Piazon moaning about the loan system

[Nibs]

47 minutes ago, Stim said:

Was still better than most of the managers here before him.

You think? And before Jose we didn't have the state of the art academy producing youth cup winning sides for fun.

 

  

 

[Stim]

38 minutes ago, Nibs said:

You think? And before Jose we didn't have the state of the art academy producing youth cup winning sides for fun.

Yeah I do. Better than AvB, Carlo, Rafa, Di Matteo. Whether that's down to the managers or not is another story. Jose is the one whose played a teenager in a CL final remember.

I always find the youth cup winning side a bit of a red herring. The best youngsters are playing in the champions league, not the youth champions league.

[PedroMendez]

I am not really a fan of this argument as over recent years Chelsea have been producing a huge amount of high level professional footballers which let's face it will have been a dream for a lot of those joining our academy and youth systems. Yes the majority don't make our first team but to get in one of the best squads in the world is no mean feat. 

I imagine this is probably more of a blow to someone like Piazon who as bought in with the expectation of being something special but can a player really complain at being developed into a player from obscurity into a player who is almost guarantees 30,000 a week. To make it to this level is areal achievement and we are producing players at this level constantly. Is that not an achievement and pull for youngsters in it self? 

We have also helped produced 3 of the most expensive players ( and therefore earners) of their generation (Courtois, De Bruyne, Lukaku) is this not in itself a positive or achievement in the system.

Piazon Is a failure of this system but his profile and inherent earning ability has massively increased from joining the club. Has this therefore not been a bonus for his career.

He may have some better but he also could have some a lot worse.

Because of this our club will always have a pull when it comes to youngsters it is an instant increase in there current and likely future wages and a massive increase in profile.

[Stim]

I think the money is also a huge problem. These kids will rock up at their loan clubs earning 2/3 as much as that clubs captain. What motivates you? I can't know what goes on in training but I doubt they are willing to work as hard as Lampard did. You had an indifferent season in Holland and you think that entitles you to games at Chelsea?

And then these kids are club contracted for longer than any manager, all who are on a 'win stuff or get fired' short leash. There is no incentive to play them, which is why they only get minutes once a title is won. 

There is a lot wrong on both sides. But at the end of the day we have increased the amount of PL quality players we produce. To lay the blame solely at the club isn't fair.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Stim

[Scott Harris]

I actually think our loaning strategy is all about making a bit of money for the club rather than seeing if these players are good enough to make it here.

I hate to say it, but i would not be in the slightest bit surprised if even Christensen isn't bought back next season. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was loaned out again or maybe even sold.

We all keep a look out for our players out on loan and hope they do well, but really we are getting excited about nothing, none of them make it here. 

[Nibs]

13 hours ago, Stim said:

Yeah I do. Better than AvB, Carlo, Rafa, Di Matteo. Whether that's down to the managers or not is another story. Jose is the one whose played a teenager in a CL final remember.

I always find the youth cup winning side a bit of a red herring. The best youngsters are playing in the champions league, not the youth champions league.

 

Talking CHELSEA, I really don't recall Jose giving ANY players much of a chance (I don't count throwing on a sub in the 89th minute to run down the clock). There is no way he played more than Carlo who gave a few youngsters proper match time - I recall Bruma, Kakuta but more notably McEachran. 

It will be interesting to see to see how he handles the Rashford situation. It's a no-brainer that the kid has to play it's just a case of what playing time he will get.

 

 

[dkw]

10 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

I actually think our loaning strategy is all about making a bit of money for the club rather than seeing if these players are good enough to make it here.

I hate to say it, but i would not be in the slightest bit surprised if even Christensen isn't bought back next season. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was loaned out again or maybe even sold.

We all keep a look out for our players out on loan and hope they do well, but really we are getting excited about nothing, none of them make it here. 

Fully agree, we have seen the Italian clubs do it for several years now and the English clubs are catching on. We sign a young player for a low value or bring them through the academy, we then loan them for a fee to clubs with the hope they do well enough to be able to sell for a profit meaning we can keep funding the academy and also add to the kitty to buy first team players. All the while looking to find the 1 or 2 that can make the step up to first team squad. The cast majority of young players we sign or bring through are not going to play for us, its an absolute certainty. But the academy and loan system is now self funding, I`m sure that was the aim to start up a new revenue stream to combat FFP etc. which turned out to be bollocks anyway.

