Mason Burstow

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
vinkel said:
I watch Chelsea quite a bit and Broja has caught my eye because I think he is just a bit worse than Jackson, and he is no superstar.
Ps at 6 foot 3 he ain’t little and 22 not too young.
Click to expand...
It’s just not happening for him at Chelsea. He looked great when he was playing for Southampton and gained interest from a lot of clubs. Broja would be a star in the championship.
 
Saf said:
So Chelsea have put something in the contract stating if he’s not playing here, then he’ll need to stay?

You’d have thought if their player wasn’t playing, they’d want him back to send him somewhere else instead of sitting around going to waste.
Click to expand...
I thought that. That’s the stupidest clause to put in a loan deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saf
Broja has been injured and also has about 3 full seasons worth of football to his name, most of which is in the PL and is their 3rd choice striker.
 
Random lad said:
Yes, he played for Charlton on loan and did not pull up any trees
Click to expand...
Tbf to him, he came through charlton's youth team and broke into their 1st team at a young age - did pretty well then got his move to chelsea
 
Scout73 said:
Tbf to him, he came through charlton's youth team and broke into their 1st team at a young age - did pretty well then got his move to chelsea
Click to expand...
Can you confirm the usual rule its a season loan and only injury let's them go back,
 
Bob the Mackem said:
It's in almost every loan deal now, they do class U23 as full game time.
Click to expand...
I honestly think you’ve got mixed up with what you’ve heard. I’m not trying to be funny.

Clubs want their loan players to go away and get minutes. Could you explain the sense in putting a clause in a contract that if you don’t play a player for certain amount of game time you need to keep them? I don’t understand how that helps a club when their player isn’t playing and his value is decreasing because of that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WorkyTicketFTM
Please remember it's years since I did any contractual work.
But as far as I remember, most loan deals had % of playing time and 1st team placements in them,but things change and this might be one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saf
I’d imagine it was the other way round. If a player has played X amount of minutes, the parent club are unable to recall. But if they’ve played under that, they can. It’s the only clause which makes sense for both parties
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Exile II and Nordic
Bob the Mackem said:
Please remember it's years since I did any contractual work.
But as far as I remember, most loan deals had % of playing time and 1st team placements in them,but things change and this might be one of them.
Click to expand...

And if he doesn't hit he gets sent back not has to stay?
 
young2077 said:
And if he doesn't hit he gets sent back not has to stay?
Click to expand...
I am genuinely sorry I ain't seen the contract.
If you look back at loans we have had over the last 12 years, none have been recalled unless injured or the parent club need them due to injuries.
That's as far as I can remember.
 
Bob the Mackem said:
I am genuinely sorry I ain't seen the contract.
If you look back at loans we have had over the last 12 years, none have been recalled unless injured or the parent club need them due to injuries.
That's as far as I can remember.
Click to expand...

Or when Frank Lampard shat the bed and recalled Simms
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dorset
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back