Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Miles Leaburn - Signs New 3 Year Contract (p77)
Comments
-
Yes, there are many ways this could conceivably play outElfsborgAddick said:
However, offer 2 million, offer Leaburn 25k a week, he'd not want to play for us.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.paulsturgess said:
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.follett said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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:
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.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
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 MayI 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).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.Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
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
A scenario on him getting tapped up.0 -
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.paulsturgess said:
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.follett said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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:
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.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
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 MayI 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).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.Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
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 potential1 -
Correct again.Mametz said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.paulsturgess said:
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.follett said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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:
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.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
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 MayI 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).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.Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
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 potentialAgain 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.4 -
Toney's increase in transfer fees is remarkable isn't it. Just shows how a player can develop far beyond what some clubs expect.paulsturgess said:
Correct again.Mametz said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.paulsturgess said:
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.follett said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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:
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.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
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 MayI 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).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.Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
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 potentialAgain 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.2015 - Northampton to Newcastle, £500k
2018 - Newcastle to Peterborough, £390k
2020 - Peterborough to Brentford, £6m (plus add/ons)
2024 - Brentford to Al Ahli, £40m0 -
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.Mametz said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.paulsturgess said:
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.follett said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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:
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.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
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 MayI 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).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.Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
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
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.9 -
A useful precedent. £6m for a league one striker aged 24.stoneroses19 said:
Toney's increase in transfer fees is remarkable isn't it. Just shows how a player can develop far beyond what some clubs expect.paulsturgess said:
Correct again.Mametz said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.paulsturgess said:
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.follett said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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:
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.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
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 MayI 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).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.Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
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 potentialAgain 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.2015 - Northampton to Newcastle, £500k
2018 - Newcastle to Peterborough, £390k
2020 - Peterborough to Brentford, £6m (plus add/ons)
2024 - Brentford to Al Ahli, £40m0 -
Just to confirm £6m then is equivalent to £7.5m now.1
-
“Danny speaks to Miles (Leaburn) and Gassan (Ahadme) and he helps those. You can see that Miles is a different animal in the last four, five or six games. Danny has done a lot of work with him.If NJ is talking about Leaburn’s hold up play then I’ve noticed the improvement vs his unreliable touch pre-injury.13
-
I expect Leaburn's folks are advising him well as Andy Ansah. The have a long-long list of players who left young for big clubs, satvin the youth and never developed.
He'll been advised him to get another full season under his belt at this level.
Yes, we should offer him a 10k pw and a 10m release clause, but what if he gets injured again in two weeks? And we lose him for another season?
I'd be surprised if he hasn't been offered a new contract, but with what conditions?0 -
Danny sounds great!. We should just put a price on his head and keep Miles.Scoham said:“Danny speaks to Miles (Leaburn) and Gassan (Ahadme) and he helps those. You can see that Miles is a different animal in the last four, five or six games. Danny has done a lot of work with him.If NJ is talking about Leaburn’s hold up play then I’ve noticed the improvement vs his unreliable touch pre-injury.3 - Sponsored links:
-
On a similar note, he's started to bully defenders using his strength, something he didn't really do beforeScoham said:“Danny speaks to Miles (Leaburn) and Gassan (Ahadme) and he helps those. You can see that Miles is a different animal in the last four, five or six games. Danny has done a lot of work with him.If NJ is talking about Leaburn’s hold up play then I’ve noticed the improvement vs his unreliable touch pre-injury.5 -
I think I read somewhere that Miles had lost a tendon to his hamstring. I suspect that has curtailed his pace, and his tentative return is related in him needing to adopt a new style of play.
Doesn't make him a bad player, just not as good as he could have been.10 -
The shite you come out with honestlyGisappointed said:I think I read somewhere that Miles had lost a tendon to his hamstring. I suspect that has curtailed his pace, and his tentative return is related in him needing to adopt a new style of play.
Doesn't make him a bad player, just not as good as he could have been.18 -
Where did he lose it? Has he checked behind/down the side of the sofa?Gisappointed said:I think I read somewhere that Miles had lost a tendon to his hamstring. I suspect that has curtailed his pace, and his tentative return is related in him needing to adopt a new style of play.
Doesn't make him a bad player, just not as good as he could have been.4 -
I have always thought that having an experienced striker as a coach is a great development.2
-
I think it's more to do with the fact Myles is not having it lumped forwards at all opportunities and we are playing it to feet and getting ball wide and TC provides pace off him as an option.
Rather than rent-a-thug Danny Hylton teaching him how to control a ball.
