[Archived] Franco Di Santo

[Hughesy]

Well it's obviously not about money otherwise he would have stayed at City.

Offer him garenteed first team football and i'm sure he would come. Or does he think he is better then Anelka and Drogba...

Read what i said at 15:39.

Rovers 30k per week - Chelsea £40k+ a week.

Rovers - top 8 at best - Chelsea possible winners

Decent cup run maybe by rovers, possibly even win 1, Chelsea potential cup wins/ european wins.

Chelsea European football

Chelsea better players to learn from.

Not just about money no - they also have ALOT more to offer him.

[Guest benmaxwell]

Rovers - First Team Football

Chelsea - Bench or reserves depending on who else they buy this summer.

[tony gale's mic]

Rovers - First Team Football

Chelsea - Bench or reserves depending on who else they buy this summer.

Most players would choose Chelsea over Rovers, even if we do offer him first team football and Chelsea don't. He knows that Chelsea must see enough potential in him to sign him in the first place, even if he doesn't get the opportunity straight away.

[brian_gallagher85]

Where has all this "we'll have to play him no matter how is form is" crap come from? If he's playing well he'll get picked if not he won't. The people who have taken this "story" and have run with it are stupider than those who thought we would sign a proven world beater on loan!

[Hughesy]

Rovers - First Team Football

Chelsea - Bench or reserves depending on who else they buy this summer.

Bench at Chelsea in the champions league final, Bench at City to finish around 6th, or Start or possibly still even Bench at Rovers.....

not a difficult choice is it.

The boy obviously has massive potential hence Chelsea being interesting - he must believe in his own ability, therefore why wouldnt he join them over us?

As for the - 'we must play him every game' (Di Santo) - its crap and im not sure where this came from??

[American]

Eddie - any player we bring in will cost something. You haven't said what the risk is yet?

As for not liking it because there's no option to buy, what's the problem with that? Surely if the lad does come in and does well, it will be great for Rovers, Chelsea and Santo? Nothing is long term in football any more, so if it works for a year that's good.

I think some people complain for the sake of it.

The risk is that he's crap and will cost us points until he finds his feet - could be a match, could be a month, could be the entire season. Isn't that why you say we should never play youth? At least when it is our own players gaining experience and confidence, we gain from their values going up. Interesting how you're willing to take that risk when it isn't our own player!

[Stuart]

As for the - 'we must play him every game' (Di Santo) - its crap and im not sure where this came from??

Rovers have had to agree with Chelsea that di Santo WILL play. There is no point in him going somewhere and warming a bench.

There is a big queue for him but Rovers have the first refusal...which is as good as it gets.

I think it came from this subtle hint from Nicko. Although he's not been particularly reliable of late in the Mister X department.

It did strike me that there must be some reason why we have been given first refusal. Surely no club would guarantee a start to any player.

But then why else have we been told we can have first dibs on any loan deal? Unless Nicko is making the whole thing up so he and Coyley can have a laugh at us. Other than that he's no reason to lie.

If not a guarantee, why have we been offered Di Santo ahead of all others? Open question.

[Hughesy]

I dont think that says that we must play him in every game - in just means that he will play, because has talent, and is better than some of our other options.

[brian_gallagher85]

I'm pretty sure that most rational people will take that as he'll be given the chance to show what he can do, not, he'll be the first name on the team sheet week in week out. As we're likely to be pushing for a top half finish and will be a pretty light up front then it's likely this is why we've gotten first refusal.

[patrickvalery]

Ok, i've given myself a while to digest today's news.

If at first i was slightly underwhelmed, i am now pretty upbeat about it. It is carries minimal risk to us as a club. If he performs badly we send him back when his loan expires. If he does well we stand to gain from most directions. Firstly the points on the board. Secondly a better working relationship with one of the biggest / richest clubs in the world. Thirdly, a better reputation for developing young talent. Forthly a better reputation amongst the South American contingent.

I wouldn't say its a win win situation. But it seems stacked in our favour. I think people need to forget about what the deal is doing to help Chelsea. If it were one of our immediate rivals i'd agree. But they are in another league to us in most departments. Who cares if they stand to gain from it. In fact i'm sure Sam has made a big effort to stress to them how much they stand to gain.

In regards to us having to play him. That is complete rubbish. Sam will have stressed he plans to use him as a part of the first team. Its public knowledge we're reducing the squad size and i'm certain Sam will have stressed this to Chelsea. Therefore a starting berth is far more probable with us than these sides with larger squads who rotate every match.

In my experience clubs who loan out decent prospects often do so to sides which play in a similar style. This is the only thing which doesn't quite fit with the whole thing. Our style is not a mirror image to Chelsea's. Ok they are more direct than the other top sides. But not to our extent. I can only assume our style has appealed to them as our direct approach will force him to toughen up.

