CONFIRMED Berge to Burnley

[YES Blade]

I’m guessing and suggesting that he would be made speak out to protect the clubs integrity, just as he did with last article of Mail BS? But of course only if it is BS?

Why do we need to defend our integrity? It’s a business decision. One which clubs make all the time to protect their interests.

Berge is entitled to leave on a free transfer, we are also under no obligation to pick him or even to allow him to train with the first team.

 

[Blade58]

Why do we need to defend our integrity? It’s a business decision. One which clubs make all the time to protect their interests.

Berge is entitled to leave on a free transfer, we are also under no obligation to pick him or even to allow him to train with the first team.

At a guess we don’t actually need to defend the clubs integrity, but it makes sense, just as Bettis did the same last time the Mail spoke shit and as this is how most business’s react to adverse and inaccurate publicity.

If it’s BS then tell everyone it’s BS. If it’s correct then say nothing

I’m giving my opinion, you may not agree with it and that’s fine

 

[jim2007]

Hundo a week? Nope

View attachment 167573

The Bank of England tells us that £100 a week in 1961 is the equivalent of £1850 week (£96k per year) today.

There's been a lot more inflation in footballer wages than society in general.

 

[alcoblade]

Everyone who is happy about this, and agreeing with him being called a snake give your head a wobble.

We’re getting weaker by the week, and now have another midfielder to find.

Not many are happy about it, but can see the logic in it all.

It’s possible to hold that view without thinking anyone involved is “a snake”.

 

[dellasthunderbolt]

I personally agree with club’s approach even if they have forced him out. A poster earlier mentioned something that made the point perfectly: if another club owned Berge and offered to loan him to us for the season with no hope of signing him permanently and he it’s a £12 million loan fee, would anyone ever think that was a good idea? Because that’s ultimately the position he has left the club in by saying he is going to run his contract down. So fuck yeah I’d sell him under those terms and I can’t think of a logical reason to think otherwise. Ndiaye I could see keeping under those terms because he was an out and out match winner but Berge is rarely that so I can’t fault the decision.

 

[s20Blade]

I personally agree with club’s approach even if they have forced him out. A poster earlier mentioned something that made the point perfectly: if another club owned Berge and offered to loan him to us for the season with no hope of signing him permanently and he it’s a £12 million loan fee, would anyone ever think that was a good idea? Because that’s ultimately the position he has left the club in by saying he is going to run his contract down. So fuck yeah I’d sell him under those terms and I can’t think of a logical reason to think otherwise. Ndiaye I could see keeping under those terms because he was an out and out match winner but Berge is rarely that so I can’t fault the decision.

But surely this could have been done weeks ago? Unless he has only just come back and said he's not signing it.

 

[SUFCinks]

Thats not an accurate account of the situation though is it?

I have absolutely no doubt that United told him he either signs a new contact or he wont play.

But to say ‘he was happy to stay and consider his future in the summer’ is slightly disingenuous.

In the interest of balance, the article should read ‘he was happy to saunter through the remainder of his contract and walk away in the Summer, knowing that as a free agent, he would be able to secure himself a generous signing on fee and a significantly higher salary’

Yeh, i can’t argue with that

 

[alcoblade]

But surely this could have been done weeks ago? Unless he has only just come back and said he's not signing it.

This is where any criticism I’d make lies. It should have happened before now, but without knowing exactly what goes on behind the scenes it’s difficult to be too critical.

Either way, it’s happening far too late for decent pre season preparation.

 

[dellasthunderbolt]

But surely this could have been done weeks ago? Unless he has only just come back and said he's not signing it.

Fair point. It’s shame it’s not happened earlier and I agree that the timing isn’t great. But surely no one would swap a year of Berge for £12 million. Maybe they would and I’m in the minority but it seems a no-brainier. But yes, the money a month ago to reinvest potentially more thoughtfully and preseason games without Berge would have been the best situation.

 

[FinBlade]

Best transfer this summer if happens

 

[JayGreen17]

I’m not too upset either, Sandra is a nice fella, but I’d say only a quarter of the time he was any good either he was injured or just not firing.

 

[Weasel]

But surely this could have been done weeks ago? Unless he has only just come back and said he's not signing it.