Edited September 7, 2016 by dkw

[Van Butsen]

Some kids just don't make it, no matter how promising they are.  The constant bashing of our system isn't justified in my opinion.

If they are that good they will produce the goods at senior level.  It's not our fault, we pumped more money into our academy than anyone, gave them world class facilities, got them to a point where other professional clubs want them on their senior list.  You've got to actually perform. 

Some will say the club needs to give them a chance.  What club in the world will give their youth a chance by starting them the 5,6,7 games in a row people are demanding?  None.  They will come off the bench and in patches.

I'm not saying that the loaning of 37 is the right way to go, but the loaning of young promising players is absolutely the way to go.  If you are good enough, it will show.

[Nibs]

39 minutes ago, Van Butsen said:

Some kids just don't make it, no matter how promising they are.  The constant bashing of our system isn't justified in my opinion.

If they are that good they will produce the goods at senior level.  It's not our fault, we pumped more money into our academy than anyone, gave them world class facilities, got them to a point where other professional clubs want them on their senior list.  You've got to actually perform. 

Some will say the club needs to give them a chance.  What club in the world will give their youth a chance by starting them the 5,6,7 games in a row people are demanding?  None.  They will come off the bench and in patches.

I'm not saying that the loaning of 37 is the right way to go, but the loaning of young promising players is absolutely the way to go.  If you are good enough, it will show.

I kind of agree but also disagree with that.

Sure in an ideal world, you have a talented young player, find him a good loan move, he performs wonders for the season so at the end of the loan you take him back and he slots straight into our first team squad. But for whatever reason it doesn't happen. Some will argue that the players just aren't good enough - it maybe the case. But some players, no matter how well they have done on loand, STILL don't get a chance and get sent on another loan and another.............

I think loaning young players for 1-2 seasons probably is the way to go in the majority of cases but not always. Look at Barca. I remember reading about Messi and Iniesta both on the verge of the first team and it looking likely they would go on loan - to Glasgow Rangers of all places. But the decision was made NOT to send them out on loan and boy have they reaped the rewards. I know the argument will be that players as good as Iniesta and Messi will make it regardless - again, probably right, but say they had gone on loan and not settled and had a shocking 12 months or whatever, then went out on loan again - one or both could have ended up in the footballing wilderness.

  

[g3.7]

but in spain youth players have access to playing for the B teams (which is like loaning players out to a club you ultimately control) which we don't have here, and clubs like barca and madrid regularly sell players and buy them back later.

it is obvious 90% of the players we loan are only going out to increase their value before getting sold. there aren't more than maybe seven players in our entire youth system from age 18 and up that I think realistically could be chelsea players and I can name only one I'm sure would be ready to be in our squad next season and perhaps two more that might be.

despite the fact that our situation with defenders makes the two year loan of christensen unwise, I think it is a good idea. it means that the player and his loaning club have more time to make it work. a slow start doesn't mean anyone has to panic- I think it is better than loaning out for one season.

personally I'd like to see us start to sell some of these guys but forgo a bigger initial fee in place of having a buy back clause. it is time for people like baker to have a two to three year stretch at a club to determine what they realistically could be.

[mad_mac]

2 hours ago, g3.7 said:

but in spain youth players have access to playing for the B teams (which is like loaning players out to a club you ultimately control) which we don't have here, and clubs like barca and madrid regularly sell players and buy them back later.

it is obvious 90% of the players we loan are only going out to increase their value before getting sold. there aren't more than maybe seven players in our entire youth system from age 18 and up that I think realistically could be chelsea players and I can name only one I'm sure would be ready to be in our squad next season and perhaps two more that might be.

despite the fact that our situation with defenders makes the two year loan of christensen unwise, I think it is a good idea. it means that the player and his loaning club have more time to make it work. a slow start doesn't mean anyone has to panic- I think it is better than loaning out for one season.

personally I'd like to see us start to sell some of these guys but forgo a bigger initial fee in place of having a buy back clause. it is time for people like baker to have a two to three year stretch at a club to determine what they realistically could be.

