Surely he is an asset who will increase in value. He has two years on his contract - we need to extend and use his attributes for a promotion push next year. If we start next season in this division that is. Oh , I forgot our owner is a fool! Lookman could be the sort of striker that we will never be able to afford - gold dust in this league and would give us a chance and make some real money for the fool to boot! And when we did sell him, we would get much more for him.
The other problem is that before long we will be asking how many floating supporters will leave us for Premiership football down the road, same journey better entertainment. I no longer believe that Roland is ambitious for the Premiership, if he was he would appoint a properly qualified CEO.
Finding a top striker is your go directly past GO card. If you have the ability to see it! If Lookman fulfils his potential, having a punt on next season would be a reasonable calculated risk.
Hopefully he gets advised to stay at Charlton, get regular first team football - a couple of seasons under his belt and then move on to bigger and better things.
Sad truth is he'll get paid a fortune to sit in Arsenal's reserves for a couple of years, play well in the Carling Cup and everyone will say how amazing their academy is for churning these players out.
In all fairness he didn't come through our youth setup. We signed him from another club that, presumably, thinks he left them too early. Jenkinson went to Arsenal and did well but we need to remember that he had been with us for years and had been overlooked until a couple of months from the end of the season, and his contact hadn't even been extended to beyond that season. There were suggestions that Gomez agent was demanding that his client was playing long before he was, and then still demanding that he play in a different position. We can't, realistically, claim that they are not good enough for our first team and then two months later claim that they are worth £10m.
We can't have it both ways, potential has a value, of course it does, and we can build into the sale rewards for achievements after they leave but if we, really, value a player we should give them a good, long term contract. If they develop and demonstrate that they are good enough to earn c. £20k a week and we have failed to get them signed on to a long term deal we no one to blame but ourselves.
For every player we have sold for less than we think he is worth I suspect there is another player that we have signed for a lot less than the selling club believed we should have paid.
To be honest, as much as I like seeing home grown players come through - and when was the last time we had a really good striking prospect? Lisbie? - I wouldn't be throwing myself off a bridge about us selling them if I felt that we would re-invest the money into building a great squad. If we had a solid core, sold a youngster for a good few million and used the money to challenge then that works for everyone, as sad as it is that we can't get the most out of our youth products. The thing is though, Roland will continue to underfund the squad. We sold Gomez, possibly our best ever product, and here we are in the drop zone in December with relegation looking like a real possibility and, at times, an inevitability. We sold Gomez, got rid of Bikey and Ben Haim and replaced those three with two centre halves, one of whom is basically a human windmill but without the stopping power, and the other who is good but has already been sent off twice. On top of that we signed a reserve left back who hasn't been seen in months, a central midfielder the interim manager doesn't seem to fancy and some cripples. We had to recall Lennon from his loan and throw him into the first team because Sarr was playing so badly. That's not the sign of an effective transfer policy, that's us auctioning off the talent the fans can feel a connection with to be replaced with inexperienced, ill-equipped players and Fleetwood away. With that in mind I'd rather see Lookman play for us more and then walk out on a tribunal fee than chuck him over to Arsenal and see the money used to sign some right back who's played six games in four seasons for Lille's reserve squad and a Macedonia U21 goalkeeper.
The worst part is, Lookman wouldn't even be in the conversation if our senior squad was up to the task they were brought in for and the squad was deep enough to plan for absences. Same mistakes over and over.
If he has to be sold then so be it - can see pressure coming from player and agent if the big boys are involved - but all I'd say is that the money needs to be reinvested in the first team squad on decent players (with champ experience) and maybe some cash on go on a new manager (with champ experience) too.
Or, you know, ship in some dross that failed elsewhere and can bench warm or spend most of the season in the treatment room...
The only times this season I have felt the beautiful game in this country was fecked was when I paid good money to watch my team only to see a white walker extra from Game of Thrones masquerading as a professional footballer playing up front!
Just please don't be Chelsea or Man Citeh interesting... If he was to go somewhere I'd prefer it to be Arsenal or even Tottenham who seem to care about Youth Players these days
Gomez going straight into the Liverpool team/squad has been in many respects bad news for the "he'll just be a benchwarmer" argument. And for strikers you've always got a chance of breaking through via a 10-minute cameo, nick a goal. We have to give our young players positive reasons to stay....and we've often been poor at that.
Hence over the years we've sold for not-great money, sometimes to other Div 2 clubs.
So Lookman could be off to one of the moneybags clubs after effectively less than 12 games for Charlton. Not saying it will happen. I hope not but if it does then I think that will just about finish me and football.
Far too much money available to PL clubs to punt and squander on a whim whilst every other club in the country is dying on its arse.
