Incoming? Dan Burn

[Ricky]

A lot of things have been said about us delaying the deal to take it until January - if you can afford to do that (and we can't) then it's the ideal scenario. Symons isn't going to directly say it's Adkins' decision to delay it. The reports I refer to are from places that won't report rumours as facts. Granted, there's always the possibility that something unexpected can be a factor - that goes without saying, but it seems very obvious that the current delay is injury related - as I've said from the start here. Before that? Probably just United delaying it, anything else would be unexpected and unlikely.

As hard as it might be for some to accept, it looks like United have fucked up once again.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Good reasons too - three defensive injuries. But they've only recently sustained them. Before that, according to all reports, they had already agreed to this loan and we were just waiting, for some stupid reason. Symons doesn't say anywhere that Fulham were delaying his release. I hope they're short term injuries but no doubt they'll be long term ones.

Before that, hadn't we been waiting for them to get Steadman – a deal that was only completed on deadline day? By the sounds of it, we couldn't tie up the deal in the time we had. Perhaps Fulham got some last-minute jitters due to other players carrying niggling injuries – who knows?

The only thing I feel we could have done differently is in trying to tie up the loan as soon as the window opened. By delaying, we've not only failed to reap the benefits in the last two games, but the delay has seen the situation at Fulham change due to their current injury situation. Had we sorted it out 2 weeks ago, we'd have had him in for 2 games, and Fulham would have had to wait 2 weeks before being able to recall him – by which time their injured players may have recovered, so a recall wouldn't have been necessary.

This is I'm afraid the problem of going after players of a quality where they are still of use to a squad. We obviously wouldn't have had this problem had we been going after people clubs were desperate to get off their books asap. Which unsurprisingly tend to be players of less quality. We have enough of those already at the club.

 

[Ricky]

It really shouldn't be such a challenge for us to target and sign good League One players who'd improve us. We've wasted so much time chasing ultimately unattainable players. In key positions too.

 

[HeCanDoMagic]

Before that, hadn't we been waiting for them to get Steadman – a deal that was only completed on deadline day? By the sounds of it, we couldn't tie up the deal in the time we had. Perhaps Fulham got some last-minute jitters due to other players carrying niggling injuries – who knows?

The only thing I feel we could have done differently is in trying to tie up the loan as soon as the window opened. By delaying, we've not only failed to reap the benefits in the last two games, but the delay has seen the situation at Fulham change due to their current injury situation. Had we sorted it out 2 weeks ago, we'd have had him in for 2 games, and Fulham would have had to wait 2 weeks before being able to recall him – by which time their injured players may have recovered, so a recall wouldn't have been necessary.

This is I'm afraid the problem of going after players of a quality where they are still of use to a squad. We obviously wouldn't have had this problem had we been going after people clubs were desperate to get off their books asap. Which unsurprisingly tend to be players of less quality. We have enough of those already at the club.

The reason the deal stalled was because of contract issues between Burn and Fulham. Totally out of our hands.

One of the few things I've actually ever been 'ITK' about.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Before that, hadn't we been waiting for them to get Steadman – a deal that was only completed on deadline day? By the sounds of it, we couldn't tie up the deal in the time we had. Perhaps Fulham got some last-minute jitters due to other players carrying niggling injuries – who knows?

The only thing I feel we could have done differently is in trying to tie up the loan as soon as the window opened. By delaying, we've not only failed to reap the benefits in the last two games, but the delay has seen the situation at Fulham change due to their current injury situation. Had we sorted it out 2 weeks ago, we'd have had him in for 2 games, and Fulham would have had to wait 2 weeks before being able to recall him – by which time their injured players may have recovered, so a recall wouldn't have been necessary.

This is I'm afraid the problem of going after players of a quality where they are still of use to a squad. We obviously wouldn't have had this problem had we been going after people clubs were desperate to get off their books asap. Which unsurprisingly tend to be players of less quality. We have enough of those already at the club.

That's about the long and short of it LoughboroBlade. My own feeling is that even if we'd pushed for a loan to be completed, Fulham would have asked us to wait until they're comfortable with this. If only it were as simple as suggesting that we've made no effort. No one rejoices when we fail to get a player, but to suggest it was a lacklustre display on our behalf doesn't explain how we managed to secure players like Done, Adams (who was being scouted by other professional clubs) or Brayford. I'll give you that Brayford may have been almost a shoe-in, but a deal was still needed to be struck....as I've said before, we have to stand by Adkins as he re-builds this team. We are probably in for a long, cold winter, so get on your arctic undies as Nigel fashions the team in his image!

