Scott Twine - Loan Confirmed - No option to buy

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, Sleepy1968 said:

Someone ( @Curr Avon or @headhunter, maybe) needs to give BristolBoy a call and get the skinny on this IDK comment.

Maybe then we can knock this thread on the head, and live happily ever after. At least until next time ...

Someone earlier quoted Nixon as saying 'there's not a future fee "on paper"' 

 

The implication there of course that there's a figure or ballpark figure agreed in principle.

However, Nixon isn't always the most reliable.

 

Edit- probably not verbatim, but along those lines

Edited January 15 by transfer reader

[johnheadbcfc]

Just now, transfer reader said:

Someone earlier quoted Nixon as saying 'there's not a future fee "on paper"' 

 

The implication there of course that there's a figure or ballpark figure agreed in principle.

However, Nixon isn't always the most reliable.

Don't try to talk sense mate it confuses them

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, transfer reader said:

Someone earlier quoted Nixon as saying 'there's not a future fee "on paper"' 

 

The implication there of course that there's a figure or ballpark figure agreed in principle.

However, Nixon isn't always the most reliable.

 

Edit- probably not verbatim, but along those lines

A gentlemans agreement in football isn't worth the hand shake that was given. Ask Harry Kane about that. 

Twine could come here and score 10 and assist 10 and then suddenly Burnley want 10 million. There are no friends in football. It is brutal. It is every person for themselves. 

[ChippenhamRed]

27 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

No.

Look to bring in someone for the longer term, like Pearson did with TGH.

Although he’s been a mixed bag so far bringing in another Mehmeti type makes far more sense.

If Twine goes back to Burnley at the end of the season it will have been pointless.

If he makes enough of a difference to put us in a play off spot it won’t have been pointless.

And - more realistically - if it helps us attain a higher league position, say top 10, then again it won’t have been pointless.

A strong finish to the season, even without a play off spot, will create a bit of positivity around the club, help with season ticket sales, and make us a more attractive proposition in the summer transfer market - all of which provide percentage gains for the following season.

We need to shake off the sense that we are just a perennial midtable club. This could be the first step in the right direction.

[RedRoss]

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

It means if people dare criticise any of LJs or BTs decisions, their merry men will come along and try to defend them by attempting to rubbish people's valid opinions. You know what you're doing. 

Why are people not allowed to post negative posts? This isn't North Korea mate. If me or anyone else wants to post a negitive opinion or a repeated opinion then so what. Were not telling you what you can and cant post but thats exactlt what you are doing. This is a forum mate.

Everything about the club at the moment is negative so very very hard to find any positives. We have an owner who has gone awol and who can't sell up because no one will pay his asking price. He has his son running through club when his son has zero experience in doing so, Brian Tinnion is being primed to be CEO, oh and we've gone 3 games without a win. Tell me where the positives are in that mate? 

You'll actually find that over the summer I posted loads of positive posts. Posted positive posts today about Twine. If there's something positive to post about, I'll post about it. 

Oh here we go again with the personal bs. No need for it mate. 

Who are these merry men defending LJ? What's he got to do with anything? Sounds all abit bizarre that.

North Korea.. pfft I don't even know what to say.

Yes, we may have lost three on the spin. However, when we won a few on spin you hardly say anything. There's plenty of games left.. plenty to play for.

Where was I personal.. Because I said your always negative? Come off it. You've basically said so yourself. I In your words I've got to look back to the summer for some positive perspective from you.

 

[johnheadbcfc]

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

A gentlemans agreement in football isn't worth the hand shake that was given. Ask Harry Kane about that. 

Twine could come here and score 10 and assist 10 and then suddenly Burnley want 10 million. There are no friends in football. It is brutal. It is every person for themselves. 

Maybe scott had an agreement with the lansdowns not every football owner is Daniel levy

[stephenkibby.]

Well who would have thought a loan signing would have encouraged so much uproar. Pathetic.

Bring back the days when you have first read about the news the next day on the back page of The Western Daily Press!!!!

[lenred]

4 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

You didn't politely ask though, did you?

 

You started out by falsely implying you'd already asked me, so that shows dishonest intent from the start.

You've also constantly projected your own anger outwards onto me.

