Scott Twine - Signed on Four Year Deal - Official

[marksy]

52 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Facts over feelings.

Somebody just said he picked up an injury and that’s why he didn’t feature in many game. 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Lrrr said:

I just see it as a case of Twine is in the south west on his time off using appropriate facilities. None of City’s staff will be working with him he’s just using the HPC for his own training programme, which was more than likely provided by Burnley. 

Could easily have been renting in the City, still got time on his lease, so using the his local club’s facilities.

FWIW if Burnley are in their game, they’ll be seeing City as looking a bit desperate and negotiate accordingly.

“So Brian, you say Twiney loves it here.

And you were happy to have agreed a £2.5m deal for Azaz.

And you’re letting him use your facilities whilst he’s at it.

You won’t mind paying £x million then”

[Port Red]

"So Brian, you must me getting a bit desperate to announce a signing having made a stupid comment on a pod, how about you chuck us an extra £500k, give him the number 7 shirt and everyone's a winner".

 

[Shauntaylor85]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Could easily have been renting in the City, still got time on his lease, so using the his local club’s facilities.

FWIW if Burnley are in their game, they’ll be seeing City as looking a bit desperate and negotiate accordingly.

“So Brian, you say Twiney loves it here.

And you were happy to have agreed a £2.5m deal for Azaz.

And you’re letting him use your facilities whilst he’s at it.

You won’t mind paying £x million then”

Saw your Twitter post Dave. Is Ian backtracking? And it’s clear that nobody on here is ITK. 

[petehinton]

Getting PTSD from Bale and Cardiff a few summers ago…

I’d heard via a Cardiff player that Bale had been introduced to the squad in a team meeting, and was staying in the vale resort (paid with their training ground) until further notice. All signs pointed toward him signing. 
 

Fast forward a week, he's recording his own announcement video for LAFC on Cardiff’s training pitch

[Lrrr]

21 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Getting PTSD from Bale and Cardiff a few summers ago…

I’d heard via a Cardiff player that Bale had been introduced to the squad in a team meeting, and was staying in the vale resort (paid with their training ground) until further notice. All signs pointed toward him signing. 
 

Fast forward a week, he's recording his own announcement video for LAFC on Cardiff’s training pitch

I knew a guy in Cardiff's recruitment team, Bale apparently got very close to signing then last minute backed out, presumably on LAFC interest. 

[Davefevs]

41 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

got very close to signing

“Agreed” then!

[Elruliri]

Perhaps we will sign him and then loan him back. That will keep the price down

[RedorDead BCFC]

2 hours ago, petehinton said:

Getting PTSD from Bale and Cardiff a few summers ago…

I’d heard via a Cardiff player that Bale had been introduced to the squad in a team meeting, and was staying in the vale resort (paid with their training ground) until further notice. All signs pointed toward him signing. 
 

Fast forward a week, he's recording his own announcement video for LAFC on Cardiff’s training pitch

My mum lives in one of those apartments, hate driving into their gates to get to her house. So I only visit her when Wales are training. 

[The Masked Man]

Twine would be signed to score goals and assist. Assuming he plays 40 games what would people consider success to be? Assuming he returns to something like his best then 12 goals and 8 assists isn't inconceivable. Is that enough? He got 4 and 3 at Hull from 1800 minutes so playing under a manager who presumably knows how to get the best of him I don't think 12 and 8 is an unreasonable expectation. 

[marksy]

1 hour ago, The Masked Man said:

Twine would be signed to score goals and assist. Assuming he plays 40 games what would people consider success to be? Assuming he returns to something like his best then 12 goals and 8 assists isn't inconceivable. Is that enough? He got 4 and 3 at Hull from 1800 minutes so playing under a manager who presumably knows how to get the best of him I don't think 12 and 8 is an unreasonable expectation. 

As far as assists go then it depends who he passes the ball to in a goal scoring position. 
Didn’t he put a couple of chances on a plate for Conway last season who then fired them straight at the goal keeper?

[Port Said Red]

45 minutes ago, marksy said:

As far as assists go then it depends who he passes the ball to in a goal scoring position. 
Didn’t he put a couple of chances on a plate for Conway last season who then fired them straight at the goal keeper?

