Mason Burstow - on loan to Bolton from Hull (p53)

Airman Brown said:

SteveKielyCambridge said:

Airman Brown said:

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.

SELR_addicks said:

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.

matt88 said:

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. 

letthegoodtimesroll said:

se9addick said:

matt88 said:

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.

Airman Brown said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

se9addick said:

matt88 said:

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.

charente addick said:

Airman Brown said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

se9addick said:

matt88 said:

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.

Clarky said:

charente addick said:

Airman Brown said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

se9addick said:

matt88 said:

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.

Kap10 said:

ForeverAddickted said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

"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.

Wonder if he'll show more consistency with his promise compared with his Dad

Yes - Danny Cadamarteri is his father - Makes me feel old seeing that

Ian Wrights grandson, Bradley Wright Phillips nephew  played for Stoke the other day .. that makes you know you are old

I believe Shaun Wright Phillips is the Daddy, which as you say make's Bradley the Uncle.

letthegoodtimesroll said:

Airman Brown said:

Clarky said:

charente addick said:

Airman Brown said:

letthegoodtimesroll said:

se9addick said:

matt88 said:

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. 

iamdan said:

1.6m with add on and sell on.
votv

'with' meaning 'including' or 'plus?

oohaahmortimer said:

StrikerFirmani said:

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.

   

Athletico Charlton said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

"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.

jimmymelrose said:

Athletico Charlton said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

"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.