up staying, we moved on quick. We haven't here. 

Guesswork trigger warning - those were quite fringe signings which would appear to me to be recruitment department driven. Twine it seems we have a laser focus on as the only missing jigsaw piece. That's my opinion. I really hope you're right that we have other targets, or just stump up the bloody cash. 

Edited August 9 by 38MC

[38MC]

6 minutes ago, BCFC K said:

How do we know the Yu and Mayulu deals were done quickly?

Tinnion DM'd me 

[astrondrew]

26 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Serious questions have to be asked about why we ever thought that might happen. 

And the serious answer will be "because it often does. That's how negotiation often works"

[Major Isewater]

There are two disagreeable possibilities. 
1) Twine stays at Burnley and bosses them to promotion.

2) Manning finally gets his man and he’s not up to it. 

Each scenario is more than possible which is why I would prefer that we move on. 
 

 

[astrondrew]

6 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

I would prefer that we move on

If 1 is true then moving on does not stop it and means we were stupid to move on.

[Ashton Fete]

28 minutes ago, 38MC said:

I'm not sure Mayulu or Yu necessarily do back up that point. Those show a decisiveness to get deals done, over the line quickly and without any leak. Twine is quite different, it's slow, sluggish and very public. And Mayulu came because another striker we chased ended up staying, we moved on quick. We haven't here. 

Guesswork trigger warning - those were quite fringe signings which would appear to me to be recruitment department driven. Twine it seems we have a laser focus on as the only missing jigsaw piece. That's my opinion. I really hope you're right that we have other targets, or just stump up the bloody cash. 

Exactly this and the club caused these issues by publically naming him/when asked as a target this summer.

I noted this week that LM said that he didn’t want to talk about other clubs players when asked about Twine.  This should have been the position months ago.

[astrondrew]

9 minutes ago, Ashton Fete said:

Exactly this and the club caused these issues by publically naming him/when asked as a target this summer.

I noted this week that LM said that he didn’t want to talk about other clubs players when asked about Twine.  This should have been the position months ago.

I see that slightly differently.

It has been as public as these things tend to be when a player has been on loan at a club. 

The statement about not wanting to talk about other clubs' players was interesting but I think the following sentence was more interesting. Something like "until I can talk about that I won't". Almost certainly wishful thinking but it felt like negotiations had moved.

[Ian M]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Perfectly reasonable.  I guess what’s another 3 weeks when you’ve already taken 8 months!

Given we've already put in 8 months, what's another 5 if we don't get it done this window?
And should we still fall short in January we'd have put 13 months into this, we may as well wait until the Summer...

[Silvio Dante]

7 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Given we've already put in 8 months, what's another 5 if we don't get it done this window?
And should we still fall short in January we'd have put 13 months into this, we may as well wait until the Summer...

Yep. 
 

Just to illustrate how ham fisted this has been, there have been babies born who weren’t conceived when we started negotiations to buy Scott Twine….

[The hand of RO'D]

Nothings changed here. 
Sale of TC the only thing holding this up. Bidding war between 3 clubs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The sale of TC should be a bit of an irrelevance all told, but if SL wants to run the the club in a certain manner these days well that's his choice.

[The hand of RO'D]

2 minutes ago, The hand of RO'D said:

Nothings changed here. 
Sale of TC the only thing holding this up. Bidding war between 3 clubs.

When I say bidding war. I’m talking 100ks not millions and deal structures.

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The sale of TC should be a bit of an irrelevance all told, but if SL wants to run the the club in a certain manner these days well that's his choice.

Everything has been agreed with Burnley for a while now. It’s mainly down to the structure of the TC deal.

[Jose]

If that’s the case it’s ridiculous. Tommy will leave. 100% . This club haggling on that putting a delay on Twine because of it. He can’t be as important as they make out if they are willing to not have him for the start of the season. Amateurish.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, The hand of RO'D said:

Everything has been agreed with Burnley for a while now. It’s mainly down to the structure of the TC deal.

I've seen it elsewhere on Twitter and it seems to be conflating issues.

A key reason for this is because SL is putting less in than he once did.

We're some way clear of FFP finally. However SL wants us to run as close to Self Sufficiency and Cash Breakeven as possible. FFP shouldn't be an issue here, SL not putting in as much as he once did is.

[Shauntaylor85]

To be fair imagine if Conway got injured in training and the deal fell through? Can see why in a sense we need the sale to happen first. A bit like exchanging for a house move!  

[The hand of RO'D]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I've seen it elsewhere on Twitter and it seems to be conflating issues.

