ShedEnder91

Judging by his physique his dad may well have been Marcel Desailly and his mom Emile Heskey. What an athlete. If I'm a City fan watching that though I'm gutted. They've probably been the better side that half.

sh*t defending but nicely done by Sterling. How he's 16 though??

Struggling to get control of this one at the moment. Defenders looking decent but midfield just not asserting itself.

Mikel is an interesting example because he's the type of player we've kept in favour of giving young players chances. Not to turn this into a Mikel-bashing thread but I don't think we're any worse off as a club by replacing him with either Chalobah or Ake over the last few years. My honest opinion is that there needs to be a concerted effort to give young players chances because homegrown players just bring more to the table on the whole. Seeing players like John Terry or Harry Kane leading your team is a unique thing in sport and every effort should be made to make that happen.

Apologies, I should've put a smilie after that to indicate that it was a humorous statement. Obviously it funny enough to convey that it was less than serious. Funnily enough though, Butch just mentioned him on the ITV4 Youth Cup feed saying how surprised he hasn't secured his spot here. For my money Chalobah was better than pretty much any other talent I've seen come through. At the same age I'd have certainly had him ahead of Loftus-Cheek so it's a real shame he appears to have slipped through the cracks because he had everything needed to be a big player for us.

Where he made two substitute appearances lasting a total of 40 minutes. He was something of a firm fixture in the under-21s that season though although I can't recall just how many games he played so apologies if that's slightly off.

If we want to take players out of their comfort zone then they could just stay here. With the regularity with which we change coaches and playing systems they'd get the same effect wouldn't they? As it is he went from Watford who played a similar system to us (3 in the middle/double pivot) to Forest who I seem to remember playing a 442 (again, from memory so apologies if it's off a bit). Vitesse also play a similarish system to us broadly speaking. I get the logic of taking players out of their comfort zones but if we're trying to develop them to play in our system, isn't it better that they become as familiar with that as possible? If it was one loan that we got wrong with him then maybe it'd be excusable but it's been three now and it would appear any momentum he had built up has long since gone. Sure we can blame the player but I personally think there's a path he could've been offered after the Watford loan that takes his career somewhere different, just like so many players have before. Now he just becomes another cautionary tale of the Chelsea Academy and unfortunately it seems like other players are now taking note.

He didn't come through the academy no, but he did feature in the under-21s before treading that all too familiar path to Vitesse Arnhem.

But would he still get a chance? Patrick Bamford did exactly what Kane did, except better. When he came back in January he was sent out on loan again because we had signed Falcao last summer and then signed Pato. It kinda sounds like you don't care about youth development, but the issue is that we don't give players the chance to earn a spot. Young players need opportunities. They're hard to come by, but they're an integral part of their development. JT got a chance here (after we almost sold him) and the rest is history. Loftus-Cheek is getting a chance here and he's getting close to claiming a squad place. Just because other players missed out on that crucial part of their development (playing with the first-team) it doesn't mean that they weren't good enough. Nemanja Matic was judged to be 'not good enough' and that mistake only cost us about £18 million to fix.

Yeah. There will be 11 of them on ITV tonight in the Youth Cup Final.

Nat Chalobah went to Watford as an 18 year old, played 42 games and was a key member of the team that got to the Play-Off Final. He won a Player of the Month award and was the England young player of the year. He earned that contract in my opinion. We f**ked him though. We sent him on-loan to Forest in the middle of September, when Davies didn't play a style of football that suited him and he got sacked in March 2014. The loan to Boro redeemed that year for him, but the Burnley loan (again, after the season had got into full-swing) was a waste of time as has been the Napoli loan. This is the issue with this club. Even if you do everything asked of you in the Academy and then on-loan, the club won't give you a chance unless there's a financial reason to. Kenedy has got matches, but he cost £6 million. Loftus-Cheek got matches but he was on a big contract already. Traore could be the exception, except he's somehow fallen behind Pato in the pecking order because Pato used to be good around 2011. Solanke is doing the right thing. He's looking for opportunity and the one way he can probably get that is by giving the club a financial reason to play him. But to go back to your first point, if a young player in our Academy is interested in first-team football there is one option - Leave.

Second leg tonight, 19:45, Stamford Bridge. Expect it's on ITV 2 or 4 as well.

You're right. We might simply be buying experience, which we sorely need, and hoping the Academy provides the young blood. I think the problem is that when we were buying younger players in 2012, they would be the established players comes 2016 but instead we're having to buy ready-made players to slot in and fill the gaps. That's no doubt partly down to us making a massive change in 2013 by hiring Jose. What it might suggest is the Conte's remit is to win now and he'll be judged primarily on short-term goals. That doesn't always work out well for us.

Only one source so far and that's ESPN. Having said that would anyone be surprised? I don't rate Scott as highly as some others but surely this was always likely to happen eventually? We don't give youngsters a chance so they'll simply start asking to leave. That's entirely sensible. Join Chelsea at 8, let us train you in the best facilities with the best coaches, win everything there is to win and play with the best youngsters around then leave around the age of 18 before you get lost on a series of loans. Or stay, we'll loan you out a few times and you can leave in your early-20s and start your career. Meanwhile we'll sign players on-loan for a season when they're clearly past it, buy youngsters from other clubs who you were outplaying in the youth ranks but who got first-team chances or simply sign players approaching their 30s for huge money. If Colkett, Clarke-Salter, Christensen, Musonda, Boga, Abraham or any other young player isn't seriously thinking about doing the same then I'm sorry, but their agents and advisors want sacking.

You're paying for potential with any young player. If he fulfils all of his potential (massive IF) then £30 million is a steal. That, for me, was the fair price all along and probably still is.

No idea where to put this and didn't want to start a new thread but something got me thinking. We went through a period of buying young players with potential to 'mould' into Chelsea players. So you had the likes of Mata, De Bruyne, Lukaku, Hazard, Oscar, Courtois etc. Each of these players went up in value as you'd expect they would. Then under Jose it changed slightly, so we bought players like Willian, Fabregas, Costa, Matic etc. most (if not all) I'd say we could sell for a profit, no? That's despite then generally being older, around 26-27 (again, might be a bit off on Matic and Willian but both were players who have gone up in price) and helped us win immediately. But just look at the three names we're being associated with under Conte today; Nainggolan (28 in a week or so), Bonucci (29 soon) and Benatia (29). Now I'm sure we'll be linked with other players, most pointlessly Dembele from Fulham, but it does seem as though we seem to be focussing on the 'win now' category of players who likely won't have much sell-on value. Now there's the possiblity we get a Stones, Marquinhos or Manolas in who are all younger, but Bonucci seems to be the first choice. It makes me wonder what the plan is for this club now because looking at those players' profiles it seems like something is changing. Or maybe it's not and it's nothing. Just a thought.

But you don't know if it's true. You've decided to call him a 'greedy little sh*t' based on media bollocks. If you were potentially worth £30k a year and not asking for it then that's a mistake on your part.

Yes, we the club. This notion that we have only struggled to promote young players since Jose arrived his fallacious. Fact is last season Jose gave more minutes than any other coach to a player from our youth team (not named John Terry). Not everything wrong with this club is solely down to Jose unfortunately.

10 reasons we hate Spurs Bonus - 2 reasons to love Chels.

Good post but why call him a 'greedy little sh*t'? Do you do your job for free? Do you look for parity with your peers? Fact is he could be requesting a very fair base level that increases if he hits a number of targets. I think it's bang out of order slating the guy but that's probably what whoever leaked this story wanted.

I doubt we'll buy or play a number 10. A three man midfield with Fabregas as the centre, surrounded by Nainggolan, Matic, RLC and one or two others (Vidal maybe?) is dynamic enough in attack and defence to beat almost anyone in my opinion. It made sense selling him for £25 million but it certainly didn't make sense to weaken the club in January when we had trophies still to play for. Weirdly it was the club thinking long-term for once, but just go back and watch the first-leg against PSG and all that space we could've countered into.

I'm too fixated on Chelsea having a unique style or identity. That's probably a fair assessment but I think you're unique in using that as a way to insult or denigrate me. I'd have thought most fans want their club to be unique, reflecting their history and values rather than chasing whatever's en vogue at that particular moment in time. But ok. If you'd like I could post some links so you can see what happened. What the owner and board (I won't say club in this instance purely to maintain my happy disposition) did there will leave a bad taste in many people's mouths and keep them wary of the true intentions of an owner who had no connection to this club before deciding to buy it in 2003. Always remember that. We were very close to having the club move away from the plastic palm trees you are apparently fond of (that username is intriguing because it's such a sh*tty little bar now compared to what it was about six years ago - did you google map the closest pub to the Bridge and pick it, or do you genuinely enjoy going there on a matchday? Apart from the bird with the big boobs occasionally pulling pints there, what's the attraction?). On a plot of land that it was unfeasible to do so within just 5 years ago - technology is amazing eh, especially when Battersea and Old Oak Common become impossible venues. There are lots of things to be positive about. We have a fantastic academy, we have a nice shiny new coach who seems tactically progressive as well as looking good in a suit, we have a decent set of players already, we've started our transfer business early and the stadium is moving along well (on the present site). That doesn't mean there aren't obstacles. I'll remind you that all of the above has been true many times previously (except for the stadium issue which is actually going to be a massive thing going forward as the board will probably once again try to buy the Freehold - there's absolutely no guarantee they get it which could have huge ramifications) and what it's brought is either failure or short-term success. Don't worry, we always spend enough after a poor season (usually following a lack of investment) to get us back up there and next season will probably be the same. What I'd like to see is us find that balance between spending and developing homegrown youth, not only because it's financially prudent but so the next generation of fans can see heroes at this club who are 'proper Chelsea'. That's not me being spoilt, it's just me following in the footsteps of so many Chelsea supporters who came before.

Which is why it's key to have an overarching philosophy at the club that goes beyond the lifespan of a coach. What I would ask you is where that comes from in our club when you consider that from around early-2011 we seemed to want to build towards a more expansive, attacking, possession-based style of football and targeted Pep Guardiola, then scrapped that in 2013 when we hired Jose Mourinho. I've asked you questions like this many times and you've avoided answering them instead throwing snide insults at people, as I believe you are about to in the next paragraph. Spoilt rich kids - fair enough. Would it be fair to say that success is all that matters to you? We'll obviously be successful in the short-term because Roman will spend money. That's the great thing about having a billionaire owner who can quite literally buy success. But the issues I've spoken about go beyond that. Maybe it is asking too much but success that you aren't invested in is pointless, you're just watching one franchise which is indistinguishable from another winning the league. What I want is something that is uniquely Chelsea representing us on that pitch. Is that something you'd like too or does it not matter? Also I asked you before whether you or your family were CPO members because I think that changes the way people view this club too after the events of 2011.

Christensen and Musonda are on track to come back (in theory, hard to know because this is uncharted territory for this club). Loftus-Cheek is already here so you only need two more and the obvious ones would be DaSilva, Solanke and Aina. Unfortunately there's question marks over two of them. Brown and Boga seem to be wasting their time on loan and Clarke-Salter and Colkett are probably too young to judge. The other player I think could get a chance is Lewis Baker. Turned 21 yesterday and he's had a sneaky good season at Vitesse. Funnily enough I was just looking at Bazoer's stats and Lewis's are very similar albeit in a mid-table team.

Specifically the team that won the UEFA Youth League. Of all the youth teams I've seen this was the best. It had pace, power, individual skill, excellent passing, strength in defence and the only less than impressive area was goal. It just makes me wonder if this could be/could've been our 'class of '92' moment where we get a whole group of youngsters who come through and form the backbone of the squad for the next decade. The team that day was Bradley Collins Ola Aina Jake Clarke-Salter Andreas Christensen Jay DaSilva Charlie Colkett Ruben Loftus-Cheek Jeremie Boga Izzy Brown Charley Musonda Dom Solanke Even the bench that day was impressive with Tomori, Palmer, Abraham and Scott. So far Loftus-Cheek has made the most progress towards a first-team place but there's a case for most of these players making the first team. Unfortunately we seem to have a couple who might not see a future here (Aina and Solanke). Musonda and Christensen look set to spend another year on-loan which may or may not help their chances here. For me this team represents everything hopeful about this club, but also highlights everything wrong with it. The potential there is extraordinary and everything done up to this point has been exemplary but there are so many examples of talented players who have come before haven't their development either interrupted by poor decisions or chances simply not being given. So which of these players has the best chance? Do any of them really or is the notion of a group of young players coming through the club old-fashioned now?