Scott Twine - Loan Confirmed - No option to buy

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

What about the joy in seeing him play? That's like saying you couldn't enjoy Alex Scott playing knowing he was likely to be gone in the summer. 

If (and I am not giving it up personally) we are not going to make the play offs, then some exciting football will be a way of keeping bums on seats.

Blimey he must be good if he's going to single handedly change our boring tippy tappy style of football into something exciting. Are you sure we have signed the right player as I didnt see that a few weeks ago when he played at Ashton Gate.

Hope I'm wrong.

Re Scott he was our player, that makes a massive difference.

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, FNQ said:

I tend to agree, if we were poles apart why would Burnley have recalled him from Hull?

From the Hull end, the rumour is they wanted Benson and this enables the loan space/frees up wages

From a Burnley perspective it isn’t going to be about how close or otherwise we are to a permanent deal. It’ll be whether they were getting enough financially from this deal. Likely we’ve covered wages and paid a loan fee akin to what Hull were for half two of the season, so for Burnley it’s cost neutral but they also get Benson loaned out and money for that if Hull whispers are to be believed.

The thing with Burnley is that they are a massively trading club over the last two years, without too much coherence. That more than anything may help us get a decent permanent deal in the summer as opposed to anything else.

[exAtyeoMax]

39 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

"Burden of Proof" being introduced into the conversation was the highlight for me..........

I know, should've said "who gives a ****!" 

[BrizzleRed]

3 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Everybody is, but perhaps that wasn't on the table from Burnley. As others have said, they may consider him to be their plan B in the championship, if they get relegated. They can also negotiate a better fee if he has a stormer

So the option may have been "You can have twine until the end of the season, then we will see where we are - Yes or No (BTW others are interested) - what do you do?

Its a Yes all day long surely

It would be interesting to see who else we had our eye on.  If there was someone we could get on a perm who we could improve for our own benefit, not for someone else, I would have preferred that.  If that option wasn’t there, then maybe the ST deal was the best option available.

It’s been obvious we’re crying out for a creative spark in this side.  ST looks well equipped to provide that, so looking forward to see what he can do for us.  It would also be a bonus if he can have a positive influence on the players around him too which benefits us, even if he returns to Burnley at the end of the season.

Hopefully some more exciting football to look forward to now

 

[TDarwall]

7 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Which is why a solid but unspectacular loan spell is probably the best long term outcome overall!

This really is great for us; having watch us for nigh on 40 years, our ability to transform a creative player into a solid, unspectacular one is unquestionable!

[Rossi the Robin]

Not sure why we didn’t do this bit of business (or another player) in the summer after the sale of Alex Scott. 
Just seems like panic style signing to keep the wolves away 

[Numero Uno]

7 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Blimey he must be good if he's going to single handedly change our boring tippy tappy style of football into something exciting. Are you sure we have signed the right player as I didnt see that a few weeks ago when he played at Ashton Gate.

Hope I'm wrong.

Re Scott he was our player, that makes a massive difference.

No, he was pretty ordinary the other week as it happens. Doesn't make him a bad player, and he was playing left side predominantly if my memory is correct, but he certainly wasn't stand out that night.

[Sir Geoff]

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

We're unlikely to ever know the figure. 

However he's certainly not cost us 50p. Loans are expensive. 

If he were to lead us to the premier league, that's value for money. But let's be honest, we wrote this season off a long time ago and he's not going to be leading us to the premier league. So in that sense I don't really see the point in bringing in a short term costly signing. May aswell concentrate on the future. 

My thinking exactly. Surely £1million spent now is £1milliion that can't be spent next summer / January when it could be better spent on a permanent signing. We were close to FFP breach before so a million out of the pot now is unnecesary. I am sure Mr Pops or DaveFevs will have better knowledge, but from the outside it seems as though this is money that could have been saved.

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, Rossi the Robin said:

Not sure why we didn’t do this bit of business (or another player) in the summer after the sale of Alex Scott. 
Just seems like panic style signing to keep the wolves away 

Don’t think they were in for Twine.

