Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Mason Burstow - on loan to Bolton from Hull (p53)
Comments
-
The Jills?cfgs said:
Too busy laughing at The Jills to notice.Henry Irving said:What are they saying on Maidstone Life?
Still i suppose its better than the nigels!0 -
I think its a bit like homes under the hammer, except the correct answer gets an all expenses trip to the toolbox instead.Smithy said:We've seen £1.6m and £4m mentioned. Based on Cawley's tweet yesterday I wouldn't be surprised if both were correct, with the latter including all the silly add-ons that will never be reached.0 -
Smithy said:We've seen £1.6m and £4m mentioned. Based on Cawley's tweet yesterday I wouldn't be surprised if both were correct, with the latter including all the silly add-ons that will never be reached.
Probably the closest to the truth.2 -
They still release multiple players on a free every year.North Lower Neil said:
Chelsea's whole model is getting loan fees for a player for a while and then selling at a profit if they do well on loan - see Guehi, Abraham, Zouma etc just this summer, they even got £4m for Victor Moses who I don't think has actually played for them since about 1973.SELR_addicks said:I still see no indication that the money we got for Burstow is anywhere near the value a talented striker should get.
Talk of sell-on fees is nonsense when Chelsea will release him on a free in 3/4 years time anyway.
If any club is a good bet for a sell-on fee, it's Chelsea.
One Tammy Abraham from signing 10 players makes it all worth it to them. It's not about profiting on individual players.
More chance of Burstow becoming an Izzy Brown than an Abraham. Then we get £0.0 -
Whole point of academies like ours (I know Burstow didn't come through it), is to identify young talent and sell on for a figure that can be reinvested back into the playing squad.
The system has worked perfectly here, and all for a player that many said looked out of his depth only 1 week ago.7 -
Yeah could happen either way, but as I say, Chelsea are as decent a bet as anyone to sell on at a decent price.SELR_addicks said:
They still release multiple players on a free every year.North Lower Neil said:
Chelsea's whole model is getting loan fees for a player for a while and then selling at a profit if they do well on loan - see Guehi, Abraham, Zouma etc just this summer, they even got £4m for Victor Moses who I don't think has actually played for them since about 1973.SELR_addicks said:I still see no indication that the money we got for Burstow is anywhere near the value a talented striker should get.
Talk of sell-on fees is nonsense when Chelsea will release him on a free in 3/4 years time anyway.
If any club is a good bet for a sell-on fee, it's Chelsea.
One Tammy Abraham from signing 10 players makes it all worth it to them. It's not about profiting on individual players.
More chance of Burstow becoming an Izzy Brown than an Abraham. Then we get £0.1 -
If that is true then the focus should be on the initial fee no? So we can immediately begin to reinvest it.Croydon said:Whole point of academies like ours (I know Burstow didn't come through it), is to identify young talent and sell on for a figure that can be reinvested back into the playing squad.
The system has worked perfectly here, and all for a player that many said looked out of his depth only 1 week ago.
Talk of sell-ons and add-ons do not help us next year. Especially if the add-ons are unrealistic and the sell on doesn't happen for a number of years.0 -
Mate we could have got £50 million Kante and Lukaku and you would moan about it.SELR_addicks said:
If that is true then the focus should be on the initial fee no? So we can immediately begin to reinvest it.Croydon said:Whole point of academies like ours (I know Burstow didn't come through it), is to identify young talent and sell on for a figure that can be reinvested back into the playing squad.
The system has worked perfectly here, and all for a player that many said looked out of his depth only 1 week ago.
Talk of sell-ons and add-ons do not help us next year. Especially if the add-ons are unrealistic and the sell on doesn't happen for a number of years.10 -
The undisclosed fee that you appear to have arbitrarily decided is paltry purely so you can rant about it? That fee?SELR_addicks said:
If that is true then the focus should be on the initial fee no? So we can immediately begin to reinvest it.Croydon said:Whole point of academies like ours (I know Burstow didn't come through it), is to identify young talent and sell on for a figure that can be reinvested back into the playing squad.
The system has worked perfectly here, and all for a player that many said looked out of his depth only 1 week ago.
Talk of sell-ons and add-ons do not help us next year. Especially if the add-ons are unrealistic and the sell on doesn't happen for a number of years.4 -
Absolutely. How much was it?SELR_addicks said:
If that is true then the focus should be on the initial fee no? So we can immediately begin to reinvest it.Croydon said:Whole point of academies like ours (I know Burstow didn't come through it), is to identify young talent and sell on for a figure that can be reinvested back into the playing squad.
