Lee Burge (1 Viewer)

Forums New posts
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Heard a rumour

Signed a new three year contract.
However has a release clause he can activate if he doesn't get 15 games.

Not sure what that says about Joe Murphy, if anything
 
Last edited:
Grendel

Grendel

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
Heard a rumour

Signed a new three year contract.
However has a release clause he can activate if he doesn't get 15 games.

Not sure what that says about Joe Murphy, if anything
Click to expand...

When does that release clause kick in then?
 
K

KersleyDigs

Well-Known Member
Would be 15 games a season surely? Wouldn't make sense otherwise. If true, I think Murphy is going and a cheaper keeper will come in as competition for Burge
 
C

Chez78

New Member
Heard good things about Burge from his loan period and from guys who have access to some of the coaching staff, highly thought of so let's hope he has a good start to his city career cause loosing Murphy will be a big blow.
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
KersleyDigs said:
Would be 15 games a season surely? Wouldn't make sense otherwise. If true, I think Murphy is going and a cheaper keeper will come in as competition for Burge
Click to expand...

I'd imagine sw is right 15 over 3 season. It's different for keepers, they don't get to come on here and there for little 10-20 minute cameo's, they're really hoping for an injury, suspension or loss in form of the number 1 keeper to get their chance. It would be madness to be 15 over a season....murphy plays 2, Burge in for 1, murphy plays 2, Burge in for 1, etc as you couldn't relying having a couple of cup runs...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
It's 15 games next season if the rumour is correct. Hence the Murphy question mark.

Although it maybe just a wise move by both parties if Joe goes lee gets his 15 games and has a three year contract.
If Joe stays Lee can leave of his own free will when he doesn't get the games after providing cover for next year.
 
ccfcway

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
so, Pressley doesnt like loans, angry at the Akpom / donnelly saga

and yet signs a keeper where he has to pay him for at least 15 games

:thinking about:
 
S

skybluelordy87

Guest
Heard somewhere that were releasing Alex got at the end of the season which only leaves us with 2 keepers. So if your rumour is true and burge does leave well only have 1 goalie...
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
ccfcway said:
so, Pressley doesnt like loans, angry at the Akpom / donnelly saga

and yet signs a keeper where he has to pay him for at least 15 games

:thinking about:
Click to expand...

To be fair he doesn't have to play him. If he doesn't then next summer Lee can activate the release clause, if he wants to.


Makes sense both ways to me
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
Probably just a rumour......and a bad one at that ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
ccfcway

ccfcway

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
To be fair he doesn't have to play him. If he doesn't then next summer Lee can activate the release clause, if he wants to.


Makes sense both ways to me
Click to expand...

really ?

Or if with 10 games left, he has only played 6, yet we are in a promotion or more likely, relegation battle, but Pressley wants to keep him, then what ?

Crazy clause.
 
sw88

sw88

Chief Commentator!
The only way that would be a realistic clause is if he was made a 'cup keeper'. A good Capital One Cup (2 or 3 games maybe?) FA Cup (another 2 or 3 games), and playing in the JPT, which in reality, we'd have to go all the way to get even close to 15 in one season (but even that isn't made up of 9 fixtures), or a career threatening / ending injury to Murphy or A N Other
 
K

KersleyDigs

Well-Known Member
So if Burge doean't get 15 games in the three years, he can trigger a release clause? If his deal is three years he can do what he likes! Must be per season....
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
at what point does he have to reach the 15 games by? could be a safety net by the club in case Murph goes but still allowing him to leave if he stays or a replacement comes in. good sense from them if it is.
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
If the rumour us correct it makes sense to me.

JM leaves LB gets his 15 games in the first season and is tied in for another two seasons.

JM stays and signs a 3 year deal himself.

LB spends another season wasted likes this one for him. We have him as cover from him for most the season at the end of the season it would be up to LB if he would like to trigger the release clause or not.

I think it is good business all round.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
SP on the Radio today saying he considered giving Burge a run out , but JM Is on for a complete season of appearances ,playing through Injuries and Illness and Is reluctant to deprive him of that .
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
It doesn't make sense to me, JM goes, LB plays 15 games through necessity, had an absolute mate then automatically had another year.

Every team has 1 first choice keeper and 2 second choice keeper, plus some also have a third choice.

2nd choice keepers only play if the first choice is injured suspended or in horrendous form. That means there are at least 92 keepers that probably play no more than an average of 3-4 games per season if that. All teams need a 2nd choice keeper, preferably one that can put the number 1 keeper under pressure.

If JM stays then there's nothing stopping LB to ask for a loan move, or transfer, or for the club to sell him, or cancel his contract under mutual consent. Although I'm sure LB wants to play a 3 year deal and employment is more beneficial to him than not meeting his appearance clause target (if 1 year) getting released and going to another lower or even non league team and potentially still being second choice.

A clause like that (15 apps in 1 season) makes no sense for a keeper especially a second choice one that will have limited opportunities to feature.

Raimond van de Gouw made just 37 apps in 6 years at united.

Sorry but just can't see them inserting such a clause into a players contract who has yet to even make a first team appearance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
Last edited:
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
It doesn't make sense to me, JM goes, LB plays 15 games through necessity, had an absolute mate then automatically had another year.

