Burn Gone
-
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Burn Gone
Mutual Consent, according to the official site.
I wonder if the FA Cup prize money gave us the funds to pay the waster off?
I wonder if the FA Cup prize money gave us the funds to pay the waster off?
-
- Posts: 275
- Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:51 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
Amazing what you can do with prize money! Wonder if he will turn up anywhere else or that’s him finished?
Re: Burn Gone
It's really sad that the signing of a Darlington lad should have turned into this awful saga. Whatever the rights and wrongs, thank God it has finally been brought to an end.
-
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:53 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
I think the unwillingness to go out on loan says a lot. Best scenario him going, local lad that has not done himself any favours.
“If you can't hit a driver, don't.”
Greg Norman
Greg Norman
-
- Posts: 2190
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:53 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
We should not be offering 2 year contracts to anybody, ok Galbraith and Thommo are exceptions but this has been worse than the James Caton saga.
“If you can't hit a driver, don't.”
Greg Norman
Greg Norman
Re: Burn Gone
PierremontQuaker03 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pmWe should not be offering 2 year contracts to anybody, ok Galbraith and Thommo are exceptions but this has been worse than the James Caton saga.
If other sides are offering 2 year contracts, then to attract players, Darlington are going to have to either match contract lengths, or pay higher wages than rivals.
If you offer less security to employees than your rivals and do not compensate for this by offering higher wages, then the majority of people are going to chose a different employer.
Re: Burn Gone
I'd alter that to we shouldn't be offering them to players who aren't a sure fire thing. Spen is right somewhat, you've got to offer these contracts sometimes to get ahead of your rivals. I'd be entirely relaxed about us handing them to all the lads from Blyth this year, as they're all clearly proven at this level. Tommo and Galbraith would be others for sure. Fitness records also have to be important. This should've disqualified Ainge, for example.PierremontQuaker03 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pmWe should not be offering 2 year contracts to anybody, ok Galbraith and Thommo are exceptions but this has been worse than the James Caton saga.
We've been stung with numpties by both MG and TW. TW for clearly chucking far too large wages at players and leaving us with a crippled, tiny squad. MG for also being reckless with money, but in another way. I'd be depressingly confident that Ainge and Burn were on more than Caton.
-
- Posts: 6010
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
All on very similar from my understanding both Gray and Wright got carried away with spend v's quality. They obvisouly believed that Ainge, Burn and Caton were all worth top end wages on 2 year contracts, which those decisons ultimately cost the club.
-
- Posts: 2084
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:23 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
it doesn't look great that Burn didn't want to go on loan.....let's see if any more info comes out of the wash - there might be reasons behind what's happened in his time with him.
-
- Posts: 1626
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
Captain Obvious.spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 amPierremontQuaker03 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pmWe should not be offering 2 year contracts to anybody, ok Galbraith and Thommo are exceptions but this has been worse than the James Caton saga.
If other sides are offering 2 year contracts, then to attract players, Darlington are going to have to either match contract lengths, or pay higher wages than rivals.
If you offer less security to employees than your rivals and do not compensate for this by offering higher wages, then the majority of people are going to chose a different employer.
Trouble is that other sides are offering longer contracts AND higher wages than we can pay?
We simply can't pay more than other clubs who in their desperation to be taken seriously can afford to offer £950 a week on a 2 year deal with a £20,000 signing on fee for a player. Neither can we afford to offer a nice wedge on a 2 year contract to a previous 20 goal a season man, then bench him week in week out.
If only we could attract the sort of sustainable "sponsorship" that some other clubs can - but to be honest even if we could I would be uncomfortable offering a ludicrous wage to a part time level 6 player.
Re: Burn Gone
Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 amCaptain Obvious.spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 amPierremontQuaker03 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pmWe should not be offering 2 year contracts to anybody, ok Galbraith and Thommo are exceptions but this has been worse than the James Caton saga.
If other sides are offering 2 year contracts, then to attract players, Darlington are going to have to either match contract lengths, or pay higher wages than rivals.
If you offer less security to employees than your rivals and do not compensate for this by offering higher wages, then the majority of people are going to chose a different employer.
