Jump to content

Looks like Chamberlain's off then

Whitey

By Whitey,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

westofshannonsaint

westofshannonsaint

Posted
Posted

interesting quote from van persie...

http://www.joe.ie/football/premier-league/robin-van-persie-questions-party-lifestyle-of-young-arsenal-teammates-0013016-1

 

"When I see some of my English colleagues who are out till three in the morning, then I can only conclude that they are invariably finished at 33."

 

Perhaps Chamberlain snr might decide it's better off to keep his young lad here for a while (well I can hope, can't I)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-transfer-news-Kenny-Dalglish-given-80million-budget-for-Anfield-rebuild-article746388.html

 

The Mirror can't make up its mind, two days ago they said he has signed for Arsneal and will join on July 1st, today they say he is going to Liverpool.

 

Don't believe them, they haven't a clue! Boy who cried wolf!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saintjay77

saintjay77

Posted
Posted

Sounds like papers are trying to cover all the bases again just in case 1 of them may be right.

 

I thought i saw someone say that NC is supposed to be on holiday and Ox-C is supposed to be on holiday? NC said last window Ox-C is not for sale yet there was a 40% sell on fee that was the sticking point, and while he hasn't said anything about it this window there is also nothing to actually suggest NC is planning to offload either.

 

If we are going to read facts somewhere then it will be on the OS. The papers play guessing games and dress it up as fact to sell more copies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wild-saint

wild-saint

Posted
Posted

A friend that knows chamberlains old man told me yesterday that he is after a coaching roleas part of any deal that takes his son to the arse (or other club) and also that he was banging on about being skint.

 

The mans is clearly seeing his son as a meal ticket and wants him to move to activate his cut in negotiations. Seems as though his thoughts are for himself and not the development of his sons game.

 

once a skate always a skate

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sandwichsaint

sandwichsaint

Posted
Posted
A friend that knows chamberlains old man told me yesterday that he is after a coaching roleas part of any deal that takes his son to the arse (or other club) and also that he was banging on about being skint.

 

The mans is clearly seeing his son as a meal ticket and wants him to move to activate his cut in negotiations. Seems as though his thoughts are for himself and not the development of his sons game.

 

once a skate always a skate

 

This is pretty much the impression I've had since day one; let's hope he listens to his mum more than his dad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John B

John B

Posted
Posted
Or it could just be 'if you want him, you will buy him on our terms, or you won't buy him at all'

 

In business of any sort the buyer and seller have to be happy with the terms of the sale to go through

 

Normally a buyer will not buy if he thinks the seller is not offering a good deal and is ripping him off.

 

We don’t know whether the 40% sell on is in fact what Cortese is asking for but if he is I fully understand Arsenal's stance.

 

We don’t know whether Cortese actually wants to sell OXO but if he does I doubt whether many clubs would accept a 40% selling on clause of course he should get as much money as possible £12m seems reasonable to me at the moment but if he was to excels in the Championship this season then more.

 

Sometimes young players do not become great players so there is always a risk in buying them

 

If OXO wants to go and of course he may not I think he should be given the opportunity to play at one of the top clubs in the world

 

 

But I dont mind whether he stays or goes - if he goes we should be able to get in some really good players to help us to the PL if he stays he will help us to the PL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weston Saint

Weston Saint

Posted
Posted

What a load of rubbish! If Arsenal wanted Chamberlain they would not be worried about a 40% sell on clause. They will want to play him in due course, not use him as a business commodity to sell on for business profit. It is more likely the stumbling block was a £10m up front payment, no add ons but with a sell on clause. But what do I know! Or the papers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John B

John B

Posted
Posted
Good, being as we developed him we should profit from any future sell on IMO.

 

If the big boys don't like it then tough.

 

Yes we developed him and get £10 m why should we get money from Arsenal if they develop him further

 

Should we pay MK DONS £500000 if we manage to sell on Puncheon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
Yes we developed him and get £10 m why should we get money from Arsenal if they develop him further

 

Should we pay MK DONS £500000 if we manage to sell on Puncheon?

 

No, because we bought him from Plymouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
holepuncture

holepuncture

Posted
Posted
A friend that knows chamberlains old man told me yesterday that he is after a coaching roleas part of any deal that takes his son to the arse (or other club) and also that he was banging on about being skint.

 

The mans is clearly seeing his son as a meal ticket and wants him to move to activate his cut in negotiations. Seems as though his thoughts are for himself and not the development of his sons game.