 

[LoughboroBlade]

The reason the deal stalled was because of contract issues between Burn and Fulham. Totally out of our hands.

One of the few things I've actually ever been 'ITK' about.

Assuming you mean the reason why the permanent deal didn't materialise? That sounds plausible. Though that's a separate issue to why the loan deal hasn't happened I'd assume.

 

[HeCanDoMagic]

Assuming you mean the reason why the permanent deal didn't materialise? That sounds plausible. Though that's a separate issue to why the loan deal hasn't happened I'd assume.

Yeah the permanent deal. The loan deal is also purely down to Fulham dragging their feet. Changed their mind 3 times now when just about to sanction the loan.

 

[Smirth]

Hold on a moment, a player wants to leave his club to come here? Why isn't he here already then? After all, according to Jim once a player wants to leave that's it and there is nothing the club can do but allow him to leave. Surely the parent club isn't telling a player no and that he is staying with them because Jim told us that you can't do that.

SUFC, run by fucking amateurs.

 

[HeCanDoMagic]

Hold on a moment, a player wants to leave his club to come here? Why isn't he here already then? After all, according to Jim once a player wants to leave that's it and there is nothing the club can do but allow him to leave. Surely the parent club isn't telling a player no and that he is staying with them because Jim told us that you can't do that.

SUFC, run by fucking amateurs.

He wants to leave to come here, but not without ensuring he doesn't miss out financially on his FFC contract.

I think some of our fans like to take the easy swipe at the club.

 

[Smirth]

He wants to leave to come here, but not without ensuring he doesn't miss out financially on his FFC contract.

I think some of our fans like to take the easy swipe at the club.

He's entitled to that so I don't blame him.

I don't like taking a swipe at the club, but they set themselves up for it when they come out with crap about being powerless to stop players from leaving the club and then going on to fail to land targets who want to come here for exactly that reason!

 

[Revolution]

He's entitled to that so I don't blame him.

I don't like taking a swipe at the club, but they set themselves up for it when they come out with crap about being powerless to stop players from leaving the club and then going on to fail to land targets who want to come here for exactly that reason!

This.

 

[MobileBlade]

Surprise surprise. We "Try" to sign players before deadline day and then "there's always the loan window" then " we need to wait because of the 93 day rule".

What happens. Same fucking thing that happens every season. Said signing doesn't come off because parent club decide they want him or need to get a replacement before they let him go or someone comes in and gazumps us. This club just does not learn. Perhaps, if we were bidding to prize players from clubs that didn't want rid (best players from our league and the one below) our deals wouldn't all be dependant on said player remaining unwanted.

Think I won. See my post on deadline day.

 

[Enigmatic]

He's entitled to that so I don't blame him.

I don't like taking a swipe at the club, but they set themselves up for it when they come out with crap about being powerless to stop players from leaving the club and then going on to fail to land targets who want to come here for exactly that reason!

Of course you don't HAVE to relent to a player's wishes if they are under contract, but it often makes good business sense to do so. Football clubs, whether you like it or not, are businesses first and foremost. That is the reality. If fans want their clubs to ultimately be successful, they must accept that they have to be run as a business in order to stay competitive in the long run. Let's take the sale of Murphy as the most recent example. What did we pay for Murphy? £150k? We got a minimum of £1.5m for him, as well as two and a half seasons worth of game time. That to me is good business, particularly as it leaves room for the likes of Ché Adams and our other youngsters to get more game time and bring on their development. Would we have preferred to hang onto Murphy? I think most would have liked to have him for longer, but he had decided that he wanted to progress to the next level. Fair enough.

To refuse a player's transfer request impacts on his happiness, which will affect his performances. It can also spread to other members of the squad, which impacts on team performances. If they are not performing as well, their valuation goes down, meaning that if and when the club finally decide to get rid, they will get less back than they would have had they sold the player earlier. It's bad for the player, it's bad for the club. Contrary to what many United fans seem to think, the board are not idiots. They are businessmen, and that means keeping the long term view firmly in mind when making decisions, such as whether to sell a player or not. Personally, I'm happy to leave the people with access to all the information (such as Jim Phipps) to make decisions as best they can. It's their job to ensure United are successful ffs, they're not trying to fail! I'm so fucking fed up of Blades who jump on their backs at every opportunity, when they know the square root of fuck all about what really goes on behind the scenes.

