Not sure I’ve seen anything in Mason to make me think that £1.6M is an absolute steal. If anything it’s a bit of insurance for Charlton.
If he turns out to be average L1 then we’ve had a result.
If he turns out to be average Champs level then we’ve done ok-ish, bearing in mind any sell-on dividend. If he turns out to be Prem level then we’ll get a bigger sell-on dividend if he’s sold by Chelsea. If he stays on with Chelsea there may be payments based on appearances and goals? And also when they sell him, a potentially large sell-on payment.
I can live with that.
It’ll be interesting to see how he gets on against the dons tomorrow.
I don’t support the owner, I support Charlton, and I’d say he’s done some good things and some daft ones.I’m currently pretty sceptical he will get us out of this division in the next two years, but things can change. So can opinions.
This paragraph is the key bit that I don't really get and I am honestly not having a go at your perspective which is very reasonable and certainly far more informed than me, but I really do not understand what is meant by this: how is it in the owner's gift to get us out of this division?
I see a lot of people posting similar analysis and I just do not understand what is meant in practical terms.
In theory, he could spend significantly more than anyone else in the division, which would not guarantee promotion but would certainly improve the odds, so is that what you mean? I do think he will continue to spend at a rate around the top club in the division, which should give us a chance.
He has stabilised the club so that I don't get the feeling that the players are worried about being paid week on week, and the two managers he has appointed will either work or not, but they don't seem to totally unreasonable choices.
So I feel I must be missing something obvious. What more is reasonably in his gift to do?
Not “in his gift” perhaps but if the club is well run and makes sensible decisions in transfer windows that will go a long way to getting us out of the division, as it has four times before. No disrespect to the smaller clubs, but how on earth are we in the bottom half of this table with our resources relative to, for example, Accrington Stanley? Only because bad decisions have been made, and recruitment is at the heart of it. It’s not just about how much you spend but how well you spend it. Duchatelet spent/wasted lots of money but he employed idiots to oversee it.
TS is far more hands on with the football side than any previous Charlton owner, including inserting his own son into the structure. I doubt that is a good thing but we’ll see.
Even Michael Gliksten got Charlton out of this division (twice) and like it or not the managers who did it were his appointments.
Spot on Airman, the captain of one those sides assures me that he had no doubt they would come back up as the two forwards in that team were Derek Hales and Paul Walsh. The question that those recruiting for the club and indeed ourselves is, how many of our players could survive in the championship ? I would probably pick only three from our defence, Innis Mathews and Clare. midfield ? Dobson and possibly Gilbey. Our three forwards have all tried and failed in that division. Players such as Morgan will improve but I think we are at least four players short of a squad to make that top two.
Do people have any examples of any other League One strikers with so few appearances going for (a lot) more money?
I'm not saying I'm happy with the fee but is it a case of "it is what it is"? And that's not even taking into account Mason's wishes and desires.
A couple of bench marks to consider
Ollie Watkins went from League 2 to the championship for, guess what, an undisclosed fee, beloved to be in the region of £1.8 million, he was 21.
Ivan Toney was 19 and had scored 11 in 53 in league 2 when he went to Newcastle for £400k.
Kwadwo Baah went to Watford, at 18 ,last January for £125k.
Other considerations:
It won't cost us promotion or relegation this season. Previous transfers either have or potentially have.
It probably wouldn't change our Summer transfer plans significantly if it was £1, £1 million or £10 million. It would just alter how much Thomas has to stump up himself.
What about the local lad who left millwall for Man City? Hadn’t played a first team game.
If 1.6mil is “substantial” I’m concerned. But I already was, we’re not going anywhere fast.
If Jackson honestly believes £1.6m is a substantial amount from Chelsea for a young talented attacking prospect, we need to keep him away from transfers.
Should have made them wait until the summer, a full year and Burstow scoring 10 goals + would have upped his value. We also had multiple teams bidding on him.
The loan back is meaningless and I have no idea why Sandgaard sees that as such a big win in negotiation.
But come the summer, Burstow would've been 6 months closer to the end of his contract and more importantly into his last year, and a players value definitely doesn't go up as they enter the last year of their contract.
Ollie Watkins went from Exeter to Brentford for £1.8m. He was an established EFL regular who had hit double figures in a season. The sell on clause then netted Exeter an extra £4m when he went to Villa.
I think £1.6m is reasonable given his career progress so far. If he does well, great, we might get more money. If he doesn’t then £1.6 is maybe about right.
£1.6M is abysmal value for a young, English striker who - in his fleeting appearances - has shown he has the rarest of qualities, an eye for goal.
I also think your Ollie Watkins example actually proves my point. That was the transfer of a player, albeit with much more experience, from League Two to a Championship club four years ago. This is the transfer of a player from a League One club to the champions of Europe at todays market value when there is an added premium on young English players (due to EU withdrawal). And we allegedly got less upfront than Exeter managed to.
If Airman’s sources are correct, we’ve been shafted here.