All in all i'm pleased with today's news.

[Trailblazer]

Hi, I am a Chelsea supporter and registered on this forum last year when Sparky was linked with us.

As far as Di Santo goes, he definitely needs games under his belt. He came towards the end of 07/08 season and banged goals left, right and center for the reserves. It was hoped that he would push on this season for a first team place but the way Chelsea function these days, you really need to be a wonderkid to merit a starting place. Having said that Di Santo has featured quite a lot in the matchday squads and has looked decent in the minutes he was on the pitch. Lack of first team football though had a toll on him and he looked less sharp in some of the reserve games he featured in towards the end of the season.

As far as his qualities go, I would say he is unselfish and intelligent. If a team-mate is in a better position to score, you can count on him to pass the ball 9 out of 10 times. His linkup play in and around the box is also pretty good for a forward. He still needs to beef up but has shown good aerial ability at times in the games. I want him to go on loan this season because he needs games to develop. I don't think there would be clauses to ascertain his inclusion in the starting eleven but there might be one to ascertain in the match day squad. Sahar, who went on loan at Pompey last season, hardly even made the bench there.

If you do end up taking him on loan, you are getting a player with a good attitude and one who is willing to learn. He is enthusiastic and I am sure he won't let you down with his commitment on the pitch. He is raw and I am still not convinced that he is ever going to be a 20 goals a season man but in terms of overall contribution on the pitch, I think he can be a good player.

[nicko]

Rovers have told Chelsea that they want Di Santo because he will in all probability be a 'starter' in the side because of his ability.

He is not being signed to sit on the bench...what would be the point of that for either Rovers or Chelsea?

Chelsea know he won't start for them next season, so they want him out and playing. That is the reason they are sending him out on loan.

It's really not that complicated.

You get a player for just a wage for a year - no fee, no rental. You can't lose.

There are NO better players at that kind of rate about.

Campbell at Man U is costing a fee plus wages and he isn't remotely close to this lad on ability.

Everton thought they had a deal for him and another club were trying. Rovers have handled it right and now just wait for Chelsea giving Ancelotti the courtesy of looking at the player before letting him go.

JUST SEEN THE ABOVE POST AND WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD THE CHAP FOR HIS SUMMARY...

[imy9]

Wow this deal gets better and better, as we are simply paying for his wages, I cant believe some people are moaning about it. I would suggest that Big Sam has stole a march on his rivals here.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Hi, I am a Chelsea supporter and registered on this forum last year when Sparky was linked with us.

As far as Di Santo goes, he definitely needs games under his belt. He came towards the end of 07/08 season and banged goals left, right and center for the reserves. It was hoped that he would push on this season for a first team place but the way Chelsea function these days, you really need to be a wonderkid to merit a starting place. Having said that Di Santo has featured quite a lot in the matchday squads and has looked decent in the minutes he was on the pitch. Lack of first team football though had a toll on him and he looked less sharp in some of the reserve games he featured in towards the end of the season.

As far as his qualities go, I would say he is unselfish and intelligent. If a team-mate is in a better position to score, you can count on him to pass the ball 9 out of 10 times. His linkup play in and around the box is also pretty good for a forward. He still needs to beef up but has shown good aerial ability at times in the games. I want him to go on loan this season because he needs games to develop. I don't think there would be clauses to ascertain his inclusion in the starting eleven but there might be one to ascertain in the match day squad. Sahar, who went on loan at Pompey last season, hardly even made the bench there.

If you do end up taking him on loan, you are getting a player with a good attitude and one who is willing to learn. He is enthusiastic and I am sure he won't let you down with his commitment on the pitch. He is raw and I am still not convinced that he is ever going to be a 20 goals a season man but in terms of overall contribution on the pitch, I think he can be a good player.

Different sort of player I know but will he achieve more than Derbyshire would have ? Given a run in the team as opposed to the odd game and bits and pieces off the bench.

[Stuart]

I'm pretty sure that most rational people will take that as he'll be given the chance to show what he can do, not, he'll be the first name on the team sheet week in week out. As we're likely to be pushing for a top half finish and will be a pretty light up front then it's likely this is why we've gotten first refusal.

Sorry? Because we need a striker we deserve (and have been given) first refusal on an up and coming, and in demand, striker. No way, not having that.

I'm not sure anyone's saying that he will play EVERY game but we have clearly given Chelsea some reason for them to prefer him going to Rovers than to another club. If we aren't saying that he will be going in as one of our first choice strikers, what are we saying? "Well Chelsea, if he's playing well and in form, then he'll get the nod". Surely most teams could offer the same argument. No, we have to have given some further assurance that other clubs haven't - or there's something else - it damn sure isn't highest bid.