 

[Smirth]

Of course you don't HAVE to relent to a player's wishes if they are under contract, but it often makes good business sense to do so. Football clubs, whether you like it or not, are businesses first and foremost. That is the reality. If fans want their clubs to ultimately be successful, they must accept that they have to be run as a business in order to stay competitive in the long run. Let's take the sale of Murphy as the most recent example. What did we pay for Murphy? £150k? We got a minimum of £1.5m for him, as well as two and a half seasons worth of game time. That to me is good business, particularly as it leaves room for the likes of Ché Adams and our other youngsters to get more game time and bring on their development. Would we have preferred to hang onto Murphy? I think most would have liked to have him for longer, but he had decided that he wanted to progress to the next level. Fair enough.

To refuse a player's transfer request impacts on his happiness, which will affect his performances. It can also spread to other members of the squad, which impacts on team performances. If they are not performing as well, their valuation goes down, meaning that if and when the club finally decide to get rid, they will get less back than they would have had they sold the player earlier. It's bad for the player, it's bad for the club. Contrary to what many United fans seem to think, the board are not idiots. They are businessmen, and that means keeping the long term view firmly in mind when making decisions, such as whether to sell a player or not. Personally, I'm happy to leave the people with access to all the information (such as Jim Phipps) to make decisions as best they can. It's their job to ensure United are successful ffs, they're not trying to fail! I'm so fucking fed up of Blades who jump on their backs at every opportunity, when they know the square root of fuck all about what really goes on behind the scenes.

Of course I understand that the profit made on Murphy it a good deal for the club financially. I would have rather we kept him but could have understood selling him if we had a replacement lined up - we didn't.


Good business would have been saying to Murphy, "Yes, we shall let you leave and join Brighton but we need to get your replacement sorted out first and then you can go." Instead what we did was cash in and then arse around looking for replacements which never materialised, meaning that we are now without our best player from last season and we haven't replaced him.


Che Adams is a raw 19 year old kid. He isn't as good as Murphy is at this stage in his career, not even close. If he was then Brighton would have signed him instead of Murphy. We cannot rely on a young lad still finding his feet to replace our best player from last season.


Therefore I will continue to criticise how the club is run, because for the third season in succession now we have sold our best player at the beginning of the season and have not adequately replaced him.

 

[Blade56]

Think this will rank as disaster on the Girls Blouse scale of Meltdown

 

[itsinyerblood]

Of course you don't HAVE to relent to a player's wishes if they are under contract, but it often makes good business sense to do so. Football clubs, whether you like it or not, are businesses first and foremost. That is the reality. If fans want their clubs to ultimately be successful, they must accept that they have to be run as a business in order to stay competitive in the long run. Let's take the sale of Murphy as the most recent example. What did we pay for Murphy? £150k? We got a minimum of £1.5m for him, as well as two and a half seasons worth of game time. That to me is good business, particularly as it leaves room for the likes of Ché Adams and our other youngsters to get more game time and bring on their development. Would we have preferred to hang onto Murphy? I think most would have liked to have him for longer, but he had decided that he wanted to progress to the next level. Fair enough.

To refuse a player's transfer request impacts on his happiness, which will affect his performances. It can also spread to other members of the squad, which impacts on team performances. If they are not performing as well, their valuation goes down, meaning that if and when the club finally decide to get rid, they will get less back than they would have had they sold the player earlier. It's bad for the player, it's bad for the club. Contrary to what many United fans seem to think, the board are not idiots. They are businessmen, and that means keeping the long term view firmly in mind when making decisions, such as whether to sell a player or not. Personally, I'm happy to leave the people with access to all the information (such as Jim Phipps) to make decisions as best they can. It's their job to ensure United are successful ffs, they're not trying to fail! I'm so fucking fed up of Blades who jump on their backs at every opportunity, when they know the square root of fuck all about what really goes on behind the scenes.