Ollie Watkins went from Exeter to Brentford for £1.8m. He was an established EFL regular who had hit double figures in a season. The sell on clause then netted Exeter an extra £4m when he went to Villa.
I think £1.6m is reasonable given his career progress so far. If he does well, great, we might get more money. If he doesn’t then £1.6 is maybe about right.
£1.6M is abysmal value for a young, English striker who - in his fleeting appearances - has shown he has the rarest of qualities, an eye for goal.
I also think your Ollie Watkins example actually proves my point. That was the transfer of a player, albeit with much more experience, from League Two to a Championship club four years ago. This is the transfer of a player from a League One club to the champions of Europe at todays market value when there is an added premium on young English players (due to EU withdrawal). And we allegedly got less upfront than Exeter managed to.
If Airman’s sources are correct, we’ve been shafted here.
Time will tell whether Charlton has been ‘shafted’, or whether Chelsea has. Mason looks like he could be the real deal but he’s yet to prove it. So far he’s been a potential big fish in a small pond, with the emphasis on ‘potential’. £1.6m plus add ons seems pretty good to me. Every football fan wants their club to keep its potential stars but think it’s OK to go and buy another club’s rising stars. Personally, I’d rather the club wasn’t reliant upon the owner’s money to keep going and atm if that means selling a player or two every season then that’s what it should do.
Ollie Watkins went from Exeter to Brentford for £1.8m. He was an established EFL regular who had hit double figures in a season. The sell on clause then netted Exeter an extra £4m when he went to Villa.
I think £1.6m is reasonable given his career progress so far. If he does well, great, we might get more money. If he doesn’t then £1.6 is maybe about right.
£1.6M is abysmal value for a young, English striker who - in his fleeting appearances - has shown he has the rarest of qualities, an eye for goal.
I also think your Ollie Watkins example actually proves my point. That was the transfer of a player, albeit with much more experience, from League Two to a Championship club four years ago. This is the transfer of a player from a League One club to the champions of Europe at todays market value when there is an added premium on young English players (due to EU withdrawal). And we allegedly got less upfront than Exeter managed to.
If Airman’s sources are correct, we’ve been shafted here.
Time will tell whether Charlton has been ‘shafted’, or whether Chelsea has. Mason looks like he could be the real deal but he’s yet to prove it. So far he’s been a potential big fish in a small pond, with the emphasis on ‘potential’. £1.6m plus add ons seems pretty good to me. Every football fan wants their club to keep its potential stars but think it’s OK to go and buy another club’s rising stars. Personally, I’d rather the club wasn’t reliant upon the owner’s money to keep going and atm if that means selling a player or two every season then that’s what it should do.
If the club attempts to balance its operating loss by selling players it will go backwards and the operating loss will grow. This is the Duchatelet fallacy and “doing it better” won’t help. The club is unsustainable in L1.
Clearly it will be necessary and appropriate to sell some players - but as a model for the future it cannot and will not work.
Ollie Watkins went from Exeter to Brentford for £1.8m. He was an established EFL regular who had hit double figures in a season. The sell on clause then netted Exeter an extra £4m when he went to Villa.
I think £1.6m is reasonable given his career progress so far. If he does well, great, we might get more money. If he doesn’t then £1.6 is maybe about right.
£1.6M is abysmal value for a young, English striker who - in his fleeting appearances - has shown he has the rarest of qualities, an eye for goal.
I also think your Ollie Watkins example actually proves my point. That was the transfer of a player, albeit with much more experience, from League Two to a Championship club four years ago. This is the transfer of a player from a League One club to the champions of Europe at todays market value when there is an added premium on young English players (due to EU withdrawal). And we allegedly got less upfront than Exeter managed to.
If Airman’s sources are correct, we’ve been shafted here.
Time will tell whether Charlton has been ‘shafted’, or whether Chelsea has. Mason looks like he could be the real deal but he’s yet to prove it. So far he’s been a potential big fish in a small pond, with the emphasis on ‘potential’. £1.6m plus add ons seems pretty good to me. Every football fan wants their club to keep its potential stars but think it’s OK to go and buy another club’s rising stars. Personally, I’d rather the club wasn’t reliant upon the owner’s money to keep going and atm if that means selling a player or two every season then that’s what it should do.
If the club attempts to balance its operating loss by selling players it will go backwards and the operating loss will grow. This is the Duchatelet fallacy and “doing it better” won’t help. The club is unsustainable in L1.
Clearly it will be necessary and appropriate to sell some players - but as a model for the future it cannot and will not work.
Don’t think @letthegoodtimesroll advocated it as a business model, more just something we have to do from time to time which, particularly when we are in L1, is just realistic.
Ollie Watkins went from Exeter to Brentford for £1.8m. He was an established EFL regular who had hit double figures in a season. The sell on clause then netted Exeter an extra £4m when he went to Villa.
I think £1.6m is reasonable given his career progress so far. If he does well, great, we might get more money. If he doesn’t then £1.6 is maybe about right.
