ARTICLE: Green departs Burnley for Denmark

[ClaretTony]

Goalkeeper moves on

See link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/green-depa ... or-denmark

[SirBob]

Any mention of a fee?

[Nonayforever]

Don't know anything about Etienne, never seen him play, haven't read any reports on him and couldn't tell you what we bought him for or sold him for, but what I do know is that it appears to be the kind of transfer that needed luck for it to work. Playing an expensive game that relies on luck to make money isn't a sound business plan in my world. Luck only lasts for so long.
If anyone knows of a sound rationale for the transfer I would be interested to know.

[CoolClaret]

Don't know anything about Etienne, never seen him play, haven't read any reports on him and couldn't tell you what we bought him for or sold him for, but what I do know is that it appears to be the kind of transfer that needed luck for it to work. Playing an expensive game that relies on luck to make money isn't a sound business plan in my world. Luck only lasts for so long.
If anyone knows of a sound rationale for the transfer I would be interested to know.

We needed a competent 2nd choice keeper last season just incase Traff left.

He didn't thus Green became 3rd choice... Now Hladky has moved down to 3rd choice and Green's gone.

Nothing wrong with any of that, even if we lost money - it was a position of need.

[bobinho]

Don't know anything about Etienne, never seen him play, haven't read any reports on him and couldn't tell you what we bought him for or sold him for, but what I do know is that it appears to be the kind of transfer that needed luck for it to work. Playing an expensive game that relies on luck to make money isn't a sound business plan in my world. Luck only lasts for so long.
If anyone knows of a sound rationale for the transfer I would be interested to know.

Even if no one knows, I doubt they’d be likely to guess and come up with what you have. I’m trying to find a word for it, but I can’t get past “bizarre”….

[randomclaret2]

It was worth signing him for the mere fact that we can say we signed a player from St Etienne , who famously play in green, called Etienne Green.

[ClaretTony]

It was worth signing him for the mere fact that we can say we signed a player from St Etienne , who famously play in green, called Etienne Green.

And a player who was called Etienne because his mum was from there even though he was born in Colchester.

I think I saw him play once, maybe twice for the under-21s.

[FeedTheArf]

Another one off the wage bill. Good to see!

[ClaretTony]

Another one off the wage bill. Good to see!

Or maybe not - I can't imagine the club he's gone to being able to pay him what he was on at Burnley so we are potentially paying a good portion of his wages still.

[dvalley69]

Or maybe not - I can't imagine the club he's gone to being able to pay him what he was on at Burnley so we are potentially paying a good portion of his wages still.

Weird if he's signed for them permanently but we're still paying him.

[Pearcey]

Weird if he's signed for them permanently but we're still paying him.

Didn’t something similar happen with Leeds years ago? Can remember them having to sell players but still pay a portion of their wage.

[Claretnbluebiscuit]

Don't know anything about Etienne, never seen him play, haven't read any reports on him and couldn't tell you what we bought him for or sold him for, but what I do know is that it appears to be the kind of transfer that needed luck for it to work. Playing an expensive game that relies on luck to make money isn't a sound business plan in my world. Luck only lasts for so long.
If anyone knows of a sound rationale for the transfer I would be interested to know.

He was very highly rated. The BBC named him as the most exciting young goalkeeping prospect in Europe a few years ago. He was in the England U21 squad at the time and playing first team top flight football for St Etienne.

[wilks_bfc]

Didn’t something similar happen with Leeds years ago? Can remember them having to sell players but still pay a portion of their wage.

Robbie Fowler

They were still paying part of his wage at Man City

In fact I think they may have still been paying what he was owed after he retired from playing

[FeedTheArf]

Or maybe not - I can't imagine the club he's gone to being able to pay him what he was on at Burnley so we are potentially paying a good portion of his wages still.

Granted. But presumably that was the best deal on the table and he was never going to feature for us so he might aswell move on.

I imagine there’ll be a few in a similar situation where we’ll have to do some form of payoff or wage subsidy to move them on.

[KellyClaret]

Generally when there's a permanent transfer the selling club and the player will reach an agreement on some sort of settlement rather than continue to pay a portion of his wage

[Pearcey]

Robbie Fowler

They were still paying part of his wage at Man City

In fact I think they may have still been paying what he was owed after he retired from playing

Thought it was Fowler. What a mess they were in.

[JR1882]

Weird if he's signed for them permanently but we're still paying him.

It’s quite commonplace and something that often makes transfers drag on. It’s better to pay some wages of a player you’re never going to use rather than all of the wages of a player you’re never going to use, especially if you can get a fee too. It’s generally only upto the end of the contract at the selling club too, it doesn’t form any part of a new deal at a new club.

[ClaretTony]

Weird if he's signed for them permanently but we're still paying him.

Far from weird. Didn’t we benefit similarly with Man City paying a sizeable amount of Joe Hart’s wage?

[ecc]

I thought that happened with Rooney when he returned to Everton. He was widely reported to be on £15m p.a. and no way were Everton able to match that.

[NewClaret]

Don't know anything about Etienne, never seen him play, haven't read any reports on him and couldn't tell you what we bought him for or sold him for, but what I do know is that it appears to be the kind of transfer that needed luck for it to work. Playing an expensive game that relies on luck to make money isn't a sound business plan in my world. Luck only lasts for so long.
If anyone knows of a sound rationale for the transfer I would be interested to know.

I would think the answer to this is that we needed a cheap 3rd choice keeper and he fitted the bill. Burnley said we paid an undisclosed fee but Transfermarkt have it down as a free transfer. I can’t imagine he cost a lot, whatever it is.

Obviously we lost on this one but every football transfer relies on an element of luck and we’ve undoubtedly made a lot more good signings than bad recently.