Blackpool have not exercised their buy option in the loan deal that saw Charlie Kirk spent the second half of the season at Bloomfield Road.

However, they are interested in re-negotiating the transfer fee that was involved in the deal, thought to be around £500,000, which would have seen Charlton Athletic break even on the player they signed from Crewe Alexandra in the summer of 2021.

There is no way the Addicks should cash in on one of the only assets in the current squad, for less than they paid for him a year ago, when his contract keeps him at The Valley for another three seasons.

Nor should an important decision, on such a high potential player, be made before a new manager is appointed at the club.

Charlie Kirk only started five League One games in the first half of the season, entering a very difficult environment that was the team's dreadful start under Nigel Adkins, following a family bereavement.

When Johnnie Jackson took the reins in late October, there was no natural space for Kirk in the starting XI, with the 39-year-old playing a 3-5-2 formation, without wingers or a number ten, for the rest of the campaign.

Kirk showed his class by contributing three assists in nine second tier appearances for Blackpool, firmly establishing himself in Neil Critchley's first team plans.

It would be counter-productive, naive, ill-advised and frankly ludicrous to sell Kirk at a loss this summer, and arguably to let him go at all, given the potential the player clearly has and the fact that his transfer value could significantly increase in the next year or so, if a manager arrives who can get the best out of him.

Kirk and Scott Fraser, who was another square peg in a round hole under Jackson, could be the creative duo that the Addicks need to push themselves into play-off contention next season, operating off of a lone striker.

In terms of potential sell-on value, Charlie Kirk is the biggest asset at Charlton Athletic at the moment, therefore if he is sold at a loss this summer, it would demonstrate Thomas Sandgaard's negligence as the owner of the club.