Dorset Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) For the last three years Eddie Newton has been Chelsea’s loanee liaison manager, overseeing directing and dealing with all the youngsters going out on loan during the course of a season. The importance of this job must not to be underestimated and the emphasis the club’s hierarchy places on it has just been accentuated by the appointment of Paulo Ferreira as his assistant - two legends liaising and a signal of intent to look after these kids along every step of the way to…. well, who knows? In truth, the only thing we can say in response to that question is that ’the journey’ comes with no guarantee of there being a round trip, with return tickets far from non-transferable and seemingly non-existent. Obviously, the club are becoming increasingly aware of this type of one-way-street criticism, hence Eddie’s recent appearance on ChelseaTV’s ‘Inside the Academy’ show, which was designed to not only give updates on the best of his boys brigade, but also placate fans like me who wait in the vain hope of seeing a loanee breakthrough to match that of home grown trailblazer, Ruben Loftus-Cheek. It was fascinating to hear his assessments, limited to six of the best and including Gael Kakuta, Mario Pasalic and Christian Atsu, but I would like to focus on the other three, as they epitomise the problem as far as I’m concerned. First and foremost, the Newton take on Patrick Bamford‘s progress… “He’s developed in a lot of ways; we’ve always known that he can score goals but he’s added a bit of physicality to his game and added a bit more hold-up play. He’s more of an intelligent player coming into the pocket, picking up the ball and running in behind. He wasn’t too happy when he first went into the senior ranks when dealing with centre backs coming through him but he’s slowly adjusting to that now, and he’s had a very strong season. Where’s the next challenge for him? It could be coming back [to Chelsea], or going out to a stronger loan, whether that be a Premier League, a Bundesliga or a La Liga team, I think that would be the next question that will be asked of Patrick; whether he’s able to compete at that level. What I like about his progression is that he went to League One, then he’s made the jump into the Championship, had a couple of loans there and now he’s on the verge of having a big loan deal. He’s had a steady progression, hasn’t tried to jump too quickly and look for the big clubs, and hopefully we’ll find the right club and his progression will keep going in the right direction.” Of course, knowing my views from previous posts, you can imagine how I wished Eddie had stopped short of that final sentence. Clearly, Newton’s Law of Gravitational Pull [back to the Bridge] is different to mine - which is that the lad has already proved what goes down can come up [to the mark] so why ask him to repeat the process ad infinitum? Indeed, as any theorist will tell you, even in the case of the most pliant of characters, bounce-back-ability decreases proportionately on repeated experiment. Patrick may not have ‘jumped too quickly’ initially, but asking him to keep jumping until he finds the big ’right club’ presupposes it isn’t Chelsea, nor may it ever be if the next loanee mentioned is anything to go by. Yes, you’ve guessed, it’s Josh McEachan and here’s Eddie’s assessment… “He had chances to jump at Christmas and to come back to England, but he really dug in and said ‘no, I’m going to stick with this and prove to everybody that I can do it’ and he has done so I’m really pleased for Josh. I hope now that this is the springboard for him to now elevate himself back to where I believe he should be because, in my opinion, he’s one of the most talented British players I’ve seen in a long time and it’s a shame if we let him go to waste.” This comment implies Josh has, at long last, proved to Eddie [at least] that he ‘can do it’, yet there is no indication the so-called springboard he’s clambered on to fronts a big English pool or is Bundesliga or La Liga-based. Either way, the assumption has to be that Josh has merely regained lost ground rather than improved in any shape or form, thereby placing him on the same platform as Patrick, digging in having only ensured a further bounce around the loan system, but little else. Sadly, I find scant encouragement in either player’s situation (and can only hope they do) as they strive to reach their goal, much in the same way as Romelu Lukaku did - and look what happened to him! As we all know, his big club placement was Everton, impatience then got the better of him, and he was off before you could say ‘How much was that you‘re offering, Roberto?’ And finally we have another promising young forward who is currently the subject of much speculation and ever-increasing hype - Bertrand Traore - also at Vitesse and, according to Eddie in this glowing report, as versatile as they come… “He moved into the nine (centre forward role) from playing out wide and things changed because he’s got the ability to stretch the opposition, to come deep, he’s difficult to pick up. He can go wide, he can drop in the pocket, he can do all sorts, and it flipped their season and his. He’s scoring goals, he’s combining well, he’s setting up other people, and he’s been a focal point. He’s had a fantastic back end of the season and the phone’s been ringing off the hook for him.” Placing Bertrand in any order of loaned out priority is clearly going to be difficult, especially with that damn phone ringing constantly in the background. But, when you’re in such demand and with little prospect of short-term self-fulfilment at Chelsea on the horizon, what’s a young guy like him gonna do? Clearly, it isn’t part of Eddie’s remit to speculate further, but the player himself must be looking at the likes of Ruben Loftus-Cheek and thinking it’s a lot easier to progress if you’re home grown, as opposed to loan-grown, and it may well be that Jose, when digging Ruben out down under, already appreciated a need to redress this imbalance somehow. The trouble is, one singular, very public putting of Ruben’s feet firmly on the ground pales into insignificance when compared to a half-dozen loanee feet being repeatedly put to the competitive fire of league football across domestic and European leagues. . Edited June 5, 2015 by Dorset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Daze Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 We've had a loan player break through - Courtois. He did it by winning La Liga and becoming arguably the second best-player in his position. That's pretty much the standard. Josh doesn't have a career at Chelsea, Bamford needs to prove himself at the top level and he won't do that with the scant minutes available at this club and Traore has a chance if he can get a work permit because he seems to be an exceptional talent in multiple positions. Atsu has a chance if he has a stellar season at Bournemouth, Baker has a chance if he has a stellar season on loan but the reality is that if you're on-loan then the chances are that we're trying to pump your value up before selling you for a profit (Lukaku, De Bruyne) hoping that you become exceptionally good (Courtois), hoping that you become good enough to be a squad player (take your pick of Bamford, Chalobah, Kalas, Ake next season) or we're simply giving you every chance to have a career as a professional footballer but not here because you're not good enough (Kane, Swift, Davey....basically 80% of loanees). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spadefx Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 We have the finances and stature to attract most of the best footballers in the world. It's probably not a popular opinion, but the reality is that unless our loanees play their way into that bracket, we'll look outwith our own books for a new player. Personally I'd love to see some Academy players make it through, but I don't disagree with the club's current approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Daze Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 We have the finances and stature to attract most of the best footballers in the world. It's probably not a popular opinion, but the reality is that unless our loanees play their way into that bracket, we'll look outwith our own books for a new player. Personally I'd love to see some Academy players make it through, but I don't disagree with the club's current approach. I think you're being realistic. Courtois is the level to break into the team. The rest will be sold hopefully for profit to fund other purchases whilst hopefully a couple will become squad players. In that instance I'm thinking of players like Ake and Bamford. For those academy players who could become stars,I think loans might not be necessary. RLC might tread that path, as might Solanke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spadefx Posted June 6, 2015 Share Posted June 6, 2015 I think you're being realistic. Courtois is the level to break into the team. The rest will be sold hopefully for profit to fund other purchases whilst hopefully a couple will become squad players. In that instance I'm thinking of players like Ake and Bamford. For those academy players who could become stars,I think loans might not be necessary. RLC might tread that path, as might Solanke. Agreed on that, beneficial to both the club and the players involved. We're running a profitable youth system, and we're giving young footballers a great platform to reach their highest potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset Posted June 7, 2015 Author Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) Sadly, the comments so far reflect opinions on our loan system that are totally at odds with my own. That is not to say they are wrong or that they may not be too dissimilar to the club’s own long term view on things. However, if that be the case, I believe it is a sad reflection on a process originally designed to develop young talent through an individual’s involvement with Chelsea from an early age and then, if possible, a nurturing of that talent right on through to first team football. Specifically, I’d take issue with the following:- “We've had a loan player break through - Courtois. He did it by winning La Liga and becoming arguably the second best-player in his position. That's pretty much the standard.” Really? Well, if