Burn Gone

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Burn Gone

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:34 pm

Mutual Consent, according to the official site.

I wonder if the FA Cup prize money gave us the funds to pay the waster off?
We are Darlo! We know our shitt! If we say it's 1-2-0-1-1-3-0-1-1 then you better believe it! La la la oo, la la la oo (clap, clap, clap, clap)

JasonDeVos
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:51 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by JasonDeVos » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:39 pm

Amazing what you can do with prize money! Wonder if he will turn up anywhere else or that’s him finished?

LoidLucan
Posts: 2992
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by LoidLucan » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:04 pm

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.

PierremontQuaker03
Posts: 1799
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:53 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by PierremontQuaker03 » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:14 pm

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

PierremontQuaker03
Posts: 1799
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:53 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by PierremontQuaker03 » Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pm

LoidLucan wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:04 pm
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.
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

spen666
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by spen666 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 am

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pm
LoidLucan wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:04 pm
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.
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.

H1987
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by H1987 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:53 am

PierremontQuaker03 wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pm
LoidLucan wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:04 pm
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.
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.
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.

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.

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5505
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:15 am

H1987 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:53 am
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.
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.

Comfortably_numb
Posts: 1911
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:23 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by Comfortably_numb » Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:45 am

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.

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 am

spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 am
PierremontQuaker03 wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pm
LoidLucan wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:04 pm
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.
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.
Captain Obvious.

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.
We are Darlo! We know our shitt! If we say it's 1-2-0-1-1-3-0-1-1 then you better believe it! La la la oo, la la la oo (clap, clap, clap, clap)

spen666
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by spen666 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 am
spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 am
PierremontQuaker03 wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pm
LoidLucan wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:04 pm
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.
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.
Captain Obvious.

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

H1987
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by H1987 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 am
spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 am
PierremontQuaker03 wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pm
LoidLucan wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:04 pm
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.
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.
Captain Obvious.

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.
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.

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.

User avatar
Breedon
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:10 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by Breedon » Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:59 pm

H1987 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:08 pm
Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 am
spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 am
PierremontQuaker03 wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pm
LoidLucan wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:04 pm
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.
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.
Captain Obvious.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

LoidLucan
Posts: 2992
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by LoidLucan » Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:03 pm

I'm not surprised you forgot about Henshall....

User avatar
Breedon
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:10 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by Breedon » Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:47 pm

LoidLucan wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:03 pm
I'm not surprised you forgot about Henshall....
He was very forgettable :lol:

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 12101
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by Darlo_Pete » Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:28 pm

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.

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1654
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by don'tbuythesun » Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:59 pm

He certainly wasn't a god!!

HarryCharltonsCat
Posts: 983
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by HarryCharltonsCat » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:17 pm

H1987 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:08 pm
Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 am
spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 am
PierremontQuaker03 wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:16 pm
LoidLucan wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:04 pm
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.
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.
Captain Obvious.

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.
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.

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.
Anyone who thought Ainge and Styche were similar needed a new guide dog.

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by D_F_C » Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:59 am

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

MB86DFC
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:50 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by MB86DFC » Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:16 am

D_F_C wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:59 am
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
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?

lo36789
Posts: 8180
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Burn Gone

Post by lo36789 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:23 am

spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pm
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
I’ll bite on this one which law says that a competition couldn’t set this in their competition rules?

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...

MCFCDarlo3
Posts: 703
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:28 pm
Team Supported: Manc born Darlo & City
Location: Manchester

Re: Burn Gone

Post by MCFCDarlo3 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:25 am

MB86DFC wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:16 am
D_F_C wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:59 am
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
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?
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.

Hes gone now, obviously something not right with him.

spen666
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by spen666 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:58 am

lo36789 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:23 am
spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pm
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
I’ll bite on this one which law says that a competition couldn’t set this in their competition rules?

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...
Its classed as restraint of trade. It's why the authorities in all sports have avoided this route.

Even to have a cap on total squad salaries is very difficult.

I agree re ways round it

H1987
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by H1987 » Sun Oct 13, 2019 9:58 am

HarryCharltonsCat wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:17 pm
H1987 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:08 pm
Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:20 am
spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:45 am
PierremontQuaker03 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.
Captain Obvious.

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.
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.

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.
Anyone who thought Ainge and Styche were similar needed a new guide dog.
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.

But you're right. There was next to no similarity in the end. Styche was good. Ainge was rubbish.

HarryCharltonsCat
Posts: 983
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by HarryCharltonsCat » Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:38 am

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.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:46 am

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.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

EDJOHNS
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:06 pm

spen666 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:58 am
lo36789 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:23 am
spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pm
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
I’ll bite on this one which law says that a competition couldn’t set this in their competition rules?

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...
Its classed as restraint of trade. It's why the authorities in all sports have avoided this route.

Even to have a cap on total squad salaries is very difficult.

I agree re ways round it
Please explain

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.

spen666
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by spen666 » Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:56 pm

EDJOHNS wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:06 pm
spen666 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:58 am
lo36789 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:23 am
spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pm
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
I’ll bite on this one which law says that a competition couldn’t set this in their competition rules?

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...
Its classed as restraint of trade. It's why the authorities in all sports have avoided this route.

Even to have a cap on total squad salaries is very difficult.

I agree re ways round it
Please explain

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.
You obviously havent read what I put.

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

EDJOHNS
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:49 pm

spen666 wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:56 pm
EDJOHNS wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:06 pm
spen666 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:58 am
lo36789 wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:23 am
spen666 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:00 pm
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
I’ll bite on this one which law says that a competition couldn’t set this in their competition rules?

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...
Its classed as restraint of trade. It's why the authorities in all sports have avoided this route.

Even to have a cap on total squad salaries is very difficult.

I agree re ways round it
Please explain

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.
You obviously havent read what I put.

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
It avoids "restraint of trade" but has the effect. Which is why they went that way.

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Burn Gone

Post by D_F_C » Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:50 am

how does a transfer window work in terms of 'restraint of trade'. Surely this is restrictive?

Post Reply