Ross Barkley

[Tubey]

The board devalued the asset by allowing it to run until it's last year of contract.

I don't think it was ever a case of money or "better terms" either.

Koeman doesn't fancy Barkley, and I think he knows it. He'll be up against it for game time this season. More so now for being an indecisive on his contract as he is on the pitch.

If he signs, my gut says someone has convinced Koeman to "But OK..." it.

I agree completely. We're just looking at it from two different ways to come to the same conclusion.

This should have been dealt with 12 months ago by the board, but Koeman certainly exacerbated the situation with that deadline in my view.

 

[Toffeepot]

I still think there's quite a bit to be played out. I think Koeman wants Sigurdsson and not Barkley, and he's in conflict with the board.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Barkley still move.

Koeman said he wants him to stay

 

[ijjysmith]

If he signs, it's because the board have got on with negotiating with him properly and binning off Koeman and his ridiculous deadline. His agent would have probably got him an extra £25k a week and did his job for his client.

It'd be the right outcome for everyone for the next five years and hopefully beyond, instead of the wrong outcome dictated by a manager who will be here another two years tops.

No matter what here, Koeman played this out horribly. If Koeman had his way, we'd lose a player for certain for a fraction of his value for no reason whatsoever. I don't mind Koeman, but when he goofs, he goofs, and people should call it as they see it.

I called it as I saw it and still don't believe Koeman did a thing wrong.

*shrugs*

 

[Lee Smith]

Koeman undermined himself. He devalued an asset by putting him up for sale in the public domain after a certain date was passed.

There's no evidence Barkley or his agent have ever sought a move or done anything beyond want to negotiate better terms. Absolutely none.

Occam's Razor situation this - the most obvious conclusion is more often than not the right one. His agent hasn't slagged the club off, Barkley hasn't pressed for a move, Koeman's deadline has been disregarded and the club has left the contract on the table and negotiated it. That points to one outcome, not the others.

Why was the skeptic always clean shaven?

Because he always used Occam's Razor.

GREAT BANTZ!!!!!!!11!!!

 

[Tubey]

Boo union said something similar...so...holding my breath

Barkley signing is now definitely possible until Esk says it's on, at which point he's definitely not signing a contract.

 

[ijjysmith]

Boo union said something similar...so...holding my breath

Oh god yeah. I have no idea if it's true or not. Just came up on my timeline so thought i'd share.

 

[bicycleheader]

I still think there's quite a bit to be played out. I think Koeman wants Sigurdsson and not Barkley, and he's in conflict with the board.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Barkley still move.

I can but dream of us resigning Barkley and Koeman leaving in a huff over it

 

[bluestevon]

Buy to sell isn't always out of necessity though, it can be out of choice.

Too many place to much emphasis on NET spend, however it can be an indication of intent.



The board devalued the asset by allowing it to run until it's last year of contract.

I don't think it was ever a case of money or "better terms" either.

Koeman doesn't fancy Barkley, and I think he knows it. He'll be up against it for game time this season. More so now for being an indecisive on his contract as he is on the pitch.

If he signs, my gut says someone has convinced Koeman to "But OK..." it.

For me it depends mate, net spend not as important by a mile as 'good' spending

Funny thing is - as long as Barkley was on the market, it probably drove any 'creative' players price up we where after by about 15m, as we looked desperate to find a replacement, Barkley staying, that urgent need on the outside is lessened.

 

[sageyefc]

I might be wrong but Twice what Alli is on and More than Kane isn't it ?

Crazy stuff

 

[GrandOldTeam]

I agree completely. We're just looking at it from two different ways to come to the same conclusion.

This should have been dealt with 12 months ago by the board, but Koeman certainly exacerbated the situation with that deadline in my view.

Needed sorting mate. See: Klaassen/Sigurdsson.

I'm not 100% convinced on Koeman, but no issue with him saying it as it is, when directly asked a question.

If he stays, Barkley has lost a lot of goodwill for the sake of an extra few quid a week - if it was just better terms he was after.

 

[royalblue66]

They wouldn't pay that

Well my friend's G F knows the nephew of someone that used to do a lot electrical work at Harrods ,and a fella there is a ST holder at Spurs, sn there could be some truth in it.

 

[Tubey]

I can but dream of us resigning Barkley and Koeman leaving in a huff over it

Ha nah won't happen.

We have a Director of Football for a reason though. Walsh has probably looked at it and thought, "nah Ron, we're not losing a potential £60m+ asset for £30m - we can sell him next summer if need be."

Barkley will have to come back flying to get regular game time under a manager who doesn't rate him, but even if he bombs and plays 15 games next season, we'll still get £30m for him anyway from a West Ham looking for that "big" signing, so it's risk free to tie him down.

 

[Tubey]

Needed sorting mate. See: Klaassen/Sigurdsson.

I'm not 100% convinced on Koeman, but no issue with him saying it as it is, when directly asked a question.

If he stays, Barkley has lost a lot of goodwill for the sake of an extra few quid a week - if it was just better terms he was after.

I'm not sure he has? It's a job and he hires an agent to get him the best deal. If, I dunno, Funes Mori did the same thing, nobody would bat an eyelid - where Ross was born shouldn't make a difference.

I'm an Everton fan, but if the club asked me to pay 50% more for a season ticket to prove how much of a "boss blue" I am, I'd tell them to do one. Same with Barkley - why shouldn't he maximise his compensation for his services at the club?

 

[bicycleheader]

Ha nah won't happen.

We have a Director of Football for a reason though. Walsh has probably looked at it and thought, "nah Ron, we're not losing a potential £60m+ asset for £30m - we can sell him next summer if need be."

Barkley will have to come back flying to get regular game time under a manager who doesn't rate him, but even if he bombs and plays 15 games next season, we'll still get £30m for him anyway from a West Ham looking for that "big" signing, so it's risk free to tie him down.

I'd be comforted by the thought of a director of football not allowing a short term manager to mess up the long term, if it didn't seem like the 648 billion we spent on Bolasie was Walshs idea. (or that's how I remember it...could be wrong)

Sign Rossssssss

 

[Toffeepot]

Hopefully he signs and we can stop arguing about whose fault what is... Koeman obviously did what he felt was right and so did Barkley...sign it Ross, onward and upwards