Good post Enigmatic, but as with all coins of value there are two sides to be considered. As with your points about what we get from a player and how much value we can expect, flip that over and there's also a view that says if you consider a player has added value, he says he wants to leave, he's not long signed a new contract, and then decides to ignore what was agreed by mutual consent, isn't there a case for standing firm and sending out a message to the rest of the squad that the club isn't an easy touch and will refuse to dance to whatever tune the player, and his agent, choose to play?

I'm not comparing the clubs, but Man Utd resisted De Gea's desire to leave for Real Madrid. It might stall the inevitable, but for the time being De Gea remains at MU. Given our intention to aim for promotion this season, to sell our best players, not find a replacement, and then expect to have the same threat, well it's not surprising that the supporters are disgruntled. We could have inserted a clause in Murphy's agreement that he could leave at the end of this season if we failed to achieve promotion. The longer we don't use Murphy's funds to buy a central defender(s), or midfield general, or a replacement for Murphy's position of decent quality, the longer heads will be scratched and eyebrows cynically raised. I know that can appear a tad simplistic, but to not have a replacement secured before Murphy left seems.....well clueless comes to mind.

 

[BushBlade]

He wants to leave to come here, but not without ensuring he doesn't miss out financially on his FFC contract.

I think some of our fans like to take the easy swipe at the club.

Of course, the idea that we pick up the tab is ludicrous, no other clubs do that.

 

[Fiery Blade]

Looks like he's going nowhere at the minute - Came on as a sub last week and with injuries he is in the squad for the 'forseeable future' according to his manager Kit Symons !
Another one bites the dust !!!

 

[FriethBlade]

We need to move on and target players that are attainable and want to come....alternatively we can continue to concede 3 a game against average third division sides

 

[HeCanDoMagic]

Of course, the idea that we pick up the tab is ludicrous, no other clubs do that.

League 1 clubs don't pick up premier league standard tabs no.

 

[BushBlade]

League 1 clubs don't pick up premier league standard tabs no.

He's never been a PL regular. Barely played for them and if his contract was that good he wouldn't be coming to us.
If it was going to be a sticking point why did we not address it earlier in our negotiations?
We should know how transfers work, I think we've done over fifty in the last four years.

 

[Bladesman]

Another transfer target that we are unable to secure. It's become the standard for us these days.

It would have been a surprise had he actually signed.

 

[finlaytheblade]

C ya

He's never been a PL regular. Barely played for them and if his contract was that good he wouldn't be coming to us.
If it was going to be a sticking point why did we not address it earlier in our negotiations?
We should know how transfers work, I think we've done over fifty in the last four years.

Burns contract ran out this summer and they took the year option they had put in his contract.He hasn't had much 1st team footy
at Fulham and would be on a free next summer ,he may well want to return to the north and we are halfway house for him .I would think Fulham are willing to sell him as he would be on a free next summer that's probably where we came in.They are short of centre back
cover so we will have to be patient ,if and when he does come I expect it to be a loan with a view to buy as I said earlier next summer he is free so the new year is when a permanent transfer can be done. (We can of course take out an agreement to buy him in the January window)

 

[Barney]

Of course you don't HAVE to relent to a player's wishes if they are under contract, but it often makes good business sense to do so. Football clubs, whether you like it or not, are businesses first and foremost. That is the reality. If fans want their clubs to ultimately be successful, they must accept that they have to be run as a business in order to stay competitive in the long run. Let's take the sale of Murphy as the most recent example. What did we pay for Murphy? £150k? We got a minimum of £1.5m for him, as well as two and a half seasons worth of game time. That to me is good business, particularly as it leaves room for the likes of Ché Adams and our other youngsters to get more game time and bring on their development. Would we have preferred to hang onto Murphy? I think most would have liked to have him for longer, but he had decided that he wanted to progress to the next level. Fair enough.

To refuse a player's transfer request impacts on his happiness, which will affect his performances. It can also spread to other members of the squad, which impacts on team performances. If they are not performing as well, their valuation goes down, meaning that if and when the club finally decide to get rid, they will get less back than they would have had they sold the player earlier. It's bad for the player, it's bad for the club. Contrary to what many United fans seem to think, the board are not idiots. They are businessmen, and that means keeping the long term view firmly in mind when making decisions, such as whether to sell a player or not. Personally, I'm happy to leave the people with access to all the information (such as Jim Phipps) to make decisions as best they can. It's their job to ensure United are successful ffs, they're not trying to fail! I'm so fucking fed up of Blades who jump on their backs at every opportunity, when they know the square root of fuck all about what really goes on behind the scenes.

