View Full Version : All change from Freedman

16-08-2015, 07:11 PM
Now he HOPES to include either Juke or Scott Arfield in the deal. "The deal is not dependant on another player being involved in the deal," he says.

Make of it what you will - from Nottingham Post this evening - view external link (http://goo.gl/eBeYhi)

16-08-2015, 07:15 PM
Making it up as they go along. If we miss out on signing a central midfielder because we've been too busy playing Forests games, someone deserves a severe *******ing.

16-08-2015, 07:16 PM
Arfield? Yeah right.

16-08-2015, 07:16 PM
"If we miss out on signing a central midfielder because we've been too busy playing Forests games, someone deserves a severe *******ing."

Said it the other day and happy to repeat that I don't think we will miss out on signing a central midfielder. But, with the same proviso, don't hold me to that. :D

But they are making it up as they go along.

16-08-2015, 07:17 PM
I like juke but if it was we had to choose between the two it would have to be him to go for me. Id be gutted if we lost scotty. But is he saying that there doesn't need to be another player involved? Confused me a bit that. Probably just being thick, it's been a long day.

16-08-2015, 07:17 PM
I would like Michael Mancienne too!

16-08-2015, 07:18 PM
"Confused me a bit that"

Freedman's confusing himself, I wouldn't worry.

16-08-2015, 07:19 PM
If they want to offer £3M + Lansbury for Scotty Arfield I'd consider that...

Freedman, absolute weapons grade cockwomble

16-08-2015, 07:20 PM
'If we miss out on signing a central midfielder because we've been too busy playing Forests games, someone deserves a severe *******ing'

I'd go as far as a sacking or resignation.

I still think that he will be here by the end of the window.

16-08-2015, 07:23 PM
So basically if we want Lansbury right now we give them Juke or Arfield and the deal is done. Alternatively we wait to see if they sign a replacement CM, and then we might get him.

It's needlessly over complicated, let's hope it's done and dusted this week either way.

16-08-2015, 07:27 PM
You'd think with Hennings signing for upwards of £1.8m and reported as being a 'target man type', that Juke would drop further down the pecking order with Sam regaining full fitness. Surely we don't need 3 of these type of striker at the club. If including him means we get the deal done this week then get it done. Centre mid is a key position for our system, Lansbury would be a key player.

16-08-2015, 07:37 PM
Obviously SD doesn't know all this so I really do hope he reads this forum to find out exactly what to do. Thanks guys, for your amazing insight and knowledge as to what is happening behind the scenes. ;)

16-08-2015, 07:42 PM
Shambolic club Forest, time to close the door on them and their stupid waiting game.
Forget Lansbury now, just nip over to Germany and pick up another bargain bin alternative from Hennings old club. Some hungry young midfielders out there with bags of skill, only to eager to play for our wages.

16-08-2015, 07:46 PM

16-08-2015, 07:49 PM
This transfer saga is getting boring now.

Time to give them a take it or leave it ultimatum and if they're still faffing around go and sign someone else (this is assuming the club have actually got a 2nd choice lined up....)

16-08-2015, 07:53 PM
You got to have sympathy for Freedman's position. He's about to lose a key player at the start of a long season with little way of getting a replacement.

However for some reason they don't seem to be in a position to tells us to p..s off.

16-08-2015, 11:11 PM
A new twist from Forest Mad just posted says
DF wants £4m plus Sam Vokes.
Burger orf
Reminiscent of the Craig Bryson saga.
Time to move elsewhere.

16-08-2015, 11:16 PM
It's becoming clear that Forest are not willing to let their player go. Fair play to them, it's their prerogative, so let's stop wasting time on this and move on.

16-08-2015, 11:21 PM
Forest really are using every trick in the book to try and hold onto their player.

The way this is going I'm starting to think they might just get their wish. :(

16-08-2015, 11:22 PM
"It's becoming clear that Forest are not willing to let their player go."

Not sure how you've come to that conclusion - just the opposite for me, clear that they are willing to let him go but also clear that there are two factions within the City Ground.