I've had no issue with anyone bar 1 person on this thread, and that's because they repeatedly tried to patronise me and intentionally misquoted me.

 

Technically it was you who made the claim, I said some things that have been said on this forum in a post. It was you who brought up them having to be from 1 poster and so the claim was that there wouldn't be 1 poster with all of those views expressed.

I said I think those views/sentiments by 1 poster "probably" could be found 

But as it was your initial assertion and claim, the burden of proof is actually with you- technically speaking.

 

I'm sure this will upset you greatly, so you'll swear at me again and call me angry.

Your exact words:

’5 mil "too much"

No signings = no ambition.

Loan signing made, and no obligation to pay 5 mil "what a pointless signing"

There's people on here who want to be upset about everything.’

You made this statement.  Not me.  
I simply asked you (no swearing - the ‘again’ was wrong in some ways but referred to me asking someone else who also made this nonsense claim) to prove it and you started getting defensive and arsey, clearly because you cannot prove it.   Why make statements like this in the first place if it’s not true?
Also as pointed out to you your statement above misses a huge swathe of good discussion on the merits of the deal at different levels.    You just enjoy stirring shit up and don’t like it being pointed out to you so resort to the usual retorts that those who can’t back up their arguments do…...I’ll leave it there.  

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, johnheadbcfc said:

Maybe scott had an agreement with the lansdowns not every football owner is Daniel levy

Burnley are owned by Yanks aren't they? 

Edited January 15 by W-S-M Seagull

[Curr Avon]

11 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

Someone ( @Curr Avon or @headhunter, maybe) needs to give BristolBoy a call and get the skinny on this IDK comment.

Maybe then we can knock this thread on the head, and live happily ever after. At least until next time ...

Sorry, I'm washing my hare.

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, TV Tom said:

Don’t think he played that often under Kompany last season when in the champ’ not sure he rates him so the £2-3 million might be on the cards

He got injured in the first game of the season.

[Tim Monaghan]

5 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Who are these merry men defending LJ? What's he got to do with anything? Sounds all abit bizarre that.

North Korea.. pfft I don't even know what to say.

Yes, we may have lost three on the spin. However, when we won a few on spin you hardly say anything. There's plenty of games left.. plenty to play for.

Where was I personal.. Because I said your always negative? Come off it. You've basically said so yourself. I In your words I've got to look back to the summer for some positive perspective from you.

 

just remember:

“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.” - Attributed to William G. McAdoo

[chowie]

12 minutes ago, johnheadbcfc said:

The agreement does not include an option to buy, as was the case with Taylor Gardner-Hickman's loan from West Brom, but there is a confidence that if the 24-year-old proves a success a more long-term resolution can be reached, albeit with the security such a clause would provide.

from bristol post, hopefully we have atleast a gentleman's agreement over price.

 

Condensend Version:

SL wants to see how he fits in for rest of the season before contemplating cracking into that nest egg and reaching deep into the yolk for circa £5m.

[johnheadbcfc]

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Burnley are owned by Yanks aren't they? 

Probably 

[Ska Junkie]

 Mods  can we have a separate forum for arguments please? It's making reading this thread so bloody tiresome.

If people want to point score, take it somewhere else please.

Thank you.

[bcfc01]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The reasons for negativity are obvious - posters are explaining why.  It’s not pathetic, it’s their view.

Surely it would be better if you highlighted what you think the positives are, than put down people’s opinions?

But its his view as well.

As you and others have said more than once, its a forum for views and opinions.

Not everyone is able to articulate their views as well as some others (not that I'm saying the person in question is unable to do that).

 

[RedRoss]

Just now, Ghost Rider said:

just remember:

“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.” - Attributed to William G. McAdoo

Whilst I was responding in my last post. I was considering that same thought.

[Harry]

36 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Do people think we would’ve gone for Twine in addition to Azaz? Or one or the other?

 

34 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Most likely Twine was a secondary option to Azaz

Not necessarily. 
I was made aware before Christmas that we’d placed a bid for Twine. 
By the time I’d found that out it’s likely that discussion had already been going on for some time. 
The scenario could have played out that Burnley rebuked our offer (they did) and so we moved our attention to target 2 (Azaz). 
Bearing in mind we bid £2.8m for Twine and then £2.5m for Azaz, I think it’s clear what the budget was. 
We walked away from Burnley and focussed on Azaz instead, for whom we were able to agree the fee. But he didn’t want to join so we switched our attention back to Burnley again. 
 

