Silvio Dante

I think you’ll find it’s called a signature. Irony isn’t your strong suit is it Uncs?

I’d think Azaz first as it would have been a permanent deal. As we’ve just made TGH permanent and have Williams playing well, Knight doing well then Twine and Azaz would have been overkill if we are potentially looking at a new striker as has been mooted.

Ah the old “I can’t prove it but it’s definitely true” argument. Love that one. Hugs Arrogant Tosspot xx

Yep, agreed. I think what I’m saying is that precisely because LM knows him that the loan makes less sense than it otherwise would have - I just can’t see a logical reason for the signing on the terms it’s been made other than pure short termism. And I’d also probably wager that LM would have rather had another player on a permanent that maybe was 80% of what he wanted as that allowed him to build on a longer term basis.

Jesus, this is hard work. Nobody is saying that his signing might not be positive for the team in the short term. But I don’t think you’re daft enough to think it gets us promotion, and one loan signing doesn’t move the dial on other players. Its not about whether he improves the side in the short term (likely opinion he does), its about what sense this signing makes considering our position now, the time that LM is stated to need, the lack of an oven ready academy player at the end of the loan and the fact the player is a known quantity. You seem to think you’re a bright bloke. Surely you must look at all those factors and think “Yeah there’s a point there”, but instead you’ve decided that because I’ve expressed doubts over LM then it can’t be valid. Hint sweetheart- lots of other people on the thread who haven’t expressed doubts over LM are saying the same thing….

So…your logic here is that Twine might be the one player that makes everything click - and I have no objection to that, he might be. But we aren’t making the playoffs. And if he is, and causes us to markedly improve, we either lose the catalyst and need to find another, or pay through the nose. Thats what’s being said here - it makes no sense on the terms we have agreed, as it brings us no further forward and we pay a loan fee for it. Your post just confirms that point. And you might want to read posts a bit more closely next time….

@Harry - go on, you know you want to!

Nope, because if I’d have been there is no way we’d have done the deal. I believe Liam said that loans have their place if, for example, there is an academy player who may be ready shortly and you don’t want to block the pathway. Unless we have the next Scott Twine in six months this isn’t that. So, Liam, bearing in mind you know the player so don’t need a try before you buy, bearing in mind we need time for you to build so this can’t be a signing to get us over the line, can you explain how this loan fits in with any kind of logic?

**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.

Is he moving away from talking horseshit and now just posting his tinder wishlist?

Yep, exactly what I was going to post.

Point one - yes, and for avoidance of doubt this looks like that now and I’d back it. Wouldn’t have as a loan, wouldn’t have at £5m, but yes it does fit that profile and is sensible. Point two - none of us do/did. It’s more about not treating the fanbase like morons.

My expectation is that Tinnion was actually just in for Manuel Benson at £25m but the emails were so illegible that we ended up with Twine

At the risk of sticking up for them, you have to remember that the U12 sales for us are a bit inflated because they’re so cheap and you get the free shirt. I was getting my son a ST way before he wanted to come down regularly and I know someone who buys a ST for their niece - doesn’t go down, never will - just so they don’t have anyone sat next to them!

What do you reckon to what appears to be on the table now mate, having been not on board with the mooted £5m? I was against that (based on he shouldn’t have gone up in value post Burnley move based on record), against a straight loan (pointless at this stage) but loan with option to buy at a fee of c£2.5m seems a good deal to me. You’ve seen more of him than most, and without using the phrase “we should have had him for zero”, in todays environment seem decent to you?

Because… - We’ve just come through a period where we had to jettison a lot of high earners because we spent like a sailor on shore leave - We’ve been told (and we all know it was false) that there was no money - The more we spend on Twine the less money there is elsewhere - The kind of point of a forum is discussing things like this Other than that, go nuts. You’re totally right.

Piercy confirming Twine at HPC and quoting Manning that incoming very close with news by end of day.

To be fair, wonderful human that he was, I’ve tried my damndest to forget as much of the Holden era as I can so you may be right. I’d be pretty sure he’s in the upper quarter of earners but it might be that he’s on say 10-15% less than he would have been had we signed him pre pandemic.

Just for clarity, IIRC Williams was signed mid pandemic as Holden was a pandemic appointment. At the time of him signing grounds had been closed for the back end of the prior season and a lot of restrictions were still in place. I’ve got no idea what he’s on but a sensible CEO (I know, Mark Ashton) would have looked to temper spending at least a degree in view of the already known and high potential for further loss of income. So maybe not a “pre pandemic” contract but you’d hope a slightly tempered one - which may make the new deal negotiation not as far apart as it may seem at face value

Absolutely, check his responses here. Thats clearly a man who knows what’s happening and isn’t just throwing one word answers out there he can fall back on to say he was right.

He’s a grown man with responsibilities. That he feels the need to act like a twelve year old and pretend he knows things he doesn’t for social media likes is deeply worrying.

As a preamble here, I’d welcome Twine - good player, something we lack and would improve our squad. However, I’m with @Harry - the price is too high. One of our continual mantras is that we might bring summer business forward if it works. This isn’t that. As a loan it makes no sense. As a permanent it’s not like we’re getting value from the mooted fee and it’s not a Mehmeti where there is the argument of growth - he knows this level, he knows the manager’s expectations. Bringing forward when we have no chance of promotion makes no earthly sense, even if he is the right man (teams aren’t falling over themselves to sign him). So, look behind it. We’re possibly signing him as a plausible Mannig signing as a show of ambition because that’s what Tinnion, in his fundamentally basic knowledge of football, thinks will show that ambition without people looking behind it. It’s moronic as a loan or at the mooted price. Again.

Eh? The numbers are on the poll:

Good post, and I think we’re agreed on the symptom just not the cause. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not sure I buy the “9 sessions” piece as a valid reason - it’s likely 9 sessions not on specific opponents and I think you get that at every club - it’s just a reality of being appointed mid season. As I said elsewhere, it didn’t impact LM having less time at MK Dons as he was the continuation candidate who just followed how Russell Martin had them set up. I’m agreed we need different players and I’d love players who can adapt more on the fly - but every club wants them and they cost money! It is an 80-20 piece for me (case in point yesterday - Lowe made the changes, Keane didn’t) but I’ve got no issue in disagreeing in a constructive way. The bottom line I think for me is that LM is pretty inflexible. Thats been seen in trying to impose a style when he doesn’t have the players to do so, and then in the in game piece. And I’m yet to be convinced he can do the job, mainly for that reason. Decent debate in the right way though

This wanting £200m or whatever figure back gets my goat. I’d wager a lot of us here are homeowners. Now, the cost of running that house annually includes heating, lighting, tax, repairs and renewals etc. Yet nobody, when coming to sell their house, says “well the bricks and mortar are worth 500k but I want £2m because of the money I put in to maintain it over 25 years”. He put the money in to maintain the club over 25 years. Nobody forced him to, and to expect to get it back is both naive and idiotic.