"Sorry, I would have accepted your offer but Gino Pozzo just called with a 6 year contract offer and guaranteed first team football".
It does make sense. Burnley’s thought process will likely be ‘If we’re letting him go without a replacement, then let’s make sure we get paid’ What doesn’t make sense about it? A replacement doesn’t necessarily mean to take his place out of the team. For example, Chelsea have let it be known they will let Giroud go - but want a replacement. They are being linked with Cavani - do you think that’s to take Girouds place out of the match day squad? Of course not.
Urgently? Probably not. But seems they don’t want to run themselves short in terms of depth if it’s just to loan him out. Probably much the same as us with Gray. He’s not going to start and if Welbeck can stay fit, it’s debatable he’ll even be on the bench. But we’re reportedly not keen on loaning him out, and want to sell or be healthily compensated for a loan.
They will get paid, there's a loan fee, plus we take on the liability of wages. If what's said is true that Burnley have reduced their asking price then the fee isn't as important. If the option isn't taken up then they can tout him in the summer. Cavani is 32...Giroud is 33...your point would make sense if they were going for a much younger striker...Abraham has scored 13 in 23 games and you think he'll get dropped to the bench for Cavani? They've got Batshuayi and Hudson-Odoi as well, so Cavani goes above them in the pecking order? Giroud didn't even make the squad for the Hull game, in ice hockey he's known as a 'healthy scratch' - available but not selected. Cavani will be riding the pine, gathering splinters, warming the bench or a healthy scratch...so he'll be a younger (by 12 months) like for like replacement for Giroud.
If Cavani was to go to Chelsea, he’d be their starting striker yes. Abraham has done well but he’s not in Cavani’s class yet.
With Ryan Bennett's arrival at Leicester from Wolves, I wonder if that opens the door to Wes Morgan being released? Wouldn't mind him to be honest, although a bit old, he'd be a decent enough short-term addition.
Well they're not tested in that league, however did I say they were past it? Let me ask you, who's won Ligue 1 since 2012? Who will win it this year? Who will win it next year? I'll bet £100 they'll win 10 titles in a row...care to bet against that? You're wrong, no shame in admitting it.
Look at Cavani’s figures everywhere he’s been. Look at his CL figures. Nothing points to him being past it at all.
Not disagreeing. But to claim that Chelsea would buy a striker like Cavani and leave him out of the squad and have Hudson-Odoi (a winger) and Batshiayi in front of him is frankly ludicrous.
If he's still got it then why not stay at PSG and fight for his place? What you're saying is he's up there with Mbappe and Icardi. If that were the case then why did PSG buy Icardi? Why speak to Inter Miami in the MLS? Not exactly a move for someone in their prime. Your litigation skills aren't up to much either.
But you’re digressing. I’m not stating that he’s better than Mbappe or Neymar or Icardi. I’m saying he’s better than Batshuayi, Hudson-Odoi (who isn’t even a striker) and arguably Abraham at this point. Chelsea haven’t denied interest and the talk is that they would pay him upwards of 250k. I don’t argue that he’s certainly in his twilight years - and I’ve never said he’s in his prime either, you’re putting words in my mouth to try and twist your argument. Linked with Atletico too - hardly a move for someone past it? This all comes down to the original point that you can’t comprehend a club would sell a player and replace him with someone better. For some reason you believe that a replacement has to be like for like in ability.
Burnley FC ✔ @BurnleyOfficial SD confirms that it is unlikely that any more transfer activity will take place at the club before the closure of the January transfer window.
No, my point was nothing to do with like for like ability - your example was replacing a 33 year old with a 32 year old. My point was an outcast player is stopping a replacement coming in - which doesn't make sense. I could understand sell to buy but that doesn't seem to be the issue if they're slashing their valuation, and they're unlikely to get a replacement deal done in the few hours left - if they do, they'll definitely be paying inflated prices. It's like us saying Zeeglaar will not be loaned or sold until a replacement comes in...a replacement for what? Someone who's surplus to requirements? That's what doesn't make sense - Gibson has had zero playing time this season and 63 minutes last season. At least with our offer, they get a loan fee and 5 months wages off their books for a player who doesn't need replacing because he hasn't played.
Burnley haven’t said Gibson is ‘surplus to their requirements’. Surplus to their regular starting XI yes but not their squad. Yes but what you are not countenancing on is that Gibson hasn’t played because the players in front of him have been fit. But I expect Burnley want a certain number of players for each position, and at this stage Gibson fits into that. So for them to come away from that, they will want someone to take that place before they sanction him leaving temporarily. If they find someone, I’m sure the conversation would be ‘come and fight for a spot, you’ll be picked if you deserve to play’ and it’s up to them to decide if they want to. Your earlier post seems to suggest they would only go for another player who wouldn’t get in their team. That’s not the way squads improve which is what all clubs are trying to do. By your way of thinking, Watford can sell 3 GK’s and just keep Foster. The other three aren’t playing so don’t need replacing. For Burnley to come away from their thinking and leave themselves short, they will want recompensing by way of a permanent transfer fee from what was reported. But who knows how clubs thinking changes the closer 11pm gets. That’s the point I was trying to make all along and I apologise if it wasn’t clear. I thought it was pretty easy to understand.