Sorry. Miles is getting back to the Miles before his injury and he's staying fit and is a year plus older in his body.
NOT Danny Hylton's amazing influence!
Jones is trying to justify Danny's involvement at Charlton which until six games ago was looking decidedly dog shit. Don't tell me - Danny had a moment of true inspiration having been in or around the club for 4 months+ already...... leave it out!
Lloyd Jones being fit has done more for Miles return to form than Danny Hylton.2 -
That’s a bit much.supaclive said:I think it's more to do with the fact Myles is not having it lumped forwards at all opportunities and we are playing it to feet and getting ball wide and TC provides pace off him as an option.
Rather than rent-a-thug Danny Hylton teaching him how to control a ball.
Sorry. Miles is getting back to the Miles before his injury and he's staying fit and is a year plus older in his body.
NOT Danny Hylton's amazing influence!
Jones is trying to justify Danny's involvement at Charlton which until six games ago was looking decidedly dog shit. Don't tell me - Danny had a moment of true inspiration having been in or around the club for 4 months+ already...... leave it out!
Lloyd Jones being fit has done more for Miles return to form than Danny Hylton.8 -
Not really comparable in my opinion though. I get that people are biased and obviously want us to make as much money as possible on his inevitable transfer but i think some people are getting carried away.paulsturgess said:
A useful precedent. £6m for a league one striker aged 24.stoneroses19 said:
Toney's increase in transfer fees is remarkable isn't it. Just shows how a player can develop far beyond what some clubs expect.paulsturgess said:
Correct again.Mametz said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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.se9addick said:
Bloody hell, using Luke Varney as a bench mark for what we should be getting for Miles Leaburn is really reaching.paulsturgess said:
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.follett said:
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.paulsturgess said:
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:
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.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
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 MayI 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).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.Don’t delude yourself that his market value is less than it is just because our desperate board might take a quick buck
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 potentialAgain 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.2015 - Northampton to Newcastle, £500k
2018 - Newcastle to Peterborough, £390k
2020 - Peterborough to Brentford, £6m (plus add/ons)
2024 - Brentford to Al Ahli, £40m
Toney scored 49 goals in two seasons for Peterborough and before that had 2 successful loans at Scunthorpe in league one as well. He had played far more and scored far more than Leaburn has.
Leaburn is coming off the back of two injuries and doesn't even have 20 career goals in this division.
However it's also worth noting that Peterborough were very shrewd when they sold him, there were add ons for Brentford getting promoted, staying up, a certain number of appearances, an England cap etc. I think in total they ended up receiving close to 10m.1 -
There’s no doubt a balance. NJ has to prove Hylton’s influence to justify extending his contract. We know having good senior pros in a squad is beneficial, especially when you have a lot of young players, including those senior pros who don’t play much. Powell had it with Euell, Cort (often on the bench in our title winning season), Hughes etc.supaclive said:I think it's more to do with the fact Myles is not having it lumped forwards at all opportunities and we are playing it to feet and getting ball wide and TC provides pace off him as an option.
Rather than rent-a-thug Danny Hylton teaching him how to control a ball.
Sorry. Miles is getting back to the Miles before his injury and he's staying fit and is a year plus older in his body.
NOT Danny Hylton's amazing influence!
Jones is trying to justify Danny's involvement at Charlton which until six games ago was looking decidedly dog shit. Don't tell me - Danny had a moment of true inspiration having been in or around the club for 4 months+ already...... leave it out!
Lloyd Jones being fit has done more for Miles return to form than Danny Hylton.
Hylton’s someone who’s made the most of his ability and I can believe he’d help young strikers learn how to use their body more effectively, adjust their touch for the better, deal with physical CBs and have belief in their own ability. The biggest criticism of Miles is usually his hold up play, these last few games it’s been more consistent. We’ll see if it continues, but he has the physicality, technical ability and intelligence to do it.1 -
You just have to look at TC's goal in the banter cup match against Chelsea to see where someone like Hylton can come in useful. On-pitch coaching is a good thing and some Prem teams have picked up mid-30s players to work in their youth teams, play alongside the kids and help them learn the game as it unfolds. In the cup game Hylton got hold of TC, told him exactly where to run, played the pass into him and watched him score. He then got in his ear straight after the goal again. As well as Leaburn's hold up play improving TC's movement has become far more intelligent in recent games and we've actually seen Hylton coaching him in that. Us having a coach dedicated to improving our young attackers is a good thing.