Yes, the KPI should be chances created rather than those completed.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Some basic metrics from Sofascore. 2023-24 across Hull and us loan spells. League only.

35 Games, 29 Starts

Goals 6- xG 7.64

Assists- 3, xA 5.21

Big Chances Created- 5, Key Passes Per Game (Average) 1.8.

Obviously he won the free kick and scored it v Rotherham.

[Davefevs]

Over a season the data tends to correct itself.

People are picking and choosing to for their argument.  He has positives in some aspects and negatives in others.  The viz above shows that.  It covers Hull and City (combined)

To summarise:

Everything down the left half of the viz:

- goals / assists / shots (tangible output) he’s above average

- creative passing he’s above average

- general passing he’s above average

The right size:

- with the ball at his feet he’s just below average

- set-pieces excellent (Quelle Surprisé)

- wining the ball he’s below average

Thats just a simple summary of each component.

Heres his viz from Hull (just before Xmas) as a reference point. Edit; I found a later one:

 

His general passing accuracy has gone done a bit at City

He's tried a few more creative passes but been less accurate with them at City

Ball winning involvement gone up at City.

+++++

My view is I think he’s a decent player, I think his numbers match the eye that he is a top half Champ player.

For me the question for Bristol City is “how top half” is he?  And then does the fee we want to pay match?  Maybe we get him cheaper!  Maybe we are willing to risk paying a bit more?

Others think he’s the missing link.  Cool. 

Edited June 20 by Davefevs

[lenred]

2 hours ago, marksy said:

As far as assists go then it depends who he passes the ball to in a goal scoring position. 
Didn’t he put a couple of chances on a plate for Conway last season who then fired them straight at the goal keeper?

But that evens itself out over a season.  He will also get given assists that are not as worthy of the term as others.   Just the way it is.  

[TDarwall]

I'm pretty ambivalent whether we sign him or not. However, I don't really agree we've been niave in over declaring our interest.  

Any player, at (almost) any club is available if you meet the selling clubs asking price.

If the noises from Ashton Gate are "not much bothered about signing  him" or "really want him", I don't think it much changes Burnleys asking price.  Whatever we say publicly is irrelevant to them, how we handle the negotiation will have the bigger impact.  We could say we desperately want him but then walk away if they don't accept our 1st offer.

The other issue is that whatever we say publicly, bearing in mind Manning / Twines relative success at MK, they wouldn't have to be super bright to deduce we'd be keen to get him.

My prediction is we sign him & spend the next 3 years debating whether he's been good value or not, whilst skipping past @Harrys daily post bemoaning why we didn't sign him years ago!

Edited June 20 by TDarwall

[RollsRoyce]

26 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Over a season the data tends to correct itself.

People are picking and choosing to for their argument.  He has positives in some aspects and negatives in others.  The viz above shows that.  It covers Hull and City (combined)

To summarise:

Everything down the left half of the viz:

- goals / assists / shots (tangible output) he’s above average

- creative passing he’s above average

- general passing he’s above average

The right size:

- with the ball at his feet he’s just below average

- set-pieces excellent (Quelle Surprisé)

- wining the ball he’s below average

Thats just a simple summary of each component.

Heres his viz from Hull (just before Xmas) as a reference point. Edit; I found a later one:

 

His general passing accuracy has gone done a bit at City

He's tried a few more creative passes but been less accurate with them at City

Ball winning involvement gone up at City.

+++++

My view is I think he’s a decent player, I think his numbers match the eye that he is a top half Champ player.

For me the question for Bristol City is “how top half” is he?  And then does the fee we want to pay match?  Maybe we get him cheaper!  Maybe we are willing to risk paying a bit more?

Others think he’s the missing link.  Cool. 

I recall that at Hull he was playing out in a wider position as he could not dislodge Tufan from the central “10” role as we seem to now call it . No shock as Tufan is excellent , but it might impact his stats . He looks a decent Championship player and has some skills that we are missing . Heck we might even score from a direct free kick with him . 