Maybe Burnley have only just come up with the readies and actually put a formal offer in? They might have been in dialogue with United before this week but perhaps the offer has only just gone in (they may have been looking at other targets as well as Berge?). If that's the case then we can't control the timing of the sale and it's a case of the offer is on the table now, take it or leave it. Shit timing for us but we would be daft to turn down £12m for Berge who can walk for free in 9 months time and would no doubt have sauntered through this season looking like he gives a shit but in all probability not really doing much so as to keep himself nice and fit for his next career move. United have done the right thing here. The next right thing is to get the money spent on replacements as well as the Ndiaye money. In full.

 

[Champagneblade]

I personally agree with club’s approach even if they have forced him out. A poster earlier mentioned something that made the point perfectly: if another club owned Berge and offered to loan him to us for the season with no hope of signing him permanently and he it’s a £12 million loan fee, would anyone ever think that was a good idea? Because that’s ultimately the position he has left the club in by saying he is going to run his contract down. So fuck yeah I’d sell him under those terms and I can’t think of a logical reason to think otherwise. Ndiaye I could see keeping under those terms because he was an out and out match winner but Berge is rarely that so I can’t fault the decision.

I also found that a very compelling way of putting it. It’s hard to argue against.

 

[s20Blade]

Maybe Burnley have only just come up with the readies and actually put a formal offer in? They might have been in dialogue with United before this week but perhaps the offer has only just gone in (they may have been looking at other targets as well as Berge?). If that's the case then we can't control the timing of the sale and it's a case of the offer is on the table now, take it or leave it. Shit timing for us but we would be daft to turn down £12m for Berge who can walk for free in 9 months time and would no doubt have sauntered through this season looking like he gives a shit but in all probability not really doing much so as to keep himself nice and fit for his next career move. United have done the right thing here. The next right thing is to get the money spent on replacements as well as the Ndiaye money. In full.

I don't rate Berge too much but think the money will go into "running of the club"

 

[BrisBlade]

I personally agree with club’s approach even if they have forced him out. A poster earlier mentioned something that made the point perfectly: if another club owned Berge and offered to loan him to us for the season with no hope of signing him permanently and he it’s a £12 million loan fee, would anyone ever think that was a good idea? Because that’s ultimately the position he has left the club in by saying he is going to run his contract down. So fuck yeah I’d sell him under those terms and I can’t think of a logical reason to think otherwise. Ndiaye I could see keeping under those terms because he was an out and out match winner but Berge is rarely that so I can’t fault the decision.

But it is a different situation in one important respect: We already have an agreed contract with Berge until next summer. He appears to want to honour that contract. We don't and appear to be wielding a threat to actively harm his career if he doesn't accept new terms or leave. I can't see how that is acceptable behaviour.

Also, while he may want to run his contract down, that doesn't mean downing tools. If there was any indication of this I'd be fine with the club taking a hard line. If anything, his incentive to give 100% has never been higher as he knows he's in the world best ship window.

 

[alcoblade]

But it is a different situation in one important respect: We already have an agreed contract with Berge until next summer. He appears to want to honour that contract. We don't and appear to be wielding a threat to actively harm his career if he doesn't accept new terms or leave. I can't see how that is acceptable behaviour.

Also, while he may want to run his contract down, that doesn't mean downing tools. If there was any indication of this I'd be fine with the club taking a hard line. If anything, his incentive to give 100% has never been higher as he knows he's in the world best ship window.

Effectively, you’re happy for the club to pay out £15,000,000 in order to keep him happy / “do the right thing” by him for 9 months.

He isn’t duty bound to sign a contract with us, we aren’t duty bound to select him.

 

[BrisBlade]

Effectively, you’re happy for the club to pay out £15,000,000 in order to keep him happy / “do the right thing” by him for 9 months.

He isn’t duty bound to sign a contract with us, we aren’t duty bound to select him.

There's three things here I think.

1. Am I happy Berge would leave at the end of the season for free? No. I would be disappointed but not aggrieved as he would have done what he committed to do (play for us for 4.5 years).
2. Is the £15m you are talking about made up of around £2-3m in wages and £12m in lost revenue if we didn't sell? If so, I agree about the wage component, but a lost opportunity isn't the same as the club paying out anything.
3. We contracted him to play football. If we have told him he wouldn't be allowed to do that when he is willing and able to play then I have a problem with that.

 

[alcoblade]

There's three things here I think.

