Tammy Abraham


Status
Not open for further replies.
Just read through your own posts on this thread and you'll see how your bitterness and jealousy are a joy to behold :D

By saying i think you'll be better off signing a target man type forward than a young kid who's never played in the prem.

I just don't see how the move is going to benefit either Newcastle or Abrahams.

It can only be good for Tammy if he's going to be playing regularly, which if he is, i don't think that will help you at all.

Not bitterness at all, just putting my argument across.
 
Mags getting their licks in quick before the inevitable scandal/embarrassment arrives. At least we'll only have to put up with them spawning for a couple of months before it drops down to the regulars, again.
 
Mags getting their licks in quick before the inevitable scandal/embarrassment arrives. At least we'll only have to put up with them spawning for a couple of months before it drops down to the regulars, again.

I forgot, your club is utterly scandal/embarrassment free isnt it.
 
We all know about loans, you end up doing a club like Chelsea's job for them, the player shows promise and then you realise either of the following:

- You can't afford them;
- The parent club wants the player back having proven them-self;
- There is more competition for their signature from more attractive clubs.

These deals are only good if you're not relying on them to start every game, which is exactly what the mags will be doing. In addition to that, they'll be paying a few million for the privilege, if it's successful then you can argue the fee is recouped if you stay in the league/finish in a higher place than expected. It's rare that loans work out long term imo. It's a quick fix and a poor transfer strategy.
 
We all know about loans, you end up doing a club like Chelsea's job for them, the player shows promise and then you realise either of the following:

- You can't afford them;
- The parent club wants the player back having proven them-self;
- There is more competition for their signature from more attractive clubs.

These deals are only good if you're not relying on them to start every game, which is exactly what the mags will be doing. In addition to that, they'll be paying a few million for the privilege, if it's successful then you can argue the fee is recouped if you stay in the league/finish in a higher place than expected. It's rare that loans work out long term imo. It's a quick fix and a poor transfer strategy.
Then you get januzaj:lol:
 
Dunno what either of them will be like in the 17/18 season for Newcastle United under Rafa Benitez, but I'd obviously like us to go off and sign a top class striker. Doubt we'll get one like and given the likely aim of this season is simply to secure safety then push as high up the league as possible, I don't think we need the risen again Eusebio to do that.

Joshua King scored 16, Peter Crouch scored 7, Sam Vokes scored 9, and their teams finished 9th, 13th and 16th respectively. If Gayle isn't scoring, we've got another like for like replacement in Abraham and if that's not working we've an entirely different option in Mitrovic, who scored 9 the last time he was in the top flight by the way.

Abraham might not be up to score double figures in the top flight, Gayle might not, nor Mitrovic. But between them I'd fancy enough goals to keep us up as long as the stregnthened midfield and defence do their jobs.

Chelsea will only loan a player like Abraham if they're guaranteed to start games. They tend to include a clause within the contract agreeing that the player will start a percentage of games unless they're injured e.g. 75%. It's the norm these days.
 
We all know about loans, you end up doing a club like Chelsea's job for them, the player shows promise and then you realise either of the following:

- You can't afford them;
- The parent club wants the player back having proven them-self;
- There is more competition for their signature from more attractive clubs.

These deals are only good if you're not relying on them to start every game, which is exactly what the mags will be doing. In addition to that, they'll be paying a few million for the privilege, if it's successful then you can argue the fee is recouped if you stay in the league/finish in a higher place than expected. It's rare that loans work out long term imo. It's a quick fix and a poor transfer strategy.
Yep we never got anything but short term benefit sadly. Imagine having the option of Alonso or Rose for left back.
 
Chelsea will only loan a player like Abraham if they're guaranteed to start games. They tend to include a clause within the contract agreeing that the player will start a percentage of games unless they're injured e.g. 75%. It's the norm these days.