I remain concerned we will be spending big on a player that is close to his ceiling and is not deemed good enough for the Prem by his current club . Palmer/daSilva/Kalas/Wells again. The time to sign him would be next summer when his contract is running down in my view and with a fee that is more in line with our finances and the players potential upside ( or lack of) . He looks more like a Jamie Patterson level to me , on their day very very good , but not quite good enough over a season or for the next level up . 
 

Anyway , what will Burnley do with him ? They don’t seem to want him , yet want a big fee . A fee I doubt any Championship club would pay. So our proposal might not be the worse thing for Burnley . But surely they would want a view from their new manager ? There might even be a chance to loan him for the season ( with a fee ) that might work best for both Burnley and City . As City’s next manager might not want him anyway ( …..) 
 

With TC leaving , Wells in his last season , , and already a striker short , I would be looking to get the striker position sorted  as a priority . They cost money . 
 

 

[Davefevs]

Very good post @RollsRoyce!

The little worries for me are the changes in what they say they want….it doesn’t feel very clear.  But I’ll just sit and wait to see who we sign.

[redsquirrel]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Very good post @RollsRoyce!

The little worries for me are the changes in what they say they want….it doesn’t feel very clear.  But I’ll just sit and wait to see who we sign.

thats the point innit Dave, we arent going to know if they really know what they are doing until october at least

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, redsquirrel said:

thats the point innit Dave, we arent going to know if they really know what they are doing until october at least

I’m back to a similar position I was when LM was appointed, ie giving it x games, building my view, etc.  Seeing whether it feels brand new, or whether it feels like Mr Turgid or Mr Intent is the plan.  Hopefully preseason will give hints, but even then if you lose a key player in August that can go out the window,

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, RollsRoyce said:

I recall that at Hull he was playing out in a wider position as he could not dislodge Tufan from the central “10” role as we seem to now call it . No shock as Tufan is excellent , but it might impact his stats . He looks a decent Championship player and has some skills that we are missing . Heck we might even score from a direct free kick with him . 

I remain concerned we will be spending big on a player that is close to his ceiling and is not deemed good enough for the Prem by his current club . Palmer/daSilva/Kalas/Wells again. The time to sign him would be next summer when his contract is running down in my view and with a fee that is more in line with our finances and the players potential upside ( or lack of) . He looks more like a Jamie Patterson level to me , on their day very very good , but not quite good enough over a season or for the next level up . 
 

Anyway , what will Burnley do with him ? They don’t seem to want him , yet want a big fee . A fee I doubt any Championship club would pay. So our proposal might not be the worse thing for Burnley . But surely they would want a view from their new manager ? There might even be a chance to loan him for the season ( with a fee ) that might work best for both Burnley and City . As City’s next manager might not want him anyway ( …..) 
 

With TC leaving , Wells in his last season , , and already a striker short , I would be looking to get the striker position sorted  as a priority . They cost money . 
 

 

I think Kalas could in prime injury frew have played PL for a lowee ens club, you get all manner of players taking different routes and getting there at different speeds, but mostly agree with your post yeah.

[TammyAB]

11 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think Kalas could in prime injury frew have played PL for a lowee ens club, you get all manner of players taking different routes and getting there at different speeds, but mostly agree with your post yeah.

How's the laundrette going, by the way?

[Ronnie Sinclair]

The Burnley manager issue might be resolved shortly - van Nistelrooy being heavily linked now 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think Kalas could in prime injury frew have played PL for a lowee ens club, you get all manner of players taking different routes and getting there at different speeds, but mostly agree with your post yeah.

Gonna rewrite this post. Reliance on predictive text, lazy.

I think Kalas could when at his prime and injury free, have played PL for a lower end club- you get all manner of players taking different routes and getting there at different speeds- mostly agree with your post though yeah.

[Corsham Alf]

I understand we’ve walked away from the Twine deal. Burnley want closer to 4m. We won’t  be going back in unless they drop below 3m. Stalemate with it at present.

The player is keen to sign for us. He lives in Wotton Bassett nr Swindon and he plays cricket for them.

His brother Captains the side. Scott has funded their summer recruitment on players ! 

