Scott Twine - Loan Confirmed - No option to buy

[Charlie BCFC]

Loan and option to buy would do for me, if it’s a straight loan then I’d prefer it to gamble £5m on a player not proven at this level 

[Mr Hankey]

Just now, bcfc01 said:

I've seen 5m stated, but don't believe it for one minute.

I think it’s come from a “source” online, i think James Piercy did a piece where apparenlty Burnley wanted £5mil. I agree with you, i really can’t see it being that much either tbh.

If Burnley were to get relegated i could see them wanting close to that as they may use him in this league next year, but if they stay up i can’t see them demanding that as i don’t see how anyone would pay that much, especially as they only paid £4mil themselves.

[petehinton]

4 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I've seen 5m stated, but don't believe it for one minute.

5m fee came from James Piercy, who is 99% of the time totally spot on with his info. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

51 minutes ago, Cov 77 said:

Because Nige didn’t do loans , unlike 95% of the championship 

That's not correct.

He said several times he wasn't against loans, per se. But in his opinion they were the wrong option to take due to the state we found ourselves in at that time, ie based on both our financial position at the time and the type of squad we had at that time.

So anyone thinking he was against loans is just plain wrong, lazy and not listening to what he actually said. Probably because they were pushing an anti NP agenda.

Edited January 14 by Merrick's Marvels

[W-S-M Seagull]

15 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

People will call for Lansdown to spend £5m on this lad, but then smash him if it goes wrong. That’s what happens. 

I don't think there are many people calling for us to spend 5 million on one player in January. 

[bcfc01]

1 minute ago, petehinton said:

5m fee came from James Piercy, who is 99% of the time totally spot on with his info. 

I like Piercy and would say that he doesn't deal in bullshite and can only print what he's heard.

But I still can't see anyone actually paying 5m for Twine.

Anyone reporting a loan yet ?

[Cov 77]

16 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

Again, where is it stated (other than social media/papers) that it is a loan and where is it stated its 5m ?

As you say lots of forums , socials and rags like the Bristol Post , there is genuinely no chance we pay 5 million for this player or pay a million loan fee , half of this in both cases , for all the chat Burnley are in deep shit and will get players out at best option so can bring a few in , he also can play up front just midfield so decent option , only 24 , and in the MK season got 20 goals and 13 assists, not too shabby league one withstanding 

Edited January 14 by Cov 77

[Cov 77]

6 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

That's not correct.

He said several times he wasn't against loans, per se. But in his opinion they were the wrong option to take due to the state we found ourselves in at that time, ie based on both our financial position at the time and the type of squad we had at that time.

So anyone thinking he was against loans is just plain wrong, lazy and not listening to what he actually said. Probably because they were pushing an anti NP agenda.

Say what you want , he said on many occasions he was not in favour of loans , didn’t want them around the place as did not think they brought anything and hindered the group , not lazy , not pushing anti NP agenda, you constantly push pro Nige , anti Lansdown etc but don’t call you out all the time 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Cov 77 said:

Say what you want , he said on many occasions he was not in favour of loans , didn’t want them around the place as did not think they brought anything and hindered the group , not lazy , not pushing anti NP agenda, you constantly push pro Nige , anti Lansdown etc but don’t call you out all the time 

 

We couldn't afford them, loans cost in fees and wages.. this was to a degree a negotiating position but we were in deep trouble with FFP and had 18 months to 2 years of downsizing and restraint to navigate.

[Lrrr]

13 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I like Piercy and would say that he doesn't deal in bullshite and can only print what he's heard.

But I still can't see anyone actually paying 5m for Twine.

Anyone reporting a loan yet ?

He's not saying its what anyone is paying though, he's saying its what Burnley's asking price was/is, from their perspective Twine is a Champ ready player who could be part of their squad should they drop down, why would they sell cheaply? (with Prem money in mind when I say cheap)

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, Cov 77 said:

Say what you want , he said on many occasions he was not in favour of loans , didn’t want them around the place as did not think they brought anything and hindered the group , not lazy , not pushing anti NP agenda, you constantly push pro Nige , anti Lansdown etc but don’t call you out all the time 

 

He said he was not in favour of loans because of the reasons @Merrick's Marvels explained. You've conveniently over looked thst bit and just focused on the not in favour of loans bit. 

[lenred]

14 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I don't think there are many people calling for us to spend 5 million on one player in January. 

Correct.   I’ll be fuming if we spend anywhere near that on him.  All the hard work done to get us back on an even keel will have been wasted, all to try and save face.  Really hope it’s not true.  