 

Another thing to add to all of this (not just your post), is that Chelsea FC when offering a kid a contract have to also offer them a guaranteed 2 year deal, hence the fact we have so many out on loan.  I'm not sure why we do this, or if others do it too, but this was something I didn't know until the US Tour when Neil Barnett told the audience that fact.

 

However, I don't know why we are keeping the "promising" ones on loan again and again, when we could and should just sell them on and be done with it.  

I do like the idea of the "nearly there' guys getting longer contracts, or as you say, sold on with a buy back clause. 

[Remodez]

28 minutes ago, mad_mac said:

 

Another thing to add to all of this (not just your post), is that Chelsea FC when offering a kid a contract have to also offer them a guaranteed 2 year deal, hence the fact we have so many out on loan.  I'm not sure why we do this, or if others do it too, but this was something I didn't know until the US Tour when Neil Barnett told the audience that fact.

 

However, I don't know why we are keeping the "promising" ones on loan again and again, when we could and should just sell them on and be done with it.  

I do like the idea of the "nearly there' guys getting longer contracts, or as you say, sold on with a buy back clause. 

It's something every club has to do. 

We would benefit so much in the long run from going down the buy back clause route but the club seems hesitant to do anything that could possibly be a risk so we end up with a terrible compromise where the players are just constantly loaned.  

[JuveChelsea]

On September 6, 2016 at 09:57, the special one said:

For the sake of argument the current Juventus squad only has 2 'club grown' players (Marchisio and a reserve GK). Most of the youth at United won't make it and will eventually will be moved on, etc etc.

Technically three: Marchisio, Audero and De Ceglie. But yeah this problem is found in all clubs. At least the bigger clubs of the leagues.

I think loans should just be abolished. They make no sense. Keep or sell.

[didierforever]

Cant disagree with a word Piazon has said.

Consider a child who has to shift from one school to another year after year. Basically has no friends, no support system, no stability. No manager is going to waste his time knowing that the player wont be with him next year. All in all, the loan system is a SHAM.

The only impact of loan system that we see is some financial rebate from FFP. 

[Argo]

5 hours ago, didierforever said:

Cant disagree with a word Piazon has said.

Consider a child who has to shift from one school to another year after year. Basically has no friends, no support system, no stability. No manager is going to waste his time knowing that the player wont be with him next year. All in all, the loan system is a SHAM.

The only impact of loan system that we see is some financial rebate from FFP. 

Yes they will if they are better than the alternatives, look at Tammy in Bristol. Lower league clubs care about one thing and one thing only, promotion and promotion immediately, next year doesn't even enter the train of thought with them guys.

Say  you were Huddersfield manager and had Akinfenwa or Rashford to chose from, would you pick the former just because he will be still be around next year? Same with PL clubs, all aside from the " big six"have a lingering chance of relegation, all said teams will pick the best players available to them at the current time, no messing about.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Argo

[didierforever]

3 minutes ago, Argo said:

Yes they will if they are better than the alternatives, look at Tammy in Bristol. Lower league clubs care about one thing and one thing only, promotion and promotion immediately, next year doesn't even enter the train of thought with them guys.

Say  you were Huddersfield manager and had Akinfenwa or Rashford to chose from, would you pick the former just because he will be still be around next year? Same with PL clubs, all aside from the " big six"have a lingering chance of relegation, all said teams will pick the best players available to them at the current time, no messing about.

How many Tammy's are out there?

How many players of Rashford's talents are going to go to league 1 or championship. We are not talking about exceptional talents. We are talking about the Kiwomyas and john swifts. These players need to be developed. Need to be nurtured. They are not going to get a free pass to the first team. And no manager is going to waste time doing that.

[Argo]

Just now, didierforever said:

How many Tammy's are out there?

How many players of Rashford's talents are going to go to league 1 or championship. We are not talking about exceptional talents. We are talking about the Kiwomyas and john swifts. These players need to be developed. Need to be nurtured. They are not going to get a free pass to the first team. And no manager is going to waste time doing that.

Kiwomya is playing regularly for Crewe in League Two after struggling for game time in League One, maybe he's just found his level? Swift got plenty off game time at Brentford which earned him his move to Reading, a decent upper Championship/lower premiership club. Point is with Rashford is if he didn't get the rub of the green with all 7or so players above him in the pecking order being injured or loaned out, he would probably be on loan in the Championship right now.