16-08-2015, 11:25 PM
We don't have a choice but wait be it next week or January
Lansbury is our only midfield target.
Forest know we have no plan b what so ever.. they've obviously spoken to West brom to see how long they can tease us for

16-08-2015, 11:28 PM

16-08-2015, 11:29 PM
I'm hoping this will get sorted this week, it's gone on far too long already, it's a week now since the news broke we'd had a £4m bid accepted.

Surely even Freedman can't take much longer to decide what to do.

16-08-2015, 11:30 PM
They can ********* off if they think they're getting Arfield!

16-08-2015, 11:31 PM
"Lansbury is our only midfield target.
Forest know we have no plan b what so ever"

And you know this how?


16-08-2015, 11:33 PM
Out of interest, hypothetically if they did get Arfield... would that be the shortest time ever between a Burnley player signing a contract extension and then leaving?

16-08-2015, 11:38 PM
I don't see if it really matters how many 'factions' there are at Forest if the end result is for them to keep hold of their player.

16-08-2015, 11:38 PM
I think the deal will eventually go through its a case of 2 hardened clubs deadlocked trying to thrash out a deal trying to gaining the best possible advantage so far unable to reach a compromise. As frustrating as it is business pans out that way with mutual mindsets negotiating.

16-08-2015, 11:44 PM
What's all this 'move on' nonsense? We don't get Lansbury, who do we 'move on' to?

16-08-2015, 11:52 PM
Quicknick - as has been pointed out elsewhere, Lansbury isn't the only midfielder in the country. :)

16-08-2015, 11:58 PM
Too much smoke with this 1 it will go the distance I think too much effort as already been consumed. There's never ever been any other solid concrete suggestions deviating away from the Lansbury target certainly not on this scale.

17-08-2015, 12:14 AM
Freedman - Yesman - fill you own ...?man (fill your suggestions here man) is not the man deciding.

sorry to repeat a post made before before but...
Maybe we simply just buy Lille striker Michael Frey (NF can't buy him - unless they sell!) they want him.
We buy him with a view to then offer a loan of him to them?... XD
Conditions being Lansbury is here in under a week!
+ NF can buy Frey at the end of the season + 25% we paid (if they are then allowed to buy? If not, his services are still to be paid by NF)
+ cover they cover all his wages (upfront as a makeweight to our deal - so they can actually afford it get it done ) + all wages and costs incurred to get Frey his full contract
+ And We get a 40% sell on clause if they keep him and they pay up.
Plus... if we get promoted we keep the player if we want to, NF take the contract on if we do not.
If we don't Ė NF take him on, cover all costs to the contract end.
+ he canít play against us in any game for 10 years, any clu

17-08-2015, 12:19 AM
Hypothetically. We agree a fee +Jutkiewicz. Wouldn't Juke have to agree to this? And if Forest can't offer him the terms he and his agent want, why should he agree? (Maybe this has already happened?).
Certainly can't see Forest offering Arfield anything that would tempt him away - even if Dyche was prepared to release him, (which I'm sure he won't).

17-08-2015, 08:31 AM
"Lansbury is our only midfield target.
Forest know we have no plan b what so ever"

Ha ha

17-08-2015, 08:44 AM
All change for us ********* notts off . go for Lingard at man u .

17-08-2015, 08:53 AM
Yes post 33 juke would have to agree to the whole shebang you cannot force a player to move there's ways & means to encourage. We don't know for sure if DF wants juke there's too much speculation & inaccuracies transmitting from both camps.

17-08-2015, 09:01 AM
'We don't know for sure if DF wants juke there's too much speculation & inaccuracies transmitting from both camps.'

Jakubclaret, there's been very little or even nothing from Burnley FC on this matter and quite right too.

17-08-2015, 09:05 AM
Organised media leaks I was referring to. Are you seriously trying to tell me that nobody within the club is receiving backhanders for feeding snippets of information???? It's a common practice all clubs do it. Sky & the Beeb (all media) wouldn't be able to operate without inside knowledge.