£1.6M is abysmal value for a young, English striker who - in his fleeting appearances - has shown he has the rarest of qualities, an eye for goal.
I also think your Ollie Watkins example actually proves my point. That was the transfer of a player, albeit with much more experience, from League Two to a Championship club four years ago. This is the transfer of a player from a League One club to the champions of Europe at todays market value when there is an added premium on young English players (due to EU withdrawal). And we allegedly got less upfront than Exeter managed to.
If Airman’s sources are correct, we’ve been shafted here.
Time will tell whether Charlton has been ‘shafted’, or whether Chelsea has. Mason looks like he could be the real deal but he’s yet to prove it. So far he’s been a potential big fish in a small pond, with the emphasis on ‘potential’. £1.6m plus add ons seems pretty good to me. Every football fan wants their club to keep its potential stars but think it’s OK to go and buy another club’s rising stars. Personally, I’d rather the club wasn’t reliant upon the owner’s money to keep going and atm if that means selling a player or two every season then that’s what it should do.
If the club attempts to balance its operating loss by selling players it will go backwards and the operating loss will grow. This is the Duchatelet fallacy and “doing it better” won’t help. The club is unsustainable in L1.
Clearly it will be necessary and appropriate to sell some players - but as a model for the future it cannot and will not work.
It’s easier said than done of course but selling players to move forwards is literally the model Brentford have used to get themselves from League Two to the Premier League.
Could Burstow have stepped up to be Stockley/Aneke's partner next season. I think there would have been a feel of being too weak up front if so.
Nobody really knows. Some good analysis about his goals/opposition.
The Club might have hedged their bets with Kanu coming through. TS has given a very good interview about it. We move on and are not in a weaker position this season, and maybe not next either with reinvestment.
Ollie Watkins went from Exeter to Brentford for £1.8m. He was an established EFL regular who had hit double figures in a season. The sell on clause then netted Exeter an extra £4m when he went to Villa.
I think £1.6m is reasonable given his career progress so far. If he does well, great, we might get more money. If he doesn’t then £1.6 is maybe about right.
£1.6M is abysmal value for a young, English striker who - in his fleeting appearances - has shown he has the rarest of qualities, an eye for goal.
I also think your Ollie Watkins example actually proves my point. That was the transfer of a player, albeit with much more experience, from League Two to a Championship club four years ago. This is the transfer of a player from a League One club to the champions of Europe at todays market value when there is an added premium on young English players (due to EU withdrawal). And we allegedly got less upfront than Exeter managed to.
If Airman’s sources are correct, we’ve been shafted here.
Time will tell whether Charlton has been ‘shafted’, or whether Chelsea has. Mason looks like he could be the real deal but he’s yet to prove it. So far he’s been a potential big fish in a small pond, with the emphasis on ‘potential’. £1.6m plus add ons seems pretty good to me. Every football fan wants their club to keep its potential stars but think it’s OK to go and buy another club’s rising stars. Personally, I’d rather the club wasn’t reliant upon the owner’s money to keep going and atm if that means selling a player or two every season then that’s what it should do.
If the club attempts to balance its operating loss by selling players it will go backwards and the operating loss will grow. This is the Duchatelet fallacy and “doing it better” won’t help. The club is unsustainable in L1.
Clearly it will be necessary and appropriate to sell some players - but as a model for the future it cannot and will not work.
Don’t think @letthegoodtimesroll advocated it as a business model, more just something we have to do from time to time which, particularly when we are in L1, is just realistic.
That's exactly as I read it as well, just as the majority of other clubs do and have to do.
I don’t see the big deal to be honest. The club are happy we’ve got a substantial fee.
It doesn’t feel like a Parker or Gomez situation. He’s had a few good performances and now he’s off to a top 4 club for a big fee.
Reminds me of Carl Jenkinson to Arsenal.
Is it substantial though?
I think one of the things I’m most peed off about is I suspect in comparison to what could be paid to promising contracted youngsters, it won’t be. It just all seems too easy.
This was my thoughts on Monday and if true it’s just £1.6m (which now seems extremely probable) then worryingly that now seems more weighted to me as a quick cash grab sale, that having him signed to a contract for another 18 months was exactly there to avoid needing.
Can only view it as bad business unless the coaching team don’t think he’s going to improve, which I see as very unlikely.
Disappointing
The penny will drop sooner or later mate.
This doesn't speak of much prospect of the requisite summer rebuild or execution of a masterplan strategy to get us up and out of the league.
Actions speak louder than words and soundbites.
I thought if we had got £4m or silly money like that then it would be crazy to turn it down as that could buy the best part of a competitive squad especially if we keep him on loan and loan him even next season.
Feels like we've cashed in way too low when we don't have a massive line of goalscorers in our ranks.
Either potentially poor business or necessity which doesn't bode well for an optimistic outlook on promotion prospects next term or anytime soon.
31 August is the key date for me that I think we'll definitely know the ability and/ or appetite for a real promotion challenge in next couple of years but stuff like this doesn't do anything to allay my pessimism about our prospects.