[Nogbad the Bad]

3 minutes ago, Corsham Alf said:

I understand we’ve walked away from the Twine deal. Burnley want closer to 4m. We won’t  be going back in unless they drop below 3m. Stalemate with it at present.

 

We move on quickly then, but no idea who our targets may be with Rudoni gone to Coventry.

Although presumably we would have considered what Huddersfield wanted was too much as well..

[Shauntaylor85]

I’m not too disappointed re Twine. Let’s see who else we get in. Tinnion isn’t looking good right now, talking about Twine openly as another clubs player on a fan podcast plus this couple of days signing that clearly hasn’t happened. Losing a lot of faith yet again in those operating the club. 

[lenred]

17 minutes ago, Corsham Alf said:

I understand we’ve walked away from the Twine deal. Burnley want closer to 4m. We won’t  be going back in unless they drop below 3m. Stalemate with it at present.

The player is keen to sign for us. He lives in Wotton Bassett nr Swindon and he plays cricket for them.

His brother Captains the side. Scott has funded their summer recruitment on players ! 

Good for the club if this is true.  Happy to hear it. 

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

I’m not too disappointed re Twine. Let’s see who else we get in. Tinnion isn’t looking good right now, talking about Twine openly as another clubs player on a fan podcast plus this couple of days signing that clearly hasn’t happened. Losing a lot of faith yet again in those operating the club. 

Plus his quotes of getting business done early.

[cheddarwedlocker]

1 hour ago, Corsham Alf said:

I understand we’ve walked away from the Twine deal. Burnley want closer to 4m. We won’t  be going back in unless they drop below 3m. Stalemate with it at present.

The player is keen to sign for us. He lives in Wotton Bassett nr Swindon and he plays cricket for them.

His brother Captains the side. Scott has funded their summer recruitment on players ! 

Not entirely sure where this has come from

[Sleepy1968]

15 minutes ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

Not entirely sure where this has come from

I hope this isn't the start of an ITK spat.

Maybe Tins is an evil genius and is playing you off against each other.

[Silvio Dante]

19 minutes ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

Not entirely sure where this has come from

With respect mate, on Tuesday you said Twine had his photoshoot at the HPC that day and was going to be announced this week. Piercy has clarified that he was in training gear and using the facilities but a deal wasn’t close.

I’m not saying he’s right and you’re wrong. But it seems your information on Tuesday was (understandably as I can see the confusion) off and what @Corsham Alf is saying is in line with indications from JP so it’s totally plausible.

Edited June 21 by Silvio Dante

[Northern Red]

6 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

I hope this isn't the start of an ITK spat.

Maybe Tins is an evil genius and is playing you off against each other.

I fear you give him too much credit, although it wouldn't be the first time the club have tried it.

[Bcfc24]

35 minutes ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

Not entirely sure where this has come from

Says the account that said he was signing this week

[petehinton]

If true (which I personally doubt), would imagine it’s very much a “well we’ll need to keep discussion going on this, but we may also move onto other targets unless you budge” type vibe, rather than a “**** you, we’re walking away from this one then” one…

[cheddarwedlocker]

I was told by two different people that Twine is 99% done. Same sources are still saying this. The Photoshoot stuff was iffy, as I mentioned. Wasnt wrong when I was told he was at the HPC, but my sources told me that he was doing media. Dont shoot the messanger.

44 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

With respect mate, on Tuesday you said Twine had his photoshoot at the HPC that day and was going to be announced this week. Piercy has clarified that he was in training gear and using the facilities but a deal wasn’t close.

I’m not saying he’s right and you’re wrong. But it seems your information on Tuesday was (understandably as I can see the confusion) off and what @Corsham Alf is saying is in line with indications from JP so it’s totally plausible.

See above

[Silvio Dante]

7 minutes ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

I was told by two different people that Twine is 99% done. Same sources are still saying this. The Photoshoot stuff was iffy, as I mentioned. Wasnt wrong when I was told he was at the HPC, but my sources told me that he was doing media. Dont shoot the messanger.

See above

Not shooting the messenger mate, and as I said, I can absolutely see why you’ve been told what you’ve been told and the sharing is appreciated. It’s also totally plausible both your sources have come to an erroneous conclusion based on ST being at City training and expressing a desire to join if the deals right.

