Scott Twine - Signed on Four Year Deal - Official

[Shauntaylor85]

It’s embarrassing how the position we needed to sort as a priority hasn’t happened and let’s be honest has cost us a win today. We lacked it badly. Sort it out City and move on to other targets. 

[Dolman Block B]

Having watched the City game today it’s hugely clear Twine is what is needed

Max Bird or Jason Knight ain’t no No 10,s but excellent midfielders  

We are pretty close to a great squad 

Let’s hope this happens next week  

 

 

 

 

[milo1111]

I’m not sure twine is the be all and end all but we are crying out for that type of player after watching that game today.

to think SL  sanctioned £4m for Kasey palmer who LJ had used sparingly on loan and ended up an outcast , and now we are pissing around over paying roughly the same amount for twine when he is mannings main man and in desperate need. 

[Midred]

Was he playing for Birmingham today?

[BCFC31]

For me this just comes down to a lack of ambition plain and simple!  at this point forget all the " well they want an extra million etc bullshit, twine to us is worth a hell of a alot it's our number 1 priority specialist position, we dont have any ready made players who can play that role. we need somone who can take those set plays and he can unlock doors with his little passes through the lines a dream for a runner like Armstrong!! and he can also chip in with some goals from from open play much like he did when at mk dons getting 20 goals from midfield! Twine is also less of a punt given he knows this division now and is used to the pace of the english game. He solves so many problems for us and its just one signing we know we are also getting 5m for Conway when he goes to boro next week  so what an earth are we playing at ?  If this is coming down to haggling over 1 to 2 million quid at this stage in the season after all these months then quite frankly the club aren't going to put  there money where the mouth is. Burnley simply do not need to sell that alone entitles them to there asking price they have somthing we want its supply and demand end of the day like most things in life. lansdown just bloody sling your hook now your time is well and truly over at the club pass the reins on to somebody who truly wants progress. Twine is 24 years old a bloody good solid championship attacking midfielder with bags of potential and a resale value to boot just get the deal done. They bombed pearson out now go and stand by that decision and back liam manning.

Edited August 10 by BCFC31

[Mr Popodopolous]

UP to £5m.

My guess would be £2-2.5m, maybe at most £3m in Fee and then the rest as and when Add-Ons fall due, if indeed they even materialise. Add-Ons are conditional of course.

[BCFC31]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

UP to £5m.

My guess would be £2-2.5m, maybe at most £3m in Fee and then the rest as and when Add-Ons fall due, if indeed they even materialise. Add-Ons are conditional of course.

But 3m plus add ons for twine to me seems responsible! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, BCFC31 said:

But 3m plus add ons for twine to me seems responsible! 

Oh yeah I meant for Conway, the £2-2.5m plus add-ons.

Who knows what Burnley want, my best guess would be in the range of £3.5-4m

[INCRED]

I just have a feeling that Twine will be done next week along with Conway going probably to Boro unless a Prem club come in at the 11th hour. 

Twine will be in our matchday squad next Saturday 

[YorkshireSection]

1 hour ago, milo1111 said:

I’m not sure twine is the be all and end all but we are crying out for that type of player after watching that game today.

to think SL  sanctioned £4m for Kasey palmer who LJ had used sparingly on loan and ended up an outcast , and now we are pissing around over paying roughly the same amount for twine when he is mannings main man and in desperate need. 

Here is why SL has achieved zero success as a Football owner, he makes awful decisions and largely employs the wrong people in positions of employment. Cheerio, ASAP.

[fly in the air]

we all know it's Twine we want. anyone know who the other player is that Manning is after

[BCFC31]

2 minutes ago, fly in the air said:

we all know it's Twine we want. anyone know who the other player is that Manning is after

I dont even think manning knows.

[Banjo Red]

20 minutes ago, fly in the air said:

we all know it's Twine we want. anyone know who the other player is that Manning is after

Would love poku from Peterborough.

[Bcfc24]

3 hours ago, BCFC31 said:

Twine has been given the number 11 shirt read into that what you will and apparently parker absolutely loved him. Manning days we aren't close to any more signings and we just need to " wait and see what may happen " 

If he has said this it won’t be done this week, this one will go to the last week of the window

[Buster Footman's T shirt]

57 minutes ago, INCRED said:

I just have a feeling that Twine will be done next week along with Conway going probably to Boro unless a Prem club come in at the 11th hour. 

