Miles Leaburn - Signs New 3 Year Contract (p77)

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 

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

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. 

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

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.

Burstow was a poacher who offered little else. He was never seriously in contention to play for Chelsea’s first team. The idea would have been to loan him out for a few years and then make a profit, a system they’ve ran for years to bridge the gap on income vs other big clubs.

Leaburn has genuine PL potential and a much more well rounded game.

guinnessaddick said:

Had he not been injured last season, he probably wouldn’t be here now.

The big question mark over Leaburn is his injury record. Will keep any fee on the low side for now.

If Miles stays fit and does well then undoubtedly he will be on his way. 

A key thing to remember is that both his parents are good football people who also have a strong affinity to the club. Neither will advise Miles to go and sign for a loan machine like Chelsea, but both will be aware that Miles will outgrow Charlton soon enough.

I wouldn't be shocked if he actually signs a couple of years extension with us on decent money but with a release clause that suits all parties, when he does go in the next year or two it will be to a team that he will play regularly for and Charlton will receive fair value.

golfaddick said:

CAFCDAZ said:

DubaiCAFC said:

Anything close to 5 million going to be tough to turndown. 

I find that insane, honestly anything under £10m is insulting. Show me similar commodities for less than 10m in our division or higher. We always undersell our best assests. 

I don't know of any League 1 player that has sold for £10m. Any idea of the 3rd tier record?  I'd be surprised if it was much more than £3m-£5m. Obviously there are add-ons and other clauses but to think the bottom line is going to be north of £10m is pie in the sky imo. 

You said 200k on Sunday was too much,

Make your mind up when it comes to Miles.

.

Athletico Charlton said:

Bostonaddick said:

He has had more than one injury.  He missed time at the beginning of 23 season and a smaller stretch the year before. He also had a couple of injuries coming up through the youth ranks.  He is not Chuks but he has a history of getting injured.  prospective teams will know this.

Just a clarification, he had growing pains coming through youth ranks which is why Chelsea released him. Not a sports injury that has any relevance whatsoever now.

And a further clarification. He was injured in pre season last season because we insisted on playing a pub team pre season, whose centre back wanted to show how hard he was. His second more serious injury occured after we threw him back in full tilt because there was no one else to partner May. 

paulsturgess said:

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

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. 

se9addick said:

paulsturgess said:

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

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. 

If we take under £3M doesn’t look good on SMT, suggests that they ain’t getting any more money from the owners. Also when you consider what they’ve done in the transfer market, not sure if they could pick up some margins to replace Leaburn.

He’s benefitting from having Campbell and Small near him now.  Jones has either seen the light or got lucky, but Miles is benefitting .  

guinnessaddick said:

se9addick said:

paulsturgess said:

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

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. 

If we take under £3M doesn’t look good on SMT, suggests that they ain’t getting any more money from the owners. Also when you consider what they’ve done in the transfer market, not sure if they could pick up some margins to replace Leaburn.

How about we keep our best players and improve the squad?
Oops, I forgot, there is not much money in the pot.

paulsturgess said:

se9addick said:

paulsturgess said:

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

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. 

se9addick said:

paulsturgess said:

se9addick said:

paulsturgess said:

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

follett said:

paulsturgess said:

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