[bcfc01]

Just now, Lrrr said:

He's not saying its what anyone is paying though, he's saying its what Burnley's asking price was/is, from their perspective Twine is a Champ ready player who could be part of their squad should they drop down, why would they sell cheaply? (with Prem money in mind when I say cheap)

Which my first sentence states.

 

[Cov 77]

3 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

He said he was not in favour of loans because of the reasons @Merrick's Marvels explained. You've conveniently over looked thst bit and just focused on the not in favour of loans bit. 

Again as some say financial reasons may come into it , but Nige said on many occasions was not a fan of loans 

[PHILINFRANCE]

30 minutes ago, Harry said:

See, I also don’t understand the ‘loan with a view to buy’. 
Manning has already managed this player for a year. The most successful year both of them have had in football. 
We don’t need to ‘try before you buy’. 
Manning knows what he can bring and knows he can work with him. 

If Manning wants him then just buy him. What’s the point of a ‘try before you buy’. 

Of course Manning has already managed him, but that was not in The Championship, a huge step up from League One, as you well know.

Whilst, presumably/hopefully, Manning will be confident he can carry on as before, albeit at a higher level, this has yet to be proven (it was certainly not demonstrated at Burnley - injuries noted - nor strikingly at Hull), so a loan with a (reasonable) option to buy would seem the ideal solution (for us).

22 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

But to have the £3mil option after the loan, then surely we would be paying at least a million (you would assume) for the 6 months loan that we have him, then if we don’t exercise the option at least Burnley would look at it as having gained a million as they certainly won’t be letting him come on loan for nothing, so that would total (completely assuming here btw) a transfer fee of £4mil all in…..which in my opinion is far too much money for a player whose best season has not even been at this level.

Seems mental to me, either buy him now or wait until the summer, a loan is pointless. If we were top 4 of the league then i could understand, but not in our currebt position

I agree a full loan would be pointless (and expensive), were we to agree a loan on terms similar to TG-H, where the amount of his loan fee is deducted from any final transfer fee, then why not?

Provided the transfer fee is not £5M!

[bpexile]

6 hours ago, alexukhc said:

I know people are saying 5million is a lot, but today’s prices is it? Yes we should’ve got him free back then, but we didn’t, but had he joined us he’d prob wouldn’t be half the player is now, name a better player or players we could get for 5 million?

Or at Bournemouth 

[astrondrew]

25 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

If Burnley were to get relegated i could see them wanting close to that as they may use him in this league next year, but if they stay up i can’t see them demanding that as i don’t see how anyone would pay that much, especially as they only paid £4mil themselves.

Why would his price not have increased by a million?

Arguably, they'd want at least that.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, chowie said:

Do you think there could be an option scenario like below?

Loan with Option to buy:

At say £5m if Burnley are relegated.

At say £2.5m if Burnley remain in the Premier League.

Honest answer, not a clue.

[Simon bristol]

Not sure how the massengo to burnley fee was structured, perhaps we could waive any sell on fee for him we may have agreed?

[Tim Monaghan]

16 minutes ago, lenred said:

Correct.   I’ll be fuming if we spend anywhere near that on him.  All the hard work done to get us back on an even keel will have been wasted, all to try and save face.  Really hope it’s not true.  

When will you be fuming though? Let’s just say we spent £5m on him and we announced it on Wednesday. Would you be fuming then or would you wait until it’s mathematically not possible that we could reach the Premier League for you to be fuming? Because if we paid £5m, and he was the missing piece we needed, and we got to the Prem, you’d look a bit silly to be fuming about someone spending money that isn’t even yours on a player that got us to the Premier League.

Being fuming is a bit of a minefield isn’t it.

 

Edited January 14 by Ghost Rider

[lenred]

1 minute ago, Ghost Rider said:

When will you be fuming though? Let’s just say we spent £5m on him and we announced it on Wednesday. Would you be fuming then or would you wait until it’s mathematically not possible that we couldn’t reach the Premier League for you to be fuming? Because if we paid £5m, and he was the missing piece we needed, and we got to the Prem, you’d look a bit silly to be fuming about someone spending money that isn’t even yours on a player that got us to the Premier League.

Being fuming is a bit of a minefield isn’t it.

 

If you seriously think that Scott Twine is going to deliver us to the Prem I’ll have some of what you’re having. 