Twine will be in our matchday squad next Saturday 

I hope you are right. I don't think we will pay what is required for an effective player in that position. It won't be a value for money signing, a premium has to be paid for these type of players that have championship experience. We ain't paying it. Another punt from lge 2 I expect.

[petehinton]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oh yeah I meant for Conway, the £2-2.5m plus add-ons.

Who knows what Burnley want, my best guess would be in the range of £3.5-4m

By all accounts, it’s more than that. And by that token; they want more than they paid for him.

 

For those getting down about him being ‘given the 11 shirt’, he’s always been that number so it’s not a big thing. 

Big thing for me, is what happens Monday night. If he’s not in the squad or is an unused sub, I think things may accelerate. 

Edited August 10 by petehinton

[mozo]

2 minutes ago, petehinton said:

By all accounts, it’s more than that. And by that token; they want more than they paid for him.

 

For those getting down about him being ‘given the 11 shirt’, he’s always been that number so it’s not a big thing. 

Big thing for me, is what happens Monday night. If he’s not in the squad or is an unused sub, I think things may accelerate. 

Thanks for sharing buddy 

[BCFC31]

5 minutes ago, petehinton said:

By all accounts, it’s more than that. And by that token; they want more than they paid for him.

 

For those getting down about him being ‘given the 11 shirt’, he’s always been that number so it’s not a big thing. 

Big thing for me, is what happens Monday night. If he’s not in the squad or is an unused sub, I think things may accelerate. 

Personally with out knowing the details I'd be absolutely amazed if burnley want more for twine then they paid for him.

Edited August 10 by BCFC31

[BCFC31]

6 minutes ago, petehinton said:

By all accounts, it’s more than that. And by that token; they want more than they paid for him.

 

For those getting down about him being ‘given the 11 shirt’, he’s always been that number so it’s not a big thing. 

Big thing for me, is what happens Monday night. If he’s not in the squad or is an unused sub, I think things may accelerate. 

I agree with this as then the justification on burnleys end with the valuation diminishes imo

[Jose]

8 minutes ago, petehinton said:

By all accounts, it’s more than that. And by that token; they want more than they paid for him.

 

For those getting down about him being ‘given the 11 shirt’, he’s always been that number so it’s not a big thing. 

Big thing for me, is what happens Monday night. If he’s not in the squad or is an unused sub, I think things may accelerate. 

I don’t care how bad we struggled in the final third today we should not be paying that in my opinion. Has to be other options out there at better value. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, petehinton said:

By all accounts, it’s more than that. And by that token; they want more than they paid for him.

 

For those getting down about him being ‘given the 11 shirt’, he’s always been that number so it’s not a big thing. 

Big thing for me, is what happens Monday night. If he’s not in the squad or is an unused sub, I think things may accelerate. 

Thanks for sharing.

More than £3.5-4m?? That is greedy. Albeit we seem to have been messing around with this. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, petehinton said:

By all accounts, it’s more than that. And by that token; they want more than they paid for him.

 

For those getting down about him being ‘given the 11 shirt’, he’s always been that number so it’s not a big thing. 

Big thing for me, is what happens Monday night. If he’s not in the squad or is an unused sub, I think things may accelerate. 

Thanks for sharing.

More than £3.5-4m?? That is greedy. Albeit we seem to have been messing around with this.

[Son of Fred]

12 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Big thing for me, is what happens Monday night. If he’s not in the squad or is an unused sub, I think things may accelerate. 

In the downwards direction as regards the price  

[Andrew_V1]

2 minutes ago, Jose said:

I don’t care how bad we struggled in the final third today we should not be paying that in my opinion. Has to be other options out there at better value. 

We probably shouldn’t but we have spent too long on this one target I’m not convinced we have any other options (or if the recruitment team do manning may not want them).

Way I see it they made a big unpopular call in bringing manning in, this is clearly the one key player he wants then they should have the balls to back him on this and just get the deal done.

As has been alluded to many times we can afford it within ffp rules and we have clearly been economic with strikers so it doesn’t sit right if they don’t back him on his one key player he clearly thinks will make the difference.

 

[38MC]

3 minutes ago, Andrew_V1 said:

We probably shouldn’t but we have spent too long on this one target I’m not convinced we have any other options (or if the recruitment team do manning may not want them).

