Did Sacha’s Amazing Display Hurt his Chance of a Transfer?

January 26th, 2009 | by: Brooks Peck |

Immediately after Sacha’s dominant performance and hat trick against Sweden, it seemed like an offer from Celtic would only be delayed by how quick they could fax it over. But, according to the Glasgow Evening Times, Kljestan’s strong outing might have just priced him out of a move:

SACHA KLJESTAN fears he may have priced himself out of a move to Celtic after his stunning hat-trick display against Sweden.

Several clubs in Holland and Germany were already on the trail of the 23-year-old American, who warmed up for this weekend’s international in Los Angeles by spending six days on trial at Lennoxtown.

Despite reports the framework of a deal worth around £2million to transfer Kljestan from Chivas USA was already in place with the MLS, who hold his contract, Celtic are in the same position as every other club interested in signing the Californian.

Kljestan impressed everyone during his trial, including manager Gordon Strachan, and admitted he enjoyed his time at the club where he believed he was well received.

But the $64,000 question remains: Do Celtic need to spend this kind of money – plus commit to a hefty contract – for a player in an area which is already well covered when there are other positions more in need of attention?

With rivals and nearest competitors Rangers already making it clear that they are in the market to sell, if anything, the answer to that question could very well be no, unfortunately. Plus, Celtic’s self-imposed deadline on making Kljestan an offer has come and gone, so all that together could spell another season in MLS for Sacha.

Who would’ve thought that a breakout international performance could actually damage your ability to get a big club transfer? This might be a first.

Tags: Celtic, sacha kljestan, Transfer Rumors

USA World Cup Team Blog RSS Feed

Comments

By Nick | January 27th, 2009 at 12:32 am

That sucks…

The truth is that Sacha was the same player that he was before the match. as he was after the match…..

Posted from United States

By elle | January 27th, 2009 at 12:57 am

ah poor guy…maybe it’ll all turn out for the better and a bigger club will pick him up…

Posted from United States

By GS | January 27th, 2009 at 7:21 am

I’m confused…so because Celtic doesn’t offer nobody else is going to swoop in and offer the kid something? Or is there just not enough time?

Posted from United States

By B | January 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

So if he plays like $h!+ against Mexico it betters his chances of getting a contract from Celtic?? What if he plays great against Mexico could a bigger better club swoop in and grab Sacha for a good price???

Anybody else think 2 million is cheap for a free kick like Sacha’s????

Posted from United States

By Marlon | January 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

B, the transfer window will be over by the time the Mexico game is played.

Posted from United States

By Mike | January 28th, 2009 at 3:11 am

I cannot imagine that his performance priced Sacha out of a move to Europe, GS and B make good points along these lines. If MLS was willing to agree to the transfer fee mentioned before the game, would they really raise the asking price that much after? I doubt it. It could be that more teams come asking, raising the transfer fee, but that would still end in Sacha moving to some European team.

By Pseudinho | January 30th, 2009 at 2:53 am

This is completely unrelated, but I didn’t know where else to post it. The United States is officially all in for 2018 and 2022. The U.S. is bidding to host those World Cups.

Odds of getting 2018 30%
Odds of getting 2022 50%
If they don’t get 2018 or 2002 odds of hosting 2026 90%

Completely my estimation on the odds, but I’m pretty anal when it comes to hosting rumors and potential bids for future major sporting events. I’ve been following the 2018 bidding speculation for some time now. The answer is yes, I am a loser. Possible venues:

U.S. Stadiums with capability to host World Cup matches. There are a few with field turf, but grass can easily be put in temporarily as U.S. Soccer has done this on several occasions for international friendlies and World Cup qualifiers.

- Landover, Maryland (FedEx Field) 91,704
- East Rutherford, New Jersey (Giants Stadium) 80, 242
- Arlington, Texas (Cowboys New Stadium) 80,000
- Denver, Colorado (Invesco Field) 76,125
- Miami Gardens, Florida (Dolphins Stadium) 76,101
- Charlotte, North Carolina (Bank of Americas Stadium) 73,298
- Cleveland, Ohio (Cleveland Browns Stadium) 73,200
- San Diego, California (Qualcomm Stadium) 71,294
- Houston, Texas (Reliant Stadium) 71,500
- Nashville, Tennessee (LP Field) 68,798
- Foxborough, Massachusetts (Gillette Stadium) 68,856
- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Lincoln Financial Field) 68,532
- Jacksonville, Florida (Municipal Stadium) 84,000
- Seattle, Washington (Qwest Field) 67,000
- Tampa, Florida (Raymond James Stadium) 65,857
- Glendale, Arizona (U. of Phoenix Stadium) 63,400
- Oakland, California (O-A County Coliseum) 63,026
- Chicago, Illinois (Soldier Field) 61,500
* The following are dome stadiums that have been rumored to help Chicago in 2016 with hosting soccer matches in the olympics.
- Detroit, Michigan (Ford Field) 65,000
- Indianapolis, Indiana (Lucas Oil Stadium) 63,000
- St. Louis, Missouri (Edward Jones Dome) 66,000
* The following are planned NFL stadiums that would have a decent shot at hosting some matches. Several stadiums like New Vikings Stadium, New 49ers Stadium, New Chargers Stadium, and New Los Angeles Stadium I did not include because they aren’t currently under construction.
- East Rutherford, New Jersey (Meadowlands Stadium) 82,500
* The following are college stadiums that would have a decent shot at hosting games.
- Pasadena, California (Rose Bowl) 92,542
- East Hartford, Connecticut (Rentschler Field) 40,000
- Orlando, Florida (Florida Citrus Bowl) 70,188
- Salt Lake City, Utah (Rice-Eccles Stadium)