A key reason for this is because SL is putting less in than he once did.

We're some way clear of FFP finally. However SL wants us to run as close to Self Sufficiency and Cash Breakeven as possible. FFP shouldn't be an issue here, SL not putting in as much as he once did is.

We want cash upfront and so do Burnley for Twine and until these 2 align it’s a case of waiting for whoever comes up with the cash.

Edited August 9 by The hand of RO'D

[Ashton Fete]

26 minutes ago, astrondrew said:

I see that slightly differently.

It has been as public as these things tend to be when a player has been on loan at a club. 

The statement about not wanting to talk about other clubs' players was interesting but I think the following sentence was more interesting. Something like "until I can talk about that I won't". Almost certainly wishful thinking but it felt like negotiations had moved.

Yeah can see your point.  I just think there’s more subtle ways without saying it.  Carrick as an example yesterday when asked said there’s nothing to speak about until there’s something to speak about. 

Some fans will see that as disciplined whereas others may see it as not engaging/updating fans

I think we’ve made it more difficult to sign him given how public we’ve been as Burnley have clearly dug their heels in and said, you’ve said openly you want him, here’s the price and we know you’ll pay it eventually (which I think we will)

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, The hand of RO'D said:

We want cash upfront and so do Burnley for Twine and until these 2 align it’s a case of waiting who comes up with the cash.

Well thank you that makes sense.

SL could easily fill that void as it is Cash Input and there is no limit on Cash Flow Input but in this more restricted way yeah it figures.

[bpexile]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

SL wants us to run as close to Self Sufficiency and Cash Breakeven as possible. SL not putting in as much as he once did is.

But still wants us in the EPL. A tough ask !!

[Jose]

1 minute ago, bpexile said:

But still wants us in the EPL. A tough ask !!

Does he? I don’t see much evidence of that. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, bpexile said:

But still wants us in the EPL. A tough ask !!

If he still does.

We are hoping for an Ipswich or perhaps more likely Luton stars align.

The only other thing I can think of, is that he is awaiting the new proposed Regs which cap clubs at 70% of Revenue on Football Costs and so forth and we have one of the top non Parachute Incomes in this League.

If you can then smooth out the Parachute v the Rest Gap at this level then we would be up there from an Income perspective and perhaps less pressure to sell young players.

However I do, the parameters atm are problematic.

[chinapig]

10 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I've seen it elsewhere on Twitter and it seems to be conflating issues.

A key reason for this is because SL is putting less in than he once did.

We're some way clear of FFP finally. However SL wants us to run as close to Self Sufficiency and Cash Breakeven as possible. FFP shouldn't be an issue here, SL not putting in as much as he once did is.

I think he is also preparing for the future 90/80/70 squad cost control regime. A wise thing to do imo.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, chinapig said:

I think he is also preparing for the future 90/80/70 squad cost control regime. A wise thing to do imo.

I'd agree there yep.

[italian dave]

21 minutes ago, The hand of RO'D said:

We want cash upfront and so do Burnley for Twine and until these 2 align it’s a case of waiting for whoever comes up with the cash.

Maybe we should just put Burnley and Boro in touch with each other. Suggest that they agree a mutually acceptable up front % and we go with whatever they agree!!! Can’t work any worse that where we seem to be now. 

[Supersonic Robin]

2 hours ago, astrondrew said:

What if the Twine is, in the opinion of the manager, worth waiting for in comparison to the other options (perhaps due to being a known quantity) and there is a, not unreasonable belief, that as time ticks on Burnley might budge?

Seems reasonable enough to me.

My view would be that if Manning & Tinnion really do see Twine as so integral to our success that we're willing to pursue him for 9 months and not bother making approaches for other options, then why not just pay a bit more and get it done?

Conversely, if we don't think Twine's impact will be so great that he's worth paying a bit more for, then why are we still wasting time on him?

[westonred]

The club say they want Twine.

LM has said he wants Twine.

Twine apparently says himself he wants to come.

My question is how will LM feel if the club dont back him enough to bring Twine in ?

[bpexile]

35 minutes ago, Jose said:

Does he? I don’t see much evidence of that. 

I agree, I probably phrased that wrong trying to be facetious 

[astrondrew]

23 minutes ago, Supersonic Robin said:

Why not just pay a bit more and get it done?

Maybe they think 3 weeks or so are not worth £1m

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, astrondrew said:

Maybe they think 3 weeks or so are not worth £1m

The negative scenario would be if 3 weeks drags, Twine still at Burnley and TC still here and deemed persona non grata.