Way I see it they made a big unpopular call in bringing manning in, this is clearly the one key player he wants then they should have the balls to back him on this and just get the deal done.

 

 

First paragraph in complete agreement. 

Second one I’m not. Managers do not get to cherry pick players anymore as their average tenure is 12m. Now you could devil’s advocate ‘is that because they don’t get to cherry pick players’… and maybe that’s true. 

But we shouldn’t in my opinion outlay let’s say £4m plus say another £5m on wages and employment costs over a 4 year contract (you’d expect) for ‘my guy’. Manning is paid to coach, train and develop. If we don’t see value in twine either to be the key to promotion, or to resale for little cost, we shouldn’t entertain it. And he should accept that.

I prefer the balls to say ‘you’re not getting him, here are the alternatives’. 

[Andrew_V1]

1 minute ago, 38MC said:

First paragraph in complete agreement. 

Second one I’m not. Managers do not get to cherry pick players anymore as their average tenure is 12m. Now you could devil’s advocate ‘is that because they don’t get to cherry pick players’… and maybe that’s true. 

But we shouldn’t in my opinion outlay let’s say £4m plus say another £5m on wages and employment costs over a 4 year contract (you’d expect) for ‘my guy’. Manning is paid to coach, train and develop. If we don’t see value in twine either to be the key to promotion, or to resale for little cost, we shouldn’t entertain it. And he should accept that.

I prefer the balls to say ‘you’re not getting him, here are the alternatives’. 

Don’t necessarily disagree with you however the point remains, why have we mucked around trying to do an impossible deal then when as you say they could say here’s the budget back to the drawing board you go?

We knew the cost back in January, yet we have persisted going into a Mercedes dealership trying to price match a Dacia on the face of it?

 

[38MC]

1 minute ago, Andrew_V1 said:

Don’t necessarily disagree with you however the point remains, why have we mucked around trying to do an impossible deal then when as you say they could say here’s the budget back to the drawing board you go?

We knew the cost back in January, yet we have persisted going into a Mercedes dealership trying to price match a Dacia on the face of it?

 

Spot on and agree. 

The genesis of all of this is the loan in January. If Twine had hit the ground running I’ve no doubts he’d have been signed months ago. 

The reality is the loan was quite underwhelming, particularly at the price quoted for a perm move. 

But it’s also hard to judge him based on the loan because Twine + Mayulu or Armstrong v Twine + Conway or Wells is drastically different and hard to compare.

My 2p is that I think another loan is the most sensible approach but only with a no-obligation transfer fee agreed. And maybe we have to stomach that the exercise clause with no obligation is punchy and the loan fee might also cost a bit, but at least we’ll know how he works with our next generation strike force, and we aren’t paying top money and his wages for 4 years. 

If he really wants to join and really wants to be closer to the family and that’s genuinely of value to him, we shouldn’t really fear getting gazumped next summer on wages if he has a good loan, especially if we could exercise an option early like we did with TGH. 

[Red Billy]

47 thousand comments and 212 separate threads saying he is exactly what we are missing. 100% we sign him and 100% he gets injured for the rest of the season. Afobe MKII.

[BCFC31]

28 minutes ago, 38MC said:

First paragraph in complete agreement. 

Second one I’m not. Managers do not get to cherry pick players anymore as their average tenure is 12m. Now you could devil’s advocate ‘is that because they don’t get to cherry pick players’… and maybe that’s true. 

But we shouldn’t in my opinion outlay let’s say £4m plus say another £5m on wages and employment costs over a 4 year contract (you’d expect) for ‘my guy’. Manning is paid to coach, train and develop. If we don’t see value in twine either to be the key to promotion, or to resale for little cost, we shouldn’t entertain it. And he should accept that.

I prefer the balls to say ‘you’re not getting him, here are the alternatives’. 

You say this but then where is the pivot to alternatives ? Can't recall us being linked to any other number 10? So the club are clearly failing.

[38MC]

15 minutes ago, BCFC31 said:

You say this but then where is the pivot to alternatives ? Can't recall us being linked to any other number 10? So the club are clearly failing.

Completely agree. But tbf I’d never heard of Yu or Fally and the club pay people to find the alternatives so it’s incumbent on them to find the pivot rather than sit in the corner of a hotel room Dack’ing it. 

