Parkinson says we'll sign a keeper.


Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think Patterson being loaned out is too bad. Pickford has a number of loans before breaking through and Patterson is yet to play senior football.

Didn’t Patterson only sign a 1 year extension though? Doesn’t protect ourselves well if he goes out and performs well.
Yeah but we were Premier league at the time. Pickford went out on loan to clubs in League 1 when he was the same age as Patterson. Yeah he only signed a one year deal so if he does well he'll probably be off.
 
I can’t believe we are ran by people who think that Ben f***ing Alnwick is a worthwhile signing.

How much would he be paid? £1k a week? A stretch to £2k a week?

Keeping Patterson as number 2 not only helps his development and sends a positive message down the line to younger players but it also saves us what is a good percentage of a league 1 wage. That wage saving could be spent wisely elsewhere or be used on a higher quality of player by contributing to their wage. Marcus Maddison for example. It might not be a big difference but it’s a saving none the less.
Yes I’m definitely in especially when you mentioned MM.
 
Maybe Patterson is only rated good enough to be our semi-permanent #3 choice keeper.
See Trevor Carson & Max Stryek for reference.
 
Some merit in that argument. The single year commitment doesn't exactly show commitment to his development, mind. The bigger issue is that the idea of us investing precious resources into competition at keeper is utterly braindead. Absolutely terrible waste. Keepers simply don't rotate. If Burge isn't good enough, replace and dispose of him. Don't leave us wasting money by having a similar standard keeper (with similar wage demands) sat on the bench every single week. Once again SAFC prove themselves to be incredibly dumb and 10 years out of date.
Maybe but if we don't think he's ready for league one we shouldn't put ourselves in the position that we are reliant on him and whoever the next eldest keeper after him is if Burge gets injured. I'd like to think that we can get him a loan in league two until Christmas and really see what he's made of, we'll see what happens there....

Edit - I appreciate that leaves us in a Maja situation if he turns out to be any good, maybe he'll sign an 1 year extension and go on loan?
 
Last edited:
Some merit in that argument. The single year commitment doesn't exactly show commitment to his development, mind. The bigger issue is that the idea of us investing precious resources into competition at keeper is utterly braindead. Absolutely terrible waste. Keepers simply don't rotate. If Burge isn't good enough, replace and dispose of him. Don't leave us wasting money by having a similar standard keeper (with similar wage demands) sat on the bench every single week. Once again SAFC prove themselves to be incredibly dumb and 10 years out of date.

Burge was a strange signing in the first place. We all knew he wasn't as good as JM. It only made sense if they'd already decided JM was going and last season would be uses to transition. As it turns out JM played the vast majority of the season because.....well......hes much better.

Now we know Burge is a significant downgrade so we need to bring a different keeper in but are lumbered with Burge.

Maybe we should have just given JM the money he wanted to extend rather than signing Burge in the first place and brought on Patterson as an eventual replacement? Too sensible?
 
Last edited:
Maybe but if we don't think he's ready for league one we shouldn't put ourselves in the position that we are reliant on him and whoever the next eldest keeper after him is if Burge gets injured. I'd like to think that we can get him a loan in league two until Christmas and really see what he's made of, we'll see what happens there....

Edit - I appreciate that leaves us in a Maja situation if he turns out to be any good, maybe he'll sign an 1 year extension and go on loan?
Again, though, there's a difference between getting an experienced emergency back-up in just in case your first choice gets injured - something which I disagree with personally but can at least understand - and bringing in a similarly costly player as 'competition' for a position that you simply don't rotate. Given the provisions that exist to allow transfers of emergency keepers outside of transfer windows, I've always been of the opinion that the level of redundancy that badly run clubs employ in the keeper position is a waste of money. The best run clubs have a very clear hierachy. Look at the problems that Dean Henderson's rise is causing United with one of the most famous keepers in the world on their books. This is outdated squad management from SAFC. Not surprising given the people in control - but disappointing nevertheless.
 
Maybe Patterson isn’t that good right now, and the man who watches him every day knows that? Sticking somebody in goal just because they are young and from Sunderland is not the secret to gaining clean sheets. Then again I have absolute faith in
 
I don’t think Patterson being loaned out is too bad. Pickford has a number of loans before breaking through and Patterson is yet to play senior football.

Didn’t Patterson only sign a 1 year extension though? Doesn’t protect ourselves well if he goes out and performs well.
Aye but we were premier league then, were league one now where we used to loan players out to.
 
Again, though, there's a difference between getting an experienced emergency back-up in just in case your first choice gets injured - something which I disagree with personally but can at least understand - and bringing in a similarly costly player as 'competition' for a position that you simply don't rotate. Given the provisions that exist to allow transfers of emergency keepers outside of transfer windows, I've always been of the opinion that the level of redundancy that badly run clubs employ in the keeper position is a waste of money. The best run clubs have a very clear hierachy. Look at the problems that Dean Henderson's rise is causing United with one of the most famous keepers in the world on their books. This is outdated squad management from SAFC. Not surprising given the people in control - but disappointing nevertheless.

Burge came through the ranks at Coventry during a time when they barely had a pot to piss in and was then released by them when they were a mid-table L1 club. I doubt he's costly.

We all know Parkinson speaks in cliches - managers will always use 'competition' as a buzzword whenever they sign a keeper, when in reality they probably know the structure. Burge sitting on the bench and Patterson getting experience as a first choice keeper elsewhere would be better for his development.
 
To compete with Burge. Pattinson to be sent out on loan. Sigh if he's highly rated why not give him a chance? We are in League 1 not the Premier league.
Far better for Patterson to go out on loan than sit on the bench behind Burge. He needs 1st team game time. We might not like him but it doesn't mean every decision he makes is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
If I were Patterson I would want to go out on loan. Game time is the way to become better, not sitting watching the game as a sub.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sid
Burge came through the ranks at Coventry during a time when they barely had a pot to piss in and was then released by them when they were a mid-table L1 club. I doubt he's costly.

We all know Parkinson speaks in cliches - managers will always use 'competition' as a buzzword whenever they sign a keeper, when in reality they probably know the structure. Burge sitting on the bench and Patterson getting experience as a first choice keeper elsewhere would be better for his development.
Agree with this,Burge isnt good enough but can be backup next season and then leave he was only given a 2 year contract.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top