Nope. That was the strategy last year & as we can see it didn't work.
At worst the key date should be when the season starts. So around Aug 1st.
At best when players come in for pre season training & pre-season friendlies are taking place, so early - mid July.
If we haven't got a replacement striker in by then you can say its another wasted season. You can laugh, but I was right last summer...........
You say the same thing every bleeding summer. Of course you’ll be right every now and again.
I can’t take any of your goalscorer bleeting seriously after the 20/21 season. Summer of 2020, we were apparently doomed. We scored 70 goals, enough for 5th best in the league.
This season is worse on the goals so far unfortunately yes. But as said in the first sentence, you say the same thing every summer.
Ollie Watkins went from Exeter to Brentford for £1.8m. He was an established EFL regular who had hit double figures in a season. The sell on clause then netted Exeter an extra £4m when he went to Villa.
I think £1.6m is reasonable given his career progress so far. If he does well, great, we might get more money. If he doesn’t then £1.6 is maybe about right.
£1.6M is abysmal value for a young, English striker who - in his fleeting appearances - has shown he has the rarest of qualities, an eye for goal.
I also think your Ollie Watkins example actually proves my point. That was the transfer of a player, albeit with much more experience, from League Two to a Championship club four years ago. This is the transfer of a player from a League One club to the champions of Europe at todays market value when there is an added premium on young English players (due to EU withdrawal). And we allegedly got less upfront than Exeter managed to.
If Airman’s sources are correct, we’ve been shafted here.
Time will tell whether Charlton has been ‘shafted’, or whether Chelsea has. Mason looks like he could be the real deal but he’s yet to prove it. So far he’s been a potential big fish in a small pond, with the emphasis on ‘potential’. £1.6m plus add ons seems pretty good to me. Every football fan wants their club to keep its potential stars but think it’s OK to go and buy another club’s rising stars. Personally, I’d rather the club wasn’t reliant upon the owner’s money to keep going and atm if that means selling a player or two every season then that’s what it should do.
If the club attempts to balance its operating loss by selling players it will go backwards and the operating loss will grow. This is the Duchatelet fallacy and “doing it better” won’t help. The club is unsustainable in L1.
Clearly it will be necessary and appropriate to sell some players - but as a model for the future it cannot and will not work.
Don’t think @letthegoodtimesroll advocated it as a business model, more just something we have to do from time to time which, particularly when we are in L1, is just realistic.
That's exactly as I read it as well, just as the majority of other clubs do and have to do.
He said “a player or two every season”. That is unlikely to cover Charlton’s operating loss of about £8m. I would question whether “the majority of other clubs” cover their operating loss with transfer activity. If they did the EFL model would presumably be considered sustainable. But in any event most L1 clubs won’t have Charlton’s overheads. The only clubs who will are Sunderland, maybe Ipswich, Bolton, Portsmouth, etc.
Brentford buy the players they sell on and do not operate an academy, as far as I understand it, which is a bit different.
"Manchester City have joined West Ham and Brentford in showing an interest in Sheffield Wednesday's 16-year-old English forward Bailey Cadamarteri"
What a shock, another young striker ready to be poached by a PL club. Yes that is old Everton striker Danny's son.
When small/new PL clubs like Brighton and Brentford are building models on player farming you know you have a growing problem on your hands. Football really is eating itself.
Brentford who closed their academy to save money now trying to make other teams academies unviable by mopping up 16 year olds. Brighton who relied on the help of other small teams to even exist are doing the same.
When 60-70 non PL clubs decide to pack up their academies over the next 5-10 years it will be interesting to see what a great success EPPP has been for the long term future of the game.
Ollie Watkins went from Exeter to Brentford for £1.8m. He was an established EFL regular who had hit double figures in a season. The sell on clause then netted Exeter an extra £4m when he went to Villa.
I think £1.6m is reasonable given his career progress so far. If he does well, great, we might get more money. If he doesn’t then £1.6 is maybe about right.
£1.6M is abysmal value for a young, English striker who - in his fleeting appearances - has shown he has the rarest of qualities, an eye for goal.
I also think your Ollie Watkins example actually proves my point. That was the transfer of a player, albeit with much more experience, from League Two to a Championship club four years ago. This is the transfer of a player from a League One club to the champions of Europe at todays market value when there is an added premium on young English players (due to EU withdrawal). And we allegedly got less upfront than Exeter managed to.
If Airman’s sources are correct, we’ve been shafted here.
Time will tell whether Charlton has been ‘shafted’, or whether Chelsea has. Mason looks like he could be the real deal but he’s yet to prove it. So far he’s been a potential big fish in a small pond, with the emphasis on ‘potential’. £1.6m plus add ons seems pretty good to me. Every football fan wants their club to keep its potential stars but think it’s OK to go and buy another club’s rising stars. Personally, I’d rather the club wasn’t reliant upon the owner’s money to keep going and atm if that means selling a player or two every season then that’s what it should do.