So I think Twine was first choice. But we didn’t like the pricing. 

Edited January 15 by Harry

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Who are these merry men defending LJ? What's he got to do with anything? Sounds all abit bizarre that.

North Korea.. pfft I don't even know what to say.

Yes, we may have lost three on the spin. However, when we won a few on spin you hardly say anything. There's plenty of games left.. plenty to play for.

Where was I personal.. Because I said your always negative? Come off it. You've basically said so yourself. I In your words I've got to look back to the summer for some positive perspective from you.

 

JL. Apologies for posting it the wrong way round, although it was obvious the context I was talking in so it's bizarre that you've said it's bizarre when it was obviously a very small tiny mistake. 

I've made plenty of posts after our wins. You should go and check my extremely positive posts following the West Ham game. Oh no sorry, they don't fit your narrative so let's pretend I've never posted them. 

Name me some positives there has been since the summer? 

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, lenred said:

 

Your exact words:

’5 mil "too much"

No signings = no ambition.

Loan signing made, and no obligation to pay 5 mil "what a pointless signing"

There's people on here who want to be upset about everything.’

You made this statement.  Not me.  
I simply asked you (no swearing - the ‘again’ was wrong in some ways but referred to me asking someone else who also made this nonsense claim) to prove it and you started getting defensive and arsey, clearly because you cannot prove it.   Why make statements like this in the first place if it’s not true?
Also as pointed out to you your statement above misses a huge swathe of good discussion on the merits of the deal at different levels.    You just enjoy stirring shit up and don’t like it being pointed out to you so resort to the usual retorts that those who can’t back up their arguments do…...I’ll leave it there.  

I wasn't getting defensive or arsey.

You saying 'again' was incorrect and I pointed that out.

You've literally just admitted that it was wrong.

I've also talked about potential positives of the deal, so haven't ignored the discussion on that at all- you've got it wrong again there.

 

Please do leave it there, because you seem to struggle to say anything without resorting to some level of dishonesty- at least in your responses to me tonight. I hope you're more honest with others in your normal interactions and day to day life.

[Ska Junkie]

Anyway, welcome to Bristol City Scott.

[RedRoss]

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

JL. Apologies for posting it the wrong way round, although it was obvious the context I was talking in so it's bizarre that you've said it's bizarre when it was obviously a very small tiny mistake. 

I've made plenty of posts after our wins. You should go and check my extremely positive posts following the West Ham game. Oh no sorry, they don't fit your narrative so let's pretend I've never posted them. 

Name me some positives there has been since the summer? 

I don't care enough.

[transfer reader]

4 minutes ago, Harry said:

 

Not necessarily. 
I was made aware before Christmas that we’d placed a bid for Twine. 
By the time I’d found that out it’s likely that discussion had already been going on for some time. 
The scenario could have played out that Burnley rebuked our offer (they did) and so we moved our attention to target 2 (Azaz). 
Bearing in mind we bid £2.8m for Twine and then £2.5m for Azaz, I think it’s clear what the budget was. 
We walked away from Burnley and focussed on Azaz instead, for whom we were able to agree the fee. But he didn’t want to join so we switched our attention back to Burnley again. 

I did recall someone (evidently you) saying something about a bid for Twine in December, but didn't want to state it in case I'd misread on another player.

However, I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive- we could have had Azaz as first choice, but started talks about signing Twine when he seemed slow to agree as an example.

Purely speculation though and I could very well be wrong with that thought, your scenario makes just as much sense and there's a myriad of others that could be the case.

Edited January 15 by transfer reader

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, BrizzleRed said:

Sorry, but you’re talking like some wet behind the ears kid who doesn’t look at the bigger picture.

There are plenty of teams in this division who are way better equipped to go up, but if the seemingly impossible happened, would you be happy to see us go up and get humiliated every week, because I certainly wouldn’t.

