Jadon Sancho - Chelsea (loan) watch | £5M opt-out fee

Has there ever been a play that is as bone idle as Sancho?

I am really struggling to think of anyone.

It seems his best days were when Halaand was babysitting him.
 
what happened to it being £17m to cancel the deal?!

We're going to have to take him back arent we :mad:. If it is only 5m, chelsea will jump at that if theres any truth behind them not wanting him. Not bad price not to saddled with that sh*tebag

If he does end up back at us, we gonna have to take a big big hit to get rid
 
Fortitude said:
No it doesn’t. He’s the worst slacker vis-a-vis talent perhaps in the whole of football right now. He just doesn’t care, for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

Disagree with this. I think he’s trying pretty hard at Chelsea. The reality is that he just isn’t good enough at premier league level to be anything more than an ok mid table winger.
 
Chelsea must really hate United. If they send Jadon back for 5M, on top of the Mount deal and stealing Quenda from Amorim.

United should never deal with them again!
 
Doracle said:
Disagree with this. I think he’s trying pretty hard at Chelsea. The reality is that he just isn’t good enough at premier league level to be anything more than an ok mid table winger.
Click to expand...
I think you’re using his United form as the gauge there, not what he was as an up and comer when he was actually hungry and cared.
 
Regardless of the outcome of this, it's all gone horrifically wrong for Sancho.
Was excited when we signed the lad, was thinking he could be unreal for us.
 
Massive failure of our scouting to pay such a large amount not only on fees but also on wages for such a problematic and unprofessional character. I think he has just over a year left on his contract, if we can't loan or sell him we should just pay him off and get rid, will be toxic for the dressing room if he returns.
 
golden_blunder said:
Dammit. Even Ronaldo thinks he’s a lost cause
Click to expand...

To be fair Sancho is the absolute antithesis of everything Ronaldo stands for.

Cristiano has dedicated his life to extracting every last ounce of talent he possesses, sacrificing so much to ensure his body and lifestyle are in perfect condition to excel as a footballer.

The contempt he must hold for lads who have pissed their talent up the wall because the lure of PlayStation and social media were stronger than their desire to be a footballer is hard to imagine.
 
I think it's hilarious after all his social media digs that he's more than likely to be sent packing back to his masters.
 
terraloo said:
They did but no where do they even suggest that there were any conditions, which there clearly were.
Click to expand...

Every contract has conditions, such as breakage fees. Not sure why people seem to think this is so different? Only difference here is he's so shit that the buying club would rather pay such a penalty clause than sign a player.
 
GBBQ said:
With hindsight it didn’t work out. But it was a calculated risk that they might be able to get him to find form and then £25 mil would be a steal. They were canny enough to have an out, in case he didn’t meet expectations.
Click to expand...
They didn't even agree wages with him. That £25m option was meaningless
 
RuudTom83 said:
Chelsea must really hate United. If they send Jadon back for 5M, on top of the Mount deal and stealing Quenda from Amorim.

United should never deal with them again!
Click to expand...

United willingly agreed to two of those things tbf :lol:

And we do have more where that came from, if you’re interested in Joao Felix. I’ll do you a special price, just for you my friend due to our excellent business relationship, £65m and we’ll throw in Robert Sanchez for free.
 
This thread and many posts in the sancho leaving debacle may represent the most wrong a group of posters on this forum has ever been. The day he assisted early on was the low point for nuance in my time on redcafe I think. We'll see it again and again too, with rashford and anybody else who leaves.
 
duffer said:
There is if they want to pay him a lower wage.
Click to expand...
How are Chelsea fans seeing him? do you guys want to keep him?

I don't watch Chelsea regularly but whenever i do he hasn't been impressive, seems to be getting a lot of minutes though.
 
Sancho will not go to Saudi. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't aim to see out his contract with us, earning millions, and then simply retire from football. We'd be better off paying him to feck off. Why would you want him poisoning the youth or reserve teams?
 
Fortitude said:
I think you’re using his United form as the gauge there, not what he was as an up and comer when he was actually hungry and cared.
Click to expand...

Its entirely possible that he is just not a PL level player, even when he was at Dortmund his performances for England were very poor and similar to what we are seeing now
We have seen other players who did well in the Bundesliga struggle in the PL
 
Fenômeno said:
How are Chelsea fans seeing him? do you guys want to keep him?

I don't watch Chelsea regularly but whenever i do he hasn't been impressive, seems to be getting a lot of minutes though.
Click to expand...

He suits Chelsea style of play. From what I hear from Maresca, he wants players to keep the ball, pass backwards and sideways for control.

