What's new

Christensen wants to stay in Germany

RIP Mourinho said:
Well yes.. quite easily..

However there is actual evidence that would suspect Conte would be coming to Chelsea as Kev mentioned such as leaving the national team and speaking about the premier league. This Christensen article had no substance at all. 
Click to expand...

evidence that would suggest conte is coming here. what evidence? he's leaving italy after the euros and we need a manager? you are making assumptions, yet criticising stories which are based on the same presumptions of fact. 

Christensen has a two year loan deal which we are apparently trying to cut short. there is no break clause in the deal, it is a two year agreement. does that therefore not constitute a similar degree of "evidence" that you refer to in order to make an informed supposition regards his future? you've totally contradicted yourself. 

Christensen is playing first team football, and is now highly regarded throughout europe with rumours of barcelona sniffing about and showing an interest. 

if common sense is being applied here, as you appear to be doing regards conte, then you cant have it both ways. there's little doubt in my mind that christensen holds no desire to return to a chaotic chelsea where his position may potentially be overlooked, when he could stay in germany, play in either the EL or maybe CL depending on their finish to the season, and continue to develop. 

Im astonished that this is being touted as trash simply because it doesnt sit with the blue-tint-firm. remotely negative story? crap. positive story? oh there must be some truth in it. 

give me a break. 

 
dkw never said it was trash or crap or garbage. He just said there was no quotes.

No quotes means its not as credible. The end.

If he wants to keep developing in Germany, that's cool. Not gonna use a quoteless article as 100% proof and reason our club is terrible at youth and no young player will ever want to stay ever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShedEnder91 said:
All I'm seeing here is an argument for maintaining the status quo, but you're right in that you identify the cause for this as being Roman. He is an owner who is so blinded by the short-term that he constantly papers over the cracks with short-term fixes which ruin any long-term planning.

Right now this club is in a worse position than when he bought it in a number of ways. We're lower in the league, we're not going to have European competition next season in all likelihood and there is absolutely no English spine to this team. When he bought the club we had genuinely good English players like Terry and Lampard who had the potential to be great, but now we're scrambling around looking for the next quick fix.

Truth is that neither of these players was perfect straight away. They needed time and they made mistakes, but that's what young players do. However well Christensen does this season, he'll have it tougher next season just like Stones has because teams will know about him. They'll have video on him and they'll break him down so they know exactly how to exploit his weaknesses. It happens to every single player in their second season and it will be the perfect excuse not to bring him back then.

Now is the right time to bring him back and play him because we actually need to start building for the long-term. If the club doesn't finally realise that then they're simply going to make the same mistakes chasing instant success, and I know that there are plenty of fans for whom that is enough but shouldn't we be building something we can be proud of, something uniquely Chelsea? If Conte is the man then he needs to be given time and that might mean missing out on Europe next season but if we get the foundation of something good then it's worth it.

But I think what you're saying is more likely. I think we will loan him for another season and probably sell him down the line whilst we buy 'proven' defenders who will also make mistakes (Bonucci who is most linked makes mistakes, as does Hummels). It's sad but that's what this club does, it makes the same mistakes over and over again.
Click to expand...
the trouble is that by all accounts we cannot bring him back at a time of our choosing as it is a two year deal. this is why im utterly flummoxed as to why people think that this is a non-story. i think that this just highlights our absolutely rudderless policy of farming prospects out without any long term strategy or plan. who the f**k loans out one of our supposedly brightest defensive prospects on a two year deal with no break clause? this isnt the first time the two year with no break has been highlighted, and indeed on another thread on here it was mentioned and universally agreed as fact. 

bizarre that ripmourinho is saying there is "no substance" to the article. the whole f**king substance is the fact that its a two year loan, then states that conte must be coming here because he's resigned as italy manager and has "mentioned the premier league".  

must be bullsh*t though. 

 
Stim said:
dkw never said it was trash or crap or garbage. He just said there was no quotes.

No quotes means its not as credible. The end.

If he wants to keep developing in Germany, that's cool. Not gonna use a quoteless article as 100% proof and reason our club is terrible at youth and no young player will ever want to stay ever.
Click to expand...
its a forum for discussion, and this merits discussion. the crux of the issue for me is the fact that we let him go on a two year loan and seemingly are unable to recall him. as mentioned previously, this has been discussed on this forum before and reported in the press that we do not have a recall clause. if we do, and choose to bring him back, great. the point of the discussion is that should we not have an option to bring our player back, then something is far, far wrong, and again begs the question as to who is making these decisions. 

this forum has gone to sh*t. bickering, bitching, f**kery from the usual suspects. its f**king dire and its no wonder the decent posters have packed their bags and f**ked off. utter garbage. 

 
Stim said:
Thanks for enlightening me and not being an ass about it.
Click to expand...
if my read my posts you might be somewhat more enlightened, but after years of reading your one sentence sniders and having contributed not one single salient point over your many, many tiresome posts, i am firmly aware of the fact that reading what others have to say is not something you actively engage in. 

over and out.