It may well be 99% done. Unfortunately the 1% that isn’t appears to be talking to Burnley to agree a fee!

22 minutes ago, petehinton said:

If true (which I personally doubt), would imagine it’s very much a “well we’ll need to keep discussion going on this, but we may also move onto other targets unless you budge” type vibe, rather than a “**** you, we’re walking away from this one then” one…

Quick, someone give Brian a beer and his Twitter login - we’ll soon have the truth.

[Bcfc24]

36 minutes ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

I was told by two different people that Twine is 99% done. Same sources are still saying this. The Photoshoot stuff was iffy, as I mentioned. Wasnt wrong when I was told he was at the HPC, but my sources told me that he was doing media. Dont shoot the messanger.

See above

Were these sources inside the club or not?

[cheddarwedlocker]

2 minutes ago, Bcfc24 said:

Were these sources inside the club or not?

One source being a direct insider, one being a good friend who also has contacts directly inside. This friend knew about Mebude at the start of january, and has been 99% spot on.

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

One source being a direct insider, one being a good friend who also has contacts directly inside. This friend knew about Mebude at the start of january, and has been 99% spot on.

Then in the love of all that’s holy why didn’t he try and stop it!

[cheddarwedlocker]

32 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Not shooting the messenger mate, and as I said, I can absolutely see why you’ve been told what you’ve been told and the sharing is appreciated. It’s also totally plausible both your sources have come to an erroneous conclusion based on ST being at City training and expressing a desire to join if the deals right.

It may well be 99% done. Unfortunately the 1% that isn’t appears to be talking to Burnley to agree a fee!

Quick, someone give Brian a beer and his Twitter login - we’ll soon have the truth.

Agree with some of this SD, im only sharing what ive been told by sources I trust, mainly because I thought it would be good for everyone who gives a toss to hear about what actually is going on. If its problematic im gunna keep my mouth shut from now on

[Ian M]

6 minutes ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

Agree with some of this SD, im only sharing what ive been told by sources I trust, mainly because I thought it would be good for everyone who gives a toss to hear about what actually is going on. If its problematic im gunna keep my mouth shut from now on

No, it's good to share, thank you, but others may hear differing things too and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Then those of us with no knowledge of the deal can just add to the debate over whether ST at £3.5m is value for money or not?

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

Agree with some of this SD, im only sharing what ive been told by sources I trust, mainly because I thought it would be good for everyone who gives a toss to hear about what actually is going on. If its problematic im gunna keep my mouth shut from now on

Apart from the odd cock / WUM on here, anyone who shares stuff is doing it with best intentions (like you)…although some will indeed shoot the messenger!  So thanks, dull place otherwise.

In fairness to you or anyone else, my gut feel is people inside the club are getting carried away about what constitutes “done deal”…and then spreading it outwards before it’s done.  It could also be that the Twine end of things is all agreed, just we haven’t reached an agreed fee with Burnley.  Re Burnley manager situation potentially holding things up, I reckon if we met the asking price they’d sell…they’d just use the money to replace with whoever their recruitment team put in front of the new manager.

 

 

 

[Kibs]

I really rate Twine, but if they value him significantly higher than we do, I hope we just move on quickly, even if he is Mannings No1 target. 

 

[petehinton]

Trying to get him…..on loan again. 
 

How embarrassing. 

[Glen hump]

1 minute ago, petehinton said:

Trying to get him…..on loan again. 
 

How embarrassing. 

Ffs , shambles 

[Jose]

2 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Trying to get him…..on loan again. 
 

How embarrassing. 

What have I missed? No point if you are Burnley is there? 

[ProfitInMyPocket]

This will go till deadline day and we'll panic and spend over the odds for him I expect. Or if we loan him again it will cost millions covering the wages and a substantial fee too.

[Silvio Dante]

5 minutes ago, Jose said:

What have I missed? No point if you are Burnley is there? 