Trouble is that other sides are offering longer contracts AND higher wages than we can pay?
We simply can't pay more than other clubs who in their desperation to be taken seriously can afford to offer £950 a week on a 2 year deal with a £20,000 signing on fee for a player. Neither can we afford to offer a nice wedge on a 2 year contract to a previous 20 goal a season man, then bench him week in week out.
If only we could attract the sort of sustainable "sponsorship" that some other clubs can - but to be honest even if we could I would be uncomfortable offering a ludicrous wage to a part time level 6 player.
Unless you can introduce individual player wage caps, (which is illegal), then you are left in the stupid financial situation where clubs at all levels are paying far more than is viable competing for the holy grail of promotion.
The money clubs are paying in wages is ridiculous across football in general
Re: Burn Gone
Thing is, and it should've been obvious to a good manager, was that Ainge was obviously a strange signing at the time when we had Styche. It was said on here, and at games, how obviously similar the two were, and Styche was just better. I'm not sure how TW thought they would work as a front two.Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 amCaptain Obvious.spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 amPierremontQuaker03 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pmWe should not be offering 2 year contracts to anybody, ok Galbraith and Thommo are exceptions but this has been worse than the James Caton saga.
If other sides are offering 2 year contracts, then to attract players, Darlington are going to have to either match contract lengths, or pay higher wages than rivals.
If you offer less security to employees than your rivals and do not compensate for this by offering higher wages, then the majority of people are going to chose a different employer.
Trouble is that other sides are offering longer contracts AND higher wages than we can pay?
We simply can't pay more than other clubs who in their desperation to be taken seriously can afford to offer £950 a week on a 2 year deal with a £20,000 signing on fee for a player. Neither can we afford to offer a nice wedge on a 2 year contract to a previous 20 goal a season man, then bench him week in week out.
If only we could attract the sort of sustainable "sponsorship" that some other clubs can - but to be honest even if we could I would be uncomfortable offering a ludicrous wage to a part time level 6 player.
Ironically, Ainge seemed to lose all ability to play up front, and we lost Styche as a consequence of signing Ainge, because we had to trim the wage bill and he was the saleable asset. An absolute horror show of a decision, which was above all else, entirely unnecessary.
I think having a clear wage structure, but also a sensible manager, is absolutely key. The wage structure was bent too much for Gray, and for Wright, we kept the wage structure tight, but then he used it horribly, with near disastrous consequences. Overall, I think Wrights successor was given a club in a better place than it was when he took it over, but that doesn't excuse some very poor use of money.
Re: Burn Gone
Think its only fair to point out Wright actually did sign us some good players through his Nuneaton experience (Trotman, Elliott and Nicholson all had very good showings last season) and made a great decision with an outstanding short term loan of Nelson as well as Jake Turner in goal. Where Wright got it wrong was all of his big signings. Maddison was a considerable downgrade in goal and needed replacing towards the end of the season, Ainge was a steady defender but on star striker wages, Hughes was about 3 stone overweight and Burn was a complete waste of space.H1987 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:08 pmThing is, and it should've been obvious to a good manager, was that Ainge was obviously a strange signing at the time when we had Styche. It was said on here, and at games, how obviously similar the two were, and Styche was just better. I'm not sure how TW thought they would work as a front two.Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 amCaptain Obvious.spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 amPierremontQuaker03 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pmWe should not be offering 2 year contracts to anybody, ok Galbraith and Thommo are exceptions but this has been worse than the James Caton saga.
If other sides are offering 2 year contracts, then to attract players, Darlington are going to have to either match contract lengths, or pay higher wages than rivals.
If you offer less security to employees than your rivals and do not compensate for this by offering higher wages, then the majority of people are going to chose a different employer.
Trouble is that other sides are offering longer contracts AND higher wages than we can pay?
We simply can't pay more than other clubs who in their desperation to be taken seriously can afford to offer £950 a week on a 2 year deal with a £20,000 signing on fee for a player. Neither can we afford to offer a nice wedge on a 2 year contract to a previous 20 goal a season man, then bench him week in week out.