 

once a skate always a skate

 

Completely agree. I dont begrudge AOC wanting to go to the big four and take his chances, but it seems that his dad (agent) is causing all the speculation in the press. I wonder what NCs opinion of him is?

 

One thing I am sure of... Chambo will never see such love and support for him from the fans and club again as he has seen at SMS. He is a hero here, the city thinks hes great, the fans love him and want nothing more than to see him suceed with us.

 

I wonder how he would fare at Arsenal, with the negative support, that boos the team off at half time at 0-0, or boos and villifies players for making mistakes. He will never be above the likes of Gerrard and co at pool, man utd fans wont see him as anything special... and man city are are joke!

 

Im sure we will be offering him megabucks to stay, as we did with Lallana. Sure, maybe not silly prem money, but more than enough to take him into the top 5-10% of earners in the UK (and a bit on the side for his skint old man).

 

Lallana can enjoy being the top boy in the city, earning big money, raise his family, stay near his family and the environment hes grown up in, AOC will be making a massive upheaval at such a key stage in his life.

 

That said, I will wish him all the best and hope he becomes a top player. The money would give us the funds to buy proven players to help push up the leagues, but it dosent seem like we need it.

 

Stay AOC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
St_Tel49

St_Tel49

Posted
Posted
Well it has collapsed due to the ridiculous sell on clause so not that good business perhaps

Firstly do you know that this is true. If you don't then it renders the second half of the sentence meaningless. If you do know it is true then I would hazard a guess that collapsing the deal was NC's intention. Good business is only business that you want to conduct and that is concluded satisfactorily for both parties. Some of our fans still don't seem to have grasped that we don't need the money and we therefore hold the upper hand in negotiations. And yes - it may mean that potential buyers walk away. So what!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wild-saint

wild-saint

Posted
Posted

The problem NC has with AOC is that he has been banging on about the youth academy and how we want to emulate Barca by bringing through young players and building the team around him only to potentially lose the first player he brings through.

 

For that reason and that reason alone I think NC will be completley abstructive on letting AOC go regardless of what the boy personally wants to do. NC will only sell if its massively weighted in our favour allowing him to save face. He has a big dilema on his hands and therefore will fight tooth and nail to keep him here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted (edited)
The problem NC has with AOC is that he has been banging on about the youth academy and how we want to emulate Barca by bringing through young players and building the team around him only to potentially lose the first player he brings through.

 

For that reason and that reason alone I think NC will be completley abstructive on letting AOC go regardless of what the boy personally wants to do. NC will only sell if its massively weighted in our favour allowing him to save face. He has a big dilema on his hands and therefore will fight tooth and nail to keep him here.

 

Only has him contracted until June 30th 2013 though.

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
Posted
The problem NC has with AOC is that he has been banging on about the youth academy and how we want to emulate Barca by bringing through young players and building the team around him only to potentially lose the first player he brings through.

 

For that reason and that reason alone I think NC will be completley abstructive on letting AOC go regardless of what the boy personally wants to do. NC will only sell if its massively weighted in our favour allowing him to save face. He has a big dilema on his hands and therefore will fight tooth and nail to keep him here.

even barcelona get rid of young players...fabregas and pique being two great examples...they did however, have the means to get them back

Link to comment
Share on other sites
david in sweden

david in sweden

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Considering the total media hype on this one since last Christmas; i've always thought it would be Arsenal.

He will get the nurturing there that might be lacking in those " ...northern clubs ".

 

IMHO it's just been a "bidding game" between Nicola Cortese (nice one Nico), and the Arsenal treasurer.

I only hope there is a sell-on clause because even £12 million sounds a steal to me, when you see some of the prices being bandied around today.

 

Is Wenger really serious about signing Alex? ..you bet he is. Alex is not the type of player for Chelsea and so the big question was not WOULD Arsenal sign him..but do they want him signing for someone else ? ...Man U...or Liverpool?

 

There is an obvious answer to that one. I'm just waiting to see a few games with Alex and Theo on the pitch at the same time .

Edited by david in sweden
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jez

Jez

Posted
Posted
even barcelona get rid of young players...fabregas and pique being two great examples...they did however, have the means to get them back

 

I'm sure you mean do in the case of Fabregas... (though I thought I heard the other day they only had £40m to spend in total this summer, so perhaps they don't)

 

Anyway, I think we should stop talking about OxO leaving until the next paper rumour surfaces :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Kraken

The Kraken

Posted
Posted
and that is the key issue. At the end of this coming season if he does not sign a new deal his value will decrease significantly.