Here you go:

Depending on the cost of the loan, if we are that desperate to take him (and again, I’m yet to be convinced) it might be the least worst option for us as it avoids us being tied into a player who really hasn’t pulled up trees. If we can avoid spunking several £million on him, great - and then next summer with 1 year left his price is reasonable 

But, as you say, absent a whacking great loan fee, what is in it for Burnley when other clubs want to buy?!?

Edit: Just re read - loan with buy obligation. So likely paying the fee Burnley want but spread over longer term. Top negotiating lads, top negotiating.

Edited June 21 by Silvio Dante

[Cov 77]

10 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Trying to get him…..on loan again. 
 

How embarrassing. 

Says who ? 

[Cov 77]

11 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Trying to get him…..on loan again. 
 

How embarrassing. 

Ok just saw it

[Bcfc24]

I don’t see any problem with this… if it’s an obligation to buy it’s basically a permanent signing anyway

[Simon bristol]

6 minutes ago, Bcfc24 said:

I don’t see any problem with this… if it’s an obligation to buy it’s basically a permanent signing anyway

Agreed, 1 million down now with x amount agreed at the end of the season if everyone is happy

[BobBobBobbin]

21 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Agreed, 1 million down now with x amount agreed at the end of the season if everyone is happy

it won't be if everyone is happy; they'll want it written in that we pay it regardless. The best we can hope for is a clause related "out" based on appearances to give us that kind of flexibility. 

[38MC]

48 minutes ago, Bcfc24 said:

I don’t see any problem with this… if it’s an obligation to buy it’s basically a permanent signing anyway

I see a different problem with it.. Why? 

Burnley clearly want £4m-ish for him and that's that. Us offering a loan plus an obligation to buy next summer is no more attractive to them unless that nets them £4m. And it also means they carry his amortization cost during the 24/25 FFP cycle, if anything is it not disadvantageous to them then? (@Mr Popodopolous correct me if I'm wrong and different amortization rules are in place where a future transfer is agreed). 

So I go back to why and what's in it for ourselves under this structure? We don't have FFP headroom issues so we could spend £4m, and then even if we agreed to £4m transfer now the fee is clearly going to be spread out over instalments, so I can't see that it's even a cashflow benefit to us.

So again, I can't answer the question why? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. The only thing I can imagine in this scenario is a Teknical Director thinking he's being clever at the negotiating table but not offering anything of substance

Edited June 21 by 38MC

[Ska Junkie]

1 hour ago, Kibs said:

I really rate Twine, but if they value him significantly higher than we do, I hope we just move on quickly, even if he is Mannings No1 target. 

 

Going public that Scott was our 'no 1 target' wasn't the brightest move was it? We can't manoeuvre at all as Burnley know we want him.

Another own goal?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Edit: Just re read - loan with buy obligation. So likely paying the fee Burnley want but spread over longer term. Top negotiating lads, top negotiating.

Yes, hence why I’m now of the opinion that SL’s funding decisions are now cashflow driven.

Loaning a player with an obligation to buy (assuming it’s not a conditional obligation, e.g. promotion) means taking the whole cost (loan fee and transfer fee) into the books at the start of the loan…and starting amortisation immediately.

So a £5m transfer now goes into the books in exactly the same way as a loan (fee £0) and obligation to buy (fee £5m) next summer.

I wonder how Alex’s transfer was set up in terms of staged payments?  Half immediately, a quarter each of next two years?

[Silvio Dante]

11 minutes ago, 38MC said:

I see a different problem with it.. Why? 

Burnley clearly want £4m-ish for him and that's that. Us offering a loan plus an obligation to buy next summer is no more attractive to them unless that nets them £4m. And it also means they carry his amortization cost during the 24/25 FFP cycle, if anything is it not disadvantageous to them then? (@Mr Popodopolous correct me if I'm wrong and different amortization rules are in place where a future transfer is agreed). 

So I go back to why and what's in it for ourselves under this structure? We don't have FFP headroom issues so we could spend £4m, and then even if we agreed to £4m transfer now the fee is clearly going to be spread out over instalments, so I can't see that it's even a cashflow benefit to us.