Sancho works well, Maresca has been talking about Sancho glowingly all season.
 
duffer said:
There is if they want to pay him a lower wage.
Click to expand...

All the recent reports about the existence of the get out clause, and now the amount itself, feels like a very obvious case of Chelsea briefing journalists. So, with this context, it does feel like the decision has been made to send him home.

It would be counter productive imo to also brief specifically that they do not want Sancho anymore, given that he still starts all the time with Madueke injured and Mudryk banished for now.
 
Fenômeno said:
How are Chelsea fans seeing him? do you guys want to keep him?

I don't watch Chelsea regularly but whenever i do he hasn't been impressive, seems to be getting a lot of minutes though.
Click to expand...
Not really. All a bit "meh" and we have a lot of options.

It's nowhere near the the top of our concerns though so there's not really many strong feelings either way from actual fans. He isn't getting boos or anything like that.
 
romufc said:
He suits Chelsea style of play. From what I hear from Maresca, he wants players to keep the ball, pass backwards and sideways for control.
Click to expand...
Poundland version of Pep ball?
 
EireRed_GS said:
what happened to it being £17m to cancel the deal?!

We're going to have to take him back arent we :mad:. If it is only 5m, chelsea will jump at that if theres any truth behind them not wanting him. Not bad price not to saddled with that sh*tebag

If he does end up back at us, we gonna have to take a big big hit to get rid
Click to expand...
Even if it’s 17m to cancel the deal, they’ll take it up. Better than paying 25m and more for his wages.
 
duffer said:
Not really. All a bit "meh" and we have a lot of options.

It's nowhere near the the top of our concerns though so there's not really many strong feelings either way from actual fans. He isn't getting boos or anything like that.
Click to expand...
Cheers, just wondering if he has done enough for Chelsea to cough up and do what it takes to sign him, rather than he's crap lets get rid.
 
Not great news for us. I’m expecting him back now.

Just hope we manage to get him straight back out the door if so but somehow, I can’t see it.
 
LawCharltonBest said:
It’s not in the spirit of the deal to evoke that though is it

It won’t do Chelsea any favours if down the line Mainoo or something needs to be sold & Chelsea want him, for example
Click to expand...
A deal is a deal. The opt out clause was part of the deal so there is nothing wrong with Chelsea using it.

Quite similar to United opting out on signing Amrabat.
 
It seems the fee for Chelsea to return Sancho back to sender is.....5m. Wow
 
EireRed_GS said:
what happened to it being £17m to cancel the deal?!

We're going to have to take him back arent we :mad:. If it is only 5m, chelsea will jump at that if theres any truth behind them not wanting him. Not bad price not to saddled with that sh*tebag

If he does end up back at us, we gonna have to take a big big hit to get rid
Click to expand...

we've got idiot negotiators
 
Fenômeno said:
Cheers, just wondering if he has done enough for Chelsea to cough up and do what it takes to sign him, rather than he's crap lets get rid.
Click to expand...

Not really. He had started fairly well imo, and if you had asked me at Christmas I would have said his performance had generally been satisfactory. He hasn't really done anything noteworthy since the turn of the year though, which is probably what has convinced Chelsea to trigger the get out clause.
 
Nevilles.Wear.Prada said:
I can understand to bring in hojlund and sancho. But to have seen antony in ajax training day in and day out, then decide to pay 80mil for that one footed footballer while using his son agency has to be up there as blatant corruption by ETH&Co. The whole saga needs to be investigated by an independent panel. Disgraceful.
Click to expand...
Right. Antony should have not been brought at all, but while Sancho and Hojlund could have been acquired by mistake - the prices we paid for them were absolutely criminal. Neither of them were worth even close to what we paid
 
duffer said:
Not really. £17 million on a break clause for a deal that would be £20 to £25 million was always an insane fan-fiction.
Click to expand...

It’s about what would be expected in a genuine penalty clause though, if it was a proper obligation to buy. The point of a penalty clause is meant to be that it’s so draconian as to put someone off ever exercising it.
 
Our only hope now is that Chelsea briefing this penalty clause, is a tactic as they negotiate wages with Sancho.

He might be playing silly buggers, expecting 150k a week and they’re saying you can have 85k or you can go back to a club that hates you.

It’s a slim hope, but it’s all we’ve got left.
 
Doracle said:
It’s about what would be expected in a genuine penalty clause though, if it was a proper obligation to buy. The point of a penalty clause is meant to be that it’s so draconian as to put someone off ever exercising it.
Click to expand...
Based on what precident? Have we ever seen such a high "break" clause before?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.