Scott Twine - Loan Confirmed - No option to buy

[RedRoss]

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

Translated to "We've had to change our strategy once again because we need to prove that we are not incompetent and that we made the right choice and we'll continue to throw money at it just like we did with LJ" 

If that was the case surely we would of spent the £5 million.

[Lrrr]

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

Translated to "We've had to change our strategy once again because we need to prove that we are not incompetent and that we made the right choice and we'll continue to throw money at it just like we did with LJ" 

Again you say we're throwing money at it by loaning Twine without any evidence that this is the case  We've loaned out Weimann covering you'd imagine is a good amount of Twine's wage so we've swapped one we wouldn't have used much due to his clause for an extra year and got in one that Manning will use.

[italian dave]

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

Translated to "We've had to change our strategy once again because we need to prove that we are not incompetent and that we made the right choice and we'll continue to throw money at it just like we did with LJ" 

I realise it doesn’t fit the anti-Lansdown narrative, but personally I can see nothing in that quote that’s not reasonable and sensible. 

Edited January 18 by italian dave

[exAtyeoMax]

11 hours ago, Ian M said:

JL should message Ian Gay on X to find out why he’s wrong.

yes, I don't know why we bother with a forum…we might as well just 'page the oracle'

 

[RedRoss]

3 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Again you say we're throwing money at it by loaning Twine without any evidence that this is the case  We've loaned out Weimann covering you'd imagine is a good amount of Twine's wage so we've swapped one we wouldn't have used much due to his clause for an extra year and got in one that Manning will use.

I agree there are plenty of things to criticise JL for but this isn't one of those things. Would I, the club and most fans preferred a permanent or loan to buy for Twine.. Of course. If Burnley wouldn't budge on their 5 mil valuation which most fans agreed was too much then we've done the right thing.

I think Twine had already set his mind on moving to us in some capacity. Playing in his preferred position, moving closer to home and working with a manager who got the best out of him. Burnley probably thought the same about him playing in his correct position and potentially getting better output. If he does that he'll either cost more to us or someone else or return back to them full of confidence.

We've avoided Weimanns trigger for a contract extension, he gets to move closer to home 6 months earlier with a chance to garner a new contract which he wasn't getting here or playing time. We save the wages and get a favourable deal with TGH's transfer.

All in all I don't think it's bad business at all. Could of been perfect with a permanent signing of Twine at our valuation but it's good were sticking to our guns.

[Silvio Dante]

18 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I realise it doesn’t fit the anti-Lansdown narrative, but personally I can see nothing in that quote that’s not reasonable and sensible. 

Yeah agree. I think we all know the known risk here in this transaction (that Twine performs well/becomes an integral part of the team and that £5m fee suddenly becomes £7m for arguments sake) and as I’ve said, at this time, that’s a risk I probably wouldn’t have taken considering the season position and likelihood of promotion or relegation.

Now they’ve made the decision (and again, it’s not one I agree with not because of the player but because of the possible long term additional cost/having to start again) to fill the gap on a short term basis it’s probably better to have a known quantity than a Lee Tomlin who comes in, plays well and we demand he signs - and he turns out to be an arse.

So yeah, don’t see anything wrong with the quote (or player) having made the decision that’s been made - it’s more the possible long term piece and the decision itself to start with where I think my issue is.

[Davefevs]

27 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Again you say we're throwing money at it by loaning Twine without any evidence that this is the case  We've loaned out Weimann covering you'd imagine is a good amount of Twine's wage so we've swapped one we wouldn't have used much due to his clause for an extra year and got in one that Manning will use.

22 minutes ago, italian dave said:

I realise it doesn’t fit the anti-Lansdown narrative, but personally I can see nothing in that quote that’s not reasonable and sensible. 

As it stands, we haven’t “thrown money at it” this window.  That could change.

We have spent this window, and although Weimann has gone out, we’ve increased our budget on Murphy, TGH being made perm and the loan of Twine.  But that’s not throwing money at it.

Had we signed Twine permanently, that would change our budget spend further.

Still 2 weeks to go in the window, but I’m not gonna criticise the hierarchy at this point for splashing the cash.  I think it’s been pretty sensible stuff.

[GrahamC]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

As it stands, we haven’t “thrown money at it” this window.  That could change.

We have spent this window, and although Weimann has gone out, we’ve increased our budget on Murphy, TGH being made perm and the loan of Twine.  But that’s not throwing money at it.

