Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
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.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)
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.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.
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.
I think people need to get into the real world Macsuace costs £15 Mill
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.
What's a mcsuace ?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
Both tall, which basically means they're the same type of player in SUFC WorldCompletely different players
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.
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 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.
Ah, I see a fellow student of Amortization and a follower of Pastor Kieron Maguire at the School of Swiss Rambling. Salutations weary traveller..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.
There ends the similaritiesBoth tall, which basically means they're the same type of player in SUFC World
McBurnie is the same height as that other "target man" Harry Kane
Its what you put on your chips at McDonaldsWhat's a mcsuace ?
That would be McsauceIts what you put on your chips at McDonalds
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.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).
If we signed him for rumoured, £17.5m ÷24 goals thats £729,100 per goal in 138 appearances, 13 in championship & 11 premiership
To be fair to my post i never actually said Moore was a similar player to McBurnie.Both tall, which basically means they're the same type of player in SUFC World
McBurnie is the same height as that other "target man" Harry Kane
Or suspendedThis 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.
Anyone paying for Nixon?
Seems he's got a injury or nobody wants him?!
McBurnie suffers massive blow | ReluctantNicko
Get more from ReluctantNicko on Patreonwww.patreon.com
Seems he's injured
If it means nobody comes in with big wages it might be the only way we keep himSee 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?
If it means nobody comes in with big wages it might be the only way we keep him
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?