Courtois is going to be your benchmark we might just as well dispense with the whole Academy part of the process as of now, because he probably still needs a guide to show him around the building, such was the number of times he frequented it during his development. Using him as a yardstick begs the question, why spend all the time and effort on an Academy-based process when you can pick up the [almost] finished article further down someone else’s production line? Of course, the same might also be said of us in relation to Bamford, but at least his late [second stage] arrival has resulted in steady progress being made and the doing of everything that that been asked of him, though for some this is nowhere near enough… “Josh doesn't have a career at Chelsea, Bamford needs to prove himself at the top level and he won't do that with the scant minutes available at this club and Traore has a chance if he can get a work permit because he seems to be an exceptional talent in multiple positions.” This dour assessment of three of our youngsters who are currently at differing stages of development simply adds weight to an argument for scrapping the loanee part of the system in its entirety - Josh doesn’t have a career at Chelsea, Bamford’s unproven, Traore’s got ’a chance’, but has work permit issues - jeez, who’s told Eddie? More to the point, when’s he going to be honest with these lads [be as realistic as Blue Daze] instead of singing their praises and giving them [and us] false hope? Then again, perhaps I’m too much of an unrealistic old romantic and I should accept the next pragmatic quote in the true ‘Chelsea family spirit’ it clearly intends to convey. “The rest [of the Academy players] will be sold hopefully for profit to fund other purchases whilst hopefully a couple will become squad players.” If this were to happen on a regular basis, surely it would be the saddest of all indictments on our Academy process. To believe in this is to believe in a factory-based system where profit always ends up as the priority, and the purchase of far greater talent from elsewhere with the proceeds hardly adds to the feeling of good intent that an Academy should engender. Quite frankly, if we were to run the whole shebang in this way we deserve all the flak the Media gives us, and woe betide any fan who might actually find a favourite amongst the emergent production line fodder, because it would prove a meaningless exercise destined to end in tears, as those who harboured hopes for Sinclair, Kakuta, McEachran and [still do] for Bamford will tell you. But never mind eh, as Falcao’s purchase, perhaps Benteke’s too, is just around the corner and can always be funded by the sale of a handful of the lads who are good, but not quite Courtois. Because, lest we forget… “We're running a profitable youth system, and we're giving young footballers a great platform to reach their highest potential.” … and it hardly matters at all that they might ultimately reach their potential elsewhere? Well, I happen to think it does, or at least I did from the moment Roman arrived and Chelsea’s chosen way forward in the area of recruitment became a three-step Academy/Loan/First Team process, with youngsters stepping on to it like you would an escalator, at various stages in development, dependent upon the age at which ability was spotted, with success being gauged initially by Youth Cup achievement, but the ultimate expectation being to emulate JT’s progression as many times as possible. Okay, to date we haven’t managed a single one and RLC, without a loan placement to his name, is the closest we’ve got. His stock is therefore higher than any loanee and this no doubt prompts the last of the quotes… “For those academy players who could become stars, I think loans might not be necessary. RLC might tread that path, as might Solanke.” Once again, the belief that loans are not a necessary requirement for academy players to become stars lends itself rhetorically to the enquiry - then why one earth have twenty -five of them on your books? Moreover, with doubt existing over RLC and Solanke’s treading of the path, is the home grown route really that much more of an improvement? Some fans already judge Solanke to be a better striker than Bamford, despite Championship goal evidence to the contrary, but no doubt in twelve months time, after breaking every youth scoring record going, Tammy Abraham will probably be a mightier ‘might’ than both of them put together… although in the light of what’s gone before, that’s hardly guaranteeing him much in the grand scheme of things, is it? So, all in all, I’d say it’s a depressing outlook on the Academy business of the day. Fortunately, it isn’t my day… that’s long gone, along with Greavsie, Ossie and Alan Hudson, who were all busy making the grade in their teens… and not a Chelsea loanee liaison manager, or his assistant, in sight. . Edited June 7, 2015 by Dorset Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Daze Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 “We've had a loan player break through - Courtois. He did it by winning La Liga and becoming arguably the second best-player in his position. That's pretty much the standard.” Really? Well, if