Scott twine

[Natchfever]

33 minutes ago, One Team said:

Completely agree. I’ve not seen enough him either to offer that sort of money and TBH I’m really not bothered whether he signs. Appreciate I am the minority here. 

Not sure youre in that much of a minority tbh.

 

[Cov 77]

8 minutes ago, lenred said:

Yes.  Because the player needs to be worth £5m. Twine isn’t. 

IF we get him it won’t be anywhere near 5m , appreciate Burnley may want to keep him but if he joins us will be no more than  half of that upfront imo

[Davefevs]

36 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I'm a bit indifferent to Twine if I'm honest, I wouldn't be gutted if we missed out, would be gutted if we over paid though. 

This is all about value isn’t it?

He's a decent player, but how “decent”?

I think I have some bias I can’t shake, because we could’ve got him for something £150-200k a few seasons back.  To now see £5m touted around is way OTT, regardless of Burnley paying £4m for him.

Even half (£2.5m) seems slightly galling.  But I’d kinda deal with that.

[Sleepy1968]

2 hours ago, Offside said:

Completely agree with this. From what I saw of Twine during his loan period, he didn’t make enough of an impact to justify what would presumably be a significant outlay for us in our current position. Of course, if we sign him he might come good, and I’m very happy to be proved wrong, but I get the sense we’d buy him for an inflated price (plus wages as well, which I’m assuming would be high). 

Is Scott Twine just a slightly better Jamie Patterson?

[lenred]

4 minutes ago, Cov 77 said:

IF we get him it won’t be anywhere near 5m , appreciate Burnley may want to keep him but if he joins us will be no more than  half of that upfront imo

 

Just now, Davefevs said:

This is all about value isn’t it?

He's a decent player, but how “decent”?

I think I have some bias I can’t shake, because we could’ve got him for something £150-200k a few seasons back.  To now see £5m touted around is way OTT, regardless of Burnley paying £4m for him.

Even half (£2.5m) seems slightly galling.  But I’d kinda deal with that.

Completely.  £2.5m max including add ons. He’s just not worth anything more and like you Dave I don’t think he’s even worth that.  But you’d at least understand at that money.  

[TV Tom]

Just now, Sleepy1968 said:

Is Scott Twine just a slightly better Jamie Patterson?

Much better than Patterson

[BigTone]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

This is all about value isn’t it?

He's a decent player, but how “decent”?

I think I have some bias I can’t shake, because we could’ve got him for something £150-200k a few seasons back.  To now see £5m touted around is way OTT, regardless of Burnley paying £4m for him.

Even half (£2.5m) seems slightly galling.  But I’d kinda deal with that.

Sure that there are other more economical options

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

Is Scott Twine just a slightly better Jamie Patterson?

1 minute ago, TV Tom said:

Much better than Patterson

Think it needs some more explanation than that?

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, BigTone said:

Sure that there are other more economical options

I at least give the club / recruitment team credit that they didn’t pay over the odds (imho) in January, saying no, trying to get Azaz (a year younger) for £2.5m, before trying again for Twine.

[nickolas]

14 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

Is Scott Twine just a slightly better Jamie Patterson?

Im not sure he is tbh!

[BigTone]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I at least give the club / recruitment team credit that they didn’t pay over the odds (imho) in January, saying no, trying to get Azaz (a year younger) for £2.5m, before trying again for Twine.

Yes, but lets not panic buy either. Lots of fish in a big sea.

[BCFC31]

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

This is some statement.

The previous season only ended 9 days ago, we are one of very few Championship teams who have even announced who they are keeping on.

Most clubs haven’t said this & we don’t know the entire composition of next season’s division yet.

No one has the slightest idea who we’ll sign, who will leave or how much money we’ll spend, yet you think “we’ll do well” to finish in a spot below where we did this season.

I have no idea how anyone can possibly think that they know this.

What in the earth has shown you during our spell in the championship over the last 10 years to make you think any different

[TV Tom]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Think it needs some more explanation than that?

I thought Paterson was shit, is that explanation enough for you?

[Silvio Dante]

11 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

I thought Paterson was shit, is that explanation enough for you?

And yet he’s played over 300 games in the championship, scored nearly 50 goals and got about the same level of assists. So broadly one in three games at this level while generally playing for middling teams has scored or created a goal.

Comparatively, Twine, with the majority of his games at this level for the best team in the league or a playoff contender (total 49) has 13 goals or assists 

Yeah, shit mate. Shit.

Edited May 13 by Silvio Dante

[Simon bristol]

3 hours ago, ORANGE500 said:

We'll be in the top half all season

Id love it if you are right!

but ive seen basically nothing in 25 or so years of the lansdowns owning the club to suggest they have any knowledge of how to get the club to that level.

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

This is all about value isn’t it?

He's a decent player, but how “decent”?

I think I have some bias I can’t shake, because we could’ve got him for something £150-200k a few seasons back.  To now see £5m touted around is way OTT, regardless of Burnley paying £4m for him.

Even half (£2.5m) seems slightly galling.  But I’d kinda deal with that.

Pleeeeeeaaaaaase don’t Dave. 
Id almost removed that from my mind. Now I have to agonise about it all over again. 

[TV Tom]

21 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

And yet he’s played over 300 games in the championship, scored nearly 50 goals and got about the same level of assists. So broadly one in three games at this level while generally playing for middling teams has scored or created a goal.

Comparatively, Twine, with the majority of his games at this level for the best team in the league or a playoff contender (total 49) has 13 goals or assists 

Yeah, shit mate. Shit.

Just my opinion, calm down

[Davefevs]

46 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

I thought Paterson was shit, is that explanation enough for you?

Did you mean shit hot?