17-08-2015, 09:08 AM
Is there anything jakub doesn't know

17-08-2015, 09:13 AM
If we, the Burnley f.C. supporters, are fed and and frustrated by this I can only image how how our manager and his recruitment team must feel..............they must be very patient.........

Up the Clarets................

17-08-2015, 09:15 AM
'Organised media leaks I was referring to. Are you seriously trying to tell me that nobody within the club is receiving backhanders for feeding snippets of information???? It's a common practice all clubs do it. Sky & the Beeb (all media) wouldn't be able to operate without inside knowledge.'

What media links are you suggesting have come from Burnley FC? As far as I can see all the information in the media has come from Nottingham.

17-08-2015, 09:20 AM
The media links are enshrouded in secrecy sourcewise for obvious reasons nobody wants exposure not when there on a nice little earner whisperings in a corridor has made some men very rich. Believe me it happens. Anyway haven't burnley express or LET done any articles on the rumours or is it all Trent sided based.

17-08-2015, 09:24 AM
From what I can gather the BE and LET information is based on the reports from the Nottingham media and also statements that have come out one way or another directly from Forest.

17-08-2015, 09:30 AM
We don't that for sure like I said earlier I think both camps are transmitting inaccuracies you disagree fair enough I'm not arguing about it. It's upto you what you choose to believe/disbelief. I'm done on this thread now.

17-08-2015, 09:31 AM
If they want to play games what's to stop Dyche going his old friend Brenda and asking him to activate the Prem clause, apparently around £3 - 3.5 million? We agree with Liverpool to sign him for £3.5 million cash (season long loan for first year if there's any rules to stop an immediate transfer) and say we'll take £5 - 6 million for Ings without tribunal for their troubles.

Suddenly Forest are screwed because they can't spend any money or get any players as part of the deal and are getting less than they thought they could.

Would be funny to screw them over for mucking about accepting bids then changing their mind and asking for the same money plus players that are too good for them.

Alternatively I'd say let's just go to Leicester and take Drinkwater on a season long loan with an agreed fee for next summer. He's a better player anyway, Lansbury will sulk at Forest because they've cost him the move he wants and we walk away happy.

17-08-2015, 09:38 AM
If the reports saying Forest want Juke are accurate, I can't see what the hold up is. With Hennings and Vokes both target men types, plus Vossen, Sordell and Long, with Barnes to come back, we obviously need to shift at least one striker out and Juke is the obvious one to go.

17-08-2015, 09:55 AM
"I can't see what the hold up is. "

I can. And it is that even if we're willing to let Juke go - and personally, I can't see why we wouldn't be - he has to be willing to go. I suspect Juke is on more with us than Forest are allowed to pay him under an embargo, and he might not fancy uprooting again to the East Midlands anyway.

17-08-2015, 09:55 AM
Jambo. See my post 33.
Edit: Just reiterated by Spice. !! :D

17-08-2015, 10:07 AM
You can't make a player play for someone else.

17-08-2015, 10:09 AM
i'm pretty sure juke doesn't want to go to forest but he's now going to face a lot of pressure to go, not least from burnley fans, if his decision is what makes this deal happen or not.

massively unprofessional stuff from freedman.

17-08-2015, 10:34 AM
I have said this for days now. We should be leaving this deal well alone. Freedman should not be dictating terms to us. We should be the one pulling the strings. Not the other way round.

17-08-2015, 10:34 AM
"massively unprofessional stuff from freedman"
I think that's key to much of the problem surrounding this deal.

17-08-2015, 10:39 AM
the fact that he said that they're still open to a cash-only deal suggests he knows its going to happen, he's just trying a few things on.

he should just keep it in-house, say they're negotiating and leave it at that.

17-08-2015, 10:45 AM
I would have thought that it was in the interest of both clubs to get this sorted asap. Who wants to spend the first month of the season messing about with this nonsense?

17-08-2015, 11:01 AM
Of course there are personal factors to take into account, but a fresh start under a manager he has done well with before could be exactly what Juke needs, even if he has to take a pay cut. He must know his chances at Burnley are going to be very limited now Hennings has come in and Vokes' fitness is getting there.