Football is fecked in this country. I am really starting to lose any love I had for what still could be the beautiful game.
I've been going to The Valley long enough to know that clubs like us will always have to sell but this is altogether different.
Players like Gomez, Poyet and Lookman havnt really achieved anything in the game and not even become established at a second division club yet PL money can pluck them and ultimately in many cases fcuk them.
Hopefully he gets advised to stay at Charlton, get regular first team football - a couple of seasons under his belt and then move on to bigger and better things.
Sad truth is he'll get paid a fortune to sit in Arsenal's reserves for a couple of years, play well in the Carling Cup and everyone will say how amazing their academy is for churning these players out.
West Ham might have something to say about that. One of there's surely
So Lookman could be off to one of the moneybags clubs after effectively less than 12 games for Charlton. Not saying it will happen. I hope not but if it does then I think that will just about finish me and football.
Far too much money available to PL clubs to punt and squander on a whim whilst every other club in the country is dying on its arse.
Football is fecked in this country. I am really starting to lose any love I had for what still could be the beautiful game.
I've been going to The Valley long enough to know that clubs like us will always have to sell but this is altogether different.
Players like Gomez, Poyet and Lookman havnt really achieved anything in the game and not even become established at a second division club yet PL money can pluck them and ultimately in many cases fcuk them.
I'll watch this one unfold with great interest.
Absolutely right!
You're my vintage and the big difference these days is how quickly these youngsters go.
I started in 1963 and Hinton, Bailey, Bonds and Glover all left later in the sixties but we saw them for a season or two or longer even.
That's the BIG distinction between selling under Gliksten and selling now. Even Lee Bowyer whom, I was reminded on another thread, was once Britain's most expensive teenager played more than 50 games (ie a season) for the Club and probably nearer 100. Edit scrub that bit but we did get at least a season to watch him!
Just please don't be Chelsea or Man Citeh interesting... If he was to go somewhere I'd prefer it to be Arsenal or even Tottenham who seem to care about Youth Players these days
Tottenham would be decent. They're a selling club too so there could be a sell-on clause.
It's inevitable that the big clubs will be looking at any young player who shows a smidgen of talent .. nothing new there .. in these days of glamour clubs and big big bucks, who can blame anyone for signing with a club offering a contract at 18 or 19 years old which could make the recipient financially secure for life .. if Lookman has his head turned by the flirtations of another club offering a very sweet deal, he will go, simple as that .. .. AND that would be the case if our owner was Roland D, the CAFC Trust, 'Lord' Loadsamoney or Jesus Christ .. just a reality of modern commercial/football life .. no good at all whinging about it
It's inevitable that the big clubs will be looking at any young player who shows a smidgen of talent .. nothing new there .. in these days of glamour clubs and big big bucks, who can blame anyone for signing with a club offering a contract at 18 or 19 years old which could make the recipient financially secure for life .. if Lookman has his head turned by the flirtations of another club offering a very sweet deal, he will go, simple as that .. .. AND that would be the case if our owner was Roland D, the CAFC Trust, 'Lord' Loadsamoney or Jesus Christ .. just a reality of modern commercial/football life .. no good at all whinging about it
Yes it's inevitable but it's now so skewed it's become a sick joke. These rich clubs have squads of 70 - 80 professionals. Am I right that Chelsea had over 30 players out on loan last season ? It's bonkers. They do it because of the stupid money they have access to not because anybody at their club seriously thinks that the player will be anything other than a reasonable punt.
The game needs a massive shake up, it needs a Chelsea to not just get relegated,but to then suffer in the championship and then some! oh wait theyre 15th you say....
"sees young players as free money". Right.... so free he subsidises the club around 6-8 million every season, and spends significant amounts on youth development.
How do you know Prague these players don't want to leave? Gomez seemed pretty certain he wanted to go. Yes we'd like more money, yes we'd like stability so players could see an improvement curve over more than a spring resurgence: Hopefully.
Careful there. You are starting to sound a bit like Coli.... Oh.
The game needs a massive shake up, it needs a Chelsea to not just get relegated,but to then suffer in the championship and then some! oh wait theyre 15th you say....
Unfortunately if in the event Chelsea do get relegated I can see the premier league wanting to push harder for no relegation from the premier league. No way they want to lose as big a "brand" as chelski
"sees young players as free money". Right.... so free he subsidises the club around 6-8 million every season, and spends significant amounts on youth development.
How do you know Prague these players don't want to leave? Gomez seemed pretty certain he wanted to go. Yes we'd like more money, yes we'd like stability so players could see an improvement curve over more than a spring resurgence: Hopefully.