Had we signed Twine permanently, that would change our budget spend further.

Still 2 weeks to go in the window, but I’m not gonna criticise the hierarchy at this point for splashing the cash.  I think it’s been pretty sensible stuff.

Exactly as I see it.

I didn’t want Pearson sacked but you can’t spin a narrative saying Manning is suddenly getting more funds when all we have effectively done so far is brought the signing of TGH forward a few months & swapped Weimann for Twine.

[t_b]

There are a lot of comments here - mainly anti short term loan and issues with our transfer strategy. 
 

Surely if we want to attract players to join us on a longer term strategy, we need to have a solid end to the season where our manager can play a team in his style? That in turn requires us to speculate a little now rather than try and struggle on. 
 

New signings would look more favourably on us if we have a solid end of season and finish say 8th-10th than just end up in 14-16th with our current inconsistent results and style of play.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, Lrrr said:

Again you say we're throwing money at it by loaning Twine without any evidence that this is the case  We've loaned out Weimann covering you'd imagine is a good amount of Twine's wage so we've swapped one we wouldn't have used much due to his clause for an extra year and got in one that Manning will use.

And 99.9% probability that we paid a loan fee. 

You can frame it as he's just taking over Weimanns wages but to send Weimann there we agreed to buy TGH and therefore committed to pay him over 3 years. 

[RedRoss]

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

And 99.9% probability that we paid a loan fee. 

You can frame it as he's just taking over Weimanns wages but to send Weimann there we agreed to buy TGH and therefore committed to pay him over 3 years. 

Twine could be on less than Weimann. Meaning we save a proportion of his wage to cover a part of any fee applicable.

The part about TGH is irrelevant about our commitment to paying him over 3 years unless you didn't want us to sign TGH? You can't be seriously questioning the Weimann to West Brom and us getting TGH slightly cheaper deal.

Think your grasping at straws here.

Edited January 18 by RedRoss

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

I realise it doesn’t fit the anti-Lansdown narrative, but personally I can see nothing in that quote that’s not reasonable and sensible. 

He later went on and said something about "we will see" about signing Twine in the summer. If Twine is a success here, his price rises. Burnley are not going to give us a discount just because we've paid a loan fee. If he's a success, over clubs may be interested. If Burnley go down they may wish to keep him. 

Maybe I should have wrote we've thrown money at a short term solution instead but thought that was clear what I meant. 

My point is he's clearly said we don't usually do this. This is not our method but we've had to do it to back the coach they've brought in because quite frankly, results haven't been acceptable in big parts, despite us already having an oven ready top 6 side. 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Twine could be on less than Weimann. Meaning we save a proportion of his wage to cover a part of any fee applicable.

The part about TGH is irrelevant about our commitment to paying him over 3 years unless you didn't want us to sign TGH? You can't be seriously questioning the Weimann to West Brom and us getting TGH slightly cheaper deal.

Think your grasping at straws here.

Or we could have done the TGH deal as it was done and then saved the money from Weimanns wages to put towards a long term solution in the summer. 

There are many ways of looking at this deal. It's not just the one way like you are suggestion. 

[TonyTonyTony]

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

He later went on and said something about "we will see" about signing Twine in the summer. If Twine is a success here, his price rises. Burnley are not going to give us a discount just because we've paid a loan fee. If he's a success, over clubs may be interested. If Burnley go down they may wish to keep him. 

Maybe I should have wrote we've thrown money at a short term solution instead but thought that was clear what I meant. 

My point is he's clearly said we don't usually do this. This is not our method but we've had to do it to back the coach they've brought in because quite frankly, results haven't been acceptable in big parts, despite us already having an oven ready top 6 side. 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

Just now, TonyTonyTony said:

Are we not allowed to discuss how OUR club is run by its custodians? 

[transfer reader]

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

Are we not allowed to discuss how OUR club is run by its custodians? 

We are. But you're just trying to find the negatives in every single thing.

You've accused the club of "flip-flopping" had it explained to you how the club really isn't doing that at all, and then carried on saying it regardless.

Multiple people have told you how this more recent criticism is grasping at straws (a generous way to put it, in my opinion) but again, you carry on with it regardless.

If you follow your usual pattern, you'll be claiming people have personally attacked you next and that people are trying to silence you.