[38MC]

22 minutes ago, BCFC31 said:

You say this but then where is the pivot to alternatives ? Can't recall us being linked to any other number 10? So the club are clearly failing.

dp

Edited August 10 by 38MC

[maxjak]

This ongoing saga is becoming increasingly absurd......as Dave Fevs observed sometime ago, Twine should have been our priority signing right from the off.......................If...If we are trying to build a side worthy of challenging the top six?   However due to our ridiculous stance,  prevaricating over a "penny wise, pound foolish" approach, we could end up missing out on a player who could well change our season?  It is SO Bristol City, and surely for the sake of a couple of million, Twine should now be ensconced as our number 10,  providing the kind of passes that could well have earned us 3 points yesterday??   Imagine if Twine gets picked to play for Burnley against Luton tomorrow, and has a blinder?  Then Burnley will be even more reluctant to sell him to a rival team......we are just so third rate at times?!   PS.  I see Uncle Steve has just made his second billion?

Edited August 11 by maxjak

[Davefevs]

Don’t think I was alone.

[bcfc01]

39 minutes ago, maxjak said:

This ongoing saga is becoming increasingly absurd......as Dave Fevs observed sometime ago, Twine should have been our priority signing right from the off.......................If...If we are trying to build a side worthy of challenging the top six?   However due to our ridiculous stance,  prevaricating over a "penny wise, pound foolish" approach, we could end up missing out on a player who could well change our season?  It is SO Bristol City, and surely for the sake of a couple of million, Twine should now be ensconced as our number 10,  providing the kind of passes that could well have earned us 3 points yesterday??   Imagine if Twine gets picked to play for Burnley against Luton tomorrow, and has a blinder?  Then Burnley will be even more reluctant to sell him to a rival team......we are just so third rate at times?!   PS.  I see Uncle Steve has just made his second billion?

Lots of assumptions in there.

Why not just wait ?

[Silvio Dante]

21 hours ago, BCFC31 said:

Personally with out knowing the details I'd be absolutely amazed if burnley want more for twine then they paid for him.

Supply/Demand mechanics. They can ask for more than they paid for him because a side (us) have made clear they’re desparate for him. It’s a standard commercial transaction dynamic (and again, the inverse of the Conway scenario)

If, for example, Jamie Knight-Lebel post his loan spell is wanted for whatever reason by Crewe, I’d hope the club squeeze every penny out of them. That’s all that’s going on here.

20 hours ago, 38MC said:

Spot on and agree. 

The genesis of all of this is the loan in January. If Twine had hit the ground running I’ve no doubts he’d have been signed months ago. 

The reality is the loan was quite underwhelming, particularly at the price quoted for a perm move. 

But it’s also hard to judge him based on the loan because Twine + Mayulu or Armstrong v Twine + Conway or Wells is drastically different and hard to compare.

My 2p is that I think another loan is the most sensible approach but only with a no-obligation transfer fee agreed. And maybe we have to stomach that the exercise clause with no obligation is punchy and the loan fee might also cost a bit, but at least we’ll know how he works with our next generation strike force, and we aren’t paying top money and his wages for 4 years. 

If he really wants to join and really wants to be closer to the family and that’s genuinely of value to him, we shouldn’t really fear getting gazumped next summer on wages if he has a good loan, especially if we could exercise an option early like we did with TGH. 

And broadly agree here. I said at the time of Twine signing on loan that it was largely a “vanity” deal as we weren’t going up or down and it wasn’t worth the outlay to get us from say 12th to 11th. The counterpoint given by some was that it would give indications of how he could play with others prior to a permanent deal - but as we know, his key relationships (receiving from Bird instead of James, feeding Fally/Sincs instead of Conway) have altered, so that point is again largely bunk.

But I don’t think anyone would have had a huge issue in him signing if he had an excellent loan spell (Dinning/Tomlin clauses etc). He didn’t - he had an, at best, indifferent loan spell. And that should theoretically have tempered the price - it hasn’t due to the desperation point above. The club, probably correctly, have baulked at the price in view of the loan spell - and I don’t think anyone, Twine fans or doubters alike, think he is a £5m player but it’s us that have driven the price to that level.

The bottom lines for me is that if he is the player Liam wants, despite my doubts, I’d have just paid the (inflated) price as he’s clearly key to how we set up (and how mental is that - you build a system to a player you don’t own). But, as has oft been repeated here, the situation we find ourselves in with possibly overpaying is largely of our own making and that, as you say, has its genesis in the January deal.

