Scott Twine - Loan Confirmed - No option to buy

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, maxjak said:

If there is no one from the Academy capable of stepping up this season as a playmaker, then it is not a case of blocking, but a smart bit of business to hopefully revive our season?   I am certain that if ST proves to be a success, we have contingency plans to recruit him..............Looks like Win, Win to me.

To get him in the team we have to drop one of Bell, Mehmeti or TGH. Players that you would consider to be projects.

A contingency plan without having an option? How does that even work? 

If ST is a success here and I hope that he is, its a double edged sword as him performing well for us will mean to buy him will cost more.  

[Port Said Red]

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

To get him in the team we have to drop one of Bell, Mehmeti or TGH. Players that you would consider to be projects.

A contingency plan without having an option? How does that even work? 

If ST is a success here and I hope that he is, its a double edged sword as him performing well for us will mean to buy him will cost more.  

How many more times? It's not dropping players, it's options. There are 16 players involved almost every game, having more quality means those players can be used more effectively and be fresher. The days of it being just "the starting 11" has been consigned to the history books a long time ago. 

It's not even going to block a youngster from sitting on the bench as Manning hasn't been filling all the spaces anyway. 

[Davefevs]

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

To get him in the team we have to drop one of Bell, Mehmeti or TGH. Players that you would consider to be projects.

A contingency plan without having an option? How does that even work? 

If ST is a success here and I hope that he is, its a double edged sword as him performing well for us will mean to buy him will cost more.  

Need to stop thinking about it’s as dropping players and best elevens.  It’s a squad game these days.

You can still try to buy him in the summer without an option.

Yes, that is a risk.

[DaveInSA]

If Twine was valued at £5million.

And we sold Scott for £25million.

That means that Twine has 20% of Scott's talent. 

In which case, it's a no from me

And back to the thread...maybe, we have a plan. Lets have a looksee at what a creative number 10 can do in our current constrained squad. do we create more? do we score more? have we tightened up at the back? are we winning more games? do the defence have an "out-ball" instead of passing it to each other? etc etc....

Then, perhaps we would understand a bit more about where we are (mid-table championship) to where we want to be (top 6-8 championship). And we could all get a bit more real about the GAP and how we need to fill it.

And maybe we don't have a plan. Which in my simple brain means a relegation scrap next season. because we've been here before.

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Need to stop thinking about it’s as dropping players and best elevens.  It’s a squad game these days.

You can still try to buy him in the summer without an option.

Yes, that is a risk.

Although I agree with point one, we have seen a bit more increasingly from Liam an approach of “you have the shirt you keep it”. I don’t have an issue with that tbh and it is in part a function of squad size so there is a natural conclusion that if you add player A (Twine in this example) then it means less game time for player B (Mehmeti here)

And again, I don’t have an issue with that as competition is healthy and it may cause AM or whoever to up their game - but it is factual that Twine coming in will mean less game time for others. The challenge is on them to rise to that.

Again, bottom line for me is that I’m not sure the terms of the deal make sense, mainly due to the lack of option and risk identified, but now ST is here, I’d certainly play him if he’s the best option - as I would with any available resource - and it’s up to the other players to respond.

[Port Said Red]

26 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Need to stop thinking about it’s as dropping players and best elevens.  It’s a squad game these days.

You can still try to buy him in the summer without an option.

Yes, that is a risk.

I am assuming that last line is in reply to the part about blocking youngsters? 

I don't think that is the case here, from what I have seen of the U21's we don't have a "playmaker type" coming through. Benarous if fit? Acey is still young and recovering his full fitness, will he develop, who knows? Murphy is a possibility and I did wonder if we might see him sooner rather than later, but this signing takes the pressure off for the rest of the season. But otherwise, it's good looking defenders and dynamic looking youngsters with pace and potential. 

This isn't a criticism of the Academy because I think "Number 10s" generally have something that can't be coached, finding youngsters with that innate ability to both see and execute a play is rare in all sports, finding them with the physical attributes required is even rarer.

Edited January 16 by Port Said Red

[W-S-M Seagull]

30 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

How many more times? It's not dropping players, it's options. There are 16 players involved almost every game, having more quality means those players can be used more effectively and be fresher. The days of it being just "the starting 11" has been consigned to the history books a long time ago. 

It's not even going to block a youngster from sitting on the bench as Manning hasn't been filling all the spaces anyway. 

I respectfully disagree. 

