Jadon Sancho (loan)

[JUAN PABLO]

To be fair to the bloke he would have more assists If players  put the chances away  like the Onana header on Sunday and there is a few others through the season including Ollie missing a few.

[Smithy]

I suspect we'll use the financial position as an excuse to have a 'blunt' conversation with him and make an offer that would place him amongst the better paid players at the club, but not the top tier. (ie. possibly only half his rumoured current wages).

Basically "This is all we can offer you due to the current situation. If you stay with us, we can give you a stable environment, regular european football, and top-tier coaching - with a view to improving salary package depending on team success. If you wish to find another higher-paid opportunity, so be it."

He walked on Chelsea last summer when they put a similar offer before him. Not sure football is his main priority. Anyway if the past week is anything to go by we might finally get a tune out of him down the stretch.

Even if that's true (and there's no evidence they cancelled the clause because he wouldn't accept a lower wage) it's an entirely different situation. At the time he was guaranteed another year on his £300k+ p/w deal with Man Utd. Accepting even £150k would've cost him millions and he wasn't playing regularly by the end of the season so what was the incentive for him?

Now he's got nothing to fall back on, whatever offers he gets this summer are all better than the alternative and I'm sure he'll be well aware that he's not getting anything like the money he has been on.

My reading was that Chelsea bailed, not Sancho.  All of these "loan with obligation to buy" deals usually include the player's salary negotiation up front (otherwise, what is the point of them, if the player can just say "no" at the end of the loan anyway?).  And the deal Chelsea had was an "obligation", not an "option" (which is what we had with Rashford).  it just had a fee they could pay to cancel the purchase, which they did.

My reading of last summer was simply that Chelsea didn't want to sign him permanently at the end of the loan - nothing to do with the offer being too low, unless they tried to renegotiate with Sancho during the loan itself.  I'm also sure Chelsea would have offered him a fortune, and during the season probably thought it wasn't worth them money, and better to spend £5m cancelling the deal, than be stuck paying him £10m a year for however many years.

[paul_e]

I suspect we'll use the financial position as an excuse to have a 'blunt' conversation with him and make an offer that would place him amongst the better paid players at the club, but not the top tier. (ie. possibly only half his rumoured current wages).

Basically "This is all we can offer you due to the current situation. If you stay with us, we can give you a stable environment, regular european football, and top-tier coaching - with a view to improving salary package depending on team success. If you wish to find another higher-paid opportunity, so be it."

He walked on Chelsea last summer when they put a similar offer before him. Not sure football is his main priority. Anyway if the past week is anything to go by we might finally get a tune out of him down the stretch.

Even if that's true (and there's no evidence they cancelled the clause because he wouldn't accept a lower wage) it's an entirely different situation. At the time he was guaranteed another year on his £300k+ p/w deal with Man Utd. Accepting even £150k would've cost him millions and he wasn't playing regularly by the end of the season so what was the incentive for him?

Now he's got nothing to fall back on, whatever offers he gets this summer are all better than the alternative and I'm sure he'll be well aware that he's not getting anything like the money he has been on.

My reading was that Chelsea bailed, not Sancho.  All of these "loan with obligation to buy" deals usually include the player's salary negotiation up front (otherwise, what is the point of them, if the player can just say "no" at the end of the loan anyway?).  And the deal Chelsea had was an "obligation", not an "option" (which is what we had with Rashford).  it just had a fee they could pay to cancel the purchase, which they did.

My reading of last summer was simply that Chelsea didn't want to sign him permanently at the end of the loan - nothing to do with the offer being too low, unless they tried to renegotiate with Sancho during the loan itself.  I'm also sure Chelsea would have offered him a fortune, and during the season probably thought it wasn't worth them money, and better to spend £5m cancelling the deal, than be stuck paying him £10m a year for however many years.

Of course it was, that's why I start my reply like I did, I was just pointing out that even if it was about him not wanting to drop his wages that was a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do given he had another year on his £15m+ a year contract.