If the club attempts to balance its operating loss by selling players it will go backwards and the operating loss will grow. This is the Duchatelet fallacy and “doing it better” won’t help. The club is unsustainable in L1.
Clearly it will be necessary and appropriate to sell some players - but as a model for the future it cannot and will not work.
Don’t think @letthegoodtimesroll advocated it as a business model, more just something we have to do from time to time which, particularly when we are in L1, is just realistic.
That's exactly as I read it as well, just as the majority of other clubs do and have to do.
He said “a player or two every season”. That is unlikely to cover Charlton’s operating loss of about £8m. I would question whether “the majority of other clubs” cover their operating loss with transfer activity. If they did the EFL model would presumably be considered sustainable. But in any event most L1 clubs won’t have Charlton’s overheads. The only clubs who will are Sunderland, maybe Ipswich, Bolton, Portsmouth, etc.
Brentford buy the players they sell on and do not operate an academy, as far as I understand it, which is a bit different.
Charlton is a bigger club than most in L1 and it’s based in the capital but until it has the riches of the PL it’s going to be exactly like every club outside the PL and that’s dependent upon either the owner continuing to have deep pockets or a Derby-like financial gamble. I’d rather we didn’t have to sell some of these promising youngsters but funnily enough they also have a say in the matter and it’s unrealistic to think a non-Champions League Charlton can keep them anyway. If the club can use those situations if they arise in either or both of the two transfer windows to have less dependence on an owners money then it’s in a far better place and accept it’s good fortune to have that income stream of the youth set up. I suspect Roland’s biggest cock up was he didn’t understand what he’d bought and alienated the people who could have made it work. My impression of TS so far is he’s realised he’s potentially hit the jackpot and he’s backing the people who can make it work.
I think some people need a bit of a reality check. "Tin pot" premier league clubs? We have spent nearly 15 years oscillating around the mid point of the 92.
This season we are about the midpoint of the 72, some times that achievement has looked a stretch.
In about 18 months time we will have a player make their debut who wasn't even born when we were in the prem.
Signing other clubs best young players is what everyone bang on about us doing. Or all these young and hungry players coming from somewhere else?
Getting angry about it only stops accepting the reality of the fact we are bang average league 1 club and have been for a long time. With the occasional flirt with the championship. It's many peoples fault but it's not Chelsea's, Mason's, "agent's", Brighton's or even the Premier League's.
Until we are an established Championship club, with promotion ambitions, nothing else will change. Even then there will still be much bigger fish. There always will be.
The Brentford model is having No academy but playing friendlies for any squad players and younger players they purchase. Personally I feel their luck will run out as didn't Toney slag off Brentford when he had a break last week and had to apologize to the fans. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work out a bid from a bigger Premier team came in the window and they turned it down. I will have a bet Brentford go down at the end of the 23/23 season.
As I was told by a Charlton coach of the younger age groups; the problem is the talented 12-14 year old are difficult to hold on too because CAT 1 have carte blanche to attend games and they get poached. We all know there is a food chain but I for one will never stop being gutted initially, followed by disappointment; Chelsea being the team that purloined Barness, Minto, Palmer, Parker, Burstow and no doubt Kanu in the summer just leaves me bereft.
When Lookman and Mason Burstow joined our academy, we all know they were older at 16. Also as Lookman went to Everton from Cafc when a Championship Side and straight into the 18 man squad we got a fee that was commensurate with a young forward who could score a goal every 4 matches in the Championship.
Ollie Watkins went from Exeter to Brentford for £1.8m. He was an established EFL regular who had hit double figures in a season. The sell on clause then netted Exeter an extra £4m when he went to Villa.
I think £1.6m is reasonable given his career progress so far. If he does well, great, we might get more money. If he doesn’t then £1.6 is maybe about right.
£1.6M is abysmal value for a young, English striker who - in his fleeting appearances - has shown he has the rarest of qualities, an eye for goal.
I also think your Ollie Watkins example actually proves my point. That was the transfer of a player, albeit with much more experience, from League Two to a Championship club four years ago. This is the transfer of a player from a League One club to the champions of Europe at todays market value when there is an added premium on young English players (due to EU withdrawal). And we allegedly got less upfront than Exeter managed to.
If Airman’s sources are correct, we’ve been shafted here.
Time will tell whether Charlton has been ‘shafted’, or whether Chelsea has. Mason looks like he could be the real deal but he’s yet to prove it. So far he’s been a potential big fish in a small pond, with the emphasis on ‘potential’. £1.6m plus add ons seems pretty good to me. Every football fan wants their club to keep its potential stars but think it’s OK to go and buy another club’s rising stars. Personally, I’d rather the club wasn’t reliant upon the owner’s money to keep going and atm if that means selling a player or two every season then that’s what it should do.
If the club attempts to balance its operating loss by selling players it will go backwards and the operating loss will grow. This is the Duchatelet fallacy and “doing it better” won’t help. The club is unsustainable in L1.