Any risk of that I wonder.

Edited August 9 by Mr Popodopolous

[Supersonic Robin]

3 minutes ago, astrondrew said:

Maybe they think 3 weeks or so are not worth £1m

But it's not 3 weeks, is it? It's months.

And on what basis are we assuming that we save £1m by waiting 3 weeks? Burnley don't want or need to sell Twine. We do want him - very clearly. Surely, as we approach deadline day, it's City that get more desperate and hold a weaker negotiating position, not Burnley.

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, Supersonic Robin said:

But it's not 3 weeks, is it? It's months.

And on what basis are we assuming that we save £1m by waiting 3 weeks? Burnley don't want or need to sell Twine. We do want him - very clearly. Surely, as we approach deadline day, it's City that get more desperate and hold a weaker negotiating position, not Burnley.

Correctomundo.

And the one thing that is still odd here is that if we are to ultimately pay Burnley’s price (which we will as our want for the player is greater than their need to sell) then we could have done so as our first business of the summer as opposed to prioritising Armstrong, Fally and Yu. Indeed, we’ve already, if reports are to be believed, spent some of the Conway money on Armstrong.

So I ask again. If he was the key target, and the price was never changing because of how desparate we were for him, why have we delayed all summer? I don’t want the player but Liam does and it strikes me we’ve tried to be a bit too cute based on our belief that Scott wants the move.

[Simon bristol]

2 minutes ago, Supersonic Robin said:

But it's not 3 weeks, is it? It's months.

And on what basis are we assuming that we save £1m by waiting 3 weeks? Burnley don't want or need to sell Twine. We do want him - very clearly. Surely, as we approach deadline day, it's City that get more desperate and hold a weaker negotiating position, not Burnley.

And in the meantime, games will be played, points are at stake, and twine has never played with our 2 new strikers, a new winger, or bird behind him.. for the season to start tomorrow without this being sorted is shite… 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

And in the meantime, games will be played, points are at stake, and twine has never played with our 2 new strikers, a new winger, or bird behind him.. for the season to start tomorrow without this being sorted is shite… 

Think Bird will slot in relatively seamlessly not least as his laat relationship with Knight but as you say Twine to Armstrong and or Fally.

Not just new strikers ie Weimann for Reid had some continuity as they both like to press. (Always wondered whether we should have played Paterson-Weimann more often but anyway).

Armstrong and Fally but especially Armstrong...different profile altogether, different patterns of play needed?

Edited August 9 by Mr Popodopolous

[marmite]

55 minutes ago, Supersonic Robin said:

My view would be that if Manning & Tinnion really do see Twine as so integral to our success that we're willing to pursue him for 9 months and not bother making approaches for other options, then why not just pay a bit more and get it done?

Conversely, if we don't think Twine's impact will be so great that he's worth paying a bit more for, then why are we still wasting time on him?

 

If Ashton was still here we would have had Twine here by now for about 5mil and Conway would have been sold for about 8mil.

We're fiddling around while the season's about to start. 

Same old City. Same shit-different year.

[astrondrew]

33 minutes ago, Supersonic Robin said:

But it's not 3 weeks, is it? It's months.

It is weeks now. 

"Surely, as we approach deadline day, it's City that get more desperate and hold a weaker negotiating position, not Burnley"

Maybe. Or maybe City have decided they are not paying Burnley's price and will move on when they are certain they won't budge.

[Banjo Island]

16 minutes ago, marmite said:

 

If Ashton was still here we would have had Twine here by now for about 5mil and Conway would have been sold for about 8mil.

We're fiddling around while the season's about to start. 

Same old City. Same shit-different year.

Buckle up and enjoy the ride marmite

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 minutes ago, marmite said:

 Conway would have been sold for about 8mil.

Really?

That high, final year of deal- would we have still stick him in the U21s?

[BCFC31]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I've seen it elsewhere on Twitter and it seems to be conflating issues.

A key reason for this is because SL is putting less in than he once did.

We're some way clear of FFP finally. However SL wants us to run as close to Self Sufficiency and Cash Breakeven as possible. FFP shouldn't be an issue here, SL not putting in as much as he once did is.

This is why I can't stand the bloke he's a belter he is seriously in the wrong game if he thinks he is going to get returns on his money owning a football club is just what billionaires do so they don't get bored playing golf all the time.

[Johnny Musicworks]

If Burnley don’t unload enough of their massive squad then they will have to be willing to negotiate. They are not so much holding all the cards as holding all the players with expensive contracts.