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Wow this deal gets better and better, as we are simply paying for his wages, I cant believe some people are moaning about it. I would suggest that Big Sam has stole a march on his rivals here.

Some people would moan if we signed Messi.

[Bobby G]

So we have to wait until mid-July to get him? And then slot him into our team. Is there no chance that Chelsea let him go before then nicko?

[Trailblazer]

Different sort of player I know but will he achieve more than Derbyshire would have ? Given a run in the team as opposed to the odd game and bits and pieces off the bench.

Derbyshire is more experienced but I reckon given a run in the team Di Santo wouldn't disappoint you with his contribution on the pitch.

[Hughesy]

in all probability be a 'starter' in the side because of his ability.

You get a player for just a wage for a year - no fee, no rental. You can't lose.

Campbell at Man U is costing a fee plus wages and he isn't remotely close to this lad on ability.

Everton thought they had a deal for him

Thats a win win situation for us. Like nicko rightly suggests he is a btter player tha Campbell who is rated at £6m. He is a freebie and also bigger clubs wanted him.

As for comparing him & derbs - its a no brainer - Derbyshire isnt good enough, this lad is!

[DE.]

I can't really see any downside to this. A fantastic piece of business if it goes through.

[Hi Mack]

Some people would moan if we signed Messi.

Im not giving my opinion until its signed and sealed!

[brian_gallagher85]

Sorry? Because we need a striker we deserve (and have been given) first refusal on an up and coming, and in demand, striker. No way, not having that.

I'm not sure anyone's saying that he will play EVERY game but we have clearly given Chelsea some reason for them to prefer him going to Rovers than to another club. If we aren't saying that he will be going in as one of our first choice strikers, what are we saying? "Well Chelsea, if he's playing well and in form, then he'll get the nod". Surely most teams could offer the same argument. No, we have to have given some further assurance that other clubs haven't - or there's something else - it damn sure isn't highest bid.

I was simply stating that as we're lighter up front than most established clubs in the league then it's clear that Chelsea believe that he'll get more games.

[gumboots]

I'm not trying to knock this deal at all but what I want to know is where have you all seen enough of this guy to say that he's such a fantastic signing? I've watched the clips that have been posted but then i watched the Villanueva clips and went wow, but the reality was nothing like that. has he ever played more than reserve games or the odd subs appearance? If he has then what did he do in those games to make you all so confident that he will contribute enough to move us up the table? As i say I don't want to knock the potential deal, I just want to know how you know!

[thenodrog]

Either way it's another cheap option from the board sell a 15 mill striker and replace him with a nobody for zip.

No wonder last season we were almost relegated.

We only have zip! I think it's excellent business and much better than giving Andy Cole away for free.

[DeadlyDirk]

Rovers have told Chelsea that they want Di Santo because he will in all probability be a 'starter' in the side because of his ability.

He is not being signed to sit on the bench...what would be the point of that for either Rovers or Chelsea?

Chelsea know he won't start for them next season, so they want him out and playing. That is the reason they are sending him out on loan.

It's really not that complicated.

You get a player for just a wage for a year - no fee, no rental. You can't lose.

There are NO better players at that kind of rate about.

Campbell at Man U is costing a fee plus wages and he isn't remotely close to this lad on ability.

Everton thought they had a deal for him and another club were trying. Rovers have handled it right and now just wait for Chelsea giving Ancelotti the courtesy of looking at the player before letting him go.

JUST SEEN THE ABOVE POST AND WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD THE CHAP FOR HIS SUMMARY...

Overall I'm pretty happy with it, I don't really see any negative, sure a future option to buy would have been great in an ideal world but if Chelsea are not prepared to give one then that tells you something about the kid. Plus too much is being made about this 'Must Play Clause'. I'm sure it's just going to be a gentleman's agreement that he's going to get his fair share of games for us and if he doesn't Chelsea can recall him not a case of if he's fit he definitely 100% has to start!

In an ideal world I'd love it to be our own player, I'm not a massive fan of loans as it is kind of a short term option which could leave you in trouble in the long term but if this player fails were no worse off in terms of a transfer fee and if he does well then ultimately we'll finish higher, get more money and be able to attract better players to the club.

If there are no better targets available for the money we have then we need to look at loans because let's remember that our current crop of players/former management team almost got us relegated.

If we quality strikers at the club then we can't have our cake and eat it, we either keep Roque as our quality striker and rely on him being happy and fit or we sell him and try and get someone else in.

I'm sure BFS Sam is looking at Mr Y as an addition to Roque as well as doing his homework on possible replacements for Roque if he in deed should go.