Courtois is going to be your benchmark we might just as well dispense with the whole Academy part of the process as of now, because he probably still needs a guide to show him around the building, such was the number of times he frequented it during his development. Using him as a yardstick begs the question, why spend all the time and effort on an Academy-based process when you can pick up the [almost] finished article further down someone else’s production line? Of course, the same might also be said of us in relation to Bamford, but at least his late [second stage] arrival has resulted in steady progress being made and the doing of everything that that been asked of him, though for some this is nowhere near enough… I think most of my responses will come down to the same underlying point - we're a top club now and very few players in the world are good enough for top clubs so the chances of producing a talent good enough is always going to be small but the payoff for getting one is huge. Case in point is JT. He's saved us tens of millions of pounds over the course of his Chelsea career and therein lies the reason for academies. Producing top talent will be cheaper than buying it, and the academy system is not only self-sustaining but also profitable. There's absolutely no reason to scrap it. “Josh doesn't have a career at Chelsea, Bamford needs to prove himself at the top level and he won't do that with the scant minutes available at this club and Traore has a chance if he can get a work permit because he seems to be an exceptional talent in multiple positions.” This dour assessment of three of our youngsters who are currently at differing stages of development simply adds weight to an argument for scrapping the loanee part of the system in its entirety - Josh doesn’t have a career at Chelsea, Bamford’s unproven, Traore’s got ’a chance’, but has work permit issues - jeez, who’s told Eddie? More to the point, when’s he going to be honest with these lads [be as realistic as Blue Daze] instead of singing their praises and giving them [and us] false hope? Then again, perhaps I’m too much of an unrealistic old romantic and I should accept the next pragmatic quote in the true ‘Chelsea family spirit’ it clearly intends to convey. Sorry if it was dour. Should've really pepped it up with some funky synonyms and random metaphors. Every young footballer realises that the odds are stacked against them but there's still a duty of care to give them the best possible chance of having a career either here or (much more likely) elsewhere. We all realise that, but it doesn't stop us from watching the youth teams in hopes that one of the lads will break through or watching an ungodly number of Watford matches just to glimpse Nat Chalobah's touches. Be an old romantic as much as you like but ultimately it's a pragmatic old world. “The rest [of the Academy players] will be sold hopefully for profit to fund other purchases whilst hopefully a couple will become squad players.” If this were to happen on a regular basis, surely it would be the saddest of all indictments on our Academy process. To believe in this is to believe in a factory-based system where profit always ends up as the priority, and the purchase of far greater talent from elsewhere with the proceeds hardly adds to the feeling of good intent that an Academy should engender. Quite frankly, if we were to run the whole shebang in this way we deserve all the flak the Media gives us, and woe betide any fan who might actually find a favourite amongst the emergent production line fodder, because it would prove a meaningless exercise destined to end in tears, as those who harboured hopes for Sinclair, Kakuta, McEachran and [still do] for Bamford will tell you. But never mind eh, as Falcao’s purchase, perhaps Benteke’s too, is just around the corner and can always be funded by the sale of a handful of the lads who are good, but not quite Courtois. Because, lest we forget… I can see that I'll probably become the target for your frustrations that we haven't produced another great youth product simply because I'm explaining the painfully obvious reality of not just our academy, but every academy at every top club in the world. I feel like I'm telling a child that Santa doesn't exist which is an awful way to start the week, but academies are part of football clubs and football clubs are very much businesses nowadays. Whilst there's a duty of care to the 8 year old making his first steps in the football world to ensure he has the best chance to maximise his skillset, we really want him to fulfil his potential so that we have our next great player. But the reality (there's that word again) is that we have a squad of about 22 players and very few are good enough to be one of those. Invariably you'll get kids who simply aren't good enough so the choice is what to do with them next. There's been an investment in them so to recoup that, or even profit on it, you look to sell them so you have money to reinvest in the squad. Again, I'm not sure why this is shocking or dismaying “We're running a profitable youth system, and we're giving young footballers a great platform to reach their highest potential.” … and