On what evidence do you say that? If you said "Gomez' agent " then you might be nearer the mark. Just for once, @colin1961 was on the money, the deal was stitched up a year earlier and we could not get out of it.
The Duchatelet model is supposed to be, develop youngsters and play them, then sell them for decent money. If they sell a young player based on three first team appearances and one gaol, then that is not the model, is it?
The model requires a robust contractual system for young players to be in place so that we don't get stitched up by agents like Gomez's, and therefore extract full value from their development. Full value includes them playing enough matches to help make us a better football team as well making them more saleable assets. See Palace and Zaha...
But now we have our own fans eagerly discussing which FAPL club it would be better to sell him to. An 18 year old with 3 games under his belt. Three. A player whose arrival in the first team is so recent that he is not even listed on the first team stats page on our OS.
Deary deary me. Perhaps we should take a look at ourselves rather than just blame everything on RD for things that have not even happened yet. Otherwise we are in danger of making these things come to pass.
The 'big' clubs just want to hoover up all the talent just so the other clubs can't have them.
You could use Palmer and Poyet as examples of the grass looking greener but neither are anywhere near their respective first teams.
If Lookman had a three year contract then he'd only be 21 at the end of it and still has plenty of time to earn big money, meanwhile he can learn his trade in our first team rather than bench warming or being farmed out to all and sundry.
Where's Chalobah now? He's been knocking around the Championship for about 5 seasons is he any nearer Chelsea's first team?
Comments
Yes,....for Roly.
We can't have it both ways, potential has a value, of course it does, and we can build into the sale rewards for achievements after they leave but if we, really, value a player we should give them a good, long term contract. If they develop and demonstrate that they are good enough to earn c. £20k a week and we have failed to get them signed on to a long term deal we no one to blame but ourselves.
For every player we have sold for less than we think he is worth I suspect there is another player that we have signed for a lot less than the selling club believed we should have paid.
We had to recall Lennon from his loan and throw him into the first team because Sarr was playing so badly. That's not the sign of an effective transfer policy, that's us auctioning off the talent the fans can feel a connection with to be replaced with inexperienced, ill-equipped players and Fleetwood away. With that in mind I'd rather see Lookman play for us more and then walk out on a tribunal fee than chuck him over to Arsenal and see the money used to sign some right back who's played six games in four seasons for Lille's reserve squad and a Macedonia U21 goalkeeper.
The worst part is, Lookman wouldn't even be in the conversation if our senior squad was up to the task they were brought in for and the squad was deep enough to plan for absences. Same mistakes over and over.
Or, you know, ship in some dross that failed elsewhere and can bench warm or spend most of the season in the treatment room...
Hence over the years we've sold for not-great money, sometimes to other Div 2 clubs.
You're my vintage and the big difference these days is how quickly these youngsters go.
I started in 1963 and Hinton, Bailey, Bonds and Glover all left later in the sixties but we saw them for a season or two or longer even.
That's the BIG distinction between selling under Gliksten and selling now. Even Lee Bowyer whom, I was reminded on another thread, was once Britain's most expensive teenager played more than 50 games (ie a season) for the Club and
probably nearer 100. Edit scrub that bit but we did get at least a season to watch him!if Lookman has his head turned by the flirtations of another club offering a very sweet deal, he will go, simple as that ..
.. AND that would be the case if our owner was Roland D, the CAFC Trust, 'Lord' Loadsamoney or Jesus Christ .. just a reality of modern commercial/football life .. no good at all whinging about it
The Duchatelet model is supposed to be, develop youngsters and play them, then sell them for decent money. If they sell a young player based on three first team appearances and one gaol, then that is not the model, is it?
The model requires a robust contractual system for young players to be in place so that we don't get stitched up by agents like Gomez's, and therefore extract full value from their development. Full value includes them playing enough matches to help make us a better football team as well making them more saleable assets. See Palace and Zaha...
But now we have our own fans eagerly discussing which FAPL club it would be better to sell him to. An 18 year old with 3 games under his belt. Three. A player whose arrival in the first team is so recent that he is not even listed on the first team stats page on our OS.
Deary deary me. Perhaps we should take a look at ourselves rather than just blame everything on RD for things that have not even happened yet. Otherwise we are in danger of making these things come to pass.
You could use Palmer and Poyet as examples of the grass looking greener but neither are anywhere near their respective first teams.
If Lookman had a three year contract then he'd only be 21 at the end of it and still has plenty of time to earn big money, meanwhile he can learn his trade in our first team rather than bench warming or being farmed out to all and sundry.
Where's Chalobah now? He's been knocking around the Championship for about 5 seasons is he any nearer Chelsea's first team?