17-08-2015, 11:11 AM
There really can't be much left to negotiate on this deal. As said above we shouldn't be allowing Forest to dictate the move.

17-08-2015, 11:22 AM
the presumption that dyche actually wants to let juke go is a little odd. dyche bought him last year and has started with him this year.

i'm not sure its a given that vokes will start once he's fully fit. sure, juke hasn't scored in either game but he's not playing badly.

17-08-2015, 11:31 AM
He's also just paid 3 million for Hennings along with Vossen in the summer. I'd imagine it will be Juke and not Vossen who will be making way.

17-08-2015, 11:32 AM
Drinkwater is not what we need. He is more of a sitting midfielder and doesn't create many chances, whereas Lansbury does.

Dyche and the club are risking being conned in the final week leaving them with no other options again, but it is clear to see why he has his heart set on Lansbury.

17-08-2015, 11:40 AM
hennings and vossen are both 5' 11". dyche likes his big target men and its debatable whether he'd only want one.

sordell is most likely to be surplus i'd suspect.

17-08-2015, 11:46 AM
We've got 6 strikers available. I'd imagine Vokes would be the first to make any match squad because he's got a genuine goal threat and offers exactly the type of target man qualities that Dyche likes.

Then you've got Vossen and Hennings who he's paid about £2/3m for each so those two would have to be included. Then there's Sordell who can offer genuine pace from the bench, but I'd imagine Chris Long would take his place when he's fully fit. That, to me, leave Juke who I think will really struggle to make the bench in a few weeks time unless he suddenly starts scoring goals in the next few games.

17-08-2015, 11:51 AM
'Vokes fitness is getting there'

Really? His fitness to me doesn't seem to have progressed very much since he came on as a substitute against Liverpool and that was almost 8 months ago. I think his 'slow' recovery is of greater concern to the medical team than we are led to believe.

17-08-2015, 12:03 PM
In 30 years time people will be asked where they were when we signed Henri Lansbury.

The Bedlington Terrier
17-08-2015, 12:04 PM
This potential transfer has now become a conundrum wrapped inside an enigma. Time for Forest to either do the deal or not and let us all get on with the season. Why should Juke go where he doesn't want to go? That's what contracts are for!

17-08-2015, 02:53 PM
I'm gobsmacked that we can't find someone of Lansburys ability anywhere in the world for 4 million quid. Crazy we are still after him. Did Dyche not make any contacts at any PL clubs ?????

17-08-2015, 02:59 PM
No none at all dallas, ignore the fact Dyche wants him, ignore the fact Lansbury wants to join, ignore the fact Forest need to sell

But then you like a negative whinge

17-08-2015, 03:23 PM
We need to let Freedman stop calling the shots here. Let's get this deal done!

If Juke being swapped is the answer then Dyche needs to make him aware that he's not in his long term plans and he needs to move to play games. It should help that Juke had a successful spell with Freedman at Bolton...and that DF WANTS Juke.

17-08-2015, 03:27 PM
Time to move on I think - this may become like the Dorrans affair, where I believe we were strung along until it was too late.
Let the ever increasingly arrogant Freedman keep his man and move on - plenty more out there.
Adlene Guedioura's available...

17-08-2015, 03:27 PM
And because its the deal that suits us best Juke should say yes straight away to moving house, if he has kids new schools to sort and in the meantime take a lower wage. Ignore all that and demand it happen cos it suits the fans the best. People are very quick to slate players for moving on for more money yet have no issue with moving someone they dont want and if he has to take less money thats tough on him and he should do right by what would be an ex employer.

17-08-2015, 03:47 PM
Has Lansbury actually stated that he wants to move to us?

17-08-2015, 03:49 PM
Apparently so. This time as well as in January.

17-08-2015, 03:50 PM
No none at all dallas, ignore the fact Dyche wants him - obvious
ignore the fact Lansbury wants to join - says who ??? Where's his transfer request ??? Last thing from Lansbury was a tweet saying how much he loved it at Forest

ignore the fact Forest need to sell - says who ?? The owner is seriously cashed up

But then you like a negative whinge - really ?????? You might want to re-read my last couple hundred posts you muppet

17-08-2015, 03:53 PM
"Has Lansbury actually stated that he wants to move to us?"

