Erik

I agree but going public with the statements make no sense. It weakens our bargaining positions with other sides as they can just drag their feet with any incoming deals and it also dents his authority as a manager if he says one thing and does the complete opposite a few weeks later.

I'm not sure why he's doubling down on not giving any minutes to any of the players that don't leave Chelsea by deadline day? If there's an injury crisis, something we are all too familiar with here then I am sure his hand will be forced. What happens if Cucurella and Viega get injured? Suddenly we don't have ANY left backs at all and if Chilwell is still around it would be incredibly stupid to not give him game time.

Positive set up against Wolves. Pleasantly surprised with the width on show and the threat we offered on the counter. Jackson dropping deep seems to suit him best as he has the ability to offer killer through balls on the counter. We still look easy to penetrate especially out wide but fluidity of our attacks in the second half were close to perfection.

Poch wanted more authority than the board were prepared to give. Maresca is probably a balanced appointment. Does this mean Maresca has zero say in transfers to the point where he just picks a starting XI every week. There's no evidence to support this thinking. We can clearly see from the squad building this season, he might have more of a say than Poch ever did.

So Raheem's exile is solely board orchestrated? Maresca said himself that it was his decision, is he lying there? If he has the authority to banish more than 15 players to train away from the first team (in his own words) then I am sure he has some sway in the transfer proceedings.

I find it hard to believe that is the case honestly.

I'm sure Maresca has enough sway in decision making to influence whether a player stays or goes. Otherwise we effectively have a coach who just takes training and picks a starting eleven.

He's taking an unusual approach with the press. I've never really seen a manager be this open publicly when calling players out. Time will tell whether it will have the desired effect but balance is always welcome in situations like these, being too public with stuff like this can backfire. How can we criticise what Sterling did when the coach is essentially doing a close equivalent.

Considering we recently sold the best disciplined and highest work ethic based player we have had in years it strikes me as bizarre that he keeps drilling this philosophy every time he does an interview.

In a parellel universe somewhere Putin didn't pull the trigger and invade Ukraine and Roman is still the owner. Who would our manager be and how different would our starting eleven be? What sort of transfers would the old ownership have made? Would we be in the champions league this year? This is not a hating thread on the new owners at all, so please do not turn it into one. Just a hypothetical scenario that seems interesting to think about. Manager: Thomas Tuchel

The year is 2025: Ipswich have defied expectations and finished 10th in the league. Chelsea have parted ways with Maresca after finishing 8th in the table and have hired Kieren Mckenna on a 9 year contract and have just tabled a bid to re-purchase Broja for 60 million after a 20 goal season. (Joke 😜) Good luck Armando!

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. I don't disagree that the academy system is ruthless and that other clubs have had circumstances where a player is treated 'unfairly' and purposely exiled from the squad in order to encourage his exit. However at Chelsea it looks as if it is starting to become a systematic policy that is being ingrained into the club. Can you show me examples of where a club have given over 42+ first team players long term contracts (some stretching to over 6 or 7 years) only to then pressure a select few players out of the club on mass a couple of seasons later in order to fund more money to buy more players on mass? And then the cycle repeats. I can't see an end goal here. We look incredibly short sighted and may pay the price later on when we end up breaking fair play budgeting regulations a few seasons down the line. It would be a sound strategy if the club was making profit off of the players sold (we are not) or if the strategy was translating into results on the football pitch (we can see that hasn't been the case so far). If either of these things were happening we could maybe accept and roll with it but so far we are yet to see any good fruits come from this run and gun recruitment policy.

I think you are missing the point entirely. This is not a personal mission I have for Broja's sake. It's more of general image we are depicting to future academy prospects, transfers and potential fans. The message being, if you are a talented youngster, be prepared to be used and then thrown to the curb once you develop and become valuable so we profit from you so we sign the next world Cup winner from South America.

Broja will never be a starter here. However the way we've been treating academy graduates the last few seasons, as commodities who are only there to be developed and sold on to fund our transfer addiction has never been and should never be the Chelsea way.

You're not sure how sending an academy first teamer to train with the u21s in order to force him to leave the club while also stripping him of his squad number before he has even secured a move, all in a bid to pressure him into moving just so we can consolidate poor transfer policies so we don't get into financial trouble affects our image? If so there's nothing to discuss here.