If only we could attract the sort of sustainable "sponsorship" that some other clubs can - but to be honest even if we could I would be uncomfortable offering a ludicrous wage to a part time level 6 player.
Ironically, Ainge seemed to lose all ability to play up front, and we lost Styche as a consequence of signing Ainge, because we had to trim the wage bill and he was the saleable asset. An absolute horror show of a decision, which was above all else, entirely unnecessary.
I think having a clear wage structure, but also a sensible manager, is absolutely key. The wage structure was bent too much for Gray, and for Wright, we kept the wage structure tight, but then he used it horribly, with near disastrous consequences. Overall, I think Wrights successor was given a club in a better place than it was when he took it over, but that doesn't excuse some very poor use of money.
As for Burn, I think everything speaks for itself. I'd be surprised if anyone, even Northern League clubs want anything to do with him. He seems to have no interest in football anymore.
Re: Burn Gone
I'm not surprised you forgot about Henshall....
-
- Posts: 14113
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Ainge probably on paper seemed like a good signing at the time, but we seem to get more than our share off duffers that seemed to be god at the time.
- don'tbuythesun
- Posts: 2413
- Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
He certainly wasn't a god!!
-
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
Anyone who thought Ainge and Styche were similar needed a new guide dog.H1987 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:08 pmThing is, and it should've been obvious to a good manager, was that Ainge was obviously a strange signing at the time when we had Styche. It was said on here, and at games, how obviously similar the two were, and Styche was just better. I'm not sure how TW thought they would work as a front two.Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 amCaptain Obvious.spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 amPierremontQuaker03 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pmWe should not be offering 2 year contracts to anybody, ok Galbraith and Thommo are exceptions but this has been worse than the James Caton saga.
If other sides are offering 2 year contracts, then to attract players, Darlington are going to have to either match contract lengths, or pay higher wages than rivals.
If you offer less security to employees than your rivals and do not compensate for this by offering higher wages, then the majority of people are going to chose a different employer.
Trouble is that other sides are offering longer contracts AND higher wages than we can pay?
We simply can't pay more than other clubs who in their desperation to be taken seriously can afford to offer £950 a week on a 2 year deal with a £20,000 signing on fee for a player. Neither can we afford to offer a nice wedge on a 2 year contract to a previous 20 goal a season man, then bench him week in week out.
If only we could attract the sort of sustainable "sponsorship" that some other clubs can - but to be honest even if we could I would be uncomfortable offering a ludicrous wage to a part time level 6 player.
Ironically, Ainge seemed to lose all ability to play up front, and we lost Styche as a consequence of signing Ainge, because we had to trim the wage bill and he was the saleable asset. An absolute horror show of a decision, which was above all else, entirely unnecessary.
I think having a clear wage structure, but also a sensible manager, is absolutely key. The wage structure was bent too much for Gray, and for Wright, we kept the wage structure tight, but then he used it horribly, with near disastrous consequences. Overall, I think Wrights successor was given a club in a better place than it was when he took it over, but that doesn't excuse some very poor use of money.
Re: Burn Gone
I understand that AA has tried everything with Burn. Offered him out on loan to Whitby where he would have received same money (with us paying part wages). Offered to Whickham permanently, in same wages. Offered to train with first team with view to playing RB but made no effort in training so it was shelved. What choice did the club have. Think they needed him out, now let’s draw a line and move on
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Burn Gone
If a player is refusing to cooperate, train, turn up etc (not saying he was, but that is the general feeling in this thread), was the club not in a position to fine his wages / discipline with a view to terminate?D_F_C wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:59 amI understand that AA has tried everything with Burn. Offered him out on loan to Whitby where he would have received same money (with us paying part wages). Offered to Whickham permanently, in same wages. Offered to train with first team with view to playing RB but made no effort in training so it was shelved. What choice did the club have. Think they needed him out, now let’s draw a line and move on
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Burn Gone
I’ll bite on this one which law says that a competition couldn’t set this in their competition rules?spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pmUnless you can introduce individual player wage caps, (which is illegal), then you are left in the stupid financial situation where clubs at all levels are paying far more than is viable competing for the holy grail of promotion.
