Mcburnie

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Flatulent_Bob said:
Are you including the PL money we had to return and covering the losses of no crowds during covid when calculating the 3 years of PL football?
There was around £140M spent during those 2 PL seasons, nothing coming back in. There's your overspend, and unfortunately it's not a myth.
Click to expand...
What Premier league money we had to return?
Prince said in the podcast we lost 3-4m during no crowds at covid which is very reasonable.
 

s20Blade said:
What Premier league money we had to return?
Prince said in the podcast we lost 3-4m during no crowds at covid which is very reasonable.
Click to expand...
Why are you claiming something is a myth if you don't even know the basics?

It was something like a collective £300m rebate was sought by domestic and foreign broadcasters from the Premier League because they'd not fulfilled their contractual requirements to hold the games.
It's been well documented where the money has all gone, and it's generally been spent in the club. If it's been spend well in hindsight isn't as easy to answer, but we overspent, rolled the dice again in the Championship which nearly broke us, and now have just about settled our accounts.
 
Last edited:
Flatulent_Bob said:
Why are you claiming something is a myth if you don't even know the basics?

It was something like a collective £300m rebate was sought by domestic and foreign broadcasters from the Premier League because they'd not fulfilled their contractual requirements to hold the games.
It's been well documented where the money has all gone, and it's generally been spent in the club. If it's been spend well in hindsight isn't as easy to answer, but we overspent, rolled the dice again in the Championship which nearly broke us, and now have just about settled our accounts.
Click to expand...
Ah right.


So all the clubs that that year faced the same financial repercussions, right?
 
Berkshire Blade said:
Not our top goalscorer. Unlike this year or our last premier league season either.

We will not be signing a better striker than him.
Click to expand...
Why not? We can’t keep paying someone who only plays half the time - he’s effectively costing us twice as much.

He wasn’t our top scorer in the last Premier League season, it was McGoldrick.

He isn’t this season either. He’s tied with Archer - whose goals have all been from open play. McAtee has more goals from open play, too. And he’s level with Hamer.
 
s20Blade said:
Ah right.


So all the clubs that that year faced the same financial repercussions, right?
Click to expand...
It sounds like you’re trying to pivot the point, you were talking about an overspending myth and you didn’t know £20-30m was lost due to Covid.
So we spent over our means the last time we were here (£130m) and also blew the budget in The Championship trying to get back up. We’re around £35m down for this season too.

You now show your working. What was the income to cover that spend, including the loss of ticket sales, sponsorship and TV deal rebate?
 
Berkshire Blade said:
All for sensible better options. Weirdly when you ask people for them they don't have any
Click to expand...
I’m not a scout nor do I watch a lot of football outside of United, so I’m not aware of all the options available.

I am aware that we are paying a player a lot of money to be sat doing nothing for half a year, money which as you say, we don’t have.
 
S64 Blade said:
I don't think it's worth giving him a contract, for the amount we will need to pay him. He only manages about half the games each season. If were to give him a 3 year deal at the end of the season, he'd be 31 when it's up and if his pattern of injuries etc. in his prime years persist (likely) it'll be even more money lost.

A bit of a shame, as I have warmed to him a lot, but I think we need to be practical about it.
Click to expand...
This is the challenge. He’ll be on reasonably good wages. There’s a fair disparity between his pounds per week and his pounds per game at the moment.

I thought the trip to Qatar had fixed him up but he’s out of the squad again.

In his absence maybe Archer can do for us what Jermaine Defoe did for Sunderland.
 
Berkshire Blade said:
All for sensible better options. Weirdly when you ask people for them they don't have any
Click to expand...
It’s always the same.

Look at him last season and his stats one very very good player.

Blades fans seem to hate him in the PL but love him in the championship.
 

It's a pretty simple equation. We have at best two goal scoring bairns on the books next season (Jebbo and Osula). We need four. Where is your money coming from to sign the two strikers to help us get promoted (fees, wages, agent fees etc)?Whatever you think of Mcburnie, some things are undeniable. His record in the Championship is decent. He he has a sizeable transfer value for a Championship club. Indeed, a contracted Mcburnie would be beyond most Champ clubs budgets.

If a likely Championship bound club isn't trying to retain his services they are either experiencing a Wendyesque level of self delusion, or are being backed by somebody with money to burn. Those clubs can afford to look at the forwards that can help them when in the Prem (if the FFP numbers stack up). The business case is that simple. There isn't a Championship club that wouldn't have him as an option despite his limitations. This is a cautionary tale about sunk costs as much as anything else.
 
nopigfansintown said:
It's a pretty simple equation. We have at best two goal scoring bairns on the books next season (Jebbo and Osula). We need four. Where is your money coming from to sign the two strikers to help us get promoted (fees, wages, agent fees etc)?Whatever you think of Mcburnie, some things are undeniable. His record in the Championship is decent. He he has a sizeable transfer value for a Championship club. Indeed, a contracted Mcburnie would be beyond most Champ clubs budgets.

If a likely Championship bound club isn't trying to retain his services they are either experiencing a Wendyesque level of self delusion, or are being backed by somebody with money to burn. Those clubs can afford to look at the forwards that can help them when in the Prem (if the FFP numbers stack up). The business case is that simple. There isn't a Championship club that wouldn't have him as an option despite his limitations. This is a cautionary tale about sunk costs as much as anything else.
Click to expand...

The big issue with McBurnie is his limited availability. Last 4 seasons:

20/21 (38 game season) : 12 starts, 11 sub
21/22 (46 game season): 9 starts, 19 sub
22/23 (46 game season) 25 starts, 13 sub
23/24 (so far 24 games) 9 starts, 4 sub

So out of 154 games, he's started 55, come on as sub 47 times, and not played 52 times. And I would hazard a guess that his unused sub appearances are rare.

So you have a player that's only available for 2 out of 3 games, and only starts 1 out of 3, and this is not due to tactics as he's a first choice. It's fitness and suspensions. That's also undeniable. He's been injured on and off for 4 years, and his disciplinary record isn't helping. Is that someone whose contract you want to renew? Can you rely on him? I think you're wrong. A lot of Championship teams would regard him as someone not to touch because he's not reliable.

McBurnie is really poor value for money. And he won't be free. he will also demand signing on fees, agents fees and wages.

We went down this road with Fleck and Osborn. We have no money to waste. I would want any deal McBurnie signs heavily appearance based, though I know that's not going to happen.

One little factoid that tells you how poor McBurnie's appearance record is. He's scored in his last 4 league appearances at the Lane. Those appearances were spread over 4 months. He's missed 4 home games in that span.
 
We need him when fit as he adds value to the team when he play.
should be signed on a low basic with an appearance and goal assist / goal bonus. This is possibly why it is taking time to sort out.

the likes of Baldock should. Also be on a low basic with appearance bonus
 
Revolution said:
The big issue with McBurnie is his limited availability. Last 4 seasons:

20/21 (38 game season) : 12 starts, 11 sub
21/22 (46 game season): 9 starts, 19 sub
22/23 (46 game season) 25 starts, 13 sub
23/24 (so far 24 games) 9 starts, 4 sub

So out of 154 games, he's started 55, come on as sub 47 times, and not played 52 times. And I would hazard a guess that his unused sub appearances are rare.

So you have a player that's only available for 2 out of 3 games, and only starts 1 out of 3, and this is not due to tactics as he's a first choice. It's fitness and suspensions. That's also undeniable. He's been injured on and off for 4 years, and his disciplinary record isn't helping. Is that someone whose contract you want to renew? Can you rely on him? I think you're wrong. A lot of Championship teams would regard him as someone not to touch because he's not reliable.

McBurnie is really poor value for money. And he won't be free. he will also demand signing on fees, agents fees and wages.

We went down this road with Fleck and Osborn. We have no money to waste. I would want any deal McBurnie signs heavily appearance based, though I know that's not going to happen.

One little factoid that tells you how poor McBurnie's appearance record is. He's scored in his last 4 league appearances at the Lane. Those appearances were spread over 4 months. He's missed 4 home games in that span.
Click to expand...

Was looking at these numbers yesterday myself. The most frustrating thing for me (because an available McBurnie is a no-brainer contract renewal to me) is the fact we only get a few games at a time out of him before he disappears again. A silver lining to a long-term injury is that you can at least give a replacement a proper run in the team; this is just constant disruption and inconvenience.

This season McBurnie has never been available for longer than 6 games in a row, and in that stretch he came on in the 89th minute of one game and didn't leave the bench in another:

1707905963883.png

Luke Thomas has played more minutes for United this season than McBurnie, to date.
 
Revolution said:
The big issue with McBurnie is his limited availability. Last 4 seasons:

20/21 (38 game season) : 12 starts, 11 sub
21/22 (46 game season): 9 starts, 19 sub
22/23 (46 game season) 25 starts, 13 sub
23/24 (so far 24 games) 9 starts, 4 sub

So out of 154 games, he's started 55, come on as sub 47 times, and not played 52 times. And I would hazard a guess that his unused sub appearances are rare.

So you have a player that's only available for 2 out of 3 games, and only starts 1 out of 3, and this is not due to tactics as he's a first choice. It's fitness and suspensions. That's also undeniable. He's been injured on and off for 4 years, and his disciplinary record isn't helping. Is that someone whose contract you want to renew? Can you rely on him? I think you're wrong. A lot of Championship teams would regard him as someone not to touch because he's not reliable.

McBurnie is really poor value for money. And he won't be free. he will also demand signing on fees, agents fees and wages.

We went down this road with Fleck and Osborn. We have no money to waste. I would want any deal McBurnie signs heavily appearance based, though I know that's not going to happen.

One little factoid that tells you how poor McBurnie's appearance record is. He's scored in his last 4 league appearances at the Lane. Those appearances were spread over 4 months. He's missed 4 home games in that span.
Click to expand...

I suppose you could argue that 24 goals in 55 starts is a decent return....if you wanted to spin it that way of course.

I am really split on Oli Mac, I like his passion, he appears to be a very popular figure in the dressing room and I don't think he gets the credit he deserves sometimes for his all round contribution, defensively at times he has been immense.

At the end of the day though he is a striker and is paid to put the ball in the onion bag. He lacks pace but holds the ball up well, he's very good with his feet, (another area he needs to get credit for) but is a target for defenders and referees due to his physical approach so 75% of the time, he doesn't get a free kick or it goes against him. His other weakness is his injury record.

Would I swap him for a big, pacy forward who would frighten the life out of opposition defenders.....probably.....but then you have to accept that you will lose other parts of Oli's game contributions.

Personally I don't think he will sign a new deal as we will probably be offering a pittance!
 
Revolution said:
The big issue with McBurnie is his limited availability. Last 4 seasons:

20/21 (38 game season) : 12 starts, 11 sub
21/22 (46 game season): 9 starts, 19 sub
22/23 (46 game season) 25 starts, 13 sub
23/24 (so far 24 games) 9 starts, 4 sub

So out of 154 games, he's started 55, come on as sub 47 times, and not played 52 times. And I would hazard a guess that his unused sub appearances are rare.

So you have a player that's only available for 2 out of 3 games, and only starts 1 out of 3, and this is not due to tactics as he's a first choice. It's fitness and suspensions. That's also undeniable. He's been injured on and off for 4 years, and his disciplinary record isn't helping. Is that someone whose contract you want to renew? Can you rely on him? I think you're wrong. A lot of Championship teams would regard him as someone not to touch because he's not reliable.

McBurnie is really poor value for money. And he won't be free. he will also demand signing on fees, agents fees and wages.

We went down this road with Fleck and Osborn. We have no money to waste. I would want any deal McBurnie signs heavily appearance based, though I know that's not going to happen.

One little factoid that tells you how poor McBurnie's appearance record is. He's scored in his last 4 league appearances at the Lane. Those appearances were spread over 4 months. He's missed 4 home games in that span.
Click to expand...

Injuries are a genuine factor for consideration. It's a strange one as I don't think he's had a bad one. I think if he was available for 50-60% of games he'd still make any Championship four. What is his transfer value if under contract? No idea really, but I'd guess at 5 -10 million. If he got 10-20 goals next season I wouldn't be shocked.
 
Torrix1889 said:
I suppose you could argue that 24 goals in 55 starts is a decent return....if you wanted to spin it that way of course.

I am really split on Oli Mac, I like his passion, he appears to be a very popular figure in the dressing room and I don't think he gets the credit he deserves sometimes for his all round contribution, defensively at times he has been immense.

At the end of the day though he is a striker and is paid to put the ball in the onion bag. He lacks pace but holds the ball up well, he's very good with his feet, (another area he needs to get credit for) but is a target for defenders and referees due to his physical approach so 75% of the time, he doesn't get a free kick or it goes against him. His other weakness is his injury record.

Would I swap him for a big, pacy forward who would frighten the life out of opposition defenders.....probably.....but then you have to accept that you will lose other parts of Oli's game contributions.

Personally I don't think he will sign a new deal as we will probably be offering a pittance!
Click to expand...

It's 18 goals in 55 starts. The other 6 goals were scored in his first season, which I did not include as he was actually fit (24 starts 12 sub appearances out of 38 games).
 
nopigfansintown said:
Injuries are a genuine factor for consideration. It's a strange one as I don't think he's had a bad one. I think if he was available for 50-60% of games he'd still make any Championship four. What is his transfer value if under contract? No idea really, but I'd guess at 5 -10 million. If he got 10-20 goals next season I wouldn't be shocked.
Click to expand...
If he got 20 I would be shocked as that is very hard to do.

If he got 10 I would not be shocked. he's well capable of that.

Unfortunately, I would also not be shocked if he did not score. He actually did that, in 28 games, 2 seasons ago.

Therein lies the problem. He cannot be relied on.
 
Revolution said:
If he got 20 I would be shocked as that is very hard to do.

If he got 10 I would not be shocked. he's well capable of that.

Unfortunately, I would also not be shocked if he did not score. He actually did that, in 28 games, 2 seasons ago.

Therein lies the problem. He cannot be relied on
Click to expand...
Maybe we have some obscure shit hot foreign strikers lined up that make this all moot. That'd be ideal. At this point I'd be a bit surprised if Mcburnie signed tbh.
We could probably get away with one permanent and one loan.Maybe BBD on loan again, and an.obscure foreign lad for a couple of million. It's going to be interesting.
 
Beans said:
Was looking at these numbers yesterday myself. The most frustrating thing for me (because an available McBurnie is a no-brainer contract renewal to me) is the fact we only get a few games at a time out of him before he disappears again. A silver lining to a long-term injury is that you can at least give a replacement a proper run in the team; this is just constant disruption and inconvenience.

This season McBurnie has never been available for longer than 6 games in a row, and in that stretch he came on in the 89th minute of one game and didn't leave the bench in another:

View attachment 179282

Luke Thomas has played more minutes for United this season than McBurnie, to date.
Click to expand...
Only 3 points from the matches he has played.
 
Down the Channels said:
Only 3 points from the matches he has played.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't put too much stock in that when we've only got 13 total!

In terms of goals scored and conceded when McBurnie's been on the pitch, he's been one of our more effective players. We average a goal difference of -1.26 per 90 minutes when McBurnie's on, which sounds shite (because as a team we are shite) but is bettered only by Archer and Baldock among players who've played more than 500 mins this season.

(Osborn, as you may have heard this week, is the only player in the squad where we have a positive GD during his time on the pitch, but he's not played much)
 
nopigfansintown said:
Injuries are a genuine factor for consideration. It's a strange one as I don't think he's had a bad one. I think if he was available for 50-60% of games he'd still make any Championship four. What is his transfer value if under contract? No idea really, but I'd guess at 5 -10 million. If he got 10-20 goals next season I wouldn't be shocked.
Click to expand...
You think a contracted Mcburnie is worth 5-10 million? Jeez.
 
Beans said:
Wouldn't put too much stock in that when we've only got 13 total!

In terms of goals scored and conceded when McBurnie's been on the pitch, he's been one of our more effective players. We average a goal difference of -1.26 per 90 minutes when McBurnie's on, which sounds shite (because as a team we are shite) but is bettered only by Archer and Baldock among players who've played more than 500 mins this season.

(Osborn, as you may have heard this week, is the only player in the squad where we have a positive GD during his time on the pitch, but he's not played much)
Click to expand...

Since the early part of the season Osborn has been mainly used like a "garbage time reliever" in baseball, i.e. he's been coming in when the game's gone and it doesn't matter. Luton was a notable exception.
 

Cheesebored said:
You think a contracted Mcburnie is worth 5-10 million? Jeez.
Click to expand...

You don't get much striker for that these days.Indeed, an ageing Akpom went for a fee in excess of that after one good Champ season when he was in his late 20s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom