Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Mason Burstow - on loan to Bolton from Hull (p53)
Comments
-
Maybe offers not just monetary maybe we've got first option or discounted options on loans for next season ??0
-
some balls and a set of bibsscruffle said:Maybe offers not just monetary maybe we've got first option or discounted options on loans for next season ??2 -
1.6 up front, rising to around 3/4 with a sell on would be decent. Not fantastic, but decent enough I'd say.1
-
Blimey Dave, that’s even worse than the tracksuits Crockenhill got from Gillingham for Tony Cascarino 40 years ago 😲.cafcdave123 said:
some balls and a set of bibsscruffle said:Maybe offers not just monetary maybe we've got first option or discounted options on loans for next season ??3 -
Christ on a bike, literally take a note from your own book and chill TF out... its called dry humour.Gravesend_Addick said:
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!!!shine166 said:
After turning down 3m from Brentford a week ago? That's great business thatElliotCAFC said:£1.6m is the rumoured fee on social media. Surely not?
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
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.0 -
If the add ons are realistic and the sell on decent then yes.cafcfan1990 said: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 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.4 -
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 -
https://youtu.be/I8P80A8vy9Icafckev said:
Hopefully 50%AFKABartram said:Does x% of what we get go to Maidstone?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
0 -
Shite, I’d say.cafcfan1990 said:1.6 up front, rising to around 3/4 with a sell on would be decent. Not fantastic, but decent enough I'd say.4 -
He's under 23 and came to us as a scholar at 17, before signing a Pro contract. So, yes ....... we would have been entitled to a development fee.Rothko said:
Which we wouldn't as he's not a academy productPelling1993 said:
If its only £1.6m we would've been better off keeping him for 18months, letting him go on a free and getting the compensationShootersHillGuru said:Hope it’s more than £1.6 million but I think those thinking it’s way more are deluding themselves.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
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 salt4
-
Some of it has to fit some peoples' agenda.Gravesend_Addick said:
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!!!shine166 said:
After turning down 3m from Brentford a week ago? That's great business thatElliotCAFC said:£1.6m is the rumoured fee on social media. Surely not?
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
4 -
Nope, nobody said that.soapboxsam said: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.5 -
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 ?
0 -
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.Chris_from_Sidcup said:
If the add ons are realistic and the sell on decent then yes.cafcfan1990 said: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 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.0 -
£1.6M doesn’t sound great even if it’s just the upfront number.God knows what the actual fee will be, doubt we’ll ever really know.2
-
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.7 -
It is laughable when you consider that Brighton paid £6m last night for a Striker from BelgiumPragueAddick said: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.
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.2 -
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.00
-
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.2
- Sponsored links:
-
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.soapboxsam said: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 ?1 -
Who isn't? Although I don't think JJ has anything to do with this deal whatsoever.mendonca said: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.0 -
I don’t know but saw £25m on Facebook.14
-
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.4 -
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.ForeverAddickted said:
It is laughable when you consider that Brighton paid £6m last night for a Striker from BelgiumPragueAddick said: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.
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.3 -
Liverpool also signed Andy Carroll for 35mil and Sunderland signed Wickham for around 11.ForeverAddickted said:
It is laughable when you consider that Brighton paid £6m last night for a Striker from BelgiumPragueAddick said: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.
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.0 -
Some contexts:
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.
10 -
He's not a patch on where Lookman was when he left but we should demand 8 figures - Chelsea have the money.2
-
£1.6m is laughable.
If that is 'substantial' to Sandgaard, he's in the wrong sport.1