The system has worked perfectly here, and all for a player that many said looked out of his depth only 1 week ago.
Talk of sell-ons and add-ons do not help us next year. Especially if the add-ons are unrealistic and the sell on doesn't happen for a number of years.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Can you imagine if Defoe signed last week and then Burstow left.
Think everyone would have put 2 + 2 together, the forum would have gone into meltdown!4 -
I think "re-invest" is the key here.
So many seasons we have sold talented players to balance the books rather than re-invest in strengthening the side.
If JJ is going to be handed a war chest to build a title winning squad in the summer then this money and a lot more added to it needs to be on the table.2 -
Dillon Phillips did not refuse to play. He wouldn't sign a new contract so Bowyer wouldn't play him Completely different scenario to the scum bag taylorSheedyCAFC said:The more I think about the Burstow situation the more I think it’s better we sold him now rather than at the end of the season, agents and players have too much power in the game and who’s to say he wouldn’t have done a ‘Lyle’ or a Dillon Phillips & just decided not to play and let his contract run out or force our hands to sell for cheaper than we were offered in January.16 -
Damn. I clicked on that and now my smartphone feels dirty.clive said:5 -
Probably a couple of big MacsElthamaddick said:
'unusually large' was his phraseross1 said:According to TS a large sell on fee as well.0 -
My brother actually wrote a letter to Roger Alwen (I think) complaining about the sale of Minto and the fee! He got a reply which pretty mush said "thanks for your support, but we're skint and need the money for The Valley". I'll ask him if he's still got the letter somewhere.RodneyCharltonTrotta said:I remember asking Scott Minto at Orpington Rovers end of season presentation in 1994 as a 14 why he had left us for Chelsea.
I remember him giving a really diplomatic answer, the true gent he is. I still see in his eyes when he presents Charlton Tv he recalls my disappointment every day and is wracked with guilt.
Scott, if you read this...I forgive you. Let's both move on friend.4 -
For a couple of years under Conte, Victor moses was superb at right wing back.North Lower Neil said:
Chelsea's whole model is getting loan fees for a player for a while and then selling at a profit if they do well on loan - see Guehi, Abraham, Zouma etc just this summer, they even got £4m for Victor Moses who I don't think has actually played for them since about 1973.SELR_addicks said:I still see no indication that the money we got for Burstow is anywhere near the value a talented striker should get.
Talk of sell-on fees is nonsense when Chelsea will release him on a free in 3/4 years time anyway.
If any club is a good bet for a sell-on fee, it's Chelsea.0 -
Not going to get upset about Burstow being sold we have been a selling club for years and as soon as we get a good prospect it’s just a question of time before they are sold.
However, if TS wants to get us to the Premier league we will have to be a position to retain our best young players at some point.
I really don’t get the loan back option. Unless he is going to be loaned back next season as well I don’t see the point. I want us to be preparing for next season with the players who will be here and likely playing.If Burstow, Lee, Castillo, Leko, Famewo ( would hope we are going to take the option to buy up) and John are not going to be part of the squad next season I don’t see the point in playing them if we have other players available that are likely to be part of next seasons squad.1 -
By the same token, what indication have you seen that we got less than his value? We've all seen various numbers bandied around on Twitter, so what's given you the idea that the number is a low one, other than your relentless determination to be as miserable as possible in the face of all things Charlton and ensure we all hear about it?SELR_addicks said:I still see no indication that the money we got for Burstow is anywhere near the value a talented striker should get.
Talk of sell-on fees is nonsense when Chelsea will release him on a free in 3/4 years time anyway.
5 -
We won’t know the up front fee for a long time so until then there’s no point worrying about it either way.
As Cawley so wisely put it on Twitter, both sides of an undisclosed fee have reason to put their own spin on a transfer.The buying club wants to look like they got a bargain, the selling club wants to look like they had their valuation matched but not make so much money that other clubs bump their asking prices etc etc.2 - Sponsored links:
-
In his interview video on the OS, Thomas mentions turning down Chelsea's offer until they had raised it to what Charlton were asking.
Interestingly, Thomas alluded to an unusually high sell on percentage deal (or something like that).
https://www.cafc.co.uk/news/view/61fa7dfbecc85/thomas-sandgaard-on-the-january-transfer-window.1 -
So if nobody knows what the upfront fee is , how can anyone say its a good or bad deal ? We have sold a young striker and they don't come along very often. To go out and buy a replacement won't be cheap.3
-
With the transfer window now closed, Stockley and perhaps Chuks also injured, we're short on strikers right now.MStuartPerm said:Not going to get upset about Burstow being sold we have been a selling club for years and as soon as we get a good prospect it’s just a question of time before they are sold.