If there are things going on behind the scenes they've done and are doing a bloody grand job of hiding it.

To the point where we haven't strengthened key areas of the squad despite the manager being aware of them for months. Unless your talking about selling though of course, we're good at that.

 

[BushBlade]

C ya

Burns contract ran out this summer and they took the year option they had put in his contract.He hasn't had much 1st team footy
at Fulham and would be on a free next summer ,he may well want to return to the north and we are halfway house for him .I would think Fulham are willing to sell him as he would be on a free next summer that's probably where we came in.They are short of centre back
cover so we will have to be patient ,if and when he does come I expect it to be a loan with a view to buy as I said earlier next summer he is free so the new year is when a permanent transfer can be done. (We can of course take out an agreement to buy him in the January window)

They weren't short of centre half cover though when the window was open. I wasn't asking for his resume, I was asking why we couldn't get the deal over the line before the window closed.
How long have we been scouting this player? What due diligence did we do? Or was this a last minute knee jerk reaction when Nigel 2 realised Nigel 1 was correct in his assessment that Collins is a bit shit?

 

[finlaytheblade]

He's entitled to that so I don't blame him.

I don't like taking a swipe at the club, but they set themselves up for it when they come out with crap about being powerless to stop players from leaving the club and then going on to fail to land targets who want to come here for exactly that reason!

You can't compare Murphy going and us signing players from a league above.Murphy has probably got a good pay rise moving up a division
We are bringing players in or trying to bring players down a division and they are unlikely to get a pay rise look at it from a players point of
View or would you prefer to slate your club? For not getting it over the line.

 

[Bladesman]

They weren't short of centre half cover though when the window was open. I wasn't asking for his resume, I was asking why we couldn't get the deal over the line before the window closed.
How long have we been scouting this player? What due diligence did we do? Or was this a last minute knee jerk reaction when Nigel 2 realised Nigel 1 was correct in his assessment that Collins is a bit shit?

I think we just wait for our problems to get worse and then go "Oh quick, quick lets try and sign that player."

 

[BushBlade]

I think we just wait for our problems to get worse and then go "Oh quick, quick lets try and sign that player."

That's what it looks like from the outside.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

That's what it looks like from the outside.

No doubt many thought that Edgar was signed because of the defensive failings at Gillingham. Only both player and manager had said it had been in the pipeline before then, and Adkins said it was intended to be completed before the Gills game but the player's club delayed it. Not dissimilar to the current situation with Burn really.

 

[Revolution]

Of course you don't HAVE to relent to a player's wishes if they are under contract, but it often makes good business sense to do so. Football clubs, whether you like it or not, are businesses first and foremost. That is the reality. If fans want their clubs to ultimately be successful, they must accept that they have to be run as a business in order to stay competitive in the long run. Let's take the sale of Murphy as the most recent example. What did we pay for Murphy? £150k? We got a minimum of £1.5m for him, as well as two and a half seasons worth of game time. That to me is good business, particularly as it leaves room for the likes of Ché Adams and our other youngsters to get more game time and bring on their development. Would we have preferred to hang onto Murphy? I think most would have liked to have him for longer, but he had decided that he wanted to progress to the next level. Fair enough.

To refuse a player's transfer request impacts on his happiness, which will affect his performances. It can also spread to other members of the squad, which impacts on team performances. If they are not performing as well, their valuation goes down, meaning that if and when the club finally decide to get rid, they will get less back than they would have had they sold the player earlier. It's bad for the player, it's bad for the club. Contrary to what many United fans seem to think, the board are not idiots. They are businessmen, and that means keeping the long term view firmly in mind when making decisions, such as whether to sell a player or not. Personally, I'm happy to leave the people with access to all the information (such as Jim Phipps) to make decisions as best they can. It's their job to ensure United are successful ffs, they're not trying to fail! I'm so fucking fed up of Blades who jump on their backs at every opportunity, when they know the square root of fuck all about what really goes on behind the scenes.

There are some good points here...but the last time I checked we have been in league one for five seasons despite our financial advantages. That is a strong indicator that those who control our transfer policy are doing a bad job.