Your first part is the real paradox here. Twine is pretty much the Scott replacement - a creative spark we undoubtedly have been missing. I think if we’d have signed him on loan in the summer with no option to buy (irrespective of who was in charge) then the response to the signing would have been universally positive.
 

It’s possible we weren’t interested then (although as we’re informed the recruitment is pretty much manager agnostic) he was likely on our list (especially as Harry would have made sure he was!). It’s equally possible that LM was a decisive factor on him wanting to come over. But, the bottom line here is that all anyone had any real problem with here is the nature of the deal at this time as opposed to the signing itself.

[mozo]

12 hours ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

What a weird thead, most fans of clubs would be excited they will be soon watching a player that has one of the highest assist rates and can score some great goals by the look of the video's.

Some use the fact we have been poor in the last 3 games as evidence we cannot reach the playoffs, yet upset we have brought in a player that might be able to open up the teams we struggle against.

Others wetting the bed over it being a loan, without any knowledge of reasoning behind it or agreements in place. It seems at times more just to be able to knock BT / JL than a problem with loans, don't remember the same massive issue when we loaned Tammy. As for cost we have taken off AW wage and replaced by Twine, plus any other fees, so negligible.

Its been stated on here lots we need a creative midfielder, but because we have not bought then its so say a bad deal, would you rather sign no one, or someone lesser but permanent, but no doubt these options would also be wrong. Maybe Burnley want to see what division they will be in before selling, perhaps at a price we are comfortable with.

On the subject of loans, NP said the culture was not right at the club to bring in loans initially, also the club have not wanted to block young players pathways, but we don't seem to have that player ready to step up.

Yes would have been great if 2.5m permanent, but I am just pleased we have a good player coming in which can only be good to watch, shame others can not get excited rather than seeing how negative they can be.

A lot of fans are still bitter about the treatment of Nige.

The thing for me is how much the loan is costing us. If we're paying a boatload of cash that we allegedly don't have to spend, just to wave goodbye to the player in May, it seems a bit excessive. Perhaps we negotiated a good loan fee, but who knows?

12 hours ago, sunningdalered said:

Sorry if this was raised 40 pages ago, but why would Burnley recall Scott from a season long loan, where he and the team are doing pretty well, to immediately send him out on another loan to a club that are mid-table at best? The most obvious reason is the greater prospect of a permanent deal at the end of the loan period with us, although this seems to be being played down by both parties. 

A couple of possibilities spring to mind... maybe we are offering more money than Hull did.

Or maybe the player preferred to play nearer his hometown. After the permanent deal couldn't be reached, Hull and Twine may have had a chat about what suited him best.

Edited January 16 by mozo

[mozo]

Another possibility regards buying on a permanent... Maybe we won't front up the large fee currently, but if (when?!) Conway is sold, we then have the fee for Twine, who by that time, we hope, will be happy here.

[transfer reader]

1 minute ago, mozo said:

A lot of fans are still bitter about the treatment of Nige.

The thing for me is how much the loan is costing us. If we're paying a boatload of cash that we allegedly don't have to spend, just to wave goodbye to the player in May, it seems a bit excessive. Perhaps we negotiated a good loan fee, but who knows?

We have also just loaned out a player to WBA.

With both loans getting officially announced within a few hours of each other.

So that's presumably a loan fee in, wages off the books followed by a loan fee out and wages on the books.

[W-S-M Seagull]

14 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

My thinking exactly. Surely £1million spent now is £1milliion that can't be spent next summer / January when it could be better spent on a permanent signing. We were close to FFP breach before so a million out of the pot now is unnecesary. I am sure Mr Pops or DaveFevs will have better knowledge, but from the outside it seems as though this is money that could have been saved.

I guess there is an argument to say the money we've made from the West Ham games probably covers this loan. So thr nest egg hasn't been cracked into. 

However just because we've been given a bit of a bonus with the cup money, doesn't mean we have to spend it recklessly. 