Derby’s low points record would be under a massive threat, so I’ll use that popular phrase with the Lansdown apologists, be careful what you wish for!

FWIW, it won’t be this squad competing in the PL if we get there will it?  There will be a huge recruitment drive to improve it this summer.

I think our recruitment has improved a helluva lot, but that’s looking at a predominantly UK / English market.  That market is gonna be so tough to get PL quality players from, we will be the lowest in the pecking order.  We aren’t at Luton’s level of recruitment are we?

We need to build a better / wider capability now (still too late) if we think we are going up this season.

So a bit of yin and yang from me.

[Cov 77]

10 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

Anyway, welcome to Bristol City Scott.

Agreed, by the way as done why hasn’t this been moved to the main football chat ? 
 

Weimann and TGH moved ages ago 

[NcnsBcfc]

For me, this is a decent loan in.

We are struggling to score or even create. Twine might not be the answer, but he will certainly give us some more options.

When I think back to Tomlin coming in on loan, there was mixed reactions of course. I know the period after he signed didn't go well, but during the loan period he gave us that little spark/quality that was needed and ultimately it was a highly successful loan.

We obviously wanted to probably sign him on a permanent, but this seems to me the best option available to us at this time. Fair play we made something happen, even if it's not the full package that we wanted.

Another striker to give us some options up front and then hopefully we'll get going again as a team.

There's bound to be a whole heap of changes in the summer as Manning starts to bring in the players that he wants, until then, let's just try and score more goals in the remaining 19 league games and at least make the football consistently more engaging.

[Dan Robin]

Busy day, eh?!?

I don't know much about him, but...welcome to City, Scott!

[Street red]

35 minutes ago, johnheadbcfc said:

The agreement does not include an option to buy, as was the case with Taylor Gardner-Hickman's loan from West Brom, but there is a confidence that if the 24-year-old proves a success a more long-term resolution can be reached, albeit with the security such a clause would provide.

from bristol post, hopefully we have atleast a gentleman's agreement over price.

 

That's say not an option to buy but we agreed a fee of 1.3 million to buy if successful so the option was in there?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, stephenkibby. said:

But i thought the price being quoted for Twine was 5Mil? , the sages on here have been saying that's far to much.

So if that is the fee then having him here on loan and giving us some exciting moments (rare i know) is a bad thing?

Leaving all the politics out of it i for one is looking forward to see him play in a red shirt.

 

I think there are pros and cons to the deal.

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Am I allowed to question what the loan fee is? And how that spending that is value for money? Or am I gonna get the bots jump on me like earlier? 

 

 

 

You can ask, but nobody on here is gonna share it.  My gut feel (you can take it or leave it) is that it will be a sensible fee, but I’m trying to put 2+2 together and guessing so not saying “I know” because I don’t.  I think if it was a stupid loan fee we wouldn’t have even done the loan.  I can see the same logic with the transfer fee.  Burnley want too much for us to commit, so we’ve said no.  I have no problem with us saying “no”.  I’d rather not return to MA days of being bullied (fooled) by Chelsea.

1 hour ago, The Swan and Cemetery said:

Not inclined to be optimistic with JL/BT at the helm, as signs of planning strategically tend to be few and far between, but…

- LM’s worked with him before, during each of their’s most successful spell (admittedly League One)

- could be the unlock for Tommy. Twine’s a very different player to Scott, but I’m still of the view that all Tommy needs is decent chances, and Twine could be the person to deliver them

- not ideal having no option to buy, but maybe the house view is Murphy just needs fitness and then he’ll be ready to go, so Twine bridges the gap

- there maybe lots of teams between us and 6th, but 4 points means a decent run will get us there, so don’t think going for it (at least a bit) is a terrible idea (not excusing the decision making that’s led us here)

None of the above unpicks poor decision making over many years, or offers any guarantees, but for me means it’s not a ludicrous/terrible deal (or one to cartwheel about, 7/10-ish). 

Sensible.

Posts don’t have to point score do they?

[transfer reader]

2 minutes ago, Street red said:

That's say not an option to buy but we agreed a fee of 1.3 million to buy if successful so the option was in there?

Think that's poor writing from the post.

 

I believe it's trying to say it's not the same as the TGH one which did have a loan to buy agreement.