[BCFC31]

3 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Supply/Demand mechanics. They can ask for more than they paid for him because a side (us) have made clear they’re desparate for him. It’s a standard commercial transaction dynamic (and again, the inverse of the Conway scenario)

If, for example, Jamie Knight-Lebel post his loan spell is wanted for whatever reason by Crewe, I’d hope the club squeeze every penny out of them. That’s all that’s going on here.

And broadly agree here. I said at the time of Twine signing on loan that it was largely a “vanity” deal as we weren’t going up or down and it wasn’t worth the outlay to get us from say 12th to 11th. The counterpoint given by some was that it would give indications of how he could play with others prior to a permanent deal - but as we know, his key relationships (receiving from Bird instead of James, feeding Fally/Sincs instead of Conway) have altered, so that point is again largely bunk.

But I don’t think anyone would have had a huge issue in him signing if he had an excellent loan spell (Dinning/Tomlin clauses etc). He didn’t - he had an, at best, indifferent loan spell. And that should theoretically have tempered the price - it hasn’t due to the desperation point above. The club, probably correctly, have baulked at the price in view of the loan spell - and I don’t think anyone, Twine fans or doubters alike, think he is a £5m player but it’s us that have driven the price to that level.

The bottom lines for me is that if he is the player Liam wants, despite my doubts, I’d have just paid the (inflated) price as he’s clearly key to how we set up (and how mental is that - you build a system to a player you don’t own). But, as has oft been repeated here, the situation we find ourselves in with possibly overpaying is largely of our own making and that, as you say, has its genesis in the January deal.

It all depends how important twine is to there season and how involved he will be o guess we will see tomorrow.

[Davefevs]

Failure to agree a transfer fee in early January, and again later in the window (post-Azaz) when signing him on loan, was made worse by not agreeing an option to buy (or obligation).  So three times in January we failed to agree a fee.  Plus this summer again!

5 minutes ago, BCFC31 said:

It all depends how important twine is to there season and how involved he will be o guess we will see tomorrow.

He’s a squad player…they’ll just use someone else, or buy in a replacement.

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Failure to agree a transfer fee in early January, and again later in the window (post-Azaz) when signing him on loan, was made worse by not agreeing an option to buy (or obligation).  So three times in January we failed to agree a fee.  Plus this summer again!

He’s a squad player…they’ll just use someone else, or buy in a replacement.

Yep, pretty poor stuff in January. It’s clear we’d have looked to get him permanently even if he’d run into Winterstoke Road and taken a giant dump in public, so not agreeing a fee option (noting you don’t have to take the option up) at a time before our desperation was apparent is an obvious misstep, as we’ve made our desire for the player under any means clear now.

And as for the squad player - a Burnley will happily pay £3m for one of those, which is another reason why it makes no sense for them to sell ST at a lower price.

[bcfc01]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Failure to agree a transfer fee in early January, and again later in the window (post-Azaz) when signing him on loan, was made worse by not agreeing an option to buy (or obligation).  So three times in January we failed to agree a fee.  Plus this summer again!

He’s a squad player…they’ll just use someone else, or buy in a replacement.

I understood that an option or obligation to buy at the end of the season was at 5m ?

Which the club couldn't commit to as it would/could have had an impact on other potential signings (not withstanding that 5m is well ott) ?

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, maxjak said:

This ongoing saga is becoming increasingly absurd......as Dave Fevs observed sometime ago, Twine should have been our priority signing right from the off.......................If...If we are trying to build a side worthy of challenging the top six?   However due to our ridiculous stance,  prevaricating over a "penny wise, pound foolish" approach, we could end up missing out on a player who could well change our season?  It is SO Bristol City, and surely for the sake of a couple of million, Twine should now be ensconced as our number 10,  providing the kind of passes that could well have earned us 3 points yesterday??   Imagine if Twine gets picked to play for Burnley against Luton tomorrow, and has a blinder?  Then Burnley will be even more reluctant to sell him to a rival team......we are just so third rate at times?!   PS.  I see Uncle Steve has just made his second billion?

Has he? His personal fortune, which usually means if he were to sell every single thing he owned tomorrow had his value at £1.16bn. That would have included the value of his shares in HL at that time. 

Now the share price did go up earlier this year by around 20% and he realised £309m from the sale by my rough calculation that probably means adding about £60m to his worth, so £1.22bn, where has the other £800m come from in the last 9 months?