Clearly it will be necessary and appropriate to sell some players - but as a model for the future it cannot and will not work.
Don’t think @letthegoodtimesroll advocated it as a business model, more just something we have to do from time to time which, particularly when we are in L1, is just realistic.
That's exactly as I read it as well, just as the majority of other clubs do and have to do.
He said “a player or two every season”. That is unlikely to cover Charlton’s operating loss of about £8m. I would question whether “the majority of other clubs” cover their operating loss with transfer activity. If they did the EFL model would presumably be considered sustainable. But in any event most L1 clubs won’t have Charlton’s overheads. The only clubs who will are Sunderland, maybe Ipswich, Bolton, Portsmouth, etc.
Brentford buy the players they sell on and do not operate an academy, as far as I understand it, which is a bit different.
Charlton is a bigger club that most in L1 and it’s based in the capital but until it has the riches of the PL it’s going to be exactly like every club outside the PL and that’s dependent upon either the owner continuing to have deep pockets or a Derby-like financial gamble. I’d rather we didn’t have to sell some of these promising youngsters but funnily enough they also have a say in the matter and it’s unrealistic to think a non-Champions League Charlton can keep them anyway. If the club can use those situations if they arise in either or both of the two transfer windows to have less dependence on an owners money then it’s in a far better place and accept it’s good fortune to have that income stream of the youth set up. I suspect Roland’s biggest cock up was he didn’t understand what he’d bought and alienated the people who could have made it work. My impression of TS so far is he’s realised he’s potentially hit the jackpot and he’s backing the people who can make it work.
You are of course correct that players will need to be sold and that players will want to go. The issue is when and whether you maximise the value you get. It is premature to say that hasn’t been the case with Burstow, but my question with him is whether it is likely he would decline in value between now and May. If so then this may justify selling him after two league starts. The other reason you would sell now is cash flow. I doubt that is an immediate issue. This is not a Scott Parker situation or even Ademola Lookman. Burstow did not force the club to sell now, it was driven by the owner who made clear he was happy to sell at a particular price. He mistakenly thinks fans will be impressed / mollified by the loan, which was also driven by him.
I think fans will in general give short shrift to the idea of young players being sold within weeks of their league debut. In effect, without contributing to the club’s progress. There is no break even point possible in this division year on year because the fixed costs are a disproportionate proportion of turnover. This is less true in the Championship, even though the total costs there are higher.
As far as your first point is concerned, there are no clubs currently below Charlton in the EFL with higher overheads, (genuine) average attendance, revenue or historical achievements. Clubs are not the same and the dozen or so non-competitors in the division have a fraction of our costs, typically one third. Some less.
The problem is though if you need to sell 1 to 2 players a season, sooner or later you are going to have a phase of no gems in a particular batch from the academy to sell. Then you will sell a 1st team player and so on. Straight back to the Michael Gliksten era, which made us the tin pot little club we were for decades.
I'm not suggesting TS is getting in to that sphere just making the point against what has been suggested its ok to sell 1 or 2 good potential players in a season.
Selling a youth product like he has to re-invest in the squad in the knowledge another one is likely coming through is a different matter.
The problem is though if you need to sell 1 to 2 players a season, sooner or later you are going to have a phase of no gems in a particular batch from the academy to sell. Then you will sell a 1st team player and so on. Straight back to the Michael Gliksten era, which made us the tin pot little club we were for decades.
I'm not suggesting TS is getting in to that sphere just making the point against what has been suggested its ok to sell 1 or 2 good potential players in a season.
Selling a youth product like he has to re-invest in the squad in the knowledge another one is likely coming through is a different matter.
Tin pot little club that spent 4 seasons in 67 in the third tier (26 top flight , 37 second tier ) next season will be the 9th in 14 in the third tier and the other 5 in the second tier … we’ve never been so tin potty as now
The problem is though if you need to sell 1 to 2 players a season, sooner or later you are going to have a phase of no gems in a particular batch from the academy to sell. Then you will sell a 1st team player and so on. Straight back to the Michael Gliksten era, which made us the tin pot little club we were for decades.
I'm not suggesting TS is getting in to that sphere just making the point against what has been suggested its ok to sell 1 or 2 good potential players in a season.
Selling a youth product like he has to re-invest in the squad in the knowledge another one is likely coming through is a different matter.
Tin pot little club that spent 4 seasons in 67 in the third tier (26 top flight , 37 second tier ) next season will be the 9th in 14 in the third tier and the other 5 in the second tier … we’ve never been so tin potty as now
Relative to the time, 25+ years from when we dropped out of the top flight late 1958 onward. Culminating in sparse crowds (much lower than now) in what was then the largest league ground. A ground that was decaying and antiquated. No ambition whatsoever. Tin pot isn't necessarily defined by league status.
Sunderland are in the same league as us but I don't think anyone would call them a Tin pot club no more than I would consider us tin pot now, even though this season we have hit our lowest league position since starting out.
We have a ground to be proud of and a decent supporter base and I believe ambition, which we didn't have under Rolland.
