The language used is strange, such as 'It's a non starter - at the moment' Does that mean in 4 weeks it might be a starter? Or in January it might be a starter? Or perhaps if the finance of the deal was restructured in our favour, then it might be a starter. It suggests, with the use of the language that the door isn't completely closed?
Phil Buckingham tweeted earlier that the deal is dead. City think it's too big a risk and have no interest in a deal at any price.
I just got the impression it's not a permanent problem - it's fixable - and a fit Austin is something Bruce would consider in the future, but it's something that needs fixing, and it's not something a new club would risk; which is a very awkward situation for both Austin and Burnley, not long left on his contract and needing surgery to pass a medical elsewhere. Phil Buckingham is getting his info from the club and seemed pretty adamant this lunchtime that this ship had sailed.
When you look across the media all quotes from Bruce certainly don't give that impression. Probably is for the best, but I just found it strange reading articles that contradicted 'completely dead' tweets from Bucko.
Small problem would be masked by a snag in negotiations whilst further tests are carried out.Public withdrawal at such a late stage means its a massive problem which probably can not be easily sorted.
His knee is bad and will degenerate without surgery. Means no insurance cover and the inevitability that he will either crock or be under the knife. For that price it isn't an option. Also, for free it isn't an option as a multi year deal with good wages to have surgery isn't on. I.e. a complete non starter. If he had it sorted and does a year rehab maybe but this isn't a bargaining tool. We won't be going back for a cheeky offer. Shame all round. I bet he has some serious cartiledge or cruciate issues - at a guess
Look ffs. Don't some of you remember Jimmy Bullard and what it cost the club because of daft twats like Duffen who allowed the money to be spent on 4 YEAR deal when they knew full well he had glass knees. Do you seriously think the ALLAMS never mind SB would allow the same mistake to happen again. The club is being run responsibly now and there was a lot of doubt about his knee. What more do some of you people want having been taken for a ride big style before. History has a way of coming back and kicking you in the balls if you take the chance and let it.
Calm down Sunn. I wasn't suggesting that we do sign him, I suggested the language Bruce has been repeatedly quoted in the press, doesn't suggest it is dead. Bullard was ****ed before he arrived having had major ligament repairs, but Bullard was just a complete bell end. Turn the table the other way, one of our ex players has had multiple knee repairs and ligament damage - he served the club excellently - Richard Garcia. Austin has hardly missed any football - I understand the reasons for not wanting to 'risk' a fee, given previous experience, but not all cases are the same.
There is but with footballers it's not worth it. There's so many players to cover that you would be better off just paying the medical bills when they are incurred.
That's not true, most Premier League clubs have insurance that cover the team as a whole, the players can also take out additional cover themselves, to cover loss of bonuses, appearance fees etc... Professional football insurance cover is defined under two main categories; 1. Career ending insurance - Permanent total disablement offering a fixed capital sum in the event of a career ending injury and death cover providing a lump sum payment to your chosen beneficiary in the event of your death. 2. Temporary total disablement which offers a fixed rate weekly loss of earning compensation in the event of a long term temporary injury. Many players are covered through their clubs for 18 months of injury but may lose out on bonuses and other incentives which a player relies on. The 'total disablement' element is defined as an injury which prevents a player from playing as they are contracted to. The premiums are based upon the value of a players contract which is usually around 5 or 6 times the annual salary of a player, however this is dependant upon the individual circumstances of the player. Other factors such as the players age, position played and at what level and with which club are also taken into consideration. http://www.footballclubinsurance.co.uk/professional-sports-insurance
I guess it will be similar to private medical insurance cover, more or less any conditions you have at the point of taking out the policy are not covered, unless I guess you might be able to pay a much higher premium.
Seems the lad still has a future at Burnley. http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/10537072._/? Should hope they protect their investment and get that knee sorted.
It will be interesting to see when he does leave Burnley what sort of a fee they get, particularly now news of this knee problem is out in the public domain.
Exactly. But if we stay up, he has another very good season and he is available on a free next summer and doesn't command huge wages, would be worth a punt.
Really, they felt a year of him was worth £4.5M to them. Now nobody will risk that followed by a long contract's worth of wages they should be keeping him and using him to try and get promoted. The £2.5M (reported) they would be turning down wouldn't get anywhere near finding someone of the same quality without it being a risk, and they're only risking losing the player for the rest of the season rather than into the following season as well. To sell him for less now would smack of conceding the chances of a good season.
I think there's plenty of competent Championship standard strikers they could pick up for £2m to £2.5m. Wigan have just signed Holt for a similar sum. Suggestions are that it is Burnley now offering the player to clubs that are interested and have cash. So his value to them is more important in cash than a season of football and moving on a free.