Neither is the case, but you refuse to accept that when your view is the minority one that you will get more responses disagreeing with you.

[TonyTonyTony]

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

Are we not allowed to discuss how OUR club is run by its custodians? 

I have no problem with discussion, but repeating, over and over again is pointless - particularly across multiple threads. 

We are in a good place at the moment. Focus on the positives. We all know our Leadership team is not consistent in their approach, but that's nothing new. Its been like that for years.

[Merrick's Marvels]

11 hours ago, Ian M said:

Opta actually. His successful dribbles was the highest of all players in the match.

I wonder how they define "successful"! Not tripping over his own bootlaces?? Personally, for instance, I wouldn't count the times a winger gets the ball in the middle third, advances 20 or 30 metres up the line unopposed, before losing possession as much of a "success".

I would watch the whole match again as I can't believe those opta stats but can't find the whole 90 minutes anywhere.

Out of interest, do opta also have Mehmeti's stats for the game at Watford as I do have access to that 90 minutes?

[Ian M]

1 minute ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

I wonder how they define "successful"! Not tripping over his own bootlaces?? Personally, for instance, I wouldn't count the times a winger gets the ball in the middle third, advances 20 or 30 metres up the line unopposed, before losing possession as much of a "success".

I would watch the whole match again as I can't believe those opta stats but can't find the whole 90 minutes anywhere.

Out of interest, do opta also have Mehmeti's stats for the game at Watford as I do have access to that 90 minutes?

Rather than take this Twine thread off at a tangent I will DM you them.

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 minute ago, Ian M said:

Rather than take this Twine thread off at a tangent I will DM you them.

Thank you that would great.

Looking forward to seeing Twine play. Up the City!

[W-S-M Seagull]

Just now, TonyTonyTony said:

I have no problem with discussion, but repeating, over and over again is pointless - particularly across multiple threads. 

We are in a good place at the moment. Focus on the positives. We all know our Leadership team is not consistent in their approach, but that's nothing new. Its been like that for years.

Im sorry Tony but just because we beat West Ham, which was an incredible and memorable result, that doesn't mean everything at the club is rosey. 

It's possible to be happy with a result and still have issues with those who's running the club.

I'm sorry but I don't agree that we should overlook negatives and focus on positives. I don't think that's healthy nor productive. Always need to hold the owners to account even if doing well on the pitch because the likelihood is, a club isn't always going to be doing well on the pitch. 

If I wish to be concerned at us doing things differently to usual, that's my perogative.

I'm not telling you what to post, so give me the same curtesy, cheers!

[Sir Geoff]

1 hour ago, RedRoss said:

If that was the case surely we would of spent the £5 million.

We still might (summer will be a different year for FFP).

[RedRoss]

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

Or we could have done the TGH deal as it was done and then saved the money from Weimanns wages to put towards a long term solution in the summer. 

There are many ways of looking at this deal. It's not just the one way like you are suggestion. 

Just completely write off this season already and make no short team additions that strengthen us?

I know we're 14th but with how congested this league is we're literally 3/4 wins from being back in the mix. Do I think it's likely we'll end in the play offs honestly no. Is it very much plausible yes. More so with Twine now.

I'm all for long term strategy and for 95% of our transfer business of late it has been. However, we do have to accommodate other deals so we can give this season the best chance possible. We're in a better position for the second half of the season already with McCrorie, Roberts and Atkinson on his way back soon.

 

 

[Shauntaylor85]

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

Im sorry Tony but just because we beat West Ham, which was an incredible and memorable result, that doesn't mean everything at the club is rosey. 

It's possible to be happy with a result and still have issues with those who's running the club.

I'm sorry but I don't agree that we should overlook negatives and focus on positives. I don't think that's healthy nor productive. Always need to hold the owners to account even if doing well on the pitch because the likelihood is, a club isn't always going to be doing well on the pitch. 

If I wish to be concerned at us doing things differently to usual, that's my perogative.

I'm not telling you what to post, so give me the same curtesy, cheers!

Tuesday still showed we have big issues, first of all we make silly mistakes and could have gifted West Ham a couple of goals, the red card helped us win the game but we still didn’t look convincing, our play around the box is so poor, we scored from a defensive error but bar that had few chances and the ones we did have the finishing was shocking. We played much better away at WHU, even then we were not clinical with chances. So we need Twine to start on Saturday and I really hope we can bring one if not two more in to improve the final third. Goals win games. 