The money clubs are paying in wages is ridiculous across football in general
I mean it would be pointless because wages would just be paid via another company which didn’t have a controlling share of the football club but still...
-
- Posts: 896
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:28 pm
- Team Supported: Manc born Darlo & City
- Location: Manchester
Re: Burn Gone
Refusing to cooperate,turn up yes but just not being arsed would be a lot harder to prove and probably result in costly litigation proving it.MB86DFC wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:16 amIf a player is refusing to cooperate, train, turn up etc (not saying he was, but that is the general feeling in this thread), was the club not in a position to fine his wages / discipline with a view to terminate?D_F_C wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:59 amI understand that AA has tried everything with Burn. Offered him out on loan to Whitby where he would have received same money (with us paying part wages). Offered to Whickham permanently, in same wages. Offered to train with first team with view to playing RB but made no effort in training so it was shelved. What choice did the club have. Think they needed him out, now let’s draw a line and move on
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hes gone now, obviously something not right with him.
Re: Burn Gone
Its classed as restraint of trade. It's why the authorities in all sports have avoided this route.lo36789 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:23 amI’ll bite on this one which law says that a competition couldn’t set this in their competition rules?spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pmUnless you can introduce individual player wage caps, (which is illegal), then you are left in the stupid financial situation where clubs at all levels are paying far more than is viable competing for the holy grail of promotion.
The money clubs are paying in wages is ridiculous across football in general
I mean it would be pointless because wages would just be paid via another company which didn’t have a controlling share of the football club but still...
Even to have a cap on total squad salaries is very difficult.
I agree re ways round it
Re: Burn Gone
In theory, he's (was?) a big, line leading front man, with a good goals to games ratio. That's what Styche was good at anyway.HarryCharltonsCat wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:17 pmAnyone who thought Ainge and Styche were similar needed a new guide dog.H1987 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:08 pmThing is, and it should've been obvious to a good manager, was that Ainge was obviously a strange signing at the time when we had Styche. It was said on here, and at games, how obviously similar the two were, and Styche was just better. I'm not sure how TW thought they would work as a front two.Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 amCaptain Obvious.spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 amPierremontQuaker03 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pm
We should not be offering 2 year contracts to anybody, ok Galbraith and Thommo are exceptions but this has been worse than the James Caton saga.
If other sides are offering 2 year contracts, then to attract players, Darlington are going to have to either match contract lengths, or pay higher wages than rivals.
If you offer less security to employees than your rivals and do not compensate for this by offering higher wages, then the majority of people are going to chose a different employer.
Trouble is that other sides are offering longer contracts AND higher wages than we can pay?
We simply can't pay more than other clubs who in their desperation to be taken seriously can afford to offer £950 a week on a 2 year deal with a £20,000 signing on fee for a player. Neither can we afford to offer a nice wedge on a 2 year contract to a previous 20 goal a season man, then bench him week in week out.
If only we could attract the sort of sustainable "sponsorship" that some other clubs can - but to be honest even if we could I would be uncomfortable offering a ludicrous wage to a part time level 6 player.
Ironically, Ainge seemed to lose all ability to play up front, and we lost Styche as a consequence of signing Ainge, because we had to trim the wage bill and he was the saleable asset. An absolute horror show of a decision, which was above all else, entirely unnecessary.
I think having a clear wage structure, but also a sensible manager, is absolutely key. The wage structure was bent too much for Gray, and for Wright, we kept the wage structure tight, but then he used it horribly, with near disastrous consequences. Overall, I think Wrights successor was given a club in a better place than it was when he took it over, but that doesn't excuse some very poor use of money.
But you're right. There was next to no similarity in the end. Styche was good. Ainge was rubbish.
-
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
Styche was mobile, ran the channels, had a trick or two, liked to run at defenders. Ainge could head a ball. Not similar at all.
-
- Posts: 6025
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: Burn Gone
Styche also had a much more mobility (when he wasn’t in a strop). Ainge’s injury meant he wasn’t mobile enough to play in that role, beyond being a big target man for us to lump balls towards when we ran out of ideas.
With hindsight, it’s hard to fathom why TW signed him. The style of play TW initially had in mind never suited Ainge’s game.