Twine goes straight into the starting 11. You have to drop one of the players I've mentioned to play him. The players I have mentioned will get less game time and therefore less development time because of Twine. 

If Twine was our own player or we had an option to buy then thats OK, because thats squad development/evolution. 

But for a player that's not going to be here come May? Hmm. 

That's the difference in my opinion. 

Probably worth mentioning once again how delighted I am to have Twine. But it's OK to be happy and have concerns about the longer term. 

Edited January 16 by W-S-M Seagull

[Ska Junkie]

1 hour ago, Malago said:

Burnley may well be relegated and be forced into a fire sale in the summer, in which case if the player wants to stay will be in a prime position to sign him at a cost lower than the current asking price.  Who knows?  

Lots of of financial disciplinary action to be taken in the Prem yet. Everton, Forest, Man C, Chelsea, maybe more.

I've no idea what will happen and would guess Burnley don't have much more idea either.

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Although I agree with point one, we have seen a bit more increasingly from Liam an approach of “you have the shirt you keep it”. I don’t have an issue with that tbh and it is in part a function of squad size so there is a natural conclusion that if you add player A (Twine in this example) then it means less game time for player B (Mehmeti here)

And again, I don’t have an issue with that as competition is healthy and it may cause AM or whoever to up their game - but it is factual that Twine coming in will mean less game time for others. The challenge is on them to rise to that.

Again, bottom line for me is that I’m not sure the terms of the deal make sense, mainly due to the lack of option and risk identified, but now ST is here, I’d certainly play him if he’s the best option - as I would with any available resource - and it’s up to the other players to respond.

