What are everyone's thoughts regarding Chelsea purchasing smaller foreign clubs to loan players to where Chelsea can ensure the loaned players play the 'Chelsea' way?

Manchester City have recently purchased a Melbourne and New York Club. It's too early to gauge success but its appears a relatively cost effective development tool when compared to the amount spent on academies and the like.

This is particularly personal for me as Manchester City purchased the local team I support, Melbourne Heart (now known as Melbourne City), which has certainly provided many benefits for my team but it is hard to swallow supporting a team owned by Manchester City. I think it's a great way to attract global supporters.

Could we see Chelsea purchasing an MLS OR A-League club in the future?

I could see it happening, but I certainly wouldnt want it to happen. i think FIFA/UEFA need to step in quickly to prevent every top european club owning a wide range of these feeder clubs. city are the first, but seeing how it seems to benefit them (lampard) then i imagine it wont be long before it catches on

No, come down on this practice like a tonne of f**king bricks.

 

One club only. 

My personal preference is very much against this practice however, given Manchester City's actions, the horse may have bolted in this case. It will be interesting to see how successful they are, if other clubs follow their lead and if things don't go according to plan will they cut-and-run and leave these new clubs' supporters hanging. 

We already have a good relationship with Vitesse, a club I like a lot, we loan our players out to that club every season, both clubs benefit, so we don't need to buy clubs.

Edited December 24, 201411 yr by JoeyBlue25