 
I assume we do have the option and the club is still on its tiresome crusade to put the players wishes first, so the story comes out he wants to stay in Germany because he feels he'll develop better there and the club might agree that the extended loan would do him good, especially in a new manager turmoil period. Now the papers I don't like because that's not a good enough reason for them and prefer the classic make chelsea look bad method of reporting.

Clubs going to tell us nothing though.

 
CFC_RFC_TID! said:
Why would there be quotes? Why any time when it's remotely negative is it automatically deemed sh*te? There are NO quotes regarding conte coming here yet everyone takes it as gospel that it's a done deal, yet a player who has quite possibly made comments to his agent with the intention of them reaching chelsea is considered garbage, because there's no quotes?

I know a number of people who work in the press and can tell you for an absolute FACT that they have their sources. "Sources close to the player" generally means agent, or mate. Rags like the mirror and the express will often pull rumours together from various outlets throughout Europe and draw their own conclusions, but any half reputable publication will have done their homework, and I'd class the guardian in there as a relatively reputable source

Suits too many on here to dismiss things like this just because it doesn't chime with their own pro chelsea agenda. Seen it time and time again on here. Mata leaving: NO CHANCE IT'S ALL sh*tE. Lukaku leaving: repeat. Mourinho being Sacked: groundhog day.

Instead of simply dismissing it as sh*te, it would be nice if you could actually contribute something to a forum which has deteriorated significantly in recent months.

For me, this deal is indicative of our car crash situation at present, allowing a prospect like christensen to go out on a two year loan with no break clause. Who is making these decisions? And can you blame him for wasting to stay and play regular first team bundesliga football instead of returning to chelsea to warm a bench and then be sold in January?

I can't.

But there's no quotes anyway, so let's file this one under nonsense because dkw says so.

Admin close the thread. Cheers
Click to expand...
Stop putting words in my mouth you prick.
 
CFC_RFC_TID! said:
the trouble is that by all accounts we cannot bring him back at a time of our choosing as it is a two year deal. this is why im utterly flummoxed as to why people think that this is a non-story. i think that this just highlights our absolutely rudderless policy of farming prospects out without any long term strategy or plan. who the f**k loans out one of our supposedly brightest defensive prospects on a two year deal with no break clause? this isnt the first time the two year with no break has been highlighted, and indeed on another thread on here it was mentioned and universally agreed as fact. 

bizarre that ripmourinho is saying there is "no substance" to the article. the whole f**king substance is the fact that its a two year loan, then states that conte must be coming here because he's resigned as italy manager and has "mentioned the premier league".  

must be bullsh*t though. 
Click to expand...
Right we were having a normal conversation about this and you're choosing to be a c*nt for some reason and trying to belittle everyone.

No one has said it is a made up story or that the Conte story is true, people are merely stating that you can't take anything for truth if it has no substance to back it. The article about Christensen is pretty much based on opinion for all we know. As could be the one about Conte. To be perfectly honest i want Christensen to stay on loan because i don't think he's ready for Chelsea yet. 

Maybe in future try and speak to people with a bit of respect instead of belittling. This forum is meant to be fun, not somewhere that someone can't converse like a normal person in society without taking every counter argument to heart.

 
RIP Mourinho said:
Right we were having a normal conversation about this and you're choosing to be a c*nt for some reason and trying to belittle everyone.

No one has said it is a made up story or that the Conte story is true, people are merely stating that you can't take anything for truth if it has no substance to back it. The article about Christensen is pretty much based on opinion for all we know. As could be the one about Conte. To be perfectly honest i want Christensen to stay on loan because i don't think he's ready for Chelsea yet.

Maybe in future try and speak to people with a bit of respect instead of belittling. This forum is meant to be fun, not somewhere that someone can't converse like a normal person in society without taking every counter argument to heart.
Click to expand...
What you on about didn't see him belittle or disrespect anyone. Maybe I missed something
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShedEnder91 said:
All I'm seeing here is an argument for maintaining the status quo, but you're right in that you identify the cause for this as being Roman. He is an owner who is so blinded by the short-term that he constantly papers over the cracks with short-term fixes which ruin any long-term planning.
Click to expand...
Just curious. Why would Jose during his re-appointment say that the club was looking to the future by promoting within and building a squad that could last 10yrs like the previous, if the owner is myopic in his views?. Also I think you're 13 yrs too late to say Roman has the club in a worse state than he took over.
 
This club seriously cant do anything right according to some. How is loaning Christensen out for a couple of years to ensure hes part Gladbach of the long term plans at the Club and given a fair shake a stupid decision? Id say its one of the best decisions we have made so far. Same when we sent a young striker to a team with absolute crap competition in Bamford. Everyone loved the deal when it happened untill he couldnt get on the pitch, then it was a "baffling" move by the club and a horrible loan. Some of our players this year have had very successfull loans Ake, Solanke, Christensen to name a few and the club has done well to facilitate deals that gives them the oppurtunity for lots of playing time. I have no idea were all this complaining comes from

 
lesblues said:
Just curious. Why would Jose during his re-appointment say that the club was looking to the future by promoting within and building a squad that could last 10yrs like the previous, if the owner is myopic in his views?. Also I think you're 13 yrs too late to say Roman has the club in a worse state than he took over.
Click to expand...
Because he was lying? Actually that's unfair because we've all had new jobs where the idealism of 'what could be' is all we think about.