Every team has 1 first choice keeper and 2 second choice keeper, plus some also have a third choice.

2nd choice keepers only play if the first choice is injured suspended or in horrendous form. That means there are at least 92 keepers that probably play no more than an average of 3-4 games per season if that. All teams need a 2nd choice keeper, preferably one that can put the number 1 keeper under pressure.

If JM stays then there's nothing stopping LB to ask for a loan move, or transfer, or for the club to sell him, or cancel his contract under mutual consent. Although I'm sure LB wants to play a 3 year deal and employment is more beneficial to him that not meeting his appearance clause target (if 1 year) getting released and going to another lower or even non league team and potentially still being second choice.

A clause like that (15 apps in 1 season) makes no sense for a keeper especially a second choice one that will have limited opportunities to feature.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
Click to expand...

Is see your Logic .

I predict a solution for the third choice and possibly second choice should It all go tits .

Jordan Clarke ..;):)
 
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
wingy said:
Is see your Logic .

I predict a solution for the third choice and possibly second choice should It all go tits .

Jordan Clarke ..;):)
Click to expand...

Might as well....he's pretty much played in every other position!!! ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
stupot07 said:
It doesn't make sense to me, JM goes, LB plays 15 games through necessity, had an absolute mate then automatically had another year.

Every team has 1 first choice keeper and 2 second choice keeper, plus some also have a third choice.

2nd choice keepers only play if the first choice is injured suspended or in horrendous form. That means there are at least 92 keepers that probably play no more than an average of 3-4 games per season if that. All teams need a 2nd choice keeper, preferably one that can put the number 1 keeper under pressure.

If JM stays then there's nothing stopping LB to ask for a loan move, or transfer, or for the club to sell him, or cancel his contract under mutual consent. Although I'm sure LB wants to play a 3 year deal and employment is more beneficial to him than not meeting his appearance clause target (if 1 year) getting released and going to another lower or even non league team and potentially still being second choice.

A clause like that (15 apps in 1 season) makes no sense for a keeper especially a second choice one that will have limited opportunities to feature.

Raimond van de Gouw made just 37 apps in 6 years at united.

Sorry but just can't see them inserting such a clause into a players contract who has yet to even make a first team appearance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
Click to expand...

Re the first paragraph, he will actually get another 2 years.

Re re second paragraph, yes they do ( apart from us)

Re the third paragraph, yes they do but if the first choice keeper has not decided yes or no re a new contract. Your second choice has bags of potential and you do not want to lose them. You are on a tight budget. You want to keep the first choice, however if he goes, second choice might be the best you can actually get.

4th paragraph, nothing to stop him doing that now and JM doing the same and we need to find two new keepers of that standard.

5th paragraph, makes sense to convince him to sign. JM goes he gets at least 15 games to prove himself and get a three year contract.
JM stays he gets to sit and try another season to force the issue ( Joe hart - Shay Given)
If that fails he can move in in the summer and try and reignite his career elsewhere.

Last paragraph what was RVG's pay and what drove him at that stage of his career? Now contrast that to LB.

Sorry but as you have seen from my posting history I am not a fan of most of SISU's decision making,This one they have got it spot on, credit where credit is due

Lets see what next week brings.....,
 
Last edited:
stupot07

stupot07

Well-Known Member
dongonzalos said:
Re the first paragraph, he will actually get another 2 years.

Re re second paragraph, yes they do ( apart from us)

Re the third paragraph, yes they do but if the first choice keeper has not decided yes or no re a new contract. Your second choice has bags of potential and you do not want to lose them. You are on a tight budget. You want to keep the first choice, however if he goes, second choice might be the best you can actually get.

4th paragraph, nothing to stop him doing that now and JM doing the same and we need to find two new keepers of that standard.

5th paragraph, makes sense to convince him to sign. JM goes he gets at least 15 games to prove himself and get a three year contract.
JM stays he gets to sit and try another season to force the issue ( Joe hart - Shay Given)
If that fails he can move in in the summer and try and reignite his career elsewhere.

Last paragraph what was RVG's pay and what drove him at that stage of his career? Now contrast that to LB.

Sorry but as you have seen from my posting history I am not a fan of most of SISU's decision making,This one they have got it spot on, credit where credit is due

Lets see what next week brings.....,
Click to expand...

Sorry Don. Keepers are a different breed to outfield players and have different types of careers, this kind of deal doesn't make sense to me as second keepers rarely play 15 in a season and rarely push the number 1 out. At what 20-21 not failing to get in the starting line up isn't a failure for a keeper,

You said you heard a rumour. Doesn't mean it's true, doesn't mean it's not. But to me for. Back up keeper that clause doesn't make sense for the reasons I've already outlined and I don't particularly agree with your reasoning for including them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors :)
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
From what I heard is was to be LB

Them when people on here explained Allsops background it seems more likely to be him.

However this two matched really do look like a first and second 11
 
D

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
mrtrench said:
Apologies, have seen neither play so interested in your opinion - however I don't understand what this means. Could you expand?
Click to expand...

Sorry keep getting done by predictive text at the moment and I keep forgetting to proof read, my fault :(

These two matches yesterday and today, stand out to me as a first team and reserve team. Burge is appearing in the first team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top