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I understood that an option or obligation to buy at the end of the season was at 5m ?

Which the club couldn't commit to as it would/could have had an impact on other potential signings (not withstanding that 5m is well ott) ?

Nope

[bcfc01]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nope

So what was the obligated fee ?

 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

So what was the obligated fee ?

 

There wasn’t one, nothing agreed, just a loan, that’s all.

[Shauntaylor85]

Why do I get the feeling this won’t happen and the club won’t sign a 10. Ian G mentions if we don’t sign a 10, he can see Fally playing that role……selling Conway means our existing summer business is funded, so what has happened to the Scott money? 

[Loosey Boy]

1 minute ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Why do I get the feeling this won’t happen and the club won’t sign a 10. Ian G mentions if we don’t sign a 10, he can see Fally playing that role……selling Conway means our existing summer business is funded, so what has happened to the Scott money? 

Fally a 10? 

Really! Heard it all From Ian now

[Mr Popodopolous]

Fally at 10 is hilarious and baffling in equal measure.

[Redrascal2]

2 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Why do I get the feeling this won’t happen and the club won’t sign a 10. Ian G mentions if we don’t sign a 10, he can see Fally playing that role……selling Conway means our existing summer business is funded, so what has happened to the Scott money? 

Agreed. If it was going to happen it surely would have by now. As for the Scott money the majority of that was going to be kept. That is the Lansdowns method of operation now. Same goes for the Bears. He will not go the extra mile to support the Manager.

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Loosey Boy said:

Fally a 10? 

Really! Heard it all From Ian now

In fairness he has played there and wide for Linz before he went to Rapid.

edit: but would be an admission of failed recruitment, especially when they have alternates “ready to go”.

Edited August 11 by Davefevs

[Loosey Boy]

Just now, Davefevs said:

In fairness he has played there and wide for Linz before he went to Rapid.

That may be but we’ve clearly signed him as a 9……

So…..if we were going to end up doing that (not that I see that happening), we’d need another CF

 

[bcfc01]

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

There wasn’t one, nothing agreed, just a loan, that’s all.

Yes, but you said the club had options to have a buy option and didn't take it up. Or did I read it wrong ? 

[Sir Geoff]

23 minutes ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Why do I get the feeling this won’t happen and the club won’t sign a 10. Ian G mentions if we don’t sign a 10, he can see Fally playing that role……selling Conway means our existing summer business is funded, so what has happened to the Scott money? 

Nest egg.

Apologies, couldn't resist that 'open goal.'

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Yes, but you said the club had options to have a buy option and didn't take it up. Or did I read it wrong ? 

No, you read it wrong ()…I said we should’ve.

 

Edited August 11 by Davefevs

[Engvall’s Splinter]

28 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fally at 10 is hilarious and baffling in equal measure.

As bad a shout as the host of 3Peaps suggesting we play Sinclair as a number 10 yesterday after the game. My word. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Engvall’s Splinter said:

As bad a shout as the host of 3Peaps suggesting we play Sinclair as a number 10 yesterday after the game. My word. 

I've not yet looked at the Podcasts but wow Sinclair at 10??

Theoretically Fally is possibly a bit more creative but overall both seem ludicrous shouts.

[Engvall’s Splinter]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I've not yet looked at the Podcasts but wow Sinclair at 10??

Theoretically Fally is possibly a bit more creative but overall both seem ludicrous shouts.

He (Patch Warner) actually said it on Radio Bristol. Gary Owers immediately rejected the shout. 

Edited August 11 by Engvall’s Splinter

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Engvall’s Splinter said:

He actually said it on Radio Bristol. Gary Owers immediately rejected the shout. 

Yeah I heard some bits of Post Match, shall listen back to some of that.

[Shauntaylor85]

Just now, Engvall’s Splinter said:

He actually said it on Radio Bristol. Gary Owers immediately rejected the shout. 

He doesnt still call Radio Bristol does he? Blimey! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

He actually said it on Radio Bristol. Gary Owers immediately rejected the shout. 

My slight concern on occasion when we hear left field let's call them ideas coming from Ian Gay or the guy from 3 Peaps is that because of a closeness to the Club..floating such ideas publicly could be a sounding board for some future ideas or innovations.

[bcfc01]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No, you read it wrong ()…I said we should’ve.