[Sir Geoff]

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

And 99.9% probability that we paid a loan fee. 

You can frame it as he's just taking over Weimanns wages but to send Weimann there we agreed to buy TGH and therefore committed to pay him over 3 years. 

Plus agents fees. We would have paid Weimanns agent from our end to move him on early and Twines to negotiate the loan here.

[Ian M]

With regard to no future price agreed, what if we were aware that Twine was both keen to return to the South West and keen to reunite with Manning but knew we couldn’t get Burnley to lower their current valuation?
 

That we had a feeling we could secure a lower price in the longer term by not agreeing one now through the player pushing for the move and a feeling that Burnley may not end up themselves in the Championship next season?

 

Not agreeing a fee now isn’t cast in stone that we cannot get him at a reasonable price come the Summer. I know I have been critical at times of JL in recent months but it doesn’t mean that everything he does has to be shit.

[Harry]

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

Or we could have done the TGH deal as it was done and then saved the money from Weimanns wages to put towards a long term solution in the summer. 

There are many ways of looking at this deal. It's not just the one way like you are suggestion. 

Something to note here which is very very important and highly relevant to your argument. 

The finances of the Twine loan. 
 

You have been given a number of hints on this thread that the Twine loan is “not costing anywhere near what you think it is”. 
The people who have told you that; and you will have to trust me on this; will 100% know the finances. 
 

Please trust what’s been said. The loan deal is not costing anywhere near what you think it is. 

[Kid in the Riot]

4 minutes ago, Ian M said:

With regard to no future price agreed, what if we were aware that Twine was both keen to return to the South West and keen to reunite with Manning but knew we couldn’t get Burnley to lower their current valuation?

That we had a feeling we could secure a lower price in the longer term by not agreeing one now through the player pushing for the move and a feeling that Burnley may not end up themselves in the Championship next season?

Not agreeing a fee now isn’t cast in stone that we cannot get him at a reasonable price come the Summer. I know I have been critical at times of JL in recent months but it doesn’t mean that everything he does has to be shit.

We wanted an option to buy but Burnley wanted too much.

So the option was a loan deal for Twine, or no Twine.

A decision was made that we were better off getting him in than having to look elsewhere.

I'm sure there's a feeling at the club that a deal could be done in the summer, if it suits both parties and the price is right.

We managed to do it for Tomlin, so absolutely possible for Twine. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

14 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Just completely write off this season already and make no short team additions that strengthen us?

I know we're 14th but with how congested this league is we're literally 3/4 wins from being back in the mix. Do I think it's likely we'll end in the play offs honestly no. Is it very much plausible yes. More so with Twine now.

I'm all for long term strategy and for 95% of our transfer business of late it has been. However, we do have to accommodate other deals so we can give this season the best chance possible. We're in a better position for the second half of the season already with McCrorie, Roberts and Atkinson on his way back soon.

 

 

Yes thats all good, but how does that fit in to our already oven ready top 6 team? I should probably point out that this is a tongue in cheek comment. 

Without knowing the loan fee, its difficult to know if it's value for money or not but I think it's safe to say it's not shrewd bit of buisness at this time. Delighted to have him in our team of course. But let's say we've paid 500k (complete guess) that's 500k less to spend in the summer, plus the wages we've had to pay him. That sort of fee would equate to 26k a game plus his wages. Would that be vfm? 

After getting close to breaching ffp, there are many of us that are very weary of us spending money. No problem with spending money, but it has to be done sensibly. 

If Scott Twine fires us to the premier league I'll come back to this thread and beg for forgiveness. 

Edited January 18 by W-S-M Seagull

[Ian M]

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

Yes thats all good, but how does that fit in to our already oven ready top 6 team? I should probably point out that this is a tongue in cheek comment. 

Without knowing the loan fee, its difficult to know if it's value for money or not but I think it's safe to say it's not shrewd bit of buisness at this time. Delighted to have him in our team of course. But let's say we've paid 500k (complete guess) that's 500k less to spend in the summer, plus the wages we've had to pay him. 

After getting close to breaching ffp, there are many of us that are very weary of us spending money. No problem with spending money, but it has to be done sensibly. 

If Scott Twine fires us to the premier league I'll come back to this thread and beg for forgiveness. 

See @Harry’s reply to you. It’s lower than you think it is. I also believe the more he plays the less we pay Burnley too.