Absolutely agree but the point is that we plan for loans that fail, but don't put anything in place if they succeed in some cases. 

 

It's short-sighted but it's also very negative. Even if you say we have to pay £10 million to break the loan that's still more freedom than we apparently have at the moment.

 

So rather than being able to capitalise on a player over-performing and becoming a viable option this summer, you're left to either work with what you have (which isn't good enough by most people's estimations) or go into the market and probably spend more than that. 

You do realise that we can mutually terminate any contract, so this clause you are suggesting is effectively already in place if we offered Gladbach £10m they would definitely agree to terminate as for that kind of money why wouldn't you, you could easily buy a replacement. So what is the point to this clause you are talking about other than setting a fee for which mutual termination would be agreed upon which if we had to spend more than £1-2m for them to agree on mutual termination I would be flabbergasted. 

Well we have been developing Zouma nicely, and there is no chance we play 2 youth together without an experienced head in there like JT (God I hope he gets a new contract)

 

If Zouma gets fit again quickly then it'll be better for him in Germany than stunting both him and zouma by having to rotate them. Then in a years time he and zouma could be experienced enough to partner each other.

 

Someone else mentioned this as well, but alongside whom are you placing Zouma for a season before dropping him for Christensen? Cahill or Ivanovic, or are you buying someone else?

 

You do realise that we can mutually terminate any contract, so this clause you are suggesting is effectively already in place if we offered Gladbach £10m they would definitely agree to terminate as for that kind of money why wouldn't you, you could easily buy a replacement. So what is the point to this clause you are talking about other than setting a fee for which mutual termination would be agreed upon which if we had to spend more than £1-2m for them to agree on mutual termination I would be flabbergasted. 

 

That's based on the assumption that they would say yes, and who is this replacement they could get for £10 million? Shouldn't we be trying to buy this guy too?

 

The point of agreeing a set-fee is self-evident. You have a fee that can't be refused or negotiated up. It provides certainty.

Double post

 

 

Edited April 1, 201610 yr by Xfaxtor

Someone else mentioned this as well, but alongside whom are you placing Zouma for a season before dropping him for Christensen? Cahill or Ivanovic, or are you buying someone else?

 

If we are too stubborn to keep JT it'd be Cahill most likely.

That's based on the assumption that they would say yes, and who is this replacement they could get for £10 million? Shouldn't we be trying to buy this guy too?

 

The point of agreeing a set-fee is self-evident. You have a fee that can't be refused or negotiated up. It provides certainty.

Why wouldn't they say yes, is keeping a loanee (who isn't really performing that much better, if at all better, than a couple of their other CBs) for another season that vital to them, that they would turn down 10 million. I don't think so, maybe just for the sh*ts a giggles then.

Djilobodji seems pretty good at Bundesliga level, maybe they could sign him, I am sure there is plenty of other defenders of that quality about at that sort of price. Christensen is still only 19 and still has plenty of developing to do so finding a defender of a similar quality to him isn't going to be nearly as hard as you are making out.

Yes maybe setting the fee at £1m or something like that at the beginning of the loan does give us a little more financial control but do we want the club/manager of Gