£1.6m is the rumoured fee on social media. Surely not?
After turning down 3m from Brentford a week ago? That's great business that
Christ on a bike. Stop believing everything you read on the internet. I highly doubt the fee is 1.6m & don't believe Brentford offered 3M a week ago!!!
Only the club know the true figure & I doubt we'll ever know. Sandgaard is not Roland. He's got what he believes is a good deal for this football club.
I really don't understand some of the criticism he gets on here
Christ on a bike, literally take a note from your own book and chill TF out... its called dry humour.
What ever we got, it's great business for a player that's been here a year and a sign to our actual youth products that we won't stand in there way. That's the 3rd time I've posted that now and not once have I criticised anyone in the process.
1.6 up front, rising to around 3/4 with a sell on would be decent. Not fantastic, but decent enough I'd say.
If the add ons are realistic and the sell on decent then yes.
If it's 500k after his Chelsea debut, 500k after 50 games and 1m when he plays for England, then not so much.
They loan him out for 3 years then sell him for 5m with us getting 20% of the profit means none of the add ons kick in and we'd get 680k of the sell on %. Less than 2.5m total for a player who could've helped us get out of this league.
All conjecture though as we don't know the deal terms. He could also become amazing, play a lot of games, play for England and be sold for 50m to Barcelona.
I like transparency and accountability and if it runs to multi millions up front then I get why Burstow would be sold now despite feeling totally gutted that yet another young player goes before he has played a dozen games.
I want the club to say what it was worth and how much, by letting a young talented player go now and not the summer ?
Is part of the deal he has to play every week because he is a fox in the box but his overall game has a long way to go and he needs time in the gym.
The game he didn't score, the CL experts were saying send him on loan to Orient 🤦🏻♂️
No wonder ITK Cafc fans/critics were waving him goodbye while I was clapping when he walked around the pitch after coming off against Fleetwood.
I really don’t see the advantage of signing for a big team this early in his career. All he will do is go out on loan or a youth set up. Yet he is giving up a reasonably regular first team place
Fans want to hear that their Charlton made good money on a young prospect but it's actually in the club's interest to downplay the amount so that future transfer fees and wage demands don't get out of hand. I'd take all the figures banded about with a pinch of salt
£1.6m is the rumoured fee on social media. Surely not?
After turning down 3m from Brentford a week ago? That's great business that
Christ on a bike. Stop believing everything you read on the internet. I highly doubt the fee is 1.6m & don't believe Brentford offered 3M a week ago!!!
Only the club know the true figure & I doubt we'll ever know. Sandgaard is not Roland. He's got what he believes is a good deal for this football club.
I really don't understand some of the criticism he gets on here
I like transparency and accountability and if it runs to multi millions up front then I get why Burstow would be sold now despite feeling totally gutted that yet another young player goes before he has played a dozen games.
I want the club to say what it was worth and how much, by letting a young talented player go now and not the summer ?
Is part of the deal he has to play every week because he is a fox in the box but his overall game has a long way to go and he needs time in the gym.
The game he didn't score, the CL experts were saying send him on loan to Orient 🤦🏻♂️
No wonder ITK Cafc fans/critics were waving him goodbye while I was clapping when he walked around the pitch after coming off against Fleetwood.
1.6 up front, rising to around 3/4 with a sell on would be decent. Not fantastic, but decent enough I'd say.
If the add ons are realistic and the sell on decent then yes.
If it's 500k after his Chelsea debut, 500k after 50 games and 1m when he plays for England, then not so much.
They loan him out for 3 years then sell him for 5m with us getting 20% of the profit means none of the add ons kick in and we'd get 680k of the sell on %. Less than 2.5m total for a player who could've helped us get out of this league.
All conjecture though as we don't know the deal terms. He could also become amazing, play a lot of games, play for England and be sold for 50m to Barcelona.
Agreed. But then the point of adds on are based on success. After all, Chelsea are paying for his potential. Konsa, Gomez and Lookman had all proved how good they were over a longer run of games. Mason Burstow is not worth 3mil, it's just that he might be in the future. Chelsea will be developing him and paying his wages. If they loan him out, then other clubs will be developing him. It's a tough one when paying for potential because ignoring how much money Chelsea have got, they are still taking a risk themselves.
I have no idea what the fee is. However, there are some market fundamentals which suggest the amount ought to be more than "1.6m" up front:
- strikers always carry a premium over any other position - English players carry a premium over foreign players. This premium is now even bigger since the ease of bringing in players from the EU is now much reduced. - while Chelsea clearly do not think he is necessarily one for their own first team, the mini-business they have created from misuse of the loan system does demand that the player is expected to develop into a more valuable asset. - their misuse of the player system will be curtailed -somewhat - by FIFA's new rules which should take effect this summer. That suggests that Chelsea have to be a bit more picky about whom they do pick up in the coming months, in order to keep their asset trading revenue scheme going - That scheme is in turn more important to Chelsea's future as it seems increasingly clear that Abramovic doesn't want to bankroll it any more.
To me that would suggest a firm £3m plus as fair value for the interests of both clubs.
Separately the FIFA initiative ought to be taken up and extended by the English authorities to cover domestic loans. Tracey Crouch has already commented on the issue. If you want to see our young breakthrough players for at least 18 months, and haven't written to your MP, copying Nadine Dorries, in support of the Fan led Review, please do so now.
I have no idea what the fee is. However, there are some market fundamentals which suggest the amount ought to be more than "1.6m" up front:
- strikers always carry a premium over any other position - English players carry a premium over foreign players. This premium is now even bigger since the ease of bringing in players from the EU is now much reduced. - while Chelsea clearly do not think he is necessarily one for their own first team, the mini-business they have created from misuse of the loan system does demand that the player is expected to develop into a more valuable asset. - their misuse of the player system will be curtailed -somewhat - by FIFA's new rules which should take effect this summer. That suggests that Chelsea have to be a bit more picky about whom they do pick up in the coming months, in order to keep their asset trading revenue scheme going - That scheme is in turn more important to Chelsea's future as it seems increasingly clear that Abramovic doesn't want to bankroll it any more.
To me that would suggest a firm £3m plus as fair value for the interests of both clubs.
Separately the FIFA initiative ought to be taken up and extended by the English authorities to cover domestic loans. Tracey Crouch has already commented on the issue. If you want to see our young breakthrough players for at least 18 months, and haven't written to your MP, copying Nadine Dorries, in support of the Fan led Review, please do so now.
It is laughable when you consider that Brighton paid £6m last night for a Striker from Belgium
He's scored 35-goals for Union SG in his last 51-games
He's only 25-years old as well. Yet for some reason we think we should be getting more for a kid who has barely done anything, and at a lower level - I know Chelsea have paid for his potential, but shows how far the game is gone.
So when is this move going to be confirmed. Nothing on the Charlton site nor on the BBC pages. So how long after closure of transfer window do you have to complete a move.0
Another thing that gets me, for every fan who wanted JJ at all costs, you should be backing what JJ wants to do with Burstow now. That's the trust you are meant to have in a Manager that we sung, promoted to get in as our permanent Manager.
Can someone put more meat on the bone or the Vegan equivalent about how when a lad is at a part time club we "poached him"
Was he even on a contract at Maidstone ?
They should get a development fee or more depending how the terms were written down.
Facts please by someone who knows, not everyone joining in after one person states we stitched Maidstone up ?
Can't help you with the facts but don't think we stitched up Maidstone anymore than Chelsea stitched us up. In reality Burstow left Maidstone to progress his career by joining a bigger club and to try and play a higher standard of football, he achieved that aim and is trying to do so again.
Another thing that gets me, for every fan who wanted JJ at all costs, you should be backing what JJ wants to do with Burstow now. That's the trust you are meant to have in a Manager that we sung, promoted to get in as our permanent Manager.
Who isn't? Although I don't think JJ has anything to do with this deal whatsoever.
I think 3 million would be his market value, given that we have no need to sell though I’d be disappointed if we didn’t have a guaranteed 3.5 - 4 million plus a sell on.
As others have said, for once though I’m confident a chunk of this will be put back into the squad.
So when is this move going to be confirmed. Nothing on the Charlton site nor on the BBC pages. So how long after closure of transfer window do you have to complete a move.0
EFL have to sanction loan back so who knows? Maybe out of time?
I have no idea what the fee is. However, there are some market fundamentals which suggest the amount ought to be more than "1.6m" up front:
- strikers always carry a premium over any other position - English players carry a premium over foreign players. This premium is now even bigger since the ease of bringing in players from the EU is now much reduced. - while Chelsea clearly do not think he is necessarily one for their own first team, the mini-business they have created from misuse of the loan system does demand that the player is expected to develop into a more valuable asset. - their misuse of the player system will be curtailed -somewhat - by FIFA's new rules which should take effect this summer. That suggests that Chelsea have to be a bit more picky about whom they do pick up in the coming months, in order to keep their asset trading revenue scheme going - That scheme is in turn more important to Chelsea's future as it seems increasingly clear that Abramovic doesn't want to bankroll it any more.
To me that would suggest a firm £3m plus as fair value for the interests of both clubs.
Separately the FIFA initiative ought to be taken up and extended by the English authorities to cover domestic loans. Tracey Crouch has already commented on the issue. If you want to see our young breakthrough players for at least 18 months, and haven't written to your MP, copying Nadine Dorries, in support of the Fan led Review, please do so now.
It is laughable when you consider that Brighton paid £6m last night for a Striker from Belgium
He's scored 35-goals for Union SG in his last 51-games
He's only 25-years old as well. Yet for some reason we think we should be getting more for a kid who has barely done anything, and at a lower level - I know Chelsea have paid for his potential, but shows how far the game is gone.
That low fee was possibly helped by the fact that Brighton's owner Tony Bloom also owns Union SG, so technically he's buying his own striker.