However I take your point and appreciate where your coming from. This is the lowest standing we have ever had with Millwall & Palace higher than us. It needs to change for sure.
I don’t see the big deal to be honest. The club are happy we’ve got a substantial fee.
It doesn’t feel like a Parker or Gomez situation. He’s had a few good performances and now he’s off to a top 4 club for a big fee.
Reminds me of Carl Jenkinson to Arsenal.
Is it substantial though?
I think one of the things I’m most peed off about is I suspect in comparison to what could be paid to promising contracted youngsters, it won’t be. It just all seems too easy.
This was my thoughts on Monday and if true it’s just £1.6m (which now seems extremely probable) then worryingly that now seems more weighted to me as a quick cash grab sale, that having him signed to a contract for another 18 months was exactly there to avoid needing.
Can only view it as bad business unless the coaching team don’t think he’s going to improve, which I see as very unlikely.
Disappointing
The penny will drop sooner or later mate.
This doesn't speak of much prospect of the requisite summer rebuild or execution of a masterplan strategy to get us up and out of the league.
Actions speak louder than words and soundbites.
I thought if we had got £4m or silly money like that then it would be crazy to turn it down as that could buy the best part of a competitive squad especially if we keep him on loan and loan him even next season.
Feels like we've cashed in way too low when we don't have a massive line of goalscorers in our ranks.
Either potentially poor business or necessity which doesn't bode well for an optimistic outlook on promotion prospects next term or anytime soon.
31 August is the key date for me that I think we'll definitely know the ability and/ or appetite for a real promotion challenge in next couple of years but stuff like this doesn't do anything to allay my pessimism about our prospects.
Nope. That was the strategy last year & as we can see it didn't work.
At worst the key date should be when the season starts. So around Aug 1st.
At best when players come in for pre season training & pre-season friendlies are taking place, so early - mid July.
If we haven't got a replacement striker in by then you can say its another wasted season. You can laugh, but I was right last summer...........
You say the same thing every bleeding summer. Of course you’ll be right every now and again.
I can’t take any of your goalscorer bleeting seriously after the 20/21 season. Summer of 2020, we were apparently doomed. We scored 70 goals, enough for 5th best in the league.
This season is worse on the goals so far unfortunately yes. But as said in the first sentence, you say the same thing every summer.
Does he say the same thing every summer, really? Also, 5th best is not good enough on 9/10 occasions to get promoted. 20/21 was unfortunately not the 1/10 season, so as much as I sympathize with your intolerance of the bleeting, it was worthy bleeting imo.
"Manchester City have joined West Ham and Brentford in showing an interest in Sheffield Wednesday's 16-year-old English forward Bailey Cadamarteri"
What a shock, another young striker ready to be poached by a PL club. Yes that is old Everton striker Danny's son.
When small/new PL clubs like Brighton and Brentford are building models on player farming you know you have a growing problem on your hands. Football really is eating itself.
Brentford who closed their academy to save money now trying to make other teams academies unviable by mopping up 16 year olds. Brighton who relied on the help of other small teams to even exist are doing the same.
When 60-70 non PL clubs decide to pack up their academies over the next 5-10 years it will be interesting to see what a great success EPPP has been for the long term future of the game.
Out of interest, do other fans dislike Brentford for this? Although I normally want newly promoted clubs to stay up, perhaps I should want them to fail, so that others don't follow their model.
"Manchester City have joined West Ham and Brentford in showing an interest in Sheffield Wednesday's 16-year-old English forward Bailey Cadamarteri"
What a shock, another young striker ready to be poached by a PL club. Yes that is old Everton striker Danny's son.
When small/new PL clubs like Brighton and Brentford are building models on player farming you know you have a growing problem on your hands. Football really is eating itself.
Brentford who closed their academy to save money now trying to make other teams academies unviable by mopping up 16 year olds. Brighton who relied on the help of other small teams to even exist are doing the same.
When 60-70 non PL clubs decide to pack up their academies over the next 5-10 years it will be interesting to see what a great success EPPP has been for the long term future of the game.
Out of interest, do other fans dislike Brentford for this? Although I normally want newly promoted clubs to stay up, perhaps I should want them to fail, so that others don't follow their model.
"Manchester City have joined West Ham and Brentford in showing an interest in Sheffield Wednesday's 16-year-old English forward Bailey Cadamarteri"
What a shock, another young striker ready to be poached by a PL club. Yes that is old Everton striker Danny's son.
When small/new PL clubs like Brighton and Brentford are building models on player farming you know you have a growing problem on your hands. Football really is eating itself.
Brentford who closed their academy to save money now trying to make other teams academies unviable by mopping up 16 year olds. Brighton who relied on the help of other small teams to even exist are doing the same.
When 60-70 non PL clubs decide to pack up their academies over the next 5-10 years it will be interesting to see what a great success EPPP has been for the long term future of the game.
Out of interest, do other fans dislike Brentford for this? Although I normally want newly promoted clubs to stay up, perhaps I should want them to fail, so that others don't follow their model.
