MINIBARCELONASAINT Posted 1 February, 2012 Posted 1 February, 2012 Not too sure if I could've posted this elsewhere, feel free to lock or remove if you don't deem it worthy. The u-18 player who scored 4 goals past us in Notts Forest win against our u-18s in the FA Youth Cup last week has gone to Chelsea for a fee of £1.5m. I'd like to hope we could demand a much greater fee than that if we had a boy with this talent and judging on the Chamberlain fee, I think we do.
S-Clarke Posted 1 February, 2012 Posted 1 February, 2012 The difference with this kid is that he'd never played a first team game, so his value is never going to be huge - there's no justification for it to be huge. Forest couldn't really reject £1.8m for a 15 year old who has never played a first team game - they need the money too. With us, Chamberlain had been in the first team setup for a year or so - and was a key part in our promotion playing almost 40 times over the season. This is why we could demand a much higher fee for him. (and we're financially sound, so we dictate, which helps)
Saint Garrett Posted 1 February, 2012 Posted 1 February, 2012 Very surprised that he's not been given a chance in the first team looking at how they've done this year...
SuperMikey Posted 1 February, 2012 Posted 1 February, 2012 He was quality last wednesday, had all the attributes to make a very good striker. If he can add a passing aspect and better movement to his game he'll be a good Prem striker. Good in the air, good finisher, good strength.
MINIBARCELONASAINT Posted 1 February, 2012 Author Posted 1 February, 2012 The difference with this kid is that he'd never played a first team game, so his value is never going to be huge - there's no justification for it to be huge. Forest couldn't really reject £1.8m for a 15 year old who has never played a first team game - they need the money too. With us, Chamberlain had been in the first team setup for a year or so - and was a key part in our promotion playing almost 40 times over the season. This is why we could demand a much higher fee for him. (and we're financially sound, so we dictate, which helps) I agree on most, but he's 18 and had made two substitute appearances in the Championship.
spyinthesky Posted 1 February, 2012 Posted 1 February, 2012 I remember a lad we had in the Youth squad many years ago by the name of Peters?? Scored goals for fun and look a bright prospect. Lost his way, ended up at Brentford and from there to obscurity You can never tell at that age
Mowgli Posted 1 February, 2012 Posted 1 February, 2012 The difference with this kid is that he'd never played a first team game, so his value is never going to be huge - there's no justification for it to be huge. Forest couldn't really reject £1.8m for a 15 year old who has never played a first team game - they need the money too. With us, Chamberlain had been in the first team setup for a year or so - and was a key part in our promotion playing almost 40 times over the season. This is why we could demand a much higher fee for him. (and we're financially sound, so we dictate, which helps) Yes but didn't Arsenal offer £4m for Shaw before he made his first team debut?
Doctoroncall Posted 1 February, 2012 Posted 1 February, 2012 His contract was up at the end of the season Forest offered him a new terms twice but he rejected them. When you get to the stage of offering highly rated teenagers (inc Morrison) £10 to £15k a week starting salary the likes of Forest are going to struggle to keep the talent especially with this new compensation system.
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 1 February, 2012 Posted 1 February, 2012 The difference with this kid is that he'd never played a first team game, so his value is never going to be huge - there's no justification for it to be huge. Forest couldn't really reject £1.8m for a 15 year old who has never played a first team game - they need the money too. With us, Chamberlain had been in the first team setup for a year or so - and was a key part in our promotion playing almost 40 times over the season. This is why we could demand a much higher fee for him. (and we're financially sound, so we dictate, which helps) I thought he had a couple of sub appearances recently?
St Chalet Posted 1 February, 2012 Posted 1 February, 2012 He was playing for Cotterill, zero chance of making even an empty bench if his Portsmouth tenure was anything to go by.
Itchen_block4 Posted 1 February, 2012 Posted 1 February, 2012 Easier to sell him than to sell a first teamer who might help to keep them up. Silly move from a football perspective, but there you go.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now