Rage Online

Is this a good or bad thing?
It would be a real shame to lose the most naturally gifted and only real creative footballer at the club. And he can deliver a decent dead ball.
If it is all down to freeing his wages up and getting a fee for him I wonder if Jim has his eye on a (cheaper) replacement?
If it is all down to freeing up big wages it is a pity we can't move Gilly out. Problem is, he would never command a fee. Giving him two years (particularly at Conference level) was a big error.

For me BAD.

However if Jim can only find a space at left back for his most creative player then we might as well let him go.

Certainly agree about Gilchrist. Presumably he was seen as having some kind of talisman quality, in addition to the experienced pro factor. He has certainly let us down, although we can't be sure about his effect off the pitch.

I generally would like to agree about Burgess, but when he is bad, he is horrid - in this respect, like Hackett. Equally, I'm not sure quite how attractive he would be to another club. The club would need to be large enough to afford AB's wage demands and to have him as a luxury player, but modest enough to require his skills. It would be a gamble to assume that he would turn in a committed performance every week. Such a club may well exist, but I can't see much of a queue.

&quotDLT&quot wrote: However if Jim can only find a space at left back for his most creative player then we might as well let him go.

Let who go, Jim ?

I'd say bad as it could well affect his motivation and attitude to the new season. IF he knows the manager wants to sell him (whatever the reason) then he may become even more peripheral than he has been at times this season. In which case we could have the double whammy of him still taking up a decent wage out of the budget, but contributing even less.

Of course, if the manager was not keen on a few things he may have read in the Daily Mirror through the season, then perhaps the motivation for the move becomes different.....especially bearing in mind the quote from the OM from Burgess &quotclear the manager does not want me here for financial OR WHATEVER reason&quot.


If anyone should have gone on the list to free up funds, then it should have been the two keepers, as having both is a luxury we cannot really afford.
Saying that, I suspect if Turley felt his position was unchallenged, then we might see an increase in his 'antics' and a decrease in form...

Bad generally.

Burgess was beginning to show his best form again by the end of the season.

Its symptomatic of poor management decisions that has meant he has not been allowed to play his proper position in the team.

I imagine his wages must be significant to transfer list him rather than release him, which then begs the question who would be able to afford him? Certainly no one in the Conference, and probably not most of League 2. Clubs will then have to consider a balancing act between his lack of consistency and the level of his wages. This indicates 2 things. First we are overpaying him. Second we are not getting the most from him.

I'd echo the sentiment about the lack of likely queue for his services at relatively high wages. If we reach that conclusion, we have to question whether it is wise to transfer list him, given the effect on his morale, rather than try to create a team which uses him better.

Depends how many other players could be signed for his wages.

Anyone any idea just how much we are paying him?
More or less than Gilly?

Surely Smithy should have said we would like to keep him because he's a quality player but considering he is on good money we will have to listen to offers for him.

Remember Bradbury did a job at a higher level after he left us. And wouldn't Burgess look even better with better players around him?

Of course, the opposite reaction is also possible if Burge isn't actually sold. Look at Yemi this last season, Smith didn't seem to like him or consider him an important part of the squad so Yemi worked hard and got into the team by impressing the manager.

If Burge is a professional, then he should try his hardest anyway, regardless of being on the transfer list, but it would still be in his interest to do so considering getting a decent contract elsewhere when his OUFC one runs out.

that's true mark, but if a player's attitude during a game is indicative of his general attitude, i worry.

odubade is always giving his all, whereas i think burgess often goes missing when a game is going against us. his head goes down easily, and i fear that if he stays at the club, his head will be down.

I will definitely be sorry to see him go. Burge sort of reminds me of Trevor Hebberd, another midfielder who was brilliant on his day but frequently invisible - and who also got heaps of abuse every time he misplaced a pass, at least until the Milk Cup final anyway.

Sadly, getting rid of Burge sends a message that we will be relying on graft in the midfield - or bypassing it altogether again. With the greatest respect to messrs Pettefer, Hutchinson and possibly Foster M, I'm getting heartily fed up with that approach.

Players like Burge - for all their inconsistency - are the reason I keep buying tickets (season or otherwise).

Spot on Shoe.

The removal of Burgess is a clear indication we will give up trying to 'football' our way out of this division.

&quotDLT&quot wrote:Spot on Shoe.

The removal of Burgess is a clear indication we will give up trying to 'football' our way out of this division.

I think its a clear indication of the need to save some pennies.

He hasn't gone yet though right? I can't see anyone paying much for him. He added a touch of class to the team in the conference but was inconsistent and looked lightweight especially against the more physical teams. No one above league two will come in for him surely and there he'll be just as lightweight but have less time on the ball then in the conference.

I hope he stays, bulks up a bit in the summer and proves me wrong.

Well rumour has it that Northampton or Forest may be aftre him.

Good or bad thing? Difficult one. I like Burgess as he has some flair and on form is very good to watch and he can change a game. Trouble is that he can 2-3 games without you even realising that he is on the pitch.

He is one of those players That I think would be better at a higher level playing with better players and not being bypassed by teams hoofing it long.

Clearly we need to save cash, so overall I wonder whether it may be in everybodies interest that he goes.

Noted that Burgess scored for England in the National Game Four Nations Tournament over the weekend.

This could raise his profile (and fee?) if a league club is interested in taking him. Agree with the comment that he might look better at a higher level than in the Conference, so although I'd like to see him stay I would not be at all surprised to see him depart for headier climes before the closed season is over.

Just hope we can use any money wisely, rather than waste it on a fading pro dropping in the other direction..