I dislike their non-academy system, for the obvious reason that if everyone did it, player development in this country would be non-existent.
A German club could not do it, because their Bundesliga status depends on having an academy with pre-set minimum criteria. This has been the case since soon after England thrashed them in Munich. They actually sat down and said “shit, what do we learn from this fiasco?”. Some 12 years later Ged Roddy created EPPP, and from a distance it doesnt look much different to the German one, in terms of professional criteria. The issue is how the FAPL clubs can raid academy players from EFL clubs, which in turn stems form the idiocy of the FAPL being a separate commercial entity.
Comments
If he turns out to be Prem level then we’ll get a bigger sell-on dividend if he’s sold by Chelsea.
If he stays on with Chelsea there may be payments based on appearances and goals? And also when they sell him, a potentially large sell-on payment.
What a shock, another young striker ready to be poached by a PL club. Yes that is old Everton striker Danny's son.
If Airman’s sources are correct, we’ve been shafted here.
Clearly it will be necessary and appropriate to sell some players - but as a model for the future it cannot and will not work.
Nobody really knows. Some good analysis about his goals/opposition.
The Club might have hedged their bets with Kanu coming through. TS has given a very good interview about it. We move on and are not in a weaker position this season, and maybe not next either with reinvestment.
I can’t take any of your goalscorer bleeting seriously after the 20/21 season. Summer of 2020, we were apparently doomed. We scored 70 goals, enough for 5th best in the league.
This season is worse on the goals so far unfortunately yes. But as said in the first sentence, you say the same thing every summer.
Brentford who closed their academy to save money now trying to make other teams academies unviable by mopping up 16 year olds. Brighton who relied on the help of other small teams to even exist are doing the same.
When 60-70 non PL clubs decide to pack up their academies over the next 5-10 years it will be interesting to see what a great success EPPP has been for the long term future of the game.
Yes - Danny Cadamarteri is his father - Makes me feel old seeing that
We have spent nearly 15 years oscillating around the mid point of the 92.
This season we are about the midpoint of the 72, some times that achievement has looked a stretch.
In about 18 months time we will have a player make their debut who wasn't even born when we were in the prem.
Signing other clubs best young players is what everyone bang on about us doing. Or all these young and hungry players coming from somewhere else?
Getting angry about it only stops accepting the reality of the fact we are bang average league 1 club and have been for a long time. With the occasional flirt with the championship. It's many peoples fault but it's not Chelsea's, Mason's, "agent's", Brighton's or even the Premier League's.
Until we are an established Championship club, with promotion ambitions, nothing else will change. Even then there will still be much bigger fish. There always will be.
I believe Shaun Wright Phillips is the Daddy, which as you say make's Bradley the Uncle.
As I was told by a Charlton coach of the younger age groups; the problem is the talented 12-14 year old are difficult to hold on too because CAT 1 have carte blanche to attend games and they get poached. We all know there is a food chain but I for one will never stop being gutted initially, followed by disappointment; Chelsea being the team that purloined Barness, Minto, Palmer, Parker, Burstow and no doubt Kanu in the summer just leaves me bereft.
When Lookman and Mason Burstow joined our academy, we all know they were older at 16. Also as Lookman went to Everton from Cafc when a Championship Side and straight into the 18 man squad we got a fee that was commensurate with a young forward who could score a goal every 4 matches in the Championship.
I think fans will in general give short shrift to the idea of young players being sold within weeks of their league debut. In effect, without contributing to the club’s progress. There is no break even point possible in this division year on year because the fixed costs are a disproportionate proportion of turnover. This is less true in the Championship, even though the total costs there are higher.
As far as your first point is concerned, there are no clubs currently below Charlton in the EFL with higher overheads, (genuine) average attendance, revenue or historical achievements. Clubs are not the same and the dozen or so non-competitors in the division have a fraction of our costs, typically one third. Some less.
I'm not suggesting TS is getting in to that sphere just making the point against what has been suggested its ok to sell 1 or 2 good potential players in a season.
Selling a youth product like he has to re-invest in the squad in the knowledge another one is likely coming through is a different matter.
next season will be the 9th in 14 in the third tier and the other 5 in the second tier … we’ve never been so tin potty as now
Sunderland are in the same league as us but I don't think anyone would call them a Tin pot club no more than I would consider us tin pot now, even though this season we have hit our lowest league position since starting out.
We have a ground to be proud of and a decent supporter base and I believe ambition, which we didn't have under Rolland.
However I take your point and appreciate where your coming from. This is the lowest standing we have ever had with Millwall & Palace higher than us. It needs to change for sure.
Does he say the same thing every summer, really?
Also, 5th best is not good enough on 9/10 occasions to get promoted. 20/21 was unfortunately not the 1/10 season, so as much as I sympathize with your intolerance of the bleeting, it was worthy bleeting imo.
Although I normally want newly promoted clubs to stay up, perhaps I should want them to fail, so that others don't follow their model.