So again, I can't answer the question why? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. The only thing I can imagine in this scenario is a Teknical Director thinking he's being clever at the negotiating table but not offering anything of substance

I think this is it. Under our current 3 year cycle we have the Scott/Semenyo money in the equation so if we want to, have opportunity to spend. We don’t, however, really want to as we know.

So, my thinking is that SL has said that there is x available for transfers each summer (for arguments sake let’s say x is £5m). If we signed Twine for a £4m fee, we blow our budget (and he’s not worth it). However if we pay £1m for the loan with an obligation to buy for £3m, we have £4m more to spend this summer.

The fact we then have less to spend next summer? That’s a problem for future us.

But the price to Burnley will still be the price we pay. All we’ve done is move the cost from a more favourable window to us in the three years to a less favourable one because of how SL wants to fund us.

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, hence why I’m now of the opinion that SL’s funding decisions are now cashflow driven.

Loaning a player with an obligation to buy (assuming it’s not a conditional obligation, e.g. promotion) means taking the whole cost (loan fee and transfer fee) into the books at the start of the loan…and starting amortisation immediately.

So a £5m transfer now goes into the books in exactly the same way as a loan (fee £0) and obligation to buy (fee £5m) next summer.

I wonder how Alex’s transfer was set up in terms of staged payments?  Half immediately, a quarter each of next two years?

Just mused roughly similar 

[Davefevs]

28 minutes ago, 38MC said:

I see a different problem with it.. Why? 

Burnley clearly want £4m-ish for him and that's that. Us offering a loan plus an obligation to buy next summer is no more attractive to them unless that nets them £4m. And it also means they carry his amortization cost during the 24/25 FFP cycle, if anything is it not disadvantageous to them then? (@Mr Popodopolous correct me if I'm wrong and different amortization rules are in place where a future transfer is agreed). 

So I go back to why and what's in it for ourselves under this structure? We don't have FFP headroom issues so we could spend £4m, and then even if we agreed to £4m transfer now the fee is clearly going to be spread out over instalments, so I can't see that it's even a cashflow benefit to us.

So again, I can't answer the question why? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. The only thing I can imagine in this scenario is a Teknical Director thinking he's being clever at the negotiating table but not offering anything of substance

As per my post above, the opposite would happen - Burnley would treat as a perm transfer, take the full fee into their books and remove the amortisation cost.

based on my made up numbers they’d in effect end up with a £3m transfer profit in their books.

[Sleepy1968]

Stream of (un)consciousness ...

1. If he's on loan next season, will we possibly end up paying 100% of his Burnley wages and any attached bonuses?

2. Also if it's a loan, presumably he'll end up with the same contract length we'd have given him this year, so essentially we'd have him a year longer overall.

3. If his value is £4m now (I know it's not really), surely this would half by the end of 24/25 season when he's only got a year left on his contract?

4. Are we still going to be obligated to buy if he has a serious injury?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just a random query on the obligation to buy.

Does it not depend on when exactly it is triggered? ie up to and including June 30th 2025 vs July 1st 2025.

E.g. when Sinisterra went to Bournemouth loan to perm this was triggered in Spring 2024 so I assume this would show in 2023-24 but the touted Lewis Hall loan to perm to Chelsea is seemingly due to appear in 2024-25 Accounts.

Edited June 21 by Mr Popodopolous

[astrondrew]

3 hours ago, cheddarwedlocker said:

 If its problematic im gunna keep my mouth shut from now on

As others have said, don't shut up just because of some moaners.

Personally, I like a little bit of transfer speculation...even if it is someone hoping something will happen in a couple days and that hope not coming to pass.

[frenchred]

As I said weeks ago, we wouldn't be going anywhere near Burnley's asking price and an alternative is known to the club for approx half the £5 Burnley really wanted. (No idea who the alternative is though!)

[38MC]

37 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As per my post above, the opposite would happen - Burnley would treat as a perm transfer, take the full fee into their books and remove the amortisation cost.

based on my made up numbers they’d in effect end up with a £3m transfer profit in their books.

Understood, so perm v loan with obligation crystalizes the same FFP obligations on both parties. This means the loan route is neither beneficial nor detrimental to either party.