 

OK. But what's to say that the club had enquired about a buy option and it was not affordable ? That's not on the club imo.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Depending on what it could've been it is on the Club to some extent as SL wants to put in less and the Championship is as we all know, a bit of a money pit.

Now it is his money his choice but some transparency wouldn't go amiss.

We can't reveal out hand but I reckon that.. 

*The top Wage that we will consider paying is £15-20k per week, something between the 2.

*The top Fee that we will consider paying is £3.5-4m. Maybe less.

That limits our pool just a tad..

Edited August 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[chinapig]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Yep, pretty poor stuff in January. It’s clear we’d have looked to get him permanently even if he’d run into Winterstoke Road and taken a giant dump in public, so not agreeing a fee option (noting you don’t have to take the option up) at a time before our desperation was apparent is an obvious misstep, as we’ve made our desire for the player under any means clear now.

And as for the squad player - a Burnley will happily pay £3m for one of those, which is another reason why it makes no sense for them to sell ST at a lower price.

It is staggeringly incompetent negotiating to make it obvious you are desperate to sign a player. It gives an immediate advantage to the selling club that you struggle to claw back.

It's almost as if the club is being run by amateurs.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, bcfc01 said:

OK. But what's to say that the club had enquired about a buy option and it was not affordable ? That's not on the club imo.

The club did enquire…and they couldn’t agree a fee / conditions.  It wasn’t affordable (in terms of what City wanna pay), and guess what? It still isn’t!

We left ourselves open. We continue to chase a player we think is in our budget, but is priced outside.  And we continue to look desperate to Burnley!

How can that not be “on the club”?

What am I missing?

 

[mozo]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The club did enquire…and they couldn’t agree a fee / conditions.  It wasn’t affordable (in terms of what City wanna pay), and guess what? It still isn’t!

We left ourselves open. We continue to chase a player we think is in our budget, but is priced outside.  And we continue to look desperate to Burnley!

How can that not be “on the club”?

What am I missing?

 

What do you mean by 'chase a player' Dave? Are we just calling them at 9am every Monday begging for a reduction?

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, mozo said:

What do you mean by 'chase a player' Dave? Are we just calling them at 9am every Monday begging for a reduction?

Maybe more regularly!
 

edit: dunno, but he continues to be our main target.  

Edited August 11 by Davefevs

[maxjak]

3 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

Lots of assumptions in there.

Why not just wait ?

If we wait much longer................we will no longer be able to wait?

[Sir Geoff]

On 15/01/2024 at 19:41, Silvio Dante said:

**Taps the sign**

This is totally deflating when we’ve just signed a player all of us would welcome normally. Scott Twine on his own doesn’t get us in the top six, but he’d be a great building block as a development for a squad to get us there.

But this isn’t a building block. This is a desperation signing as a loan with no option to buy. It’s the epitome of being seen to do something because they know, in spite of proclamations, they don’t have a top six side and need LM to perform better than his predecessor so have to throw something at it.

Scott does well - we have the price bumped up and potentially get usurped by better clubs. The loan - which we’ll be paying for - only makes sense if it gets us over the line to get promoted or avoid relegation. Neither of those are the case. So in four months we’re either back to square one and have to replace Twine, or have to pay through the nose for him.

Great signing - shittly negotiated. That’s what happens when you have amateurs running the show.

@Silvio Dante Those last 7 lines have aged very well.

[Silvio Dante]

36 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

@Silvio Dante Those last 7 lines have aged very well.

Jesus. It’s almost as if this was all totally forseeable (although I probably overestimated from what we’ve seen the quality of the player).

Edit: Just rereading the thread that quote came from there were a lot of legitimate concerns which some didn’t want to address. It’s a sobering retrospective read as where we are is exactly where a lot of us said we’d be in January. 
 

I was so nearly there on this one other than a poor loan spell pushing the price down!

Edited August 11 by Silvio Dante

[Saborios Socks]

I would really like to know how much Burnley want for him and how much we are offering 

[OldlandReddies]

If Twine is not involved tomorrow evening then we can expect this to be a goer. If he is involved then we can bin any hope of him joining. 

[Loosey Boy]

40 minutes ago, OldlandReddies said:

If Twine is not involved tomorrow evening then we can expect this to be a goer. If he is involved then we can bin any hope of him joining. 

Based on pre-season, sounds like their fans expect him to be in the squad - on the bench would be my guess