Do you think so?  My view is the opposite, I think that he rotates more than Nige.  I liked Nigel’s selection policy, but I felt at times there was too much emphasis on it being easier to keep the shirt than lose it, as he didn’t rotate much.  I think what he alluded to yesterday was that he’d planned to rest Jamo for game x so he could play in game y, but Williams played so well, he stayed in for game y and Jamo got another rest.

~~~~~

That is the main point of opinion / difference of opinion on here isn’t it?

I think the bottom line (for me) is LM wants Twine (I think yesterday’s events confirm that).

If he can’t buy him now (can’t agree fee / don’t want to bring that transfer fee forward), then loan with option to buy is next best, and if the option to buy fee is too much then he’ll take a half season loan - assuming that is sensibly structured - which it will be.

 

[Port Said Red]

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

I respectfully disagree. 

Twine goes straight into the starting 11. You have to drop one of the players I've mentioned to play him. The players I have mentioned will get less game time and therefore less development time because of Twine. 

If Twine was our own player or we had an option to buy then thats OK, because thats squad development/evolution. 

But for a player that's not going to be here come May? Hmm. 

That's the difference in my opinion. 

Probably worth mentioning once again how delighted I am to have Twine. But it's OK to be happy and have concerns about the longer term. 

As I said in my subsequent thread, we don't have a player of Twine's type in the squad or looking to make a breakthrough.

[Malago]

1 minute ago, Ska Junkie said:

Lots of of financial disciplinary action to be taken in the Prem yet. Everton, Forest, Man C, Chelsea, maybe more.

I've no idea what will happen and would guess Burnley don't have much more idea either.

Exactly.   Nobody does.  So why get upset because the loan doesn’t include a buy clause?  Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing, only time will tell.

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I am assuming that last line is in reply to the part about blocking youngsters? 

I don't think that is the case here, from what I have seen of the U21's we don't have a "playmaker type" coming through. Benarous if fit? Acey is still young and recovering his full fitness, will he develop, who knows? Murphy is a possibility and I did wonder if we might see him sooner rather than later, but this signing takes the pressure off for the rest of the season. But otherwise, it's good looking defenders and dynamic looking youngsters with pace and potential. 

This isn't a criticism of the Academy because I think "Number 10s" generally have something that can't be coached, finding youngsters with that innate ability to both see and execute a play is rare in all sports, finding them with the physical attributes required is even rarer.

No, it was in terms of “there’s a risk his price might go up”.

[Numero Uno]

22 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

And maybe we don't have a plan. Which in my simple brain means a relegation scrap next season. because we've been here before.

That's the key for me and why Jon and Brian have to stick their head above the parapet and produce now. No plan and no quality is as bad a combination as it gets in the medium to longer term. Nige and Liam in his short time here have proved you can get results when operating with a generally low Q squad but it only gets you so far and doesn't last long as a principle. Twine has been brought in to add quality - that's accepted.

The next question, and it's only 7 months away, is what quality we will have in the building for NEXT season. Will it be Twine and others or if we don't get Twine and others don't come in before the end of the month then where is the quality we need coming from? The hierarchy really do need to be looking and planning ahead to then because if you keep selling your best players and not bringing quality in there is literally only one outcome. Ask Mick McCarthy and Terry Connor who were always firefighting at Ipswich if you are unsure of what that outcome might look like.

If the current plan is genuinely that Twine can help lift us into a play off spot (a bit ambitious imo but not my call) then go and loan a keeper who is up to the level to keep Max honest and get a promising striker in from someone like Chelsea, Liverpool or Man City (i.e. a Tammy type) on loan too and make it happen.

[Davefevs]

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

I respectfully disagree. 

Twine goes straight into the starting 11. You have to drop one of the players I've mentioned to play him. The players I have mentioned will get less game time and therefore less development time because of Twine. 

If Twine was our own player or we had an option to buy then thats OK, because thats squad development/evolution. 

But for a player that's not going to be here come May? Hmm. 

That's the difference in my opinion. 

Probably worth mentioning once again how delighted I am to have Twine. But it's OK to be happy and have concerns about the longer term. 

As a hypothetical question - if you knew LM / Tins were planning to revisit in the summer and try to get him then, ie we wanted him through the door now, but didn’t want to waste time haggling, does that change your view re less development time for others.

Sometimes you have to buy / accept some risk, timing isn’t always perfect.

[Ian M]

5 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

The way I see it is they know they've messed up. 0 goals in 3 games shows that. The football has become dull and tedious to watch despite us now being well coached. So they've had to throw money at a short term signing to try and make the football more palatable because the natives are getting restless. We've thrown all pur strategies out of the window in order to try and cover up their mistakes. 

Twine is a good player and I'm delighted we have him here. Just not pleased with the short term thinking of the club after all we have been through. I don't think this loan deal gets done under Gould for example. 

It makes absolutely zero sense to sign a player on loan (and paying a likely fee) to finish 13th instead of 14th for example. 

With the business so far this window, it actually still lends itself to the “we are maxed on wages” line.

We have brought in a youngster from Ireland who won’t be costing the earth, turned TGH’s loan contract into a permanent and swapped Andi’s wages for Twine’s.

That still leaves the option of bringing one more in if they want to allocate some of that nest egg to the new guy as many of us had/have expected them to do as a gesture. Two if they want to make a real play for that 6th place spot.
 

[UncleRed]

7 minutes ago, Ian M said:

With the business so far this window, it actually still lends itself to the “we are maxed on wages” line.

We have brought in a youngster from Ireland who won’t be costing the earth, turned TGH’s loan contract into a permanent and swapped Andi’s wages for Twine’s.

That still leaves the option of bringing one more in if they want to allocate some of that nest egg to the new guy as many of us had/have expected them to do as a gesture. Two if they want to make a real play for that 6th place spot.
 

By new guy, are you referring to Liam Manning?

[Ian M]

10 minutes ago, UncleRed said:

By new guy, are you referring to Liam Manning?

Yes, but it was also based on the concept of Boards generally giving their new appointment a bit of financial backing after putting them in place.

If you’re digging for a slight on Liam from me, you’re looking in the wrong place.

[UncleRed]

10 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Yes, but it was also based on the concept of Boards generally giving their new appointment a bit of financial backing after putting them in place.

If you’re digging for a slight on Liam from me, you’re looking in the wrong place.

Why say “also” then?

Not looking for a slight, just find it strange how someone has to refer to a new manager as the new guy and not his name. Especially on a fan forum for that club.

[Silvio Dante]

28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Do you think so?  My view is the opposite, I think that he rotates more than Nige.  I liked Nigel’s selection policy, but I felt at times there was too much emphasis on it being easier to keep the shirt than lose it, as he didn’t rotate much.  I think what he alluded to yesterday was that he’d planned to rest Jamo for game x so he could play in game y, but Williams played so well, he stayed in for game y and Jamo got another rest.

~~~~~

That is the main point of opinion / difference of opinion on here isn’t it?

I think the bottom line (for me) is LM wants Twine (I think yesterday’s events confirm that).

If he can’t buy him now (can’t agree fee / don’t want to bring that transfer fee forward), then loan with option to buy is next best, and if the option to buy fee is too much then he’ll take a half season loan - assuming that is sensibly structured - which it will be.