Well, apart from the loan deal we had for Atsu? Surely they would have included a clause like that for him? If those terms are the norm, they surely would have wanted him playing more games in the 2nd tier than he did?

re: Abraham, if he does sign it may well include a clause, but I'd not expect Benitez to agree to that commitment unless he was certain that Abraham deserves to start those games. Benitez has shown that he doesn't mind dropping players if they're not performing, regardless of their transfer fee (Sels, Mitrovic, Diame, Mbemba etc.).

And even if he signs that kind of contract but then Abraham proves he isn't good enough to start, I'm sure we wouldn't risk Premier League survival just to honour that agreement. So it's kind of a moot point. There wouldn't be penalties from the FA or the Premier League, be it fines or points, so all it could mean is that we have to pay Chelsea a sum, which is definitely less than the £100m we'd lose on relegation.
  • Loan him with no commitment and he's good enough he'll play
  • Loan him with no commitment and he's not good enough he'll not play
  • Loan him with a 75% appearance commitment and he's good enough he'll play
  • Loan him with a 75% appearance commitment and he's not good enough he'll not play
The only spanner in the works is if he's loaned, with that commitment, is good enough and, for some unfathomable reason, isn't played. And even then the worst that will happen is Chelsea may seek damages and they'll be disinclined to loan us a player in the future... not a big deal
 
Last edited:
Well, apart from the loan deal we had for Atsu? Surely they would have included a clause like that for him? If those terms are the norm, they surely would have wanted him playing more games in the 2nd tier than he did?

re: Abraham, if he does sign it may well include a clause, but I'd not expect Benitez to agree to that commitment unless he was certain that Abraham deserves to start those games. Benitez has shown that he doesn't mind dropping players if they're not performing, regardless of their transfer fee (Sels, Mitrovic, Diame, Mbemba etc.).

And even if he signs that kind of contract but then Abraham proves he isn't good enough to start, I'm sure we wouldn't risk Premier League survival just to honour that agreement. So it's kind of a moot point. There wouldn't be penalties from the FA or the Premier League, be it fines or points, so all it could mean is that we have to pay Chelsea a sum, which is definitely less than the £100m we'd lose on relegation.
  • Loan him with no commitment and he's good enough he'll play
  • Loan him with no commitment and he's not good enough he'll not play
  • Loan him with a 75% appearance commitment and he's good enough he'll play
  • Loan him with a 75% appearance commitment and he's not good enough he'll not play
The only spanner in the works is if he's loaned, with that commitment, is good enough and, for some unfathomable reason, isn't played. And even then the worst that will happen is Chelsea may seek damages and they'll be disinclined to loan us a player in the future... not a big deal

But Atsu is shit and they were glad to get rid. In these instances the parent club holds the power, there will be lots of clubs only too willing to sign up to such a clause. Newcastloan won't be an exception. If the agreed target is not achieved then Newcastloan will be obligated to pay more money at the end of the loan term.
 
But Atsu is shit and they were glad to get rid. In these instances the parent club holds the power, there will be lots of clubs only too willing to sign up to such a clause. Newcastloan won't be an exception. If the agreed target is not achieved then Newcastloan will be obligated to pay more money at the end of the loan term.

Well, I'm not sure Atsu is so shit that his parent club wouldn't expect him to start more games in the 2nd tier than he did. Unless you're suggesting he's not even Championship standard? Which, if you are, is a nonsense.

There are quite a few assumptions going on here;
  1. There is an appearance clause
  2. It's c75% appearances
  3. He won't make those appearances
  4. There'll be a prohibitively expensive penalty when he doesn't make those appearances
Even if there is a clause, even if Abraham isn't good enough to start enough games and even if there is some kind of financial penalty, it still won't be enough of a concern to make this a bad deal.

I have to repeat. If he's good enough to start he'll start, if he's not, he won't. The rest of it is just noise. If that means that Benitez and his scouts judged him poorly prior to signing him on loan, then that's on them, but they won't risk Premier League survival by playing a lad they don't want to for fear of upsetting Chelsea.

Anyway how much do you predict the financial penalty would be? £500k? £1m?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top