I will admit that I got very excited by Ainge’s signing. It was a shame it didn’t work out for him but like others have said, I can’t see Ainge ever being a striker.
With hindsight, it’s hard to fathom why TW signed him. The style of play TW initially had in mind never suited Ainge’s game.
I will admit that I got very excited by Ainge’s signing. It was a shame it didn’t work out for him but like others have said, I can’t see Ainge ever being a striker.
Re: Burn Gone
Please explainspen666 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:58 amIts classed as restraint of trade. It's why the authorities in all sports have avoided this route.lo36789 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:23 amI’ll bite on this one which law says that a competition couldn’t set this in their competition rules?spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pmUnless you can introduce individual player wage caps, (which is illegal), then you are left in the stupid financial situation where clubs at all levels are paying far more than is viable competing for the holy grail of promotion.
The money clubs are paying in wages is ridiculous across football in general
I mean it would be pointless because wages would just be paid via another company which didn’t have a controlling share of the football club but still...
Even to have a cap on total squad salaries is very difficult.
I agree re ways round it
Rugby league. ... This country. 1 mil 750 grand MAXIMUM wage cap in SL and less in the Championship no matter how many players you employ. Many clubs do not pay full cap.
2 players who must be named to be allowed to be outside cap and can be paid for by whatever means the club like be that supporters clubbing together or someone sponsoring them for publicity etc.
Of course it can work. That is not in any way "restraint of trade" merely paying what can be afforded.
Re: Burn Gone
You obviously havent read what I put.EDJOHNS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:06 pmPlease explainspen666 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:58 amIts classed as restraint of trade. It's why the authorities in all sports have avoided this route.lo36789 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:23 amI’ll bite on this one which law says that a competition couldn’t set this in their competition rules?spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pmUnless you can introduce individual player wage caps, (which is illegal), then you are left in the stupid financial situation where clubs at all levels are paying far more than is viable competing for the holy grail of promotion.
The money clubs are paying in wages is ridiculous across football in general
I mean it would be pointless because wages would just be paid via another company which didn’t have a controlling share of the football club but still...
Even to have a cap on total squad salaries is very difficult.
I agree re ways round it
Rugby league. ... This country. 1 mil 750 grand MAXIMUM wage cap in SL and less in the Championship no matter how many players you employ. Many clubs do not pay full cap.
2 players who must be named to be allowed to be outside cap and can be paid for by whatever means the club like be that supporters clubbing together or someone sponsoring them for publicity etc.
Of course it can work. That is not in any way "restraint of trade" merely paying what can be afforded.
I distinguished between individual player salary caps and squad salary limits.
I am fully aware of rugby league squad salary caps. I even mention caps on total squad salaries
Re: Burn Gone
It avoids "restraint of trade" but has the effect. Which is why they went that way.spen666 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:56 pmYou obviously havent read what I put.EDJOHNS wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:06 pmPlease explainspen666 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:58 amIts classed as restraint of trade. It's why the authorities in all sports have avoided this route.lo36789 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:23 amI’ll bite on this one which law says that a competition couldn’t set this in their competition rules?spen666 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pmUnless you can introduce individual player wage caps, (which is illegal), then you are left in the stupid financial situation where clubs at all levels are paying far more than is viable competing for the holy grail of promotion.
The money clubs are paying in wages is ridiculous across football in general
I mean it would be pointless because wages would just be paid via another company which didn’t have a controlling share of the football club but still...
Even to have a cap on total squad salaries is very difficult.
I agree re ways round it
Rugby league. ... This country. 1 mil 750 grand MAXIMUM wage cap in SL and less in the Championship no matter how many players you employ. Many clubs do not pay full cap.
2 players who must be named to be allowed to be outside cap and can be paid for by whatever means the club like be that supporters clubbing together or someone sponsoring them for publicity etc.
Of course it can work. That is not in any way "restraint of trade" merely paying what can be afforded.
I distinguished between individual player salary caps and squad salary limits.
I am fully aware of rugby league squad salary caps. I even mention caps on total squad salaries
Re: Burn Gone
how does a transfer window work in terms of 'restraint of trade'. Surely this is restrictive?