We got £2m for mason burstow after he played 7 games. There is just no doubt that Leaburn must be a minimum of twice that
Burstow was 2 years younger and not off the back of a serious injury. If we get offered over £5m in Jan then the club 100% takes it, I just can't see that happening.
Don’t see the age as relevant. Miles is extremely young and has his entire career ahead of him in reality, and has demonstrated about 30 times the potential that burstow did. The injury is relevant but as only 1 injury I don’t think hugely in terms of value.
Burstow's age made it easier to take a punt on him. Even after failed loans back at us and then Sunderland, Chelsea still turned a slight profit on his transfer fee two years down the line.
I agree Leaburn is a better player than Burstow although think he's far off where Lookman was. I expect him to go in the summer and I hope to be proven wrong about his fee but just struggle to see it being anymore than £5m unless he really sets the second half of the season alight.
I think we get carried away at times, people wanted £5m for May
I agree people get carried away on the whole but I don’t agree at all that burstows age made it easier to take a punt on him. Leaburn is only 21! That is prime age, and there are several examples of players going for substantial money at a similar age and with less evidence of pedigree.
I mean let’s roll this back… we paid 2.5m for Luke Varney when he was 25 years of age based on a couple of seasons for Crewe. That was almost 20 years ago. Leaburn aged 21 with the record he has to date must command AT LEAST the equivalent fee in real terms today which allowing for inflation again takes you to 5m or more (not all up front, obviously).
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.
If we get offered £2M - £3M I think we’d take it, £5M and we definitely would. Don’t delude yourselves that we’ll be seeing much more than that.
I’m not deluding myself about anything, I have no trust whatsoever in our board, however, that doesn’t change what a realistic market value of Leaburn is/ should be.
Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
His “market value” is simply how much someone is willing to pay, and how much we are willing to sell for. Has nothing to do with the transfer fee paid for Luke Varney decades ago.
You're correct about market value, but until you enter the market, estimated valuations and what as a seller you are likely to seek is generally based on comparables.
You can ignore Luke Varney if you want, but there are many comparables which would indicate a much higher market value than £2m, and as much as I don't trust the current ownership - I'm certainly glad you are not at the helm as going in for £2m would be abysmal negotiation and management given Leaburn's age, record and visible potential
However, offer 2 million, offer Leaburn 25k a week, he'd not want to play for us. A scenario on him getting tapped up.
Yes, there are many ways this could conceivably play out
We got £2m for mason burstow after he played 7 games. There is just no doubt that Leaburn must be a minimum of twice that
Burstow was 2 years younger and not off the back of a serious injury. If we get offered over £5m in Jan then the club 100% takes it, I just can't see that happening.
Don’t see the age as relevant. Miles is extremely young and has his entire career ahead of him in reality, and has demonstrated about 30 times the potential that burstow did. The injury is relevant but as only 1 injury I don’t think hugely in terms of value.
Burstow's age made it easier to take a punt on him. Even after failed loans back at us and then Sunderland, Chelsea still turned a slight profit on his transfer fee two years down the line.
I agree Leaburn is a better player than Burstow although think he's far off where Lookman was. I expect him to go in the summer and I hope to be proven wrong about his fee but just struggle to see it being anymore than £5m unless he really sets the second half of the season alight.
I think we get carried away at times, people wanted £5m for May
I agree people get carried away on the whole but I don’t agree at all that burstows age made it easier to take a punt on him. Leaburn is only 21! That is prime age, and there are several examples of players going for substantial money at a similar age and with less evidence of pedigree.
I mean let’s roll this back… we paid 2.5m for Luke Varney when he was 25 years of age based on a couple of seasons for Crewe. That was almost 20 years ago. Leaburn aged 21 with the record he has to date must command AT LEAST the equivalent fee in real terms today which allowing for inflation again takes you to 5m or more (not all up front, obviously).
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.
If we get offered £2M - £3M I think we’d take it, £5M and we definitely would. Don’t delude yourselves that we’ll be seeing much more than that.
I’m not deluding myself about anything, I have no trust whatsoever in our board, however, that doesn’t change what a realistic market value of Leaburn is/ should be.
Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
His “market value” is simply how much someone is willing to pay, and how much we are willing to sell for. Has nothing to do with the transfer fee paid for Luke Varney decades ago.
You're correct about market value, but until you enter the market, estimated valuations and what as a seller you are likely to seek is generally based on comparables.
You can ignore Luke Varney if you want, but there are many comparables which would indicate a much higher market value than £2m, and as much as I don't trust the current ownership - I'm certainly glad you are not at the helm as going in for £2m would be abysmal negotiation and management given Leaburn's age, record and visible potential
The only real factor in what we could hope to get for Leaburn is not what we want for him, but what other clubs are willing to pay for him. If we demand too much they will look elsewhere or wait until his contract is running down. He’s good but he has only played in the 3rd tier and has already had the best part of a year injured.
We got £2m for mason burstow after he played 7 games. There is just no doubt that Leaburn must be a minimum of twice that
Burstow was 2 years younger and not off the back of a serious injury. If we get offered over £5m in Jan then the club 100% takes it, I just can't see that happening.
Don’t see the age as relevant. Miles is extremely young and has his entire career ahead of him in reality, and has demonstrated about 30 times the potential that burstow did. The injury is relevant but as only 1 injury I don’t think hugely in terms of value.
Burstow's age made it easier to take a punt on him. Even after failed loans back at us and then Sunderland, Chelsea still turned a slight profit on his transfer fee two years down the line.
I agree Leaburn is a better player than Burstow although think he's far off where Lookman was. I expect him to go in the summer and I hope to be proven wrong about his fee but just struggle to see it being anymore than £5m unless he really sets the second half of the season alight.
I think we get carried away at times, people wanted £5m for May
I agree people get carried away on the whole but I don’t agree at all that burstows age made it easier to take a punt on him. Leaburn is only 21! That is prime age, and there are several examples of players going for substantial money at a similar age and with less evidence of pedigree.
I mean let’s roll this back… we paid 2.5m for Luke Varney when he was 25 years of age based on a couple of seasons for Crewe. That was almost 20 years ago. Leaburn aged 21 with the record he has to date must command AT LEAST the equivalent fee in real terms today which allowing for inflation again takes you to 5m or more (not all up front, obviously).
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.
If we get offered £2M - £3M I think we’d take it, £5M and we definitely would. Don’t delude yourselves that we’ll be seeing much more than that.
I’m not deluding myself about anything, I have no trust whatsoever in our board, however, that doesn’t change what a realistic market value of Leaburn is/ should be.
Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
His “market value” is simply how much someone is willing to pay, and how much we are willing to sell for. Has nothing to do with the transfer fee paid for Luke Varney decades ago.
You're correct about market value, but until you enter the market, estimated valuations and what as a seller you are likely to seek is generally based on comparables.
You can ignore Luke Varney if you want, but there are many comparables which would indicate a much higher market value than £2m, and as much as I don't trust the current ownership - I'm certainly glad you are not at the helm as going in for £2m would be abysmal negotiation and management given Leaburn's age, record and visible potential
The only real factor in what we could hope to get for Leaburn is not what we want for him, but what other clubs are willing to pay for him. If we demand too much they will look elsewhere or wait until his contract is running down. He’s good but he has only played in the 3rd tier and has already had the best part of a year injured.
Correct again.
Again though, what they’re willing to pay for him will be informed by what else they could get comparatively and again by comparables.
There is no doubt teams will be willing to pay substantial money for Leaburn given his CV (and barring another injury which would change things) and possible onward valuation.
The absolute worst case scenario for somebody interested in Leaburn is he turns out to be a possibly injury prone, proven league one striker with his entire career ahead of him. A proven league one striker now is £1m - that’s what Rotherham paid for Sam Nombe, supposedly 800k for Alfie May into his 30s, posh paid £1.4m for Jonson Clarke Harris a couple of years ago.
That’s the worst case scenario. Reality likely to be a certainly higher ceiling and there is also a best case scenario that he develops into an Ivan Toney, 50m+.
As I say, barring another major injury, £2m would be pitiful negotiation. I thought Burstow looked rubbish and couldn’t believe somebody gave us what they did for him.
We got £2m for mason burstow after he played 7 games. There is just no doubt that Leaburn must be a minimum of twice that
Burstow was 2 years younger and not off the back of a serious injury. If we get offered over £5m in Jan then the club 100% takes it, I just can't see that happening.
Don’t see the age as relevant. Miles is extremely young and has his entire career ahead of him in reality, and has demonstrated about 30 times the potential that burstow did. The injury is relevant but as only 1 injury I don’t think hugely in terms of value.
Burstow's age made it easier to take a punt on him. Even after failed loans back at us and then Sunderland, Chelsea still turned a slight profit on his transfer fee two years down the line.
I agree Leaburn is a better player than Burstow although think he's far off where Lookman was. I expect him to go in the summer and I hope to be proven wrong about his fee but just struggle to see it being anymore than £5m unless he really sets the second half of the season alight.
I think we get carried away at times, people wanted £5m for May
I agree people get carried away on the whole but I don’t agree at all that burstows age made it easier to take a punt on him. Leaburn is only 21! That is prime age, and there are several examples of players going for substantial money at a similar age and with less evidence of pedigree.
I mean let’s roll this back… we paid 2.5m for Luke Varney when he was 25 years of age based on a couple of seasons for Crewe. That was almost 20 years ago. Leaburn aged 21 with the record he has to date must command AT LEAST the equivalent fee in real terms today which allowing for inflation again takes you to 5m or more (not all up front, obviously).
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.
If we get offered £2M - £3M I think we’d take it, £5M and we definitely would. Don’t delude yourselves that we’ll be seeing much more than that.
I’m not deluding myself about anything, I have no trust whatsoever in our board, however, that doesn’t change what a realistic market value of Leaburn is/ should be.
Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
His “market value” is simply how much someone is willing to pay, and how much we are willing to sell for. Has nothing to do with the transfer fee paid for Luke Varney decades ago.
You're correct about market value, but until you enter the market, estimated valuations and what as a seller you are likely to seek is generally based on comparables.
You can ignore Luke Varney if you want, but there are many comparables which would indicate a much higher market value than £2m, and as much as I don't trust the current ownership - I'm certainly glad you are not at the helm as going in for £2m would be abysmal negotiation and management given Leaburn's age, record and visible potential
The only real factor in what we could hope to get for Leaburn is not what we want for him, but what other clubs are willing to pay for him. If we demand too much they will look elsewhere or wait until his contract is running down. He’s good but he has only played in the 3rd tier and has already had the best part of a year injured.
Correct again.
Again though, what they’re willing to pay for him will be informed by what else they could get comparatively and again by comparables.
There is no doubt teams will be willing to pay substantial money for Leaburn given his CV (and barring another injury which would change things) and possible onward valuation.
The absolute worst case scenario for somebody interested in Leaburn is he turns out to be a possibly injury prone, proven league one striker with his entire career ahead of him. A proven league one striker now is £1m - that’s what Rotherham paid for Sam Nombe, supposedly 800k for Alfie May into his 30s, posh paid £1.4m for Jonson Clarke Harris a couple of years ago.
That’s the worst case scenario. Reality likely to be a certainly higher ceiling and there is also a best case scenario that he develops into an Ivan Toney, 50m+.
As I say, barring another major injury, £2m would be pitiful negotiation. I thought Burstow looked rubbish and couldn’t believe somebody gave us what they did for him.
Toney's increase in transfer fees is remarkable isn't it. Just shows how a player can develop far beyond what some clubs expect.
2015 - Northampton to Newcastle, £500k 2018 - Newcastle to Peterborough, £390k 2020 - Peterborough to Brentford, £6m (plus add/ons) 2024 - Brentford to Al Ahli, £40m
We got £2m for mason burstow after he played 7 games. There is just no doubt that Leaburn must be a minimum of twice that
Burstow was 2 years younger and not off the back of a serious injury. If we get offered over £5m in Jan then the club 100% takes it, I just can't see that happening.
Don’t see the age as relevant. Miles is extremely young and has his entire career ahead of him in reality, and has demonstrated about 30 times the potential that burstow did. The injury is relevant but as only 1 injury I don’t think hugely in terms of value.
Burstow's age made it easier to take a punt on him. Even after failed loans back at us and then Sunderland, Chelsea still turned a slight profit on his transfer fee two years down the line.
I agree Leaburn is a better player than Burstow although think he's far off where Lookman was. I expect him to go in the summer and I hope to be proven wrong about his fee but just struggle to see it being anymore than £5m unless he really sets the second half of the season alight.
I think we get carried away at times, people wanted £5m for May
I agree people get carried away on the whole but I don’t agree at all that burstows age made it easier to take a punt on him. Leaburn is only 21! That is prime age, and there are several examples of players going for substantial money at a similar age and with less evidence of pedigree.
I mean let’s roll this back… we paid 2.5m for Luke Varney when he was 25 years of age based on a couple of seasons for Crewe. That was almost 20 years ago. Leaburn aged 21 with the record he has to date must command AT LEAST the equivalent fee in real terms today which allowing for inflation again takes you to 5m or more (not all up front, obviously).
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.
If we get offered £2M - £3M I think we’d take it, £5M and we definitely would. Don’t delude yourselves that we’ll be seeing much more than that.
I’m not deluding myself about anything, I have no trust whatsoever in our board, however, that doesn’t change what a realistic market value of Leaburn is/ should be.
Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
His “market value” is simply how much someone is willing to pay, and how much we are willing to sell for. Has nothing to do with the transfer fee paid for Luke Varney decades ago.
You're correct about market value, but until you enter the market, estimated valuations and what as a seller you are likely to seek is generally based on comparables.
You can ignore Luke Varney if you want, but there are many comparables which would indicate a much higher market value than £2m, and as much as I don't trust the current ownership - I'm certainly glad you are not at the helm as going in for £2m would be abysmal negotiation and management given Leaburn's age, record and visible potential
The only real factor in what we could hope to get for Leaburn is not what we want for him, but what other clubs are willing to pay for him. If we demand too much they will look elsewhere or wait until his contract is running down. He’s good but he has only played in the 3rd tier and has already had the best part of a year injured.
I think you’re right if we asked for ridiculous money but £5m is nothing for a Premier League club and should be our bare minimum starting point for negotiation.
Some clubs will walk away. Others will see it as a reasonable opportunity to develop and make a profit on one of the country’s most talented young, English forwards.
We got £2m for mason burstow after he played 7 games. There is just no doubt that Leaburn must be a minimum of twice that
Burstow was 2 years younger and not off the back of a serious injury. If we get offered over £5m in Jan then the club 100% takes it, I just can't see that happening.
Don’t see the age as relevant. Miles is extremely young and has his entire career ahead of him in reality, and has demonstrated about 30 times the potential that burstow did. The injury is relevant but as only 1 injury I don’t think hugely in terms of value.
Burstow's age made it easier to take a punt on him. Even after failed loans back at us and then Sunderland, Chelsea still turned a slight profit on his transfer fee two years down the line.
I agree Leaburn is a better player than Burstow although think he's far off where Lookman was. I expect him to go in the summer and I hope to be proven wrong about his fee but just struggle to see it being anymore than £5m unless he really sets the second half of the season alight.
I think we get carried away at times, people wanted £5m for May
I agree people get carried away on the whole but I don’t agree at all that burstows age made it easier to take a punt on him. Leaburn is only 21! That is prime age, and there are several examples of players going for substantial money at a similar age and with less evidence of pedigree.
I mean let’s roll this back… we paid 2.5m for Luke Varney when he was 25 years of age based on a couple of seasons for Crewe. That was almost 20 years ago. Leaburn aged 21 with the record he has to date must command AT LEAST the equivalent fee in real terms today which allowing for inflation again takes you to 5m or more (not all up front, obviously).
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.
If we get offered £2M - £3M I think we’d take it, £5M and we definitely would. Don’t delude yourselves that we’ll be seeing much more than that.
I’m not deluding myself about anything, I have no trust whatsoever in our board, however, that doesn’t change what a realistic market value of Leaburn is/ should be.
Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
His “market value” is simply how much someone is willing to pay, and how much we are willing to sell for. Has nothing to do with the transfer fee paid for Luke Varney decades ago.
You're correct about market value, but until you enter the market, estimated valuations and what as a seller you are likely to seek is generally based on comparables.
You can ignore Luke Varney if you want, but there are many comparables which would indicate a much higher market value than £2m, and as much as I don't trust the current ownership - I'm certainly glad you are not at the helm as going in for £2m would be abysmal negotiation and management given Leaburn's age, record and visible potential
The only real factor in what we could hope to get for Leaburn is not what we want for him, but what other clubs are willing to pay for him. If we demand too much they will look elsewhere or wait until his contract is running down. He’s good but he has only played in the 3rd tier and has already had the best part of a year injured.
Correct again.
Again though, what they’re willing to pay for him will be informed by what else they could get comparatively and again by comparables.
There is no doubt teams will be willing to pay substantial money for Leaburn given his CV (and barring another injury which would change things) and possible onward valuation.
The absolute worst case scenario for somebody interested in Leaburn is he turns out to be a possibly injury prone, proven league one striker with his entire career ahead of him. A proven league one striker now is £1m - that’s what Rotherham paid for Sam Nombe, supposedly 800k for Alfie May into his 30s, posh paid £1.4m for Jonson Clarke Harris a couple of years ago.
That’s the worst case scenario. Reality likely to be a certainly higher ceiling and there is also a best case scenario that he develops into an Ivan Toney, 50m+.
As I say, barring another major injury, £2m would be pitiful negotiation. I thought Burstow looked rubbish and couldn’t believe somebody gave us what they did for him.
Toney's increase in transfer fees is remarkable isn't it. Just shows how a player can develop far beyond what some clubs expect.
2015 - Northampton to Newcastle, £500k 2018 - Newcastle to Peterborough, £390k 2020 - Peterborough to Brentford, £6m (plus add/ons) 2024 - Brentford to Al Ahli, £40m
A useful precedent. £6m for a league one striker aged 24.
Comments
As I say, barring another major injury, £2m would be pitiful negotiation. I thought Burstow looked rubbish and couldn’t believe somebody gave us what they did for him.
2018 - Newcastle to Peterborough, £390k
2020 - Peterborough to Brentford, £6m (plus add/ons)
2024 - Brentford to Al Ahli, £40m
Some clubs will walk away. Others will see it as a reasonable opportunity to develop and make a profit on one of the country’s most talented young, English forwards.