1. Am I happy Berge would leave at the end of the season for free? No. I would be disappointed but not aggrieved as he would have done what he committed to do (play for us for 4.5 years).
2. Is the £15m you are talking about made up of around £2-3m in wages and £12m in lost revenue if we didn't sell? If so, I agree about the wage component, but a lost opportunity isn't the same as the club paying out anything.
3. We contracted him to play football. If we have told him he wouldn't be allowed to do that when he is willing and able to play then I have a problem with that.

I’d have to disagree on point 2. That’s the cost of him staying with us for one season.

It’s effectively a £15m loan for one season for a championship player that isn’t impressing for Norway.

Anyone doing that deal is nuts. The club trying to avoid it seems perfectly sensible to me.

Point 3 is just a point of principle. I’d argue we are contracted to pay him, not play him.

 

[Stockport blade]

If anyone believes the shit Darren Smith and Jimmy the rabid rambler spouts they need to give their head a wobble.

Theyve admitted they're in the prince's back pocket Whatsapp group and being fed lines to make the board not look at fault and pinning it all on the player.

"Moving to be closer to a footballing buddy" FFS does Darren and Jimmy expect us to believe that bullshit.

At least YorkBlade and Ingood Nick possibly seem to be realizing they're being used given by their reactions on social media today.

I asked Darren for the other reasons he mentioned and he blocked me when I asked if a lack of ambition from the board was one

 

[YES Blade]

There's three things here I think.

1. Am I happy Berge would leave at the end of the season for free? No. I would be disappointed but not aggrieved as he would have done what he committed to do (play for us for 4.5 years).
2. Is the £15m you are talking about made up of around £2-3m in wages and £12m in lost revenue if we didn't sell? If so, I agree about the wage component, but a lost opportunity isn't the same as the club paying out anything.
3. We contracted him to play football. If we have told him he wouldn't be allowed to do that when he is willing and able to play then I have a problem with that.

He has a contract and nowhere in that contract will there be any guarantees of regular playing time. We’ll keep paying him to not play, it’s his choice if he’d rather leave than sit on his arse for a season.

 

[AWetFlannel]

I would choose a year of Berge over £12 million. We need a squad for this season that know how to play this system and give the fans some hope of success.

Holding players to ransom, if that's what we've done, works in some situations. If you're a stable club with a decent squad ready to achieve your goals that season, you can threaten a player and if the worst comes to the worst, you can follow through with it. Imagine Berge calling our bluff and we lose a few games with Osborn in midfield. The pressure to play him would be insane.

 

[TheGregBlade]

I'm pretty confident that Sander will be playing less than 50% of the available games this season. I'd rather shift him for money now, especially after looking at what happened with John Fleck.

 

[jono_t2000]

I asked Darren for the other reasons he mentioned and he blocked me when I asked if a lack of ambition from the board was one

Sounds about right mate

 

[jono_t2000]

I would choose a year of Berge over £12 million. We need a squad for this season that know how to play this system and give the fans some hope of success.

Holding players to ransom, if that's what we've done, works in some situations. If you're a stable club with a decent squad ready to achieve your goals that season, you can threaten a player and if the worst comes to the worst, you can follow through with it. Imagine Berge calling our bluff and we lose a few games with Osborn in midfield. The pressure to play him would be insane.

I do think it's in the best interest of the club to sell Berge financially. However I don't buy you can call it a '15 mill loan player' if we keep him.

You still have to replace Berge for someone ,and and anyone who's not a downgrade is going to cost at least that same amount. Plus that new players wages over 3-4 years and as you say it will take time for them to adapt to our style and no guarentee they wouldn't be a flop anyway.

 

[Booker4]

I've not looked through every post but I wonder what the fans reactions are to the rumours that he was forced out? I don't like it but at the same time I totally get we can't have a player leaving for nothing of Berge's value either. We don't know how many other moves have not happened because Berge didn't want to move there, maybe there was none and it's his prerogative to not sign a new contract either. Whenever a club signs a player it's not unusual for a player to not sign another. I think if Sander could go back in time he'd have stayed at Genk and waited for another club to come in for him but saying that he seems to have generally enjoyed his time with United.

He does seem a top pro, and hasn't forced a move, although you could argue by not signing a contract that he has made himself more prone to a move. As you can see from my post above I am split and see all sides without taking any sides either! I find it much easier when we've got the John Lundstram situation when it's easier to say good riddance but Berge has always been the ultimate professional. I wish him well in his career and I can't fathom that joining Burnley is something he wants to do, even the good folk of Burnley probably don't want to live there!