If we are trying to smooth out our cashflow then why bother with this loan rubbish, you'd just agree with Burnley staged payments. If as @Silvio Dante suggests SL will assume the full cost of the transfer in this window in spite staged payments, vs only recognising a loan fee despite an obligation coming further down the road... I'd say well, he's an accountant by trade, he'd be a bloody poor one if he can't see whatever way you skin it they're both the same. 

[Lew-T]

I really don’t think he’s worth the chase. Move on.

[JAWS]

Such prudence doesn't jump out as a club with intent to get top 6 

[hinsleburg]

Would be happy with a Loan at club option

£4m sounds a lot, but I'd be happy taking the risk at £1m loan fee with £3m option for example

Will say exactly what I said in January, a loan without an option is not good business and enjoyed us moving away from that Model. Would be different if we're in Top 6 in January and we can afford to risk it on a quality player but I don't envisage that being an issue...

[Davefevs]

51 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

Stream of (un)consciousness ...

1. If he's on loan next season, will we possibly end up paying 100% of his Burnley wages and any attached bonuses?

2. Also if it's a loan, presumably he'll end up with the same contract length we'd have given him this year, so essentially we'd have him a year longer overall.

3. If his value is £4m now (I know it's not really), surely this would half by the end of 24/25 season when he's only got a year left on his contract?

4. Are we still going to be obligated to buy if he has a serious injury?

4. If it’s an unconditional obligation…yep.

46 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just a random query on the obligation to buy.

Does it not depend on when exactly it is triggered? ie up to and including June 30th 2025 vs July 1st 2025.

E.g. when Sinisterra went to Bournemouth loan to perm this was triggered in Spring 2024 so I assume this would show in 2023-24 but the touted Lewis Hall loan to perm to Chelsea is seemingly due to appear in 2024-25 Accounts.

It’s no different than any other transfer…it’s accounted for in the year it’s done.  If we were to do this on or before 30th June in would go into 23/24’s accounts.  If done on 1st July or after it will be 24/25’s.

I don’t know if the Sinistera deal has actually happened yet, nor am I close to the terms.

21 minutes ago, 38MC said:

Understood, so perm v loan with obligation crystalizes the same FFP obligations on both parties. This means the loan route is neither beneficial nor detrimental to either party.

If we are trying to smooth out our cashflow then why bother with this loan rubbish, you'd just agree with Burnley staged payments. If as @Silvio Dante suggests SL will assume the full cost of the transfer in this window in spite staged payments, vs only recognising a loan fee despite an obligation coming further down the road... I'd say well, he's an accountant by trade, he'd be a bloody poor one if he can't see whatever way you skin it they're both the same. 

Para 1 - correct

Para 2 - Again fictional figures, ignoring wages or contract length.

£5m perm transfer, let’s say 50% (£2.5m) immediately, 25% (£1.25m) end of year 1, 25% (£1.25m) end of year 2

£1m loan fee followed by unconditional obligation to buy of £4m, 50% (£2m) next summer, 25% (£1m) EOY2, 25% (£1m) EOY3

City save cash outlay of £1.5m this summer.  Burnley lose cash receipt this summer.

So why might Burnley do it.

1. They have PL money, PPs to come

2. They don’t want to run the risk of his value decreasing significantly between now and then due to length of contract term.

I’m sure there are other factors / pros and cons, but those spring to mind.

So if City don’t go £5m now, a loan with unconditional obligation has some merits against the slower receipt if cash.

But as you say, why not offer 20% / 40% / 20% / 20%?

 

Edited June 21 by Davefevs

[James54De]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

4. If it’s an unconditional obligation…yep.

So what happens from an FFP perspective if there is one condition, however unlikely, that means it could be cancelled? Would that then move it all a year back? 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, James54De said:

So what happens from an FFP perspective if there is one condition, however unlikely, that means it could be cancelled? Would that then move it all a year back? 

If it’s a conditional obligation, e.g. promotion, then if we get promoted, you then put it into the accounts when you make the transfer….probably July 1st.  If you don’t get promoted, he returns to Burnley.  You can of course start fresh negotiations at that point.

Typically these conditions are black and white things, e.g. promotion, non-relegation, not injured.