He hasn't publicly stated anything, however you cannot ignore the fact that SD has been pursuing him for months now and has not been told he doesn't want to sign. I also believe he was "in the building" on the last Transfer Deadline Day awaiting to sign, so I would guess he does want to come to us. Just because he doesn't say anything it doesn't mean he wont sign, it just means he is being professional (as his performance at the weekend suggests) and is doing his best for his current club.

The issue is CLEARLY Freedman holding things up, and I believe he will sign soon.

17-08-2015, 03:56 PM
ignore the fact Forest need to sell - says who ?? The owner is seriously cashed up

Yet he has Dexter Blackstock upfront and cant pay cash for a replacement - guess being cashed up isn't everything

17-08-2015, 04:10 PM
Personally I'll be disappointed when it comes to a conclusion. It's become a cracking soap with lot's of twists and turns, denials and accusations with the odd clarets fan spat. It's brill, should really be an eastenders drum roll after new twist.

17-08-2015, 04:33 PM
I'm the opposite. I think the longer it goes on the less likely it becomes. Leaving us scrabbling about (or sending emails out) at the last minute. Some lessons seem never to be learnt.

17-08-2015, 06:24 PM
"That, to me, leave Juke who I think will really struggle to make the bench in a few weeks time unless he suddenly starts scoring goals in the next few games. "

He seems like 1st choice to me at the minute!!!

17-08-2015, 06:30 PM
Wonder what would have happened if we made it this difficult to sell Shackell? And he was still performing for us. Cause he never said anything either, but he wanted to go.

17-08-2015, 07:12 PM
Whatever the outcome of this turgid saga, it will be obvious to everyone that we try to do business the right way whereas Forest will merely confirm that they are the bunch of half-wit amateurs everyone knows them to be.

17-08-2015, 07:26 PM
If doing business the right way means we miss out on primary targets for the 3rd successive window then.....

17-08-2015, 07:34 PM
.....then what? Just because you screw people over and behave like dicks doesn't mean we would have signed any of our 'primary targets', but if you want everyone to think we are dicks then carry on. Personally, I'm glad SD is behaving in the correct manner whereas you obviously aren't.

17-08-2015, 07:41 PM
Carry on with what? I'm not involved in any of the transfer dealings.

17-08-2015, 07:42 PM
Half wit amateurs that keep hold of their players

18-08-2015, 09:04 AM
Carry on with your snide digs at the club. I appreciate that you are not involved in any transfer dealings and never will be and I, for one, am truly thankful for that.

18-08-2015, 09:29 AM
If anyone really believes that Burnley are the only saints in a transfer market full of sinners, I've got a bridge for sale in London that might interest you.

For the last few windows we seem to have been basing our transfer valuations on what we in an ideal world think we should be paying, rather than what the market thinks is we should be. If it turns out we're conducting our business according to how we think transfers should be done in an ideal world as opposed to how they actually are in the real one, we're dumber than I thought.

18-08-2015, 09:35 AM
I 100% agree with Burnley's transfer policy - we should only pay what WE think players are worth and not what the clubs or the player's agents think they are worth.

If Player A or Club A ask for silly money which is outside of our budget then we should pull the deal, and rightly so.

The main issue we seem to have is that we don't have a Player B at Club B backup option in case the first option is rejected by us.

18-08-2015, 10:03 AM
Which is bloody ridiculous if you adopt such a hardball approach in the first place. Without another option you are in a sellers market

18-08-2015, 10:06 AM
Deeney fee last season was the going rate apparently - no rush to sign him by clubs

Gayle fee this season is the going rate yet only Bristol City have tried with a bid

Maybe just cos a club values a player at x amount doesn't actually mean that is the going rate.

18-08-2015, 10:27 AM
Brian Laws has his say..... - view external link (http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2015/08/17/brian-laws-comments-on-henri-lansburys-future/)

18-08-2015, 10:43 AM
Why aren't you able to click on links and go straight to the site anymore?