FWIW, I don’t think Pato was brilliant, had some flaws, but on the face of it, I’m not sure it’s easy to to say one way or the other.  Neither like a tackle!

[Spoons]

8 hours ago, RedRoss said:

Ahem..

Rob Dickie 800k

Hayden Roberts FREE

Knight 2 million

We've actually been good recently. We used to get our pants pulled down before with MA.

I think we'll move on to other targets early if Twine is a no goer.

Yeah what does Mark Ashton know about football….. oh wait two promotions in two years from Ipswich

[Robbored]

Pato was too lightweight in my opinion. Good feet and could nick a goal here and there but he never seem to boss a match and going awol too often.

I doubt any City fans cared much when he moved on.

[TonyTonyTony]

5 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Pato was too lightweight in my opinion. Good feet and could nick a goal here and there but he never seem to boss a match and going awol too often.

I doubt any City fans cared much when he moved on.

Hmm. Pato was very influential in the first half of the 17/18 season. I remember he had some kind of illness and was never the same player. Always felt he needed to bulk out a bit

[Silvio Dante]

23 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Pato was too lightweight in my opinion. Good feet and could nick a goal here and there but he never seem to boss a match and going awol too often.

I doubt any City fans cared much when he moved on.

I think the broader point here is that replace Pato with Twine and it sums up the latters loan spell. And, over a longer term, Pato has a better record in terms of goals and assists at this level.

I’d never argue Pato was perfect. But I would argue that in a similar role he’s a better player than Mehmeti and a better player than Twine currently based on return. Nobody’s suggesting bring Pato back, but by the same token, I don’t think anyone should suggest we should bring a player with the same strengths/weaknesses as Pato at a sizeable fee. Thats the nub of the issue here and whoever brought Pato up, it’s a great yardstick.

[Robbored]

2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think the broader point here is that replace Pato with Twine and it sums up the latters loan spell. And, over a longer term, Pato has a better record in terms of goals and assists at this level.

I’d never argue Pato was perfect. But I would argue that in a similar role he’s a better player than Mehmeti and a better player than Twine currently based on return. Nobody’s suggesting bring Pato back, but by the same token, I don’t think anyone should suggest we should bring a player with the same strengths/weaknesses as Pato at a sizeable fee. Thats the nub of the issue here and whoever brought Pato up, it’s a great yardstick.

We all have different views on player’s strengths and weaknesses and I saw plenty of Pato to form a valid opinion on him.
I can’t say the same about Twine tho - I certainly didn’t see enough of him to form a valid opinion but from the glimpses that I did see  he certainly impressed me particularly with his vision and of course his set piece delivery. Two excellent free kicks one at Carrow Rd the last one against Rotherham.

[Swede]

5 hours ago, Galley is our king said:

Simple answer....NO!

We have zero experience in negotiating such matters and it was interesting that 2 of the last transfer window players were loaned back to their parent clubs...... for the first time EVER!

Who in the club is doing this very important work and what qualifications and experience do they have?

Worried about the madness of losing all this experience on and off the field. Who is there to grab the reins should we suffer a poor start next season?

Maybe SL will march into the dressing room and sort it out...

It was all part of the negotiation of those deals to loan the two players back. We benefitted by getting Max Bird who was running down his Derby contract for next to nothing rather than waiting until the end of the season and the ensuing bun fight in competing with others fir his signature. 

With Stokes, he's highly rated but at non league level. He gets his move higher up the pyramid and trains with us when his old club don't have a mid week match. It's a win win situation.

We don't need Bird or Stokes for the final months of last season when we had King and James.

Its next season that matters.

Rather than having our pants pulled down, both were clever pieces of business.

[cidered abroad]

11 hours ago, One Team said:

Completely agree. I’ve not seen enough him either to offer that sort of money and TBH I’m really not bothered whether he signs. Appreciate I am the minority here. 

Exactly the same as my opinion. And I don't believe you and I are in the minority as he has hardly shone any more than all the rest of the squad. The team spirit of those who started the season has got us to mid table with the help of the January recruits but hardly set the team and us on fire.

[Rob k]

13 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Exactly the same as my opinion. And I don't believe you and I are in the minority as he has hardly shone any more than all the rest of the squad. The team spirit of those who started the season has got us to mid table with the help of the January recruits but hardly set the team and us on fire.

It’s funny how we all see certain players differently, i thought at times he was quite clearly better than what we had/have.

 

[Super]

9 hours ago, Robbored said:

Pato was too lightweight in my opinion. Good feet and could nick a goal here and there but he never seem to boss a match and going awol too often.

I doubt any City fans cared much when he moved on.

He was a bit hit and miss but I always liked him. At least he was creative.

[One Team]

55 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

Exactly the same as my opinion. And I don't believe you and I are in the minority as he has hardly shone any more than all the rest of the squad. The team spirit of those who started the season has got us to mid table with the help of the January recruits but hardly set the team and us on fire.

Agreed mate. If we were thinking of paying several million for him I can’t help thinking there is better out there for the money. 

[Puckle_red]

I think it was me who first compared Twine to Paterson a few months ago, saying I was hoping Twine was like a young Jamie Paterson.

I think he has some improving to do to be as good as Paterson was.

He falls on the floor more than Paterson, he takes a better corner than Paterson. But the rest, I'd have Paterson everyday of the week.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Did you mean shit hot?

FWIW, I don’t think Pato was brilliant, had some flaws, but on the face of it, I’m not sure it’s easy to to say one way or the other.  Neither like a tackle!

Let's face it: Pato isn't built for a tackle, and Twine might lose a veneer.  Cut them some slack, will you?  Personally, I prefer Pato to Twine. I was quite sad to see him go, but he was expensive so I get it.