Jump to content

Professional Footballers Association Complaining About Our Loans


TrueBlueSeaFC87

Recommended Posts





Ancelotti was the only recent manage who people talk about giving youth a chance and the only reason Josh got a chance was because the board sold or let go of Ballack, Deco and Belleti and didn't replace any of them so we were left light in midfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More should definitely be done to prevent this kind of things from top clubs. 

 

That said, if players value money over their own development then that's their fault. I mean, why is Delac even still at the club? He can't be delusional enough to think he can still make it here. Wallace, would have developed better he had stayed in Brazil. Kane is a diehard Chelsea fan but for the sake of his career should have already left. Blackburn were after him once his loaned finished, would have been a decent team to build himself up. Cuevas, honestly what's the point? Davila, even more pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



UEFA bring in FFP that restricted spending.

Chelsea, with a limited ground capacity, found a means of generating additional revenue.

The likes of Arsenal and Manchester United earn a lot more from match day revenue and sponsorships.

We found a way to level the playing field and developed a means of getting hold of players at decent prices, seeing them develop whilst under our ownership and possible bringing them into the squad it benefited the club.

We've seen this with De Bruyne, Lukaku, Traore, Courtois.

Some were moved on after coming back for a profit too but it's all part of the ideology.

This is a beast of UEFA's making but because no one had the foresight to think clubs would try and find loopholes now they're moaning about a situation of their own making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't tell us to run a club like a business, well some weird business where the owner can't even invest his own money (anyone heard of another business model where the owner is forbidden from spending his own dosh?) , and then complain when players are treated like assets and commodities.

Kind of like me saying, you can't use your own money to improve your house, you can only improve it from the money you generate from bake sales from products you make in your kitchen.... but don't you dare sell any cakes, biscuits or any other sweet treats, it's unethical and unhealthy.

Sorry, I've really struggled to come up with some scenario as absolutely daft as ffp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I am so confused by the quotes in that link (from PFA chief Gordon Taylor). I think my brain may be melting, so bear with me.

 

He says "then it is not about the best team winning a particular competition, it is about who has the best relationship with a particular club".

 

All football players arrive at a club from somewhere (transfers, loans, youth products). The club may benefit from, say, having bajllions of dollars to spend, or having good connections to find players, or whatever. However all these players are sourced, they together comprise the team. And if those players are really good, they together form "The Best Team", and they win competitions. I am sorry if this sounds too simplistic.

 

What kind of team is flooded with super loan talent that makes them win things but isn't "The Best Team"? Who is the real Best Team in that league, and why are they still The Best even though, apparently, they are losing to this other team?

 

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

southgate said he was happy that chalobah had gone abroad to test himself. english press often bemoan the fact that english players rarely go abroad to learn a new style of play.

And unles im very much mistaken, Man City have an entire football club which is basically a glorified B team in NY City. If anyone believes that they wont be using that to develop and then 'buy' players then i think theyre in for a shock in a few years time. Maybe if we buy Vitesse and rename them we can let 'Vitesse' sign young players and then sign them at a bargain price further down the line, therefore not 'abusing the loan system'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chelsea Megastore Away Shirt
Chelsea Megastore Away Shirt

Chelsea Megastore Away Shirt

UEFA bring in FFP that restricted spending.

Chelsea, with a limited ground capacity, found a means of generating additional revenue.

The likes of Arsenal and Manchester United earn a lot more from match day revenue and sponsorships.

We found a way to level the playing field and developed a means of getting hold of players at decent prices, seeing them develop whilst under our ownership and possible bringing them into the squad it benefited the club.

We've seen this with De Bruyne, Lukaku, Traore, Courtois.

Some were moved on after coming back for a profit too but it's all part of the ideology.

This is a beast of UEFA's making but because no one had the foresight to think clubs would try and find loopholes now they're moaning about a situation of their own making.

How are UEFA related to PFA in this context?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if jose wasn't the manager then a few youngsters would be getting some game time. unfortunately we have a very anti-youth manager which, for the future of a club, isn't the most positive thing. 

 

What are you basing this on ? Only Ancelotti has given youth a chance since Roman arrived and that was only because we let go so many players without replacing them. Also, Kenedy, RLC, Zouma are all getting games here and there under Mourinho so let's not follow what the media want you to believe when they say Mourinho doesn't give youth a chance.

 

Let's be realistic here, it's likely only 1 or 2 of our group of academy players are actually going to get a decent amount of games here. That is just how it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are UEFA related to PFA in this context?

It's not a direct link but I refuse to believe they're unable to make the connection.

Rather than looking at the bigger picture they've picked up on the media rumblings around our use of the loan system and decided to comment.

It's a simplistic criticism from the PFA when there's a lot more at play than simple "warehousing" of players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Yeah, but it's not UEFA that are doing the "moaning" in this instance. It sounded like you were suggesting some sort of collusion between the two which would be absurd.

 

For what it's worth, I believe that Taylor makes a good point but in a poor way and, as is his wont, using a populist bandwagon to beat on Chelsea.

 

Let's get real about our loan system:

 

1 it's not here for first-team players but for profits

2 it's also perfectly legal and beneficial for a number of parties.

 

At the end of the day, Chelsea take an "agent's fee" for scouting, loaning and raising the profile of a player who is then bought by a smaller club less inclined to take risks on players. Paying 6.5m for Kevin de Bruyne while he's at Genk is a bigger risk than paying Chelsea 11m for a much more polished/known article.

 

Instead of jumping on the bandwagon against one club, Taylor should point out the success of Chelsea's loan scheme means that if other biggish clubs follow the same route, we could conceivably end up with a situation where 20%-30% of the players in a league are owned by the four biggest clubs. That would be a problem for integrity, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but it's not UEFA that are doing the "moaning" in this instance. It sounded like you were suggesting some sort of collusion between the two which would be absurd.

For what it's worth, I believe that Taylor makes a good point but in a poor way and, as is his wont, using a populist bandwagon to beat on Chelsea.

Let's get real about our loan system:

1 it's not here for first-team players but for profits

2 it's also perfectly legal and beneficial for a number of parties.

At the end of the day, Chelsea take an "agent's fee" for scouting, loaning and raising the profile of a player who is then bought by a smaller club less inclined to take risks on players. Paying 6.5m for Kevin de Bruyne while he's at Genk is a bigger risk than paying Chelsea 11m for a much more polished/known article.

Instead of jumping on the bandwagon against one club, Taylor should point out the success of Chelsea's loan scheme means that if other biggish clubs follow the same route, we could conceivably end up with a situation where 20%-30% of the players in a league are owned by the four biggest clubs. That would be a problem for integrity, yes.

How would that situation be a problem? Doesnt that raise the level of competition from the bottom? If we loaned 25 percent of our 33 to teams in the PL, isnt that good for our loanees and the club they get loaned to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



There are restrictions on loaning players within the same league already. I don't think the idea that the rest of the Premier League is at risk of being vassalised by the top few clubs is really viable.

It never bothered them when UTD seemed to have loan players at every prem club under fergie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up