 

[Shirty Blade]

Club doesn't want to lose him for nothing. Sander won't sign a new deal. Best for the club if we sell him. I have no problem with this on the proviso that we buy a better replacement like Hamer. The problem for me is that we probably won't.

 

[Creepy]

If the rumour is true then, in any other job, what has been said to Berge is effectively constructive dismissal. "Go or we take away your job". He's in a position (both financially and employment wise) where he doesn't need to pursue such a case but nevertheless, that's what it amounts to. A contract is a contract. Both sides should be prepared to honour it unless there is agreement between both parties to end it. And that's agreement without bullying or harrasment in any form. I suspect there are other players at the club who are seriously asking themselves what sort of club they are employed by and are questioning what they are doing here. Not many of them have the same attachment to Utd as we have. I think those with some amount of ability will be gone at the first opportunity - if not actively looking for that opportunity themselves - because it looks like it is a very toxic club at the moment .

 

[NateDogg]

If the rumour is true then, in any other job, what has been said to Berge is effectively constructive dismissal. "Go or we take away your job". He's in a position (both financially and employment wise) where he doesn't need to pursue such a case but nevertheless, that's what it amounts to. A contract is a contract. Both sides should be prepared to honour it unless there is agreement between both parties to end it. And that's agreement without bullying or harrasment in any form. I suspect there are other players at the club who are seriously asking themselves what sort of club they are employed by and are questioning what they are doing here. Not many of them have the same attachment to Utd as we have. I think those with some amount of ability will be gone at the first opportunity - if not actively looking for that opportunity themselves - because it looks like it is a very toxic club at the moment .

Or....... it could be the media shit stirring. They are very good at that in this country.

Way some of you are talking it's like the club has turned into North Korea.

 

[Weasel]

If the rumour is true then, in any other job, what has been said to Berge is effectively constructive dismissal. "Go or we take away your job". He's in a position (both financially and employment wise) where he doesn't need to pursue such a case but nevertheless, that's what it amounts to. A contract is a contract. Both sides should be prepared to honour it unless there is agreement between both parties to end it. And that's agreement without bullying or harrasment in any form. I suspect there are other players at the club who are seriously asking themselves what sort of club they are employed by and are questioning what they are doing here. Not many of them have the same attachment to Utd as we have. I think those with some amount of ability will be gone at the first opportunity - if not actively looking for that opportunity themselves - because it looks like it is a very toxic club at the moment .

I agree in principle with what you say, but football is quite a unique business in that respect. Ramsdale had a contract but decided he didn't want to turn up and play for us at WBA. Unfortunately ethics doesn't seem to come into it either way when there is big money involved. Tis the way of the world and it's nothing personal, just business.

If we had kept SB and played him, what's to say that he wouldn't have just sauntered through the last 9 months of his contract making sure he didn't get injured? That wouldn't be in his contract either and yet the club would have had to accept that and he would have just been 'disappointing'.

If it's true that he doesn't want to entertain signing a new contract then it's perfectly reasonable for the club to try and force the issue one way or another, imo. There is a lot of money involved which could effect the club financially for a long time so it has to do what's best for itself. SB is hardly being bullied as he can stay where he is or he can move on and I'm sure he he quite happy to do so when all said and done (with a nice wage increase to boot).

 

[Creepy]

I agree in principle with what you say, but football is quite a unique business in that respect. Ramsdale had a contract but decided he didn't want to turn up and play for us at WBA. Unfortunately ethics doesn't seem to come into it either way when there is big money involved. Tis the way of the world and it's nothing personal, just business.

If we had kept SB and played him, what's to say that he wouldn't have just sauntered through the last 9 months of his contract making sure he didn't get injured? That wouldn't be in his contract either and yet the club would have had to accept that and he would have just been 'disappointing'.

If it's true that he doesn't want to entertain signing a new contract then it's perfectly reasonable for the club to try and force the issue one way or another, imo. There is a lot of money involved which could effect the club financially for a long time so it has to do what's best for itself. SB is hardly being bullied as he can stay where he is or he can move on and I'm sure he he quite happy to do so when all said and done (with a nice wage increase to boot).

Understand. Which is why I said "if" and "in any other job". However, if he wants to stay but is being told that he won't be allowed to do what he is contracted to do (i.e. play football) then he is most definitely being bullied.
I'm not even going to respond to the other poster who thinks I am comparing it to North Korea........