it hardly matters at all that they might ultimately reach their potential elsewhere? Well, I happen to think it does, or at least I did from the moment Roman arrived and Chelsea’s chosen way forward in the area of recruitment became a three-step Academy/Loan/First Team process, with youngsters stepping on to it like you would an escalator, at various stages in development, dependent upon the age at which ability was spotted, with success being gauged initially by Youth Cup achievement, but the ultimate expectation being to emulate JT’s progression as many times as possible. Okay, to date we haven’t managed a single one and RLC, without a loan placement to his name, is the closest we’ve got. His stock is therefore higher than any loanee and this no doubt prompts the last of the quotes… But it's not an exact science and no two players will follow the exact same path which is exactly why you have people like Eddie Newton working in tandem with the Academy (Neil Bath) as well as the coaches to tailor what they think is the best pathway for these players. That will take into account their potential level (Todd Kane and Dom Solanke will have different expectations so will follow different routes) as well as their current level (someone like Charly Musonda isn't as physically developed as Ruben so may need a little longer to be first-team ready) so that each is going at the right speed to get to where they ultimately want to go. “For those academy players who could become stars, I think loans might not be necessary. RLC might tread that path, as might Solanke.” Once again, the belief that loans are not a necessary requirement for academy players to become stars lends itself rhetorically to the enquiry - then why one earth have twenty -five of them on your books? Moreover, with doubt existing over RLC and Solanke’s treading of the path, is the home grown route really that much more of an improvement? Some fans already judge Solanke to be a better striker than Bamford, despite Championship goal evidence to the contrary, but no doubt in twelve months time, after breaking every youth scoring record going, Tammy Abraham will probably be a mightier ‘might’ than both of them put together… although in the light of what’s gone before, that’s hardly guaranteeing him much in the grand scheme of things, is it? Because not every player is going to be a first-team player but to sell them we still need them to be as good as they can be and that means exposing them to first-team football. Again, I feel like I'm being an awful hard-nosed pragmatist by pointing out the economic realities of football and saying that it's not a bad thing to create the most profitable assets possible for sale by this club. As for Solanke being better than Bamford, I'm sure that would be based on their performance at similar ages but more importantly their style of play and how it meshes with our first-team. But that's a whole other debate. So, all in all, I’d say it’s a depressing outlook on the Academy business of the day. Fortunately, it isn’t my day… that’s long gone, along with Greavsie, Ossie and Alan Hudson, who were all busy making the grade in their teens… and not a Chelsea loanee liaison manager, or his assistant, in sight. . Greaves was one of the best players England ever produced. If a player of his quality came through today then they probably wouldn't be going on-loan. Osgood and Hudson probably weren't as good but the pressures and expectations of that Chelsea team were arguably not as high. We're a team expected to win the league next year. That brings a whole set of pressures. They also weren't competing against young players from around the globe in matches against teams from across the continent. So if that's what you're longing for, you're a man very much out of time and with that comes a sense of nostalgia and longing for a 'simpler, better, more innocent time when you could leave your doors unlocked and go to the football to see Georgie Best making his debut every weekend'. Unlike a youth players successful emergence from precocious youth to Ballon d'Or winner, the march of time is a guarantee and you can either recognise that or lament it. Up to you which. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 “I think most of my responses will come down to the same underlying point - we're a top club now and very few players in the world are good enough for top clubs so the chances of producing a talent good enough is always going to be small but the payoff for getting one is huge.” Agreed, but… “Case in point is JT. He's saved us tens of millions of pounds over the course of his Chelsea career and therein lies the reason for academies. Producing top talent will be cheaper than buying it, and the academy system is not only self-sustaining but also profitable. There's absolutely no reason to scrap it.” Breakeven figures that include initial outlay and subsequent costs relating to the buying-in of academy talent make this a debatable point, unless and until several Academy players save us the tens of millions of pounds JT has over his career. “Sorry if it was dour. Should've really pepped it up with some funky synonyms and random metaphors.” We both know what I meant