And then the boss starts giving you deadlines, making you work weekends (Roman's a bugger for that apparently) and it all becomes about meeting your monthly targets.

Also just to correct you, I didn't say we were in a worse state. I said we were in a worse position than when he bought us in a number of ways, not all ways. When he bought us we had debts, we had nowhere near the commercial impact and we had an emptier trophy cabinet. He's had positives and negatives but our current position is undeniably worse in a number of ways.

Xfaxtor said:
This club seriously cant do anything right according to some. How is loaning Christensen out for a couple of years to ensure hes part Gladbach of the long term plans at the Club and given a fair shake a stupid decision? Id say its one of the best decisions we have made so far. Same when we sent a young striker to a team with absolute crap competition in Bamford. Everyone loved the deal when it happened untill he couldnt get on the pitch, then it was a "baffling" move by the club and a horrible loan. Some of our players this year have had very successfull loans Ake, Solanke, Christensen to name a few and the club has done well to facilitate deals that gives them the oppurtunity for lots of playing time. I have no idea were all this complaining comes from
Click to expand...
Because it limits our options. Hypothetically speaking, say we decide not to give an ageing defender a contract and our current defenders underperform, whilst the best defender we have suffers a serious injury that might keep him out after the season starts. Meanwhile you have a defender who is performing very well in a competitive league and if he were in the squad tomorrow would probably start (April fools, not under Hiddink he wouldn't). Also the coach you're chasing occasionally favours a system that relies on a ball-playing defender.

Wouldn't you want the option to recall him? 

Now I'll admit that's a little bit facetious and I apologise but it's also the reality of the situation. Here's the real hypothetical.

If you loan a player and he's suddenly imbued with the spirit of Franz Beckenbauer, wouldn't a break clause (even if it's accompanied with a penalty payment) be a good idea?

And now for the extremely annoying/frustrating/stupid part....I've heard his contract does have a break clause.... IF he doesn't get enough minutes. Now I'm unreliable but it's been reported in other contracts and it makes sense but if people don't want to believe me then that's fine and I understand. But here's what it says about how this club views it's loan policy.

It plans eventualities based on the loan failing....it doesn't plan for the loan to succeed.

Chelsea, 2016.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShedEnder91 said:
Because he was lying? Actually that's unfair because we've all had new jobs where the idealism of 'what could be' is all we think about.

And then the boss starts giving you deadlines, making you work weekends (Roman's a bugger for that apparently) and it all becomes about meeting your monthly targets.

Also just to correct you, I didn't say we were in a worse state. I said we were in a worse position than when he bought us in a number of ways, not all ways. When he bought us we had debts, we had nowhere near the commercial impact and we had an emptier trophy cabinet. He's had positives and negatives but our current position is undeniably worse in a number of ways.

Because it limits our options. Hypothetically speaking, say we decide not to give an ageing defender a contract and our current defenders underperform, whilst the best defender we have suffers a serious injury that might keep him out after the season starts. Meanwhile you have a defender who is performing very well in a competitive league and if he were in the squad tomorrow would probably start (April fools, not under Hiddink he wouldn't). Also the coach you're chasing occasionally favours a system that relies on a ball-playing defender.

Wouldn't you want the option to recall him? 

Now I'll admit that's a little bit facetious and I apologise but it's also the reality of the situation. Here's the real hypothetical.

If you loan a player and he's suddenly imbued with the spirit of Franz Beckenbauer, wouldn't a break clause (even if it's accompanied with a penalty payment) be a good idea?

And now for the extremely annoying/frustrating/stupid part....I've heard his contract does have a break clause.... IF he doesn't get enough minutes. Now I'm unreliable but it's been reported in other contracts and it makes sense but if people don't want to believe me then that's fine and I understand. But here's what it says about how this club views it's loan policy.

It plans eventualities based on the loan failing....it doesn't plan for the loan to succeed.

Chelsea, 2016.
Click to expand...
Classic Chelsea

 
ShedEnder91 said:
And now for the extremely annoying/frustrating/stupid part....I've heard his contract does have a break clause.... IF he doesn't get enough minutes. Now I'm unreliable but it's been reported in other contracts and it makes sense but if people don't want to believe me then that's fine and I understand. But here's what it says about how this club views it's loan policy.

It plans eventualities based on the loan failing....it doesn't plan for the loan to succeed.

Chelsea, 2016.
Click to expand...
That's a good clause though, its there because in the past we have sent players out on loan who haven't gotten game time, like Bamford, who we recalled and sent elsewhere.

Plus, if we didn't have that clause ad a player went out on loan and got no game time, we would be unable to recall them. Which would then be the clubs fault for not having that clause. Damned if you do.......

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top