I personality really liked pur previous approach of strong long term thinking. For example the feeling was why bring in a short term loan that's gonna cost when we can save that money and instead field our own players to develop them. I think most of us were on board with that and that's why there was so much patience. 

With Twine coming in then we're gonna have to drop someone. That could be Bell, Mehmeti or TGH for example. I'd rather we be playing our own players over a short term signing. You also have to consider the impact that has on the morale of our own players. Losing their place to a player who's not going to be here come May. 

The irony is, when we've been in a position to potentially challange, for example the play off season under GJ, Lansdown refused to make signings like this which could have meant we may well have been able to push for that top 2. The constant flip flopping just does my head in. Just pick a strategy, have conviction in that strategy and stick to it and ride it out. 

Edited January 16 by W-S-M Seagull

[Lew-T]

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

That is his job imo. End of the window would work best so everything can be explained in one hit.

It’s going to be a club one though isn’t it? And we all know how they go…

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

33 minutes ago, italian dave said:

All very reasonable questions. All very reasonable concerns, challenges.

But........over-thinking it?? 

Six months is a very long time in football. So many if's and but's along the way.

It doesn't feel to me like it's some kind of massive departure from our direction of travel/strategy. 

I'm just looking forward to seeing a good player, who'll give us something different, and - even if we don't make 6th (I don't think we will) - may contribute to us ending the season with more confidence about next. And let's see where we, Burnley, Twine, Williams and everyone else is then.

Very good post. I can't recall a loan player ever being more analysed as to what will happen beyond the loan prior to even kicking a ball. 

We are desperately in need of reinforcements to help the team now and that's what ,on the face of it, we have. As long as I have supported this club, loans have been hit or miss. If Scott doesn't cut it here then we have not wasted several million and if he does then we will be in the pole position to sign him and ,of course, the player will have the final say in where he wants to be .

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Numero Uno said:

The other issue I have is (presumably) there is no guarantee that any loan fee we have paid Burnley this season will be credited from the final transfer fee as it was in the TGH situation. So we could be paying a loan fee of £500K (total guess) PLUS the £2.8m we were rumoured to have bid recently and which could also rise significantly if Burnley feel like it. They could say "didn't he do well, that's £5m please" (I appreciate they don't employ Bruce Forsyth at Board Level but you get my drift).

I'm all for the lad coming in, showing us what he can do and hopefully the team play better football as a result but if we end up sending him back with no chance of signing and it hinders us in the medium term I will be puzzled why we did this.

I believe in the TGH case we paid a loan fee (allegedly £0.700m for the season) and had agreed a £1.300m transfer fee for the summer.  In effect it was a £2.000m transfer fee.  So no “credit” involved as you are suggesting.

What has happened is that we’ve ended the loan (fact), signed him early (fact), and in conjunction with Andi going the other way we’ve made the total “outlay” a bit less (rumour)

35 minutes ago, FNQ said:

I tend to agree, if we were poles apart why would Burnley have recalled him from Hull?

Benson is one reason, there are other reasons too that make it beneficial for them.

[TonyTonyTony]

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

With Twine coming in then we're gonna have to drop someone. That could be Bell, Mehmeti or TGH for example. I'd rather we be playing our own players over a short term signing. You also have to consider the impact that has on the morale of our own players. Losing their place to a player who's not going to be here come May. 

 

So you don't want him here then?

[phantom]

If we had agreed a fee for the end of the loan it would have made sense to delay spending a fee for FFP reasons, but to be an old fashioned loan seems odd and strange that he didn't stay at Hull

[W-S-M Seagull]

11 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

So you don't want him here then?

Not sure how you've arrived at a position where you're asking this question when I've clearly said in this thread hes a good player and will do well for us etc. 

[cotswoldred2]

Just a typical January deal that many other clubs do . Summer is the time to do the real business and tie down contracts, all the toys out the prams on here is embarrassing is as if there has to be a constant moanfest from Nigel's jilted fans. Of course it's all meant to continue knocking the owners and to undermine anything new. 

I am sure Pops and Dave will sort it out.

[Graham76]

25 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

My thinking exactly. Surely £1million spent now is £1milliion that can't be spent next summer / January when it could be better spent on a permanent signing. We were close to FFP breach before so a million out of the pot now is unnecesary. I am sure Mr Pops or DaveFevs will have better knowledge, but from the outside it seems as though this is money that could have been saved.

I completely agree.  If Scott Twine inspires us to a top 6 finish then its money very well spent.  Personally I would rather see that money invested in players that will be with the club for the foreseeable future.  

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, cotswoldred2 said:

Just a typical January deal that many other clubs do . Summer is the time to do the real business and tie down contracts, all the toys out the prams on here is embarrassing is as if there has to be a constant moanfest from Nigel's jilted fans. Of course it's all meant to continue knocking the owners and to undermine anything new. 

I am sure Pops and Dave will sort it out.

What's embarrassing is moaning on a forum about people sharing their opinions, on a forum. 

[Harry]

48 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Not sure why we didn’t do this bit of business (or another player) in the summer after the sale of Alex Scott. 
Just seems like panic style signing to keep the wolves away 

I’d say (re Twine) that’s it because Manning wasn’t here in the summer. 
Pearson, BT, Gilhespy, JL etc have shown no interest in Twine previously. 
This will 100% be Manning wanting Twine. 

41 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Don’t think they were in for Twine.

It’s possible we weren’t interested then (although as we’re informed the recruitment is pretty much manager agnostic) he was likely on our list (especially as Harry would have made sure he was!). It’s equally possible that LM was a decisive factor on him wanting to come over. But, the bottom line here is that all anyone had any real problem with here is the nature of the deal at this time as opposed to the signing itself.

Yep. We weren’t interested. 
Regards the ‘manager agnostic approach’ this would be much like any new manager (same happened with Pearson), that there will be an element of, when first arriving here, are there any players you want/need immediately. 
Pearson was allowed to sign James, King & Simpson. Manning has clearly said “I want Twine”. 
 

Thereafter, the way it works now is a bit of a conglomerate - manager, dof, analysts, ceo etc all filtering and discussing options. 
My post the other day re Nige was that I thought he took a back step from that process later on as there were clear power plays happening. 

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Which is why a solid but unspectacular loan spell is probably the best long term outcome overall!

So, the worse he plays the better it is for us . 

[Superjack]

1 hour ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Not sure why we didn’t do this bit of business (or another player) in the summer after the sale of Alex Scott. 
Just seems like panic style signing to keep the wolves away 

I think we all know why...

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, Major Isewater said:

So, the worse he plays the better it is for us . 

Bizarrely, yes!

If you work on the basis that we want him permanent come what may (which I think is a reasonable assumption), then the lower his value at end of season the better for us. Thats only achieved if he gets injured (which nobody wants) or he performs middling at best.

It might be a cunning plan

[W-S-M Seagull]

7 minutes ago, Superjack said:

I think we all know why...

I'm still not sure why our current top 6 team needs a player like Twine to make us a top 6 team

[TonyTonyTony]

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

Not sure how you've arrived at a position where you're asking this question when I've clearly said in this thread hes a good player and will do well for us etc. 

Ive not been through every post in this thread. My question to you was based on your comment below

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

 I'd rather we be playing our own players over a short term signing. 

That reads to me that you'd prefer not to have him here, hence why i asked.

[RedRoss]

1 minute ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Ive not been through every post in this thread. My question to you was based on your comment below

That reads to me that you'd prefer not to have him here, hence why i asked.

If Nige and Richard Gould brought him in he'd be happy as Larry.

Because they didn't he's been playing his smallest violin.

[W-S-M Seagull]

27 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Ive not been through every post in this thread. My question to you was based on your comment below

That reads to me that you'd prefer not to have him here, hence why i asked.

Id love to have him here on either a loan with an option to buy or on a permanent. 

But as its just a short term deal then I'm unsure about the benefits of it. We've long made a big deal about how we give players a chance etc and now we are kinda blocking them.