when using the word ‘dour’, but feel free to use funky synonyms and random metaphors instead if you wish…never know, you might enjoy it. “Be an old romantic as much as you like but ultimately it's a pragmatic old world” Thanks, I will… it is indeed a pragmatic old world and probably why we’ll let Petr Cech go to the highest bidder, even though it might not be a London club. Can’t let sentiment play a part, can we? “I can see that I'll probably become the target for your frustrations that we haven't produced another great youth product simply because I'm explaining the painfully obvious reality of not just our academy, but every academy at every top club in the world.” Perish the thought, I have better things to do. “I feel like I'm telling a child that Santa doesn't exist…” You would, whereas others might show a little more respect when responding to a post. “Again, I'm not sure why this is shocking or dismaying.” Neither am I. What has being shocked or dismayed got to do with any of this? “Again, I feel like I'm being an awful hard-nosed pragmatist by pointing out the economic realities of football and saying that it's not a bad thing to create the most profitable assets possible for sale by this club.” There you go, see how easy it is to be respectful when you try? “Greaves was one of the best players England ever produced. If a player of his quality came through today then they probably wouldn't be going on-loan.” Having see him play on numerous occasions before his move to Milan, I can honestly say he was the best goal scorer I have ever seen. If he was with us today [in his teens] and going on-loan ‘was probable’ it would be laughable. But, as we’re both hedging our bets with probabilities here in the modern world, the fact that doubt exists at all [over his development] has to be worrying in itself. “They also weren't competing against young players from around the globe in matches against teams from across the continent. So if that's what you're longing for, you're a man very much out of time and with that comes a sense of nostalgia and longing for a 'simpler, better, more innocent time when you could leave your doors unlocked and go to the football to see Georgie Best making his debut every weekend'.” Oh dear, you’ve lapsed into sermonizing mode. Pity. (see last comment) “Unlike a youth players successful emergence from precocious youth to Ballon d'Or winner, the march of time is a guarantee and you can either recognise that or lament it. Up to you which.” Thanks for pointing out I have a choice (who knew?). The march of time, eh? Affects us all in different ways, but it is always best to be a respecter of it, don’t you think? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Daze Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) The march of time, eh? Affects us all in different ways, but it is always best to be a respecter of it, don’t you think? . Time is just something that happens in the background. It's not a measure of achievement or knowledge so no, it deserves no respect. Now what happens over that time, that's the true measure. Breakeven figures that include initial outlay and subsequent costs relating to the buying-in of academy talent make this a debatable point, unless and until several Academy players save us the tens of millions of pounds JT has over his career. Debatable perhaps but why not factor in the profits made on players like Lukaku, Saville, Van Aanholt, Hazard the Younger, Bruma, Tore, Stoch, Cork, Mancienne etc. as well? Plus in the era of FFP, youth development costs are excluded so it would be pointless not to have an academy. Going back through your original post and I'm not entirely clear what the long lament is exactly about. There's some clever word play and some interesting observations on some players but what exactly is it you're longing to see change? Youth development is something that every supporter will have an opinion on and there are changes I'd like to see throughout the game but I think that as it is, we're doing a pretty good job but this year is very much the litmus test with us in a strong position with the first-team, the academy now consistently producing talented youngsters and a manager with his feet under the table having made a commitment to promoting some of them. Fingers crossed we all get what we desire from it. Edited June 8, 2015 by Blue Daze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorset Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 Going back through your original post and I'm not entirely clear what the long lament is exactly about. There's some clever word play and some interesting observations on some players but what exactly is it you're longing to see change? Youth development is something that every supporter will have an opinion on and there are changes I'd like to see throughout the game but I think that as it is, we're doing a pretty good job but this year is very much the litmus test with us in a strong position with the first-team, the academy now consistently producing talented youngsters and a manager with his feet under the table having made a commitment to promoting some of them. I’m not entirely clear what ‘the long lament’ is either, but, if