The 'Magnificent' David Turnbull Discussion Thread

[Londonwell]

1 hour ago, steelboy said:

We would still the half million training compensation. 

So it's transfer offer minus compensation versus the value he provides on the pitch in terms of league position and cup runs. If the offer is a million or less it's probably better to keep him.

We’re third without him playing. On field performance will not come into it at all. He is the clubs big pay day. 

[Shaka]

The first club to offer 7 figures get him.  The video was a marketing aid to show he's not a crock. Any offer over a mil and he will be off while were told how its "an amazing deal for the club". Pretty gutting

[Big Wispy Flossy]

The harsh reality is that by being injured for nearly a year and his apparent refusal to sign a contract means we will be lucky to get half of what was agreed before. Getting £2m plus without add-ons in those circumstances is almost fantasy land (unless it has been agreed previously but very unlikely I would suggest)

[weeyin]

47 minutes ago, Shaka said:

The first club to offer 7 figures get him.  The video was a marketing aid to show he's not a crock. Any offer over a mil and he will be off while were told how its "an amazing deal for the club". Pretty gutting

Given Scott went for £1.5 million, I'd be surprised to see him go for less than that. 

Although, as I've said before, I'd be quite happy to see him play out his contract with us and take the development fee.  I don't pay my society subs to watch live streams of tenners. 

[steelboy]

41 minutes ago, weeyin said:

I don't pay my society subs to watch live streams of tenners. 

You get feature films advertising our best players as well. 

[wellowell]

I will wait and see if he signs or not as I’m sure the secretive way Motherwell been with Turnbull would not be surprised if a deal already made ,as long as he can prove his fitness / I do not think Turnbull will do the dirty on us so let’s just wait and see 

[GazzyB]

How did he play today?

[Shaka]

3 hours ago, weeyin said:

Given Scott went for £1.5 million, I'd be surprised to see him go for less than that. 

Although, as I've said before, I'd be quite happy to see him play out his contract with us and take the development fee.  I don't pay my society subs to watch live streams of tenners. 

Scott was nowhere near £1.5m. Try around 33% less!

The club got stung when Cadden and his agent fucked them over, there is no chance they will let that happen again. And the begging video put out last week just shows clubs how desperate we are to make a buck. Celtic arent gonna offer anywhere near even half what they offered last year. The deal is probably already done

[Busta Nut]

IF Turnbull is still here at Christmas they will take any offer with a sell on fee.

There seems to be a massive assumption Celtic still want him. When Turnbull were bidding for him I thought he'd get into that team nae bother. Since then he's not played in almost a year and Ryan Christie has come on leaps and bounds.

[Welldaft Mk1]

I don’t know about Celtic but there fans are certainly taking every opportunity to lay claim to him on Twitter. There were more of their fans reacting to his rehabilitation video than ours !

You do have a point. Celtic and Norwich were prepared to pay £3m+ based on pre op Turnbull. Chances are and we hope he will get back to that level, but until he shows signs of doing so I am not sure anyone will bid for him other than a low ball speculative offer. Of course there may b a gentlemans agreement or similar in place however I very much doubt it. 

 

 

[superward]

I'd rather keep him and just take the training comp unless someone comes in with a big offer in the summer. It's a pleasure to see the lad play fitba.

All depends who wants him. If it's still Celtic v Norwich U23 then it will be Celtic he will go. However, if last seasons transfer debacle alerted more clubs to him you can be sure they will be keeping tabs on him. It then depends if they want him now (I.e. summer 2020) or happy to wait to drive the price

[weeyin]

9 hours ago, superward said:

I'd rather keep him and just take the training comp unless someone comes in with a big offer in the summer. It's a pleasure to see the lad play fitba.

My point exactly. The only reason we exist as a club is to entertain the fans, so the longer we can play our best players the better the entertainment value. 

[fizoxy]

The development fee will be decent, I also agree with keeping him.  I believe that 3 consecutive posts in agreement on here means it’s now law. 

[Stuwell2]

Refusing to let him get his move could potentially stop  future youngsters from signing extensions or guys coming to us knowing they will get a move - ie Moult - which in the long run could cost the club. 
 

