Jump to content

Ross Barkley


LondonLax

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sparrow1988 said:

An absolute pain in the gnads. He somehow kept popping up on my twitter feed even though I wasn't following him. Ended up blocking him for which I felt bad afterwards becasue it's not like he's a right wong loon or anything. I just couldn't read the b******t he was posting any longer.

A loon is a loon, right or left and Frank is full of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

 Think £ 30 million is fine even if he's injured half the time. He is that good.

But for me the reported wages are the problem. £ 100 k p/w essentially means you're paying £200 k. And he's closing in on 28 years old.

I think I would like him signed tbh, but it's tricky.

Hes only just had his 27th birthday. Hes coming into the best years of his career. £30 million is a steal. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

My point is that if you're consistently injured and not available half the season every season, you're essentially taking 220 k pw with a 110 k pw salary. In terms of playing time.

If I could work 50% of the time for my 100% position, I think most companies would frown a little. You'd have to compensate his disapperance with signing another body.

Ok, I just saw the explanation above. I understand the logic but don't agree we can translate it like that :)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Silent_Bob said:

We are not getting players of his calibre at £30m without some luggage. 

£30m is a lot of money. But it isn't a lot of money for a players these days.

We paid £20m for a keeper that was warming the bench for Arsenal and £28m for a Championship striker. Barkley for £30m or thereabout doesn't seem like miles away his true market value in my opinion. If his injury record were better I would think even higher. McGinn broke his leg last season. Doesn't meen we would accept £20m for him.

 

I tend to agree. I would be gutted if we decided against buying him after he seems to fit in so well here and then watch him have a fantastic injury free season elsewhere. That said, I’m happy to wait until the end of the season to make a final decision (although if he stays injury free and plays brilliantly for the rest of the season his price may rocket).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

 Think £ 30 million is fine even if he's injured half the time. He is that good.

But for me the reported wages are the problem. £ 100 k p/w essentially means you're paying £200 k. And he's closing in on 28 years old.

I think I would like him signed tbh, but it's tricky.

giphy.gif?cid=4d1e4f29cz5flimg89o4jv8qle

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd still pay it tbh, people were saying 40m + a few weeks ago and I suspect it wouldn't even be 30m, perhaps 25m and the rest is payments based on if we make europe, he plays for England again, we win a cup etc. Given the guys at the top now it's standard negotiation for men of that calibre and think Chelsea will just want the cash to keep them compling it to FFP (just like Arsenal wanted the cash for Martinez).

Chelsea don't make top 4 which could easily happen and suddenly they'd have CL cash void so would need to make it up by selling squad players.

It's frustrating with the injury but if look at his record over last 3 years he's average 40 games no problem so think it's being overplayed a bit.

I also think it's important for our standing as a club for next 5 years to start signing players of Barkley's calibre. We want a team who can start winning trophies and playing in europe most season, we need to sign proven top quality ones in addition to signing up and comers from championship. Yes we could sign one for less from Spain or Germany but Barkley is already here and shown promise in a few games for us already.

If we want Jack still playing for us in two years time then I'd say signing his mate would be a good start aswell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrBlack said:

If he's injured half the time, the effective cost doubles. Not quite how FFP works but I got the impression that's what is intended.  Either way, the point does remain that it's a lot of money for someone who seemingly gets injured a lot.

He played 90 times for club and country between 2018-20 seasons.

This reminds me of when people were saying we shouldn't sign Wilson in the summer as he hardly played even though he'd average 30 games a season in previous three years and has only missed 1-2 games this season for Newcastle.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough situation with Ross.

He has been brilliant this season,fits in with the rest of the squad like a glove,and would be a tremendous signing.

To counter that though:Just how much will we be willing to pay?Will other teams who are in somewhat better financial standing swoop in? Will he be way overpriced?

Very interesting to see how this unfolds.Would love him for him to come back and perform how he was.

We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

It's frustrating with the injury but if look at his record over last 3 years he's average 40 games no problem so think it's being overplayed a bit.

This seems to be a huge issue for a lot of people on this forum. 