I have no idea what the fee is. However, there are some market fundamentals which suggest the amount ought to be more than "1.6m" up front:
- strikers always carry a premium over any other position - English players carry a premium over foreign players. This premium is now even bigger since the ease of bringing in players from the EU is now much reduced. - while Chelsea clearly do not think he is necessarily one for their own first team, the mini-business they have created from misuse of the loan system does demand that the player is expected to develop into a more valuable asset. - their misuse of the player system will be curtailed -somewhat - by FIFA's new rules which should take effect this summer. That suggests that Chelsea have to be a bit more picky about whom they do pick up in the coming months, in order to keep their asset trading revenue scheme going - That scheme is in turn more important to Chelsea's future as it seems increasingly clear that Abramovic doesn't want to bankroll it any more.
To me that would suggest a firm £3m plus as fair value for the interests of both clubs.
Separately the FIFA initiative ought to be taken up and extended by the English authorities to cover domestic loans. Tracey Crouch has already commented on the issue. If you want to see our young breakthrough players for at least 18 months, and haven't written to your MP, copying Nadine Dorries, in support of the Fan led Review, please do so now.
It is laughable when you consider that Brighton paid £6m last night for a Striker from Belgium
He's scored 35-goals for Union SG in his last 51-games
He's only 25-years old as well. Yet for some reason we think we should be getting more for a kid who has barely done anything, and at a lower level - I know Chelsea have paid for his potential, but shows how far the game is gone.
Liverpool also signed Andy Carroll for 35mil and Sunderland signed Wickham for around 11.
Ivan Toney went to Newcastle from Northampton for about 400k at about the same age as Burstow is now.
He then went to Brentford for 5 million quid when he was a stand out league 1 striker, and only about 23.
We currently have about 8 players out on loan. Half of which will probably never play for our first team more than a hand full of times.
Chelsea don't need Burstow for their first team but neither did we. We took a chance on him because we hoped he would "make it" and could afford the risk if he didn't. The same as Chelsea.
We sign literally dozens of players on contracts in the hope that 1 or 2 make it. The same as Chelsea.
We sign players from clubs smaller than us in the hope we can either use them for our first team or sell them for a profit. The same as Chelsea.
Comments
What ever we got, it's great business for a player that's been here a year and a sign to our actual youth products that we won't stand in there way.
That's the 3rd time I've posted that now and not once have I criticised anyone in the process.
If it's 500k after his Chelsea debut, 500k after 50 games and 1m when he plays for England, then not so much.
They loan him out for 3 years then sell him for 5m with us getting 20% of the profit means none of the add ons kick in and we'd get 680k of the sell on %. Less than 2.5m total for a player who could've helped us get out of this league.
All conjecture though as we don't know the deal terms. He could also become amazing, play a lot of games, play for England and be sold for 50m to Barcelona.
I want the club to say what it was worth and how much, by letting a young talented player go now and not the summer ?
Is part of the deal he has to play every week because he is a fox in the box but his overall game has a long way to go and he needs time in the gym.
The game he didn't score, the CL experts were saying send him on loan to Orient 🤦🏻♂️
No wonder ITK Cafc fans/critics were waving him goodbye while I was clapping when he walked around the pitch after coming off against Fleetwood.
Was he even on a contract at Maidstone ?
They should get a development fee or more depending how the terms were written down.
Facts please by someone who knows, not everyone joining in after one person states we stitched Maidstone up ?
- strikers always carry a premium over any other position
- English players carry a premium over foreign players. This premium is now even bigger since the ease of bringing in players from the EU is now much reduced.
- while Chelsea clearly do not think he is necessarily one for their own first team, the mini-business they have created from misuse of the loan system does demand that the player is expected to develop into a more valuable asset.
- their misuse of the player system will be curtailed -somewhat - by FIFA's new rules which should take effect this summer. That suggests that Chelsea have to be a bit more picky about whom they do pick up in the coming months, in order to keep their asset trading revenue scheme going
- That scheme is in turn more important to Chelsea's future as it seems increasingly clear that Abramovic doesn't want to bankroll it any more.
To me that would suggest a firm £3m plus as fair value for the interests of both clubs.
Separately the FIFA initiative ought to be taken up and extended by the English authorities to cover domestic loans. Tracey Crouch has already commented on the issue. If you want to see our young breakthrough players for at least 18 months, and haven't written to your MP, copying Nadine Dorries, in support of the Fan led Review, please do so now.
He's scored 35-goals for Union SG in his last 51-games
He's only 25-years old as well. Yet for some reason we think we should be getting more for a kid who has barely done anything, and at a lower level - I know Chelsea have paid for his potential, but shows how far the game is gone.
As others have said, for once though I’m confident a chunk of this will be put back into the squad.
Ivan Toney went to Newcastle from Northampton for about 400k at about the same age as Burstow is now.
He then went to Brentford for 5 million quid when he was a stand out league 1 striker, and only about 23.
We currently have about 8 players out on loan. Half of which will probably never play for our first team more than a hand full of times.
Chelsea don't need Burstow for their first team but neither did we. We took a chance on him because we hoped he would "make it" and could afford the risk if he didn't. The same as Chelsea.
We sign literally dozens of players on contracts in the hope that 1 or 2 make it. The same as Chelsea.
We sign players from clubs smaller than us in the hope we can either use them for our first team or sell them for a profit. The same as Chelsea.
If that is 'substantial' to Sandgaard, he's in the wrong sport.