However, if TS wants to get us to the Premier league we will have to be a position to retain our best young players at some point.
I really don’t get the loan back option. Unless he is going to be loaned back next season as well I don’t see the point. I want us to be preparing for next season with the players who will be here and likely playing.If Burstow, Lee, Castillo, Leko, Famewo ( would hope we are going to take the option to buy up) and John are not going to be part of the squad next season I don’t see the point in playing them if we have other players available that are likely to be part of next seasons squad.
According to Thomas (and it's obvious really), that was the reason Charlton insisted on a loan back for Burstow.
3 -
When Joe Gomez went to Liverpool, it was undisclosed Charlton end but Liverpool announced to the world it was 3.5 million and they had mugged Cafc.
If it had gone to an auction, the fee would've been closer to 8 million, if all the big hitters got involved.
Roland Duchâtelet being a kind and benevolent owner wanted Joe to go to a club where he would be happy and best for his career so wouldn't sanction the auction with many clubs involved. 🤥2 -
Didn't he have an exit clause in his contract, so that the fee was fixed?soapboxsam said:When Joe Gomez went to Liverpool, it was undisclosed Charlton end but Liverpool announced to the world it was 3.5 million and they had mugged Cafc.
If it had gone to an auction, the fee would've been closer to 8 million, if all the big hitters got involved.
Roland Duchâtelet being a kind and benevolent owner wanted Joe to go to a club where he would be happy and best for his career so wouldn't sanction the auction with many clubs involved. 🤥
Allegedly he wouldn't have signed the contract with us in the first place without it.3 -
Don't let facts and common sense get in the way.....killerandflash said:
Didn't he have an exit clause in his contract, so that the fee was fixed?soapboxsam said:When Joe Gomez went to Liverpool, it was undisclosed Charlton end but Liverpool announced to the world it was 3.5 million and they had mugged Cafc.
If it had gone to an auction, the fee would've been closer to 8 million, if all the big hitters got involved.
Roland Duchâtelet being a kind and benevolent owner wanted Joe to go to a club where he would be happy and best for his career so wouldn't sanction the auction with many clubs involved. 🤥
Allegedly he wouldn't have signed the contract with us in the first place without it.
Maire had her pants pulled down by the agent but as you say there is no guarantee he would have signed it without it.2 -
His agent played a very good game he told Charlton that Gomez would not sign a new deal unless they dropped the release price down to 3.5 mill .. unknown to Charlton he had already agreed a deal with Liverpool for the said price he joined then about 6 months latersoapboxsam said:When Joe Gomez went to Liverpool, it was undisclosed Charlton end but Liverpool announced to the world it was 3.5 million and they had mugged Cafc.
If it had gone to an auction, the fee would've been closer to 8 million, if all the big hitters got involved.
Roland Duchâtelet being a kind and benevolent owner wanted Joe to go to a club where he would be happy and best for his career so wouldn't sanction the auction with many clubs involved. 🤥3 -
No way Gomez would've signed for us without a release fee, i'm surprised he wasn't poached sooner.
He played for our U18s at a stupidly young age (13 i think), had played for England's junior sides, and also part of the team that won the U17 Euro's. Any club in the country would've wanted him.6 -
Indeed. So have you never stopped to ask yourself why there was not a queue of other clubs indicating their interest via the usual media sources? Another Lifer, a good mate of mine, knows the answer but has never wanted to go public with it. Suffice to say that on this one, like the proverbial stopped clock, “Ronnie Moore” is, if not right on the money, not unadjacent to it. And that this is another entry in my list of evidence that agents are a malignant scourge that need radical reform and regulation.Chris_from_Sidcup said:No way Gomez would've signed for us without a release fee, i'm surprised he wasn't poached sooner.
He played for our U18s at a stupidly young age (13 i think), had played for England's junior sides, and also part of the team that won the U17 Euro's. Any club in the country would've wanted him.3 -
Was the agent that gave us the nod and a wink that he had a player, in a position we were looking for, who had a release clause at tea time on deadline day a malignant scourge or just doing us a favour/his job/representing his client's best interests?
When ever we lose a player "we" want to keep it's the agents fault, no one "blames" the agent when we sign someone, nor when we off load a player "we" don't want.
Yes there are some scandalous practices, the Harry Kewell to Liverpool always sticks in my mind. But they can't and don't force players to do things against thier will.3