11 - Sponsored links:
-
Unnecessary rant. Hylton might not be the player we want/need, but there's no doubt he has experience and knowledge to pass directly on to our young forwards.supaclive said:I think it's more to do with the fact Myles is not having it lumped forwards at all opportunities and we are playing it to feet and getting ball wide and TC provides pace off him as an option.
Rather than rent-a-thug Danny Hylton teaching him how to control a ball.
Sorry. Miles is getting back to the Miles before his injury and he's staying fit and is a year plus older in his body.
NOT Danny Hylton's amazing influence!
Jones is trying to justify Danny's involvement at Charlton which until six games ago was looking decidedly dog shit. Don't tell me - Danny had a moment of true inspiration having been in or around the club for 4 months+ already...... leave it out!
Lloyd Jones being fit has done more for Miles return to form than Danny Hylton.12 -
I’m pretty sure that if anyone is chatting with Miles about what he needs to work on in terms of using his height and strength against those big, nasty defenders then it may well be his dad.3
-
I am not saying Hylton doesn't have his uses, but where were they for the first 4 months of the season? Miles is playing much better as we are not lumping it forward, getting it wide and he's fitter and more confident.stoneroses19 said:
Unnecessary rant. Hylton might not be the player we want/need, but there's no doubt he has experience and knowledge to pass directly on to our young forwards.supaclive said:I think it's more to do with the fact Myles is not having it lumped forwards at all opportunities and we are playing it to feet and getting ball wide and TC provides pace off him as an option.
Rather than rent-a-thug Danny Hylton teaching him how to control a ball.
Sorry. Miles is getting back to the Miles before his injury and he's staying fit and is a year plus older in his body.
NOT Danny Hylton's amazing influence!
Jones is trying to justify Danny's involvement at Charlton which until six games ago was looking decidedly dog shit. Don't tell me - Danny had a moment of true inspiration having been in or around the club for 4 months+ already...... leave it out!
Lloyd Jones being fit has done more for Miles return to form than Danny Hylton.
Otherwise, what amazing influence was he having on GAS, Kanu etc until 6 games ago? Couldn't see any and ok, he's not a rent-a-thug, but he's a pantomime villain and sadly I think we can, and should, do better0 -
Just repeating a comment from this forum.Covered_End_Lad said:
The shite you come out with honestlyGisappointed said:I think I read somewhere that Miles had lost a tendon to his hamstring. I suspect that has curtailed his pace, and his tentative return is related in him needing to adopt a new style of play.
Doesn't make him a bad player, just not as good as he could have been.0 -
Regarding the whole Hylton situation - I know the SCP bringing in Euell Cort Hughes example keeps being brought up but I don't remember at the time himself or the SMT (or anyone at all really) highlighting the need to "trim the squad" when it comes near the time of the transfer windows. Maybe i'm just misremembering but that is my one big bugbear about the whole situation at the moment - would SCP have kept any or all of Cort/ Euell/Hughes or extended their contracts and gotten rid of other more active squad players to keep them around if faced with that? Is our squad now any bigger than it was then? It's maybe a better question for another thread but there seems to be a reticence to adding anyone in this window that just wasn't there in 2011 and I can't help having this sinking feeling that we are being primed as a fanbase to lose one or two or more big players under this "squad trimming" narrative, and I don't see how you could justify losing ANY decent player we have (Kanu? Taylor? Jones/Leaburn) and yet at the same time trying to justify extending Potts, Hylton and not returning A Campbell when they have given nothing substantial on the pitch other than poor performances.Scoham said:
There’s no doubt a balance. NJ has to prove Hylton’s influence to justify extending his contract. We know having good senior pros in a squad is beneficial, especially when you have a lot of young players, including those senior pros who don’t play much. Powell had it with Euell, Cort (often on the bench in our title winning season), Hughes etc.supaclive said:I think it's more to do with the fact Myles is not having it lumped forwards at all opportunities and we are playing it to feet and getting ball wide and TC provides pace off him as an option.
Rather than rent-a-thug Danny Hylton teaching him how to control a ball.
Sorry. Miles is getting back to the Miles before his injury and he's staying fit and is a year plus older in his body.
NOT Danny Hylton's amazing influence!
Jones is trying to justify Danny's involvement at Charlton which until six games ago was looking decidedly dog shit. Don't tell me - Danny had a moment of true inspiration having been in or around the club for 4 months+ already...... leave it out!
Lloyd Jones being fit has done more for Miles return to form than Danny Hylton.