[italian dave]

1 minute ago, Ghost Rider said:

When will you be fuming though? Let’s just say we spent £5m on him and we announced it on Wednesday. Would you be fuming then or would you wait until it’s mathematically not possible that we couldn’t reach the Premier League for you to be fuming? Because if we paid £5m, and he was the missing piece we needed, and we got to the Prem, you’d look a bit silly to be fuming about someone spending money that isn’t even yours on a player that got us to the Premier League.

Being fuming is a bit of a minefield isn’t it.

 

This is OTIB. People fume when they want to and regardless of the circumstances. People like fuming! 
(Not directed at you @lenred!)

[Mr Hankey]

8 minutes ago, astrondrew said:

Why would his price not have increased by a million?

Arguably, they'd want at least that.

Based on his stats (which i know you can’t always judge by) at this level, i would argue he hasn’t done enough for his price to of increased. Burnley overpaid for him to begin with in my opinion, but due to parachute payments they were able to do so without it being a massive risk.

I think anyone buying him now aren’t buying him for what he has done so far at this level, but more so for what he done at MK & Newport with the apparent potential to do the same at this level. So in my opinion his value hasn’t increased higher than the money Burnley paid, if anything i think £4mil would be a million too much.

Burnley may very well want at least £5mil but they would struggle to find a buyer at that price.

Edited January 14 by Mr Hankey

[BCFC31]

8 minutes ago, lenred said:

If you seriously think that Scott Twine is going to deliver us to the Prem I’ll have some of what you’re having. 

Twine when  played behind the striker through the moddle is a very talented player he scored 20 goals and got 13 assists from midfield the level below no one puts those numbers up at his age unless they have something about them. He was shoved out wide for both burnley and Hull he isn't a winger he hasn't got the pace he plays in the hole he scores goals and links up play manning could be playing a blinder I'd imagen he will play where knight does and then it will be hickman and Knight in the middle. Plus twine is only 24 it isn't like he's finished his best years are still yet to come

Edited January 14 by BCFC31

[astrondrew]

Deleted.

 

Edited January 14 by astrondrew

[italian dave]

I think I can confidently predict that if we sign Twine it will be for “undisclosed fee”.

[GrahamC]

6 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Not sure how the massengo to burnley fee was structured, perhaps we could waive any sell on fee for him we may have agreed?

There was no fee.

There was compensation & it wasn’t structured.

It appears to have been circa £500k, a one off payment.

[lenred]

Just now, BCFC31 said:

Twine played behind the striker is a very talented player he scored 20 goals and got 13 assits from midfield the level below no one puts those numbers up at his age unless they have something about them.

Again, if you think Scott Twine will take us to the Prem this season, I’ll happily take the name of your provider / preferred drink.   How’s about this though….. If he does I’ll give £500 to charity. If he doesn’t you give £50? Fancy it? 

[Davefevs]

51 minutes ago, Harry said:

See, I also don’t understand the ‘loan with a view to buy’. 
Manning has already managed this player for a year. The most successful year both of them have had in football. 
We don’t need to ‘try before you buy’. 
Manning knows what he can bring and knows he can work with him. 

If Manning wants him then just buy him. What’s the point of a ‘try before you buy’. 
 

Again, I just wouldn’t spend resource on a loan at all. I also wouldn’t spend £5m on him. 
But if LM sees him as key then just buy him. Why bother with a loan 

Manning hasn’t seen him perform at this level with this team…that’s a good reason for me!

37 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I've seen 5m stated, but don't believe it for one minute.

think it was James Piercy who wrote about it.

13 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

He's not saying its what anyone is paying though, he's saying its what Burnley's asking price was/is, from their perspective Twine is a Champ ready player who could be part of their squad should they drop down, why would they sell cheaply? (with Prem money in mind when I say cheap)

That’s the angle City / us need to bear in mind….if they get relegated they've got some in-house.

~~~~~

This whole Twine rumour is one designed to test logic!

[astrondrew]

4 minutes ago, Mr Hankey said:

Based on his stats (which i know you can’t always judge by) at this level, i would argue he hasn’t done enough for his price to of increased. Burnley overpaid for him to begin with in my opinion, but due to parachute payments they were able to do so without it being a massive risk.

I think anyone buying him now aren’t buying him for what he has done so far at this level, but more so for what he done at MK & Newport with the apparent potential to do the same at this level. So in my opinion his value hasn’t increased higher than the money Burnley paid, if anything i think £4mil would be a million too much.

Burnley may very well want at least £5mil but they would struggle to find a buyer at that price.

OK but Burnley won't see it that way and they are part of the negotiation.

So you go back to them with discussions on loan to buy with a loan fee etc.