Jump to content
IGNORED

Luke McNally : Officially signed (4 year deal)


INCRED

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Back of the Dolman said:

Cost more than the 5 players you’ve named combined ? Is that what you meant to write or have I misinterpreted you ?

 

Yes all 5 combined I’m pretty sure cost less than 3 million. Granted Vyner is academy and Robert’s was a free but when you chuck in Tanner, Pring and Max as well that’s our whole defence bar McCrorie and I’m pretty sure even with those 3 it wouldn’t go over 3 million? Just my point being made is the defence is pretty solid and didn’t cost us much to assemble, so to splash that much out on a CB that’s not really needed seems a bit much. Understand Dickie is out for a while now but surely Atkinson, Naismith and Robert’s provide enough cover. Would rather we spent 3 million on a winger, don’t particularly rate any of ours. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Negan said:

Yes all 5 combined I’m pretty sure cost less than 3 million. Granted Vyner is academy and Robert’s was a free but when you chuck in Tanner, Pring and Max as well that’s our whole defence bar McCrorie and I’m pretty sure even with those 3 it wouldn’t go over 3 million? Just my point being made is the defence is pretty solid and didn’t cost us much to assemble, so to splash that much out on a CB that’s not really needed seems a bit much. Understand Dickie is out for a while now but surely Atkinson, Naismith and Robert’s provide enough cover. Would rather we spent 3 million on a winger, don’t particularly rate any of ours. 

Ah I get you know, I read it that you were valuing them at less than that now.

understood 👍

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, petehinton said:

Deal was done yesterday so Burnley let him play the full 90 minutes?!

Still Burnley's player so they can do what they like with him

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick update : Iv’e been told we are prepared to offer close to what Burnley want. It will be structured differently and based on performance add ons. We’ve also submitted a low offer for Darling. We want a back up incase McNally falls through. Manning is desperate for a CB. He knows Naismith isn’t a reliable option. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Corsham Alf said:

A quick update : Iv’e been told we are prepared to offer close to what Burnley want. It will be structured differently and based on performance add ons. We’ve also submitted a low offer for Darling. We want a back up incase McNally falls through. Manning is desperate for a CB. He knows Naismith isn’t a reliable option. 

Deal not done with 26 hours to go, squeaky bum time

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Corsham Alf said:

He knows Naismith isn’t a reliable option. 

I'm literally the opposite of ITK, & I quite like Manning, however if he is making this sort of view known to the general public then it makes the Technical Director appear as discreet as a trappist monk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Corsham Alf said:

A quick update : Iv’e been told we are prepared to offer close to what Burnley want. It will be structured differently and based on performance add ons. We’ve also submitted a low offer for Darling. We want a back up incase McNally falls through. Manning is desperate for a CB. He knows Naismith isn’t a reliable option. 

So if he knows Naismith isn’t a reliable option then what does it say about his opinion of Roberts as he is putting Naismith on ahead of him.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

So if he knows Naismith isn’t a reliable option then what does it say about his opinion of Roberts as he is putting Naismith on ahead of him.

Is also quite something if we have an enquiry knocked back for a player, and follow it up with a lowball bid that we seemingly know won’t be accepted too. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Back of the Dolman said:

So if he knows Naismith isn’t a reliable option then what does it say about his opinion of Roberts as he is putting Naismith on ahead of him.

We are now having a discussion about LM talking to the general public that he doesn’t rate one of his players, I am absolutely sure that’s not the case , the comment was he knows Naismith is not reliable, even if that is true , who knows ? It certainly doesn’t mean he’s indiscreetly telling anyone let alone the general public 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Is also quite something if we have an enquiry knocked back for a player, and follow it up with a lowball bid that we seemingly know won’t be accepted too. 

To coin  a phrase 

eh ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cov 77 said:

We are now having a discussion about LM talking to the general public that he doesn’t rate one of his players, I am absolutely sure that’s not the case , the comment was he knows Naismith is not reliable, even if that is true , who knows ? It certainly doesn’t mean he’s indiscreetly telling anyone let alone the general public 🙄

Possibly a classic case of a little bit of embellishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Corsham Alf said:

A quick update : Iv’e been told we are prepared to offer close to what Burnley want. It will be structured differently and based on performance add ons. We’ve also submitted a low offer for Darling. We want a back up incase McNally falls through. Manning is desperate for a CB. He knows Naismith isn’t a reliable option. 

Why does everyone think we are buying? 🤷‍♀️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Alf has said we’ve bid a lowball offer for Darling, when it’s public knowledge that we had an enquiry re his availability rejected by Swansea. 

Except it's not beyond the realms of possibility that both bits of info actually relate to the same thing.

You seem to have taken both bits of info at face value and assumed - because they've appeared on the Internet at slightly different times - they must be unrelated.

Er.... no.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Except it's not beyond the realms of possibility that both bits of info actually relate to the same thing.

You seem to have taken both bits of info at face value and assumed - because they've appeared on the Internet at slightly different times - they must be unrelated.

Er.... no.

Eh? No I haven’t. Widely reported last night & by the Post today that we required about availability, didn’t bid. A rejected bid would’ve been far tastier news to publish, yet hasn’t been

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bcfc24 said:

Deal not done with 26 hours to go, squeaky bum time

 

1 hour ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

You can get a cream for that. 

 

1 hour ago, redsquirrel said:

big tone used to sell it by the bottle i think

 

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Possibly a classic case of a little bit of embellishment.

I’m pretty sure that was the Major.

As @Major Isewater has now confirmed - in his inimical manner 😉.

Edited by PHILINFRANCE
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bpexile said:

If he can do that then surely it's a good deal, time will tell I guess 👍.

Oh certainly and it then justifies the price tag, just a bit of a big gamble I don’t think we need to particularly make but as you say, time will tell. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...