[Yorkyred]

There is always a balance and refusing to let a player leave for a bigger club never ends well. We all know at some point he’s going to move on and in order to keep attracting players to a club that they know will help them develop, them support them in a move up the footballing ladder that needs to happen. Just a case of maximising the fee we receive.

[ropy]

We obviously were willing to let him move on

[The African]

I suppose it all really comes down to a couple of factors. Firstly, if David Turnbull can recapture the form he displayed prior to his injury: the form which resulted in him being, very nearly, a £3 million player. Secondly, assuming the first, if we get offers for him which, given the status of his current contract, meet our valuation. We certainly do not necessarily "need" the cash so hopefully we do not allow anyone to take the piss with a low offer which we accept as being the best we can do in the circumstances. 

I am genuinely of the opinion that we have done everything to further the career of Turnbull and other youngsters, with an eye to what is mutually beneficial to both parties. Whilst this is a laudable business practice, we should not be so naive as to believe that others will not try and take advantage of our circumstances. It might seem like we are cutting off our nose to spite our face, but remaining strong and holding out for a price close to our previous valuation, is our best course of action.

[GazzyB]

9 hours ago, Stuwell2 said:

Refusing to let him get his move could potentially stop  future youngsters from signing extensions or guys coming to us knowing they will get a move - ie Moult - which in the long run could cost the club. 
 

I very much doubt Grimsby Town players are going to turn us down on the basis of "yeah it's a good offer but I heard you didn't let David Turnbull move to Celtic for half a million so I'll pass thanks".

[joewarkfanclub]

Id much rather watch DT play for us until his contract expires and take the development fee than accept some lowball offer from Septic or anyone else. 

We looked after his rehab. They wanted to cut their offer to do the same so clearly understand there was a cost attached to it.

The price should be the same or be gone!

[David]

6 hours ago, Yorkyred said:

There is always a balance and refusing to let a player leave for a bigger club never ends well.

We would be willing to let him go. For the £3 million that Celtic agreed to pay for him last summer.

If they decide to try and lowball us then we simply say "nope, the valuation is the same," and perhaps we question why they're looking to sign a player who is obviously damaged goods in their eyes if they think he's now worth less.

We're always happy to let players move on, but not for below market valuation. How long was Tierney out injured? Didn't see Celtic accept a reduced fee for him based on that.

[Kmcalpin]

2 hours ago, joewarkfanclub said:

Id much rather watch DT play for us until his contract expires and take the development fee than accept some lowball offer from Septic or anyone else. 

We looked after his rehab. They wanted to cut their offer to do the same so clearly understand there was a cost attached to it.

The price should be the same or be gone!

Not disagreeing with you, but how would you define a lowball offer? I'd say less than £900k up front, but thats debatable.

[wellwell91]

7 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Not disagreeing with you, but how would you define a lowball offer? I'd say less than £900k up front, but thats debatable.

His development fee could be £500K … so that’s him moving on for a fee of £400K … … not for me would rather keep him

Still think a move to the tic is the wrong one for him in the long run

Its his decision but it all about ambition and reaching his goals 

Would you rather be playing in Dingwall or Perth for the 4th time in a season or strutting your stuff at Anfield, Old Trafford, Emirates or Etihad

As I say it’s his decision but if I had his ability I know where I would rather be 

[Yorkyred]

4 hours ago, GazzyB said:

I very much doubt Grimsby Town players are going to turn us down on the basis of "yeah it's a good offer but I heard you didn't let David Turnbull move to Celtic for half a million so I'll pass thanks".

There is merit in the argument though. A number of players have gone on to better things and players and their agents do take note.

[David]

53 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Not disagreeing with you, but how would you define a lowball offer? I'd say less than £900k up front, but thats debatable.

A lowball offer is less than we were offered for him in the summer.

[joewarkfanclub]

59 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Not disagreeing with you, but how would you define a lowball offer? I'd say less than £900k up front, but thats debatable.

Not a penny less than they offered in the summer. Like I say, he is our player. We looked after him in his hour of need. It was the right thing to do, but we deserve to be justly rewarded. The Tierney analogy is a very good one.