It is ironic because two of our best signings in the last 15 years have been players with substantial injury records who have gone on to be great for us in one way or another (Mings and Laursen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Steero113 said:

This seems to be a huge issue for a lot of people on this forum. 

It is ironic because two of our best signings in the last 15 years have been players with substantial injury records who have gone on to be great for us in one way or another (Mings and Laursen)

Carew was someone aswell who'd always have a spell in the season when he'd be out for 4-6 weeks with a dodgy back or something. 08/09 he was out for close to 3 months and of course lead us to sign Heskey so not good all round.

Sometimes to sign the ones who'll make a difference on the pitch and also give the club a higher profile around the football world you have to make these allowances.

I could understand this argument more if we were being linked to Daniel Sturridge, Phil Jones or Jack Wilshere. Thankfully we're well past that stage now but those are proper crocks compared to Barkley.

Guess people see it a bit like signing Micah Richards but he'd missed loads of games for Man. City in the seasons leading up to signing for us and seems even the medical showed up his chronic knee issues so that was just on Sherwood.

Edited by VillaChris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difference with Ross is that his injury form has continued after he joined us on loan. Admittedly  a small sample size so far this season, but if he spends another 5 games on the sidelines later on in the season you can put it down to 30 games a season is the most you will get out of him, in  an age when you want your best players playing 40-50.

It's probably still value in todays Post brexit-covid market, but it's also a gamble.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

It's probably still value in todays Post brexit-covid market, but it's also a gamble.

Every player is a gamble. Don't think Wes or Heaton had any injury record before they joined us. But then suddenly both of them were out for a year.

If Barkley give us 25 games with good quality it's still better than signing someone cheaper that play like shit in all 38 games.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

Difference with Ross is that his injury form has continued after he joined us on loan. Admittedly  a small sample size so far this season, but if he spends another 5 games on the sidelines later on in the season you can put it down to 30 games a season is the most you will get out of him, in  an age when you want your best players playing 40-50.

It's probably still value in todays Post brexit-covid market, but it's also a gamble.

Good post.

I agree it is a big risk to say the least on a player that you only get half to three quarters of a season from.

Okay, the quality might be there with the player but if the player misses big games and/or lengthy parts of the season then it's classed for me as a bit of luxury signing who is on eye watering wages.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Silent_Bob said:

Every player is a gamble. Don't think Wes or Heaton had any injury record before they joined us. But then suddenly both of them were out for a year.

If Barkley give us 25 games with good quality it's still better than signing someone cheaper that play like shit in all 38 games.

Surely you can get a player for 30m who can play the vast majority of games and is of a very similar level to Barkley. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Sulberto21 said:

Who the Eff is Frank Khalid?!?!?

Sounds like one of those Championship Manager regen names we used to laugh at as kids. Like Peter Ehiogu or Fastino Smith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Junxs said:

Sounds like one of those Championship Manager regen names we used to laugh at as kids. Like Peter Ehiogu or Fastino Smith

Oi, he scored 34 goals for me in the Championship in 2022/3 whilst managing Colchester, leave him out of this thanks. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, lexicon said:

Surely you can get a player for 30m who can play the vast majority of games and is of a very similar level to Barkley. 

True. You can even get one at £10m if you're lucky. Or a £50m player that is shit if you're unlucky.

That's why a loan is good. Trying before buying.  And that's why Barkley is a good deal at £30m. There will be no setteling in period. We know how he has performed here, not just how he has performed in another club. We know that he fit in as a person and not just as a player. And those things have a value on their own.

If we can get Barkley for £30m I'm all for it. It's not much more than buying someone from Brentford. And much less risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Silent_Bob said:

True. You can even get one at £10m if you're lucky. Or a £50m player that is shit if you're unlucky.

That's why a loan is good. Trying before buying.  And that's why Barkley is a good deal at £30m. There will be no setteling in period. We know how he has performed here, not just how he has performed in another club. We know that he fit in as a person and not just as a player. And those things have a value on their own.

If we can get Barkley for £30m I'm all for it. It's not much more than buying someone from Brentford. And much less risk.

I'd dispute the point I bolded - I think it's a big risk to spend that much on a guy who'd be on track to play fewer than half the number of games we have. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â