Jump to content

Recommended Posts

People suggesting Pope goes the other way as part of the deal. Not a chance while Parker is there IMO. 
 

The few times I’ve seen Burnley. They pass it around at the back more than most teams. Trafford is often heavily involved in their build up. 
 

I still think Pope is underrated on here as a keeper because of how bad he is with his feet. But because of that. I can’t think of a worse fit for them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, St1pe said:

I’m assuming it was PSR related but we’ll have to pay a hell of a lot more than £16m to get him now. 

One year less on his contract 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Butcher said:

Buy Trafford for 20 and send Pope the other way for 10. Win-win-ish.

 

Buy Trafford for £70m and sell Pope for £60m.

Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

People suggesting Pope goes the other way as part of the deal. Not a chance while Parker is there IMO. 
 

The few times I’ve seen Burnley. They pass it around at the back more than most teams. Trafford is often heavily involved in their build up. 
 

I still think Pope is underrated on here as a keeper because of how bad he is with his feet. But because of that. I can’t think of a worse fit for them. 

 

Yeah, Pope wouldn't suit them under Parker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mighty__mag said:

I feel with Trafford we should do a Chelsea amortisation deal, offer an 8 year contract, goalkeepers are less risk and play the longest. He's young also.

That loophole was closed ages ago, contracts are amortisised over 5 years maximum 

 

I think the only benefit of what  Chelsea do for them, is that they can pay players lower wages over a longer time, so players are more inclined to sign with them in some circumstances 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mighty__mag said:

I feel with Trafford we should do a Chelsea amortisation deal, offer an 8 year contract, goalkeepers are less risk and play the longest. He's young also.

If I’m not mistaken, that rule has been changed (due to Chelsea abusing it). 
 

It’s now a 5 year cap on amortisation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JT24 said:

If I’m not mistaken, that rule has been changed (due to Chelsea abusing it). 
 

It’s now a 5 year cap on amortisation. 

 

Yeah, I'd forgot about that.

 

They did change it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be in the minority but buying Trafford isn't the answer for me, if we want to progress is buying another Burnley keeper the way forward. Personally think we can get caught up in buying the easy 'English' option.

 

Team who wants Europe again so we not need to be more ambitious?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NUFC91 said:

Might be in the minority but buying Trafford isn't the answer for me, if we want to progress is buying another Burnley keeper the way forward. Personally think we can get caught up in buying the easy 'English' option.

 

Team who wants Europe again so we not need to be more ambitious?


Is this about Trafford though, or the fact he’s English and comes from Burnley? 
 

I’ve basically never seen him play, so I don’t really know. But he is pretty highly rated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NUFC91 said:

Might be in the minority but buying Trafford isn't the answer for me, if we want to progress is buying another Burnley keeper the way forward. Personally think we can get caught up in buying the easy 'English' option.

 

Team who wants Europe again so we not need to be more ambitious?

He hasn't conceded a goal since before Christmas which suggests he might be ok.  What reasons do you have for thinking he isn't good enough? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NUFC91 said:

Might be in the minority but buying Trafford isn't the answer for me, if we want to progress is buying another Burnley keeper the way forward. Personally think we can get caught up in buying the easy 'English' option.

 

Team who wants Europe again so we not need to be more ambitious?

He's came through at man city. If we'd signed him directly from there would it have been a problem for as many?

If We signed cole palmer when he wasn't getting a game at city I'm sure there'd be plenty saying it was another shite english signing

 

Also Burnley hardly play like they did when Pope was there under dyche

 

 

Edited by jack j

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...