it’s your take on my original post, the premise has been missed. The whole piece was based on Eddie Newton’s role, Paulo’s appointment and the undoubted importance the club places on youth development. Yet, despite the good intentions implicit in these appointments, the balance between home grown [non-loan] and loanee progression is still weighted heavily in favour of the former group. RLC’s spectacular advancement is evidence of this, along with a handful of others who have had a first team ‘blooding’ this term, whilst an outstanding loan player like Patrick Bamford can only look forward to more of the same old, same old, apparently In my opinion, Eddie has a thankless task on his hands unless or until a loanee returns and makes a similar breakthrough to RLC and that is why, on another thread, I have pressed for Bamford’s return next season. It needs to happen - I don’t lament it not happening, but I do question whether it ever will, especially if we continue to send Patrick out on loan, as he is the nearest thing loanees have to a champion for [what should be] their cause - to play for Chelsea. If anyone thinks Roman funds these kids for years on end just to see them repay him with a profit on their sale, well, they should really have another think coming. It’s a cash drop in the ocean to him and I’m sure he’d much prefer to see a complete loan package in the form of one of them nailing down a regular first team place, never mind what it would do for the other 25 loanees in terms of instilling belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Daze Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I’m not entirely clear what ‘the long lament’ is either, but, if it’s your take on my original post, the premise has been missed. The whole piece was based on Eddie Newton’s role, Paulo’s appointment and the undoubted importance the club places on youth development. Yet, despite the good intentions implicit in these appointments, the balance between home grown [non-loan] and loanee progression is still weighted heavily in favour of the former group. RLC’s spectacular advancement is evidence of this, along with a handful of others who have had a first team ‘blooding’ this term, whilst an outstanding loan player like Patrick Bamford can only look forward to more of the same old, same old, apparently Bamford is an interesting one because he joined us when he was 18 having already been involved with Forest's first team so isn't strictly an Academy player, but he's also not really the mould of player we use up top. He's less physical, reliant more on his intelligence around the box a bit like Teddy Sheringham. Solanke and Abraham are far more physical players and have been brought up in our youth system which has broadly speaking followed the same footballing style over the last 10 years. I think rather than it being weighed in favour of those who don't loan, it's actually a consequence. Those who don't go on loan (and we're talking pretty much about Ruben here) are probably viewed more ready than those who do. They're involved with the first-team in training more, they've been on the bench or even featured in matches. But I think rather than looking at it as either 'loaned players' and 'non-loaned players' it's better to look, as the club do, at each case individually. So for instance, Christensen was non-loaned, was involved in the first-team and featured against Bradford from the start but will probably go on-loan next season. Ruben and Solanke on the other hand probably won't ever go on-loan unless their performances dip and they need it. In my opinion, Eddie has a thankless task on his hands unless or until a loanee returns and makes a similar breakthrough to RLC and that is why, on another thread, I have pressed for Bamford’s return next season. It needs to happen - I don’t lament it not happening, but I do question whether it ever will, especially if we continue to send Patrick out on loan, as he is the nearest thing loanees have to a champion for [what should be] their cause - to play for Chelsea. If anyone thinks Roman funds these kids for years on end just to see them repay him with a profit on their sale, well, they should really have another think coming. It’s a cash drop in the ocean to him and I’m sure he’d much prefer to see a complete loan package in the form of one of them nailing down a regular first team place, never mind what it would do for the other 25 loanees in terms of instilling belief. Eddie gets to fly around a lot reporting on how the players perform - it's a nice job. But I do see your point. I disagree about Bamford though because I think youth development is about momentum and I think if he comes back there's a risk of killing it stone-dead. He needs minutes and he's simply not likely to get them here because we have an established first-choice and in all likelihood a high quality second-choice. That doesn't leave enough minutes for him especially when you consider Solanke will probably need minutes too. As for the 25 loanees, each case is different but in most cases it's simply a case of trying to pump their value up as high as possible before selling them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts