Mcburnie

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

If we signed him for rumoured, £17.5m ÷24 goals thats £729,100 per goal in 138 appearances, 13 in championship & 11 premiership
 
Last edited:

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...
This maybe true but he is not on the pitch enough. I am not blaming anybody for this but it is a fact. We can't build a side and style of play around a player who is either injured or coming back from injury.
 
nopigfansintown said:
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.
Click to expand...
Outside of the Premier league no one's paying multi millions for anyone and he's clearly not an elite level footballer. I'd happily keep him in the Championship based on a pay as you play basis on greatly reduced terms.
 
Do we even know what the hell is up with him this time?

I like Oli - when he's fit I think he suits us down to the ground and he's a good player at Championship level. His availability is a massive concern though. Provided it's on reduced terms I wouldn't be against giving him another deal but he really needs to be fit more often - I know it's not his fault but it's so fucking frustrating.
 
I think people need to get into the real world Macsuace costs £15 Mill

He has been the main striker or one of them in a prem 9th season and a promotion season

He has more than re-payed his transfer fee

He and Bogle are the two most important contract renewals for me a spine of Hamer/Souza/Bogle/Macsauce in the champ brings us straight back up no messing
 
Cheesebored said:
Outside of the Premier league no one's paying multi millions for anyone and he's clearly not an elite level footballer. I'd happily keep him in the Championship based on a pay as you play basis on greatly reduced terms.
Click to expand...

He'll probably end up at one of the bigger Champ clubs on a much bigger salary than we'll pay him. Leeds or Southampton is my guess. Whichever club doesn't go.up. Maybe Glasgow Rangers.
If he was staying I think it'd be done now.
 
BladeinExile89 said:
I think people need to get into the real world Macsuace costs £15 Mill
Click to expand...

Indeed, still some people here that think that you can get to a match at the Lane, neck half a dozen pints before/after, have a fish supper and still have change for the BFH from a tenner
 
Revolution said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whilst that is true, you can also guarantee Osborn is never going to give a goal away or give the opposition an easy passage.

Like a terrier constantly nipping at ya heels.
 
BladeinExile89 said:
I think people need to get into the real world Macsuace costs £15 Mill

He has been the main striker or one of them in a prem 9th season and a promotion season

He has more than re-payed his transfer fee

He and Bogle are the two most important contract renewals for me a spine of Hamer/Souza/Bogle/Macsauce in the champ brings us straight back up no messing
Click to expand...
What's a mcsuace ?
 
Absolute no-brainer to offer him a new deal and anyone wanting us to get rid is letting their feelings of a player they perhaps don't like on a personal level cloud their judgement.

We're not signing a player at his level in the summer and we're certainly not doing it for free - which he effectively is.

I feel that some fans have a massive problem getting over how much we spent on a player and everything that happens after that only matters in terms of how it reflects back on their fee.

Even if that is important, McBurnie has more than paid back his fee.

Anyone worried about the "loss" in the accounts needs to understand how this actually works. In accounting terms we recorded a significant profit on Berge, by virtue of selling him for ~£15m when his book value was almost nothing.
 
Panini said:
Absolute no-brainer to offer him a new deal and anyone wanting us to get rid is letting their feelings of a player they perhaps don't like on a personal level cloud their judgement.

We're not signing a player at his level in the summer and we're certainly not doing it for free - which he effectively is.

I feel that some fans have a massive problem getting over how much we spent on a player and everything that happens after that only matters in terms of how it reflects back on their fee.

Even if that is important, McBurnie has more than paid back his fee.

Anyone worried about the "loss" in the accounts needs to understand how this actually works. In accounting terms we recorded a significant profit on Berge, by virtue of selling him for ~£15m when his book value was almost nothing.
Click to expand...

I find this insulting. I have set out a case for not re-signing McBurnie on the basis of his extremely patchy availability. Personal animus doesn’t come into it. There are good arguments both ways.

And paying back his fee doesn’t come into it, even if that’s correct. We are not paying for past performance, though the club has been daft enough to do so (hello John Fleck).
 
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...
It basically means we need another striker too, to cover for him being out so often. Someone playing more consistently means we need one less player. So in essence, he's even more expensive than just his wages as we are needing to bring others in to fill the gap (i.e. BBD).

The same of course applies to Brewster.
 
Mcburnie would command a signing on fee no matter who he signed for he may be out of contract but any “fee” goes to him
 
Previously in this thread, I've said get rid, but I've changed my mind. His level is Championship (where we're heading), and his only cost to us is a wage, and as the saying goes, I'd rather have him in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
 

Panini said:
Absolute no-brainer to offer him a new deal and anyone wanting us to get rid is letting their feelings of a player they perhaps don't like on a personal level cloud their judgement.

We're not signing a player at his level in the summer and we're certainly not doing it for free - which he effectively is.

I feel that some fans have a massive problem getting over how much we spent on a player and everything that happens after that only matters in terms of how it reflects back on their fee.

Even if that is important, McBurnie has more than paid back his fee.

Anyone worried about the "loss" in the accounts needs to understand how this actually works. In accounting terms we recorded a significant profit on Berge, by virtue of selling him for ~£15m when his book value was almost nothing.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see a fellow student of Amortization and a follower of Pastor Kieron Maguire at the School of Swiss Rambling. Salutations weary traveller..
 
Revolution said:
I find this insulting. I have set out a case for not re-signing McBurnie on the basis of his extremely patchy availability. Personal animus doesn’t come into it. There are good arguments both ways.

And paying back his fee doesn’t come into it, even if that’s correct. We are not paying for past performance, though the club has been daft enough to do so (hello John Fleck).
Click to expand...
I was replying to the OP and had read hardly any other comments. The points are valid but I still feel are undermined by McBurnie being an asset when under contract, as he has resale value.

If other clubs are interested in him, that should reassure us that there would be buyers if we decide to sell in the future. If there aren't other clubs interested, that should enable us to renew at a lower cost. There will be agent fees, "loyalty" bonuses etc, but it's hard to ignore that we would struggle to get someone of the same calibre for the same outlay.

He might not sign anyway, but for the club to choose to let him go would be economic lunacy.

There was of course no offence intended - you must be aware how small the minority advocating McBurnie's release but not swayed by his transfer fee or off-pitch travails is. To my consciousness it's a minority of one.
 
Pintor75 said:
If we signed him for rumoured, £17.5m ÷24 goals thats £729,100 per goal in 138 appearances, 13 in championship & 11 premiership
Click to expand...

True although despite my criticism of him endlessly since he arrived. You can argue his goals last season alongside Ndiaye's to help got us promoted again has paid for his transfer fee along with the the few goals he scored in his first season to help keep us in the PL.

Brewster on the other hand...
 
mattbianco1 said:
Both tall, which basically means they're the same type of player in SUFC World :rolleyes:

McBurnie is the same height as that other "target man" Harry Kane
Click to expand...
To be fair to my post i never actually said Moore was a similar player to McBurnie.

But going on height they are a similar built so if CW is wanting to go long (And we have no McBurnie) in a game he's not going to put Traore on instead of a Moore type player. That i suppose is the one similarity.
 
Last edited:
I like McBurnie but surely we cant afford a player on his wages to play half a season?

I keep seeing people wanting other affordable suggestions which isnt easy to find.

Most Blades do rate OM but also they see a player with a poor injury record and return.
 
Bladesman said:
See this... this is why we probably wouldn't want to renew his contract.

Contributes more than Brewster by a fair chalk but do we ever get more than 10 games of him fully fit?
Click to expand...
If it means nobody comes in with big wages it might be the only way we keep him 🤣
 

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