Hylton’s someone who’s made the most of his ability and I can believe he’d help young strikers learn how to use their body more effectively, adjust their touch for the better, deal with physical CBs and have belief in their own ability. The biggest criticism of Miles is usually his hold up play, these last few games it’s been more consistent. We’ll see if it continues, but he has the physicality, technical ability and intelligence to do it.1 -
Lots of people on here think they know everything Hylton is doing. Jones has said he is a player coach and I have not been following his coaching input, because I can't, but I am willing to trust the manager as to what he brings and couldn't be less interested in the views of people who are saying we should get rid when they, like me, have no idea what he is adding. I can see what he potentially could be adding and my view has to end there.9
-
Perhaps you can troll Chunes rather than me. It was his post I was re-quoting.Covered_End_Lad said:
The shite you come out with honestlyGisappointed said:I think I read somewhere that Miles had lost a tendon to his hamstring. I suspect that has curtailed his pace, and his tentative return is related in him needing to adopt a new style of play.
Doesn't make him a bad player, just not as good as he could have been.0 -
That's the thing though Muttley - this conversation would probably not even be occurring if NJ and Charlie boy had kept their gobs shut about "squad trimming" to justify inaction in the transfer window and just quietly brought in who we need and got rid of who we didn't and didn't pass comment about squad size - because naturally as a fan base off the back of that we are going to look at who is contributing the least on the pitch as the first ones that would need to go if players NEED to go. NJ wouldn't have needed to justify keeping any of them without that comment.MuttleyCAFC said:Lots of people on here think they know everything Hylton is doing. Jones has said he is a player coach and I have not been following his coaching input, because I can't, but I am willing to trust the manager as to what he brings and couldn't be less interested in the views of people who are saying we should get rid when they, like me, have no idea what he is adding. I can see what he potentially could be adding and my view has to end there.3 -
My point though is the coach bit. Do we need him as a striker, probably not but none of us know his value as a coach except those close to the team.0
-
Kanu and Leaburn aren't part of our squad per se, because they are too young to be counted. The others are non-playing breeze blocks around our neck and have to go. Ahadme (loan?) and Godden who dont fit current style should be offloaded with Eden, Gilly, Watson if fit, Taylor although I like him, and Berry.Manic_mania said:
Regarding the whole Hylton situation - I know the SCP bringing in Euell Cort Hughes example keeps being brought up but I don't remember at the time himself or the SMT (or anyone at all really) highlighting the need to "trim the squad" when it comes near the time of the transfer windows. Maybe i'm just misremembering but that is my one big bugbear about the whole situation at the moment - would SCP have kept any or all of Cort/ Euell/Hughes or extended their contracts and gotten rid of other more active squad players to keep them around if faced with that? Is our squad now any bigger than it was then? It's maybe a better question for another thread but there seems to be a reticence to adding anyone in this window that just wasn't there in 2011 and I can't help having this sinking feeling that we are being primed as a fanbase to lose one or two or more big players under this "squad trimming" narrative, and I don't see how you could justify losing ANY decent player we have (Kanu? Taylor? Jones/Leaburn) and yet at the same time trying to justify extending Potts, Hylton and not returning A Campbell when they have given nothing substantial on the pitch other than poor performances.Scoham said:
There’s no doubt a balance. NJ has to prove Hylton’s influence to justify extending his contract. We know having good senior pros in a squad is beneficial, especially when you have a lot of young players, including those senior pros who don’t play much. Powell had it with Euell, Cort (often on the bench in our title winning season), Hughes etc.supaclive said:I think it's more to do with the fact Myles is not having it lumped forwards at all opportunities and we are playing it to feet and getting ball wide and TC provides pace off him as an option.
Rather than rent-a-thug Danny Hylton teaching him how to control a ball.
Sorry. Miles is getting back to the Miles before his injury and he's staying fit and is a year plus older in his body.
NOT Danny Hylton's amazing influence!
Jones is trying to justify Danny's involvement at Charlton which until six games ago was looking decidedly dog shit. Don't tell me - Danny had a moment of true inspiration having been in or around the club for 4 months+ already...... leave it out!
Lloyd Jones being fit has done more for Miles return to form than Danny Hylton.
Hylton’s someone who’s made the most of his ability and I can believe he’d help young strikers learn how to use their body more effectively, adjust their touch for the better, deal with physical CBs and have belief in their own ability. The biggest criticism of Miles is usually his hold up play, these last few games it’s been more consistent. We’ll see if it continues, but he has the physicality, technical ability and intelligence to do it.
Bring in Aasgard and if not Al Hadami, then Tete Yengi plus a pacy winger.0
