Nicolas Jackson

[Dandy Man]

It's extremely underwhelming and taking a Chelsea cast off for the prices being quoted is a bit insane but I also I think Jackson has a lot more potential than people are giving him credit for, he does look a bit of donkey at times but has the raw attributes that would really suit the way we play

[Nobody]

5 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Loan with no commitment or a reasonable option to buy would be about passable.

At least then we're only sacking off one season I guess 

[Nucasol]

3 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

This is exactly my point though. We've looked at finished article players (or near finished article) and they've all been poached. Maybe we're now turning our attention to underperforming players we think we can improve - they're less likely to be poached, and we can use their unrealised potential as a bargaining chip

“Buying the dip” doesn’t mean paying Harrods prices for a Heron Foods performing player.

[Zero]

3 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Underperforming players shouldn't cost a premium though. It's why jackson is such an awful proportion at a high price

 

Exactly this.

[Holmesy]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Underperforming players shouldn't cost a premium though. It's why jackson is such an awful proportion at a high price

I completely agree, but Jackson for £45-50m because he is a player who still needs work might not look too bad. £80m is completely laughable

[Nucasol]

Just now, Nobody said:

At least then we're only sacking off one season I guess 

Rather that than lumbering ourselves with our worst PSR nightmare.

[NUFCDoog]

Awful player and a proper prick to boot.

 

We're meant to be trying to compete with Chelsea, taking one of their cast offs is not a good look and reeks of panic buying.

 

Always remember his hat trick against Spurs against 9 men, probably the worse hat trick I've ever seen and he had the gall to celebrate like prime Ronaldo 

[WinstonFC]

19 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

I read somewhere that only 1 in 5 of his strikes are on target. 

 

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

I completely agree, but Jackson for £45-50m because he is a player who still needs work might not look too bad. £80m is completely laughable

Agree, 40m as our new Wilson is bearable. But I don't see this as realistic. 

[huss9]

10 hours ago, Displayname said:

2 Afcon strikers?

big problem.

[Miggys First Goal]

Why are we even entertaining this deal? Reporters on SSN even said he was overpriced last night. I know it’s getting to desperation levels,  but we can’t be that desperate. 

[JP]

I don't think he's as bad as some making out. He's played 65 games up front for a Chelsea side who have finished 6th and 4th in the Premier League. 

 

If he does sign i'll keep an open mind and judge him after seeing him play week in week out for us. Only fair.

 

[frankpingel]

So he cost £32m and has not lived up to expectations? He's a £25m gamble of a player as things stand. 

[Menace]

A championship striker doesn't even go for £25M now days. He's a 1 in 2 striker in the prem. If you think we're getting him less than £50-60M I have a bridge to sell you

[OoOGazOoO]

4 minutes ago, frankpingel said:

So he cost £32m and has not lived up to expectations? He's a £25m gamble of a player as things stand. 

 

This for me! The numbers quoted even £40 - 50m are absolutely ridiculous, let alone other higher amounts Chelsea are throwing about for him.

We cannot rely on him for goals and that is exactly what we NEED and want in a striker. He's absolutely pants.

[Taylor Swift]

Chelsea just sold Broja for £20m. 
 

Prices have gone up.

[Menace]

Broja who's done his ACL and has been honking for years now btw

[Hanshithispantz]

If we're keeping Isak for a season then Jackson would be pretty exciting imo, as we'd be buying another number 9 next summer you would think. If we end up with Jackson and Wissa though that's our front line sorted for the next few years, and it's not really the stuff we've dreamt of 

 

Edit: Jackson is worth £50m like, easily. He's just not a number 9.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2025 by Hanshithispantz

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, Hanshithispantz said:

If we're keeping Isak for a season then Jackson would be pretty exciting imo, as we'd be buying another number 9 next summer you would think. If we end up with Jackson and Wissa though that's our front line sorted for the next few years, and it's not really the stuff we've dreamt of 

 

 

 

AFCON nightmare those two

[Moose]

Most people seemed content with getting Elanga for 55m, bearing in mind that striker is nearly always the most expensive postion to recruit, I don't think 50-65m is as outrageous as it once sounded. 25m-30m would just about get you a Celtic/Rangers/Championship player these days.

 

And yes, I'll happily buy those magic beans you're selling

[KaKa]

10 hours ago, lovejoy said:

This is a decent read;

 

 

https://archive.ph/cZYJk

 

Really good read 

 

That is so intriguing. Suits the Newcastle system and style of play to a tee.

 

I think because we're after two strikers, we could get away with bringing Jackson in and having the space to further refine his game and finishing in particular, provided we also brought in another striker that is a clinical finisher.

 

Unfortunately this other striker can't be Wissa who would have made the most sense, because that would mean both would be off to AFCON, which would be something we can't afford.

 

And so is there another striker they could bring in with him that they are confident will score goals in the Prem? All the other linked Prem options outside of Wissa will be unrealistic fee wise I think i.e. Watkins and Strand Larsen. Would they perhaps feel confident in someone like Openda getting goals in the Prem maybe?

 

Think that would be the main issue with getting Jackson. The other striker has to be someone that can finish chances well much more consistently.

[LFEE]

I think the issue people have is Chelsea have spent £20m and £55m on two better replacements but somehow for an inferior player to them they want £80m 

[STM]

I dont think Jackson would be a bad signing.

 

The issue is that signing Jackson gives us no hope that we would have replaced Isak with someone even potentially capable of reaching his level.

 

Whilst Ekitike, Pedro and Sesko aren't at Isaks level, there was a hope that one of them may have kicked on. Jackson has no chance of being as good as Isak.

 

The only hope would be that Wissa + Jackson would give us a stronger squad but thats clutching.

[PauloGeordio]

1 minute ago, STM said:

I dont think Jackson would be a bad signing.

 

The issue is that signing Jackson gives us no hope that we would have replaced Isak with someone even potentially capable of reaching his level.

 

Whilst Ekitike, Pedro and Sesko aren't at Isaks level, there was a hope that one of them may have kicked on. Jackson has no chance of being as good as Isak.

 

The only hope would be that Wissa + Jackson would give us a stronger squad but thats clutching.

We are currently in the clutching phase 

[STM]

Also Southampton "wanted" 100m for Dibling. Theyve just offered him to Everton for 45m. 

 

Don't believe prices in the press. Anything over 50m for Jackson and weve been robbed.