Nicolas Jackson

[toon25]

Wish we were more creative in finding targets

[AyeDubbleYoo]

3 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

I’m sure he would if he wasn’t suspended for the dickhead red he got for putting his heed on Sven.

 

Wasn't it his arm?

[George Bailey]

Whatever happened to Tammy Abraham? seemed to have it all and was a good finisher from what I recall?

 

Seems a shame (See that he is now at Besiktas)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2025 by George Bailey

[Zero]

Just now, George Bailey said:

Whatever happened to Tammy Abraham? seemed to have it all and was a good finisher from what I recall?

See that he is now at Besiktas.

 

 

 

Basically cannot fully recover from that ACL injury

[Nucasol]

3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Wasn't it his arm?

That was it.

[The Bonk]

14 hours ago, Doctor Zaius said:

One of the best ways to judge a player is to have a look at what their clubs own fans think of him. 

 

Have a look at what Forest fans say about Elanga, Brentford fans say about Wissa and then compare that with Chelsea fans about Jackson. There was even a Chelsea fan in another thread on here saying he wasn't up to much. 

 

 

Same team that couldn’t realize Mo Salah’s talents among others. So leaning into a bias opinion is the best way to judge a player? I don’t think it works that way, mate.

[Geordie_once_removed]

I've tried hard to refrain from commenting on theoretical transfers but this one has triggered me and if it happened I couldn't get on board with it for a range of reasons.

 

1. Even at about half the mooted fee it rewards Chelsea for their awful model.

2. If Chelsea make any profit from this, so that is anything above about 25 million, it financially strengthens a direct rival.

3. What is he in the team building plan? Is he a player like Ekitike or Sesko with world class potential? His 2 years in the Prem suggest no. Is he a player to get 15 goals plus and slot right into the team like Wissa, again his record suggests not. He's a good presser of the ball and that's it. We have enough of them.

4. Is he a low risk bargain taking advantage of a particular set of circumstances?  The price certainly suggests not.

 

I hope we asked expecting a 30 million figure that might get down to closer 20 with some negotiation. I hope our reaction to a 70 million figure was just like how I hope we reacted to Liverpool with their offer for Isak, namely we laughed in their face and then walked out the the door/hung up the call.

[Coffee_Johnny]

45 minutes ago, madras said:

Bagsman ? Baller ?

What fresh hell is this ?

Did you miss the memo? It is NUFC Newspeak (George Orwell ©️). No doublethink required. And tell your lass that no female orgasms are now allowed—they’re a sex crime. 

[Crimson Cardigan]

15 minutes ago, toon25 said:

Wish we were more creative in finding targets

By creative, do you mean a foreign striker none of us have heard of? I get the appeal of an unheralded gem,  but whoever we get has to be able to score in the premier league/champions league. We can’t do a hall style be ready in 12 months thing.

[sushimonster85]

5 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

no female orgasms are now allowed

 

Way ahead of the curve on this one 

[WinstonFC]

6 minutes ago, Crimson Cardigan said:

By creative, do you mean a foreign striker none of us have heard of? I get the appeal of an unheralded gem,  but whoever we get has to be able to score in the premier league/champions league. We can’t do a hall style be ready in 12 months thing.

Isak was creative

[madras]

11 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

Did you miss the memo? It is NUFC Newspeak (George Orwell ©️). No doublethink required. And tell your lass that no female orgasms are now allowed—they’re a sex crime. 

Yeah, right.......females have orgasms 

[Wallsendmag]

Don't know why we're looking at allowing one of the cartel clubs to offload their shite onto us.

[jack j]

34 goal involvements (as the cool kids say) in 65 prem games for Chelsea 

That's alreet that man

[Crimson Cardigan]

5 minutes ago, WinstonFC said:

Isak was creative

Isak was a Šeško we got a free run at.

[Erikse]

20 minutes ago, Geordie_once_removed said:

I've tried hard to refrain from commenting on theoretical transfers but this one has triggered me and if it happened I couldn't get on board with it for a range of reasons.

 

1. Even at about half the mooted fee it rewards Chelsea for their awful model.

2. If Chelsea make any profit from this, so that is anything above about 25 million, it financially strengthens a direct rival.

3. What is he in the team building plan? Is he a player like Ekitike or Sesko with world class potential? His 2 years in the Prem suggest no. Is he a player to get 15 goals plus and slot right into the team like Wissa, again his record suggests not. He's a good presser of the ball and that's it. We have enough of them.

4. Is he a low risk bargain taking advantage of a particular set of circumstances?  The price certainly suggests not.

 

I hope we asked expecting a 30 million figure that might get down to closer 20 with some negotiation. I hope our reaction to a 70 million figure was just like how I hope we reacted to Liverpool with their offer for Isak, namely we laughed in their face and then walked out the the door/hung up the call.

 

Agree on some of your points, but high press allways works better the more players you have involved in it. 1 player not doing his job properly in the press is enough to ruin it for everyone else. Being a good presser is allways a big plus for us.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2025 by Erikse

[Kooiman]

15 minutes ago, Disco said:

Selling player/club/agent leaking everything to the press is absolutely killing us. Every single attempted rubbish has been public as fuck. Horrible.

We've been done by the narrative this summer. 

 

Facts and truth are diverging in my opinion. We've been made to seem disorganized or like we're unappealing (the talk of knowing our place in the food chains is nauseating). In reality, we've tried to show ambition after our best season in living memory. We lost Ekitike to the league champions, we lost Joao Pedro to a team in London that no doubt offered more and have actually spent an outrageous amount in several years. We lost Mbeumo to a club that was willing to pay him 250k a week if reports are to be believed. The same club has Jadon Sancho on more and Antony on 100k a week just gathering dust. We simply can't afford that type of wastage. 

 

Liverpool just sold a striker to Saudi Arabia at a heavy loss in the same summer they bought Ekitike for a smidge more—knowing no one in Europe would match the price Saudi were offering. I get when fans mock us, that's the point of fandom, but when writers/talking heads don't apply critical thinking as to why we're obsessed with good financial governance I end up confused. Particularly when those same people want to mock us for not wasting money on inferior options outside of the lists we spent months/years curating. 

 

I'm certainly not saying the club did everything right, that's impossible, but I don't think they've drunkenly stumbled through the window either. 

[TRon]

24 minutes ago, Geordie_once_removed said:

I've tried hard to refrain from commenting on theoretical transfers but this one has triggered me and if it happened I couldn't get on board with it for a range of reasons.

 

1. Even at about half the mooted fee it rewards Chelsea for their awful model.

2. If Chelsea make any profit from this, so that is anything above about 25 million, it financially strengthens a direct rival.

3. What is he in the team building plan? Is he a player like Ekitike or Sesko with world class potential? His 2 years in the Prem suggest no. Is he a player to get 15 goals plus and slot right into the team like Wissa, again his record suggests not. He's a good presser of the ball and that's it. We have enough of them.

4. Is he a low risk bargain taking advantage of a particular set of circumstances?  The price certainly suggests not.

 

I hope we asked expecting a 30 million figure that might get down to closer 20 with some negotiation. I hope our reaction to a 70 million figure was just like how I hope we reacted to Liverpool with their offer for Isak, namely we laughed in their face and then walked out the the door/hung up the call.

 

 

You can only presume if we are interested it's because Howe rates him. There is a whole load of other strikers out there which clubs like Brighton, Forest and Villa are fighting for, I'm pretty sure we could chuck our hats in the ring for those if we wanted to. 

[Erikse]

4 minutes ago, Kooiman said:

We've been done by the narrative this summer. 

 

Facts and truth are diverging in my opinion. We've been made to seem disorganized or like we're unappealing (the talk of knowing our place in the food chains is nauseating). In reality, we've tried to show ambition after our best season in living memory. We lost Ekitike to the league champions, we lost Joao Pedro to a team in London that no doubt offered more and have actually spent an outrageous amount in several years. We lost Mbeumo to a club that was willing to pay him 250k a week if reports are to be believed. The same club has Jadon Sancho on more and Antony on 100k a week just gathering dust. We simply can't afford that type of wastage. 

 

Liverpool just sold a striker to Saudi Arabia at a heavy loss in the same summer they bought Ekitike for a smidge more—knowing no one in Europe would match the price Saudi were offering. I get when fans mock us, that's the point of fandom, but when writers/talking heads don't apply critical thinking as to why we're obsessed with good financial governance I end up confused. Particularly when those same people want to mock us for not wasting money on inferior options outside of the lists we spent months/years curating. 

 

I'm certainly not saying the club did everything right, that's impossible, but I don't think they've drunkenly stumbled through the window either. 

 

I agree that we tried to show ambition. The intention was good, but evidently it may have been too much too soon? Were these players realistically going to pick us? I'd say no for most of them.

[Famous Nick]

sounds like 2 weeks of saga after we wont get him and wasted serious time to find it out leaving us brutal desperate. who starts upfront vs Villa is all I want to know. 

[Weezertron]

5 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

You can only presume if we are interested it's because Howe rates him. There is a whole load of other strikers out there which clubs like Brighton, Forest and Villa are fighting for, I'm pretty sure we could chuck our hats in the ring for those if we wanted to. 

TBF Eddie rates anyone that plays in the Prem 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

The one point I don't agree on within this thread is that it is helping Chelsea out with PSR. They will never need help, there will always be a loophole for them.

 

On NJ, I wouldn't like him as an Isak replacement in being the only striker able to play, but if we got 2 into rotate a bit to get 12-15 goals out of both then he's a good player with potential to hit really decent numbers in the right set up. And as thats the only way we are going to replace Isak's goals potentially not a bad move.

[Loki679]

Nicolas Jackson

 

What a fucking joke.  Starting to think Big Bald Paul might have had a point about our transfer 'strategy'.  It's been absolute clownshoes this summer.

[Ginola14]

just ben jacobs running this story? 

 

if so v surprised it got its own thread 

 

would prefer not to give Chelsea any money for their unwanted players 

[Crimson Cardigan]

6 minutes ago, Ginola14 said:

just ben jacobs running this story? 

 

if so v surprised it got its own thread 

 

would prefer not to give Chelsea any money for their unwanted players 

They have limitless funding anyway so that part is irrelevant