[dkw]

4 minutes ago, Argo said:

Kiwomya is playing regularly for Crewe in League Two after struggling for game time in League One, maybe he's just found his level? Swift got plenty off game time at Brentford which earned him his move to Reading, a decent upper Championship/lower premiership club. Point is with Rashford is if he didn't get the rub of the green with all 7or so players above him in the pecking order being injured or loaned out, he would probably be on loan in the Championship right now.

Bamford was pretty much Middlesbrough`s main striker in a season they almost got promotion, while being on loan from us.

[didierforever]

1 minute ago, Argo said:

Kiwomya is playing regularly for Crewe in League Two after struggling for game time in League One, maybe he's just found his level? Swift got plenty off game time at Brentford which earned him his move to Reading, a decent upper Championship/lower premiership club. Point is with Rashford is if he didn't get the rub of the green with all 7or so players above him in the pecking order being injured or loaned out, he would probably be on loan in the Championship right now.

EXACTLY. And I would put Kane in the same bracket.

Which again begs the question and the whole authenticity of the "LOAN" system, specially loaning players to lower divisions. 

I am sorry but I simply cant believe that a manager of a loanee club would give a damn about the youth player. Yes, he MIGHT play the kid if the kid is the best option he has but I doubt he would extensively look into the kid and develop him by working on his weakness and that is what my initial point was. Gametime and play time is only a small part of the development process of a 19/20 year old kid.

[the special one]

25 minutes ago, didierforever said:

Which again begs the question and the whole authenticity of the "LOAN" system, specially loaning players to lower divisions.

Giving a youth player the conditions to succeed (to find his 'level') is the point of the loan system!! 

Edited September 8, 2016 by the special one

[Van Butsen]

16 minutes ago, didierforever said:

EXACTLY. And I would put Kane in the same bracket.

Which again begs the question and the whole authenticity of the "LOAN" system, specially loaning players to lower divisions. 

I am sorry but I simply cant believe that a manager of a loanee club would give a damn about the youth player. Yes, he MIGHT play the kid if the kid is the best option he has but I doubt he would extensively look into the kid and develop him by working on his weakness and that is what my initial point was. Gametime and play time is only a small part of the development process of a 19/20 year old kid.

A manager in any league has no guarantee that any of their players will be there next season.  Just because someone has a contract does not matter one bit.  If they play well in a lower league, higher clubs are going to come with cash and you as the manager, who preferred this player over a loan player all season, could be powerless to resist.

[didierforever]

59 minutes ago, the special one said:

Giving a youth player the conditions to succeed (to find his 'level') is the point of the loan system!! 

I always thought "Gametime" and "first-team experience" to bridge the gap between the youth and the first team was the ultimate goal, rather than trying to find a suitor club for the youth player. 

[the special one]

33 minutes ago, didierforever said:

I always thought "Gametime" and "first-team experience" to bridge the gap between the youth and the first team was the ultimate goal, rather than trying to find a suitor club for the youth player. 

Bridging the gap is the aim, but given the current league structure doesn't allow competitive B or C teams how else do you achieve that? What else can the club do to help the likes of Kiwomya and Tammy gain senior experience without compromising the first team's performance (or exposing a player to a level of competition they're clearly not ready for)?

Don't get me wrong I'd like nothing more than for players to remain at Chelsea, to nurture them as you say in the club's image/philosophy as they do at La Masia or Bayern - but without a competitive B team it's nothing more than a pipe dream. That's why we have 30+ players on loan!

Edited September 8, 2016 by the special one

[didierforever]

1 hour ago, Van Butsen said:

A manager in any league has no guarantee that any of their players will be there next season.  Just because someone has a contract does not matter one bit.  If they play well in a lower league, higher clubs are going to come with cash and you as the manager, who preferred this player over a loan player all season, could be powerless to resist.

But I feel there is a massive difference between "no guarantee" and "surety". Here, the manager is sure to lose the player.

[Van Butsen]

37 minutes ago, didierforever said:

But I feel there is a massive difference between "no guarantee" and "surety". Here, the manager is sure to lose the player.

Not necessarily.  With a good season at he club, the manager may want to buy the player and players are in more of a position to push for these moves now.  Having played a good season, they may feel at home at the new club and make that push.

The manager would surely have a no loanee's policy if he felt hamstrung by them.