 

I think he’s certainly erring towards it, and again I’ll say I think it’s a function in part of availability. GK and defence largely unchanged, Mehmeti pretty much a constant for the last month despite a run of poorer games, Conway only missing from the start for one game in the last 12. More rotation in CM (bar Knight) but there is continuity in a lot of selections.

And for avoidance of doubt I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, particularly if you’re trying to shift style of play, but we have been wedded to a style and to largely a personnel.

—-

And yeah, totally. I haven’t seen anyone suggest that Twine isn’t a good player and won’t add to the squad. I do think the argument we’ve used AWs wages on him is a bit of double counting (as that also appears to have been used as leverage on the TGH deal) so base assumption has to be we’ve spent some money here. It’s probably with loan fee no more in total net outlay than 1/4 -1/2m tops so that’s not the biggest problem in itself; it’s more in the sense of a loan with no option which if it is a success ends up costing us more money in eventual fee (but I also note if he gets TC firing we may up his value for an anticipated summer sale). 
 

Again - if we were fighting the drop/for promotion, or had an option I’d be all for it. The main difference of opinion here is that we all agree it seems to be a good short term move but a lot are unconvinced as to the long term sensibility of it.

[phantom]

14 minutes ago, UncleRed said:

Why say “also” then?

Not looking for a slight, just find it strange how someone has to refer to a new manager as the new guy and not his name. Especially on a fan forum for that club.

Well he is the "new guy" so it doesn't take a lot to figure out who @Ian M was referring to

[pillred]

5 hours ago, CyderInACan said:

Only if by some bizarre reason that the ghost of Bruce Forsyth has suddenly become their manager. . . 

Let's hope he plays a "good game good game" :laugh:.

[Ian M]

15 minutes ago, UncleRed said:

Why say “also” then?

Not looking for a slight, just find it strange how someone has to refer to a new manager as the new guy and not his name. Especially on a fan forum for that club.

Because it’s not that deep.

But feel free to keep pondering what else I might have meant

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, pillred said:

Let's hope he plays a "good game good game" :laugh:.

Presumably, now he's changed clubs, he will come out post match and say we "were so much better than last weeks audience"........

[UncleRed]

2 minutes ago, Ian M said:

Because it’s not that deep.

But feel free to keep pondering what else I might have meant

Makes no sense.

We move on.

[Jeez]

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

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. 

Let-It-Go Seagull

 

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, Ian M said:

With the business so far this window, it actually still lends itself to the “we are maxed on wages” line.

We have brought in a youngster from Ireland who won’t be costing the earth, turned TGH’s loan contract into a permanent and swapped Andi’s wages for Twine’s.

That still leaves the option of bringing one more in if they want to allocate some of that nest egg to the new guy as many of us had/have expected them to do as a gesture. Two if they want to make a real play for that 6th place spot.

Yep.

For now, the transfer strategy doesn't appear to have changed at all since the summer.

However, clearly that doesn't fit the narrative for some on here. Namely the wet hen (seagull rather!)

[Jerseybean]

ST first day.https://www.bcfc.co.uk/video/features/scott-twines-first-day-at-bristol-city/

[The turtle]

48 pages and counting on a loan signing.

 

Ok then.

[TonyTonyTony]

11 minutes ago, The turtle said:

48 pages and counting on a loan signing.

 

Ok then.

Might get to 49 if people keep replying

[italian dave]

3 hours ago, Alessandro said:

Yeah maybe overthinking but just discussing it…probably one to reassess in the summer really - as I say, on paper a great addition, but I’m not a massive fan of the if’s and but’s, wait and see strategy. 

I prefer every player to have a plan for us and one beyond 6 months personally. Maybe Twine does have that and we don’t know about yet, as others have intimated. Also given the rumours about how the came about, the loan doesn’t seem unreasonable.

It is a departure somewhat, as I believe under RG and NP we wouldn’t have made this signing in this form, even if we wanted or ‘needed’ the player. 
 

Time will tell what value he brings in the next 6 months. 
 

 

Sure, and just to be clear, I wasn’t being critical at all - as you say, just discussion. And, as I said, there’s lots in what you say that makes perfect sense….in a perfect world!

I’d also prefer that both clubs and players have a plan, but I’ve been watching City long enough to know what tends to happen very quickly to even the best laid plans!

And, to be fair to players, it’s hard to criticise them for not getting too invested in a club nowadays - the clubs are pretty ruthless and will move them on with not the slightest thought, so players probably don’t look much beyond six months!