 

Why? He's less than 24 so even if he does go anywhere when he's out of contract, we'll be due a development fee for him. And development fees these days tend to be an accurate representation of the transfer market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cabrone

Cabrone

Posted
Posted
Yes we developed him and get £10 m why should we get money from Arsenal if they develop him further

 

Should we pay MK DONS £500000 if we manage to sell on Puncheon?

 

Awwwww, poor Arsenal.

 

If they don't like it then may I suggest that they develop their own talent?

 

He'll only go if we get a price that we want and they buy at a price they want.

 

Otherwise it's tough luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted
In business of any sort the buyer and seller have to be happy with the terms of the sale to go through

 

Normally a buyer will not buy if he thinks the seller is not offering a good deal and is ripping him off.

 

We don’t know whether the 40% sell on is in fact what Cortese is asking for but if he is I fully understand Arsenal's stance.

 

We don’t know whether Cortese actually wants to sell OXO but if he does I doubt whether many clubs would accept a 40% selling on clause of course he should get as much money as possible £12m seems reasonable to me at the moment but if he was to excels in the Championship this season then more.

 

Sometimes young players do not become great players so there is always a risk in buying them

 

If OXO wants to go and of course he may not I think he should be given the opportunity to play at one of the top clubs in the world

 

 

But I dont mind whether he stays or goes - if he goes we should be able to get in some really good players to help us to the PL if he stays he will help us to the PL.

 

Are you actually a Saints fan ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted
Awwwww, poor Arsenal.

 

If they don't like it then may I suggest that they develop their own talent?

 

He'll only go if we get a price that we want and they buy at a price they want.

 

Otherwise it's tough luck.

 

This.

 

We dont need to sell, if we do it will be on OUR terms.

 

What a refreshing change from the Lowe era...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alpine_saint

alpine_saint

Posted
Posted
Firstly do you know that this is true. If you don't then it renders the second half of the sentence meaningless. If you do know it is true then I would hazard a guess that collapsing the deal was NC's intention. Good business is only business that you want to conduct and that is concluded satisfactorily for both parties. Some of our fans still don't seem to have grasped that we don't need the money and we therefore hold the upper hand in negotiations. And yes - it may mean that potential buyers walk away. So what!

 

Another good post on the subject. Seems some of our fans are stuck in a timewarp from 8 years ago...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HK_Phoey

HK_Phoey

Posted
Posted
Only has him contracted until June 30th 2013 though.

 

thought i read there was some ruling that said 17 year olds could only sign a three year maximum contract. Not sure when alex's birthday is but since all contracts are now designed to end at end of june suspect that was all we could tie him down for

 

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted
Why? He's less than 24 so even if he does go anywhere when he's out of contract, we'll be due a development fee for him. And development fees these days tend to be an accurate representation of the transfer market.

 

Such as?

 

The last one that I heard was Bostock from Crystal Palace to Spurs (2008 ). They got a £700,000 fee for the highly rated youngster who they valued £2m minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doctoroncall

Doctoroncall

Posted
Posted
thought i read there was some ruling that said 17 year olds could only sign a three year maximum contract. Not sure when alex's birthday is but since all contracts are now designed to end at end of june suspect that was all we could tie him down for

 

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk

 

I think you're right. I'm not sure if it's because of the Webster ruling were he was allowed to invoke Article 17 of the FIFA transfer regulations. There is now minimum and maximum contracts (1-5 years) with protected periods of 3 years for under 28 year olds and 2 years for over 28 year olds.

 

 

 

 

Tapped out on my computer keyboard ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint_clark

Saint_clark

Posted
Posted
"I wonder how he would fare at Arsenal, with the negative support, that boos the team off at half time at 0-0, or boos and villifies players for making mistakes."

 

Because we'd never do that would we?!

 

For the last two years, no we haven't. We've been very good at supporting our players (Puncheon got some abuse because he stopped putting the effort in).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint_John

Saint_John

Posted
Posted

At the recent FL Agm in Cyprus they stated that the Financial Fair Play rules would start in the season 2012/13 (season after next), and that every Club would only be able to spend on Transfers & Wages (Expenses) what they took in in Income.

The actual detail of how this was going to work out was to be agreed over the next 6 months but things like Acadamies would not be included in the Expense side.

 

Now for EXAMPLE if Saints had a income of SAY £12M in L1 and as a Championship side that figure were to rise to something like £18M in a normal season. My understanding this would mean that from July 2012 (NOT the coming season) we could only spend £18M on wages + transfers.

 

Therefore if the Club has a bright young star who is attracting bids of around £12M, then it important that he is KEPT until after July 2012 when the Transfer Fee would be included as Income in the 2012/13 season i.e. £18M + £12M = £30M (INCOME) or if spread over 2 years then £18M + £6M = £24M for both the 2012/13 & 2013/14 seasons.

 

My understanding is that if he is sold NOW then although we could spend that money now (and anymore that the owners wanted to put in), the better players would come with HIGHER wages and by the time we get to the 2012/13 season and the introduction of the Financial Fair Play rules then the Expense side of the equation could be greater than the £18M income figure for that season, and we would need to sell more players to balance the equation even though we could have MANY Millions in the Bank.

 

What this means is by selling him now Saints would probably get only ONE attempt at getting to the PL before those with parachute payments would have an advantage, whereas by keeping the bright young star for another season we could get THREE seasons to return to our rightful place.

 

I am lead to believe that similar rules are being talked about for the PL and this could explain why the big clubs are buying big at the moment (Jones to manure, Henderson to pool etc) so that those Transfer Fees are not included in the income figure for future years only their wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CityRanger

CityRanger

Posted
Posted (edited)
At the recent FL Agm in Cyprus they stated that the Financial Fair Play rules would start in the season 2012/13 (season after next), and that every Club would only be able to spend on Transfers & Wages (Expenses) what they took in in Income.

The actual detail of how this was going to work out was to be agreed over the next 6 months but things like Acadamies would not be included in the Expense side.

 

Now for EXAMPLE if Saints had a income of SAY £12M in L1 and as a Championship side that figure were to rise to something like £18M in a normal season. My understanding this would mean that from July 2012 (NOT the coming season) we could only spend £18M on wages + transfers.

 

Therefore if the Club has a bright young star who is attracting bids of around £12M, then it important that he is KEPT until after July 2012 when the Transfer Fee would be included as Income in the 2012/13 season i.e. £18M + £12M = £30M (INCOME) or if spread over 2 years then £18M + £6M = £24M for both the 2012/13 & 2013/14 seasons.

 

My understanding is that if he is sold NOW then although we could spend that money now (and anymore that the owners wanted to put in), the better players would come with HIGHER wages and by the time we get to the 2012/13 season and the introduction of the Financial Fair Play rules then the Expense side of the equation could be greater than the £18M income figure for that season, and we would need to sell more players to balance the equation even though we could have MANY Millions in the Bank.

 

What this means is by selling him now Saints would probably get only ONE attempt at getting to the PL before those with parachute payments would have an advantage, whereas by keeping the bright young star for another season we could get THREE seasons to return to our rightful place.

 

I am lead to believe that similar rules are being talked about for the PL and this could explain why the big clubs are buying big at the moment (Jones to manure, Henderson to pool etc) so that those Transfer Fees are not included in the income figure for future years only their wages.

 

What if we sold, say, Ricky Lambert for 12m? Hypothetically speaking of course! Would that not be counted as income in completely the same way? I don't see how it's different that he's a youth product?

 

Edit! I'm sorry i see what you're saying, that we should not sell ANY assets now. I'll read properly next time.

Edited by CityRanger
i'm stupid?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matthew Le God

Matthew Le God

Posted
Posted
£12m is ridiculous money

 

Why is it ridiculous money? There is a very good chance he will be worth a lot more than that if he has a good season in the Championship, plus he still has 15 years left at least of his career and the club is in good health and doesn't need the money. If he went for £12m it would be a bargain, hence why I doubt Cortese will sell him for that (or indeed at all anytime soon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thedelldays

Thedelldays

Posted
Posted
Why is it ridiculous money? There is a very good chance he will be worth a lot more than that if he has a good season in the Championship, plus he still has 15 years left at least of his career and the club is in good health and doesn't need the money. If he went for £12m it would be a bargain, hence why I doubt Cortese will sell him for that (or indeed at all anytime soon).

 

chamberlain..who has played 2/3 of a season in division 3 costing more than Van Der Vaart......really..?

 

im sure you will tell me otherwise but hey ho

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crab Lungs

Crab Lungs

Posted
Posted

If Henderson is worth £20m, then Chamberlain is worth £35m, without doubt. Henderson is a average-to-good midfield clogger. I wonder what Neil Maddison would have been worth in this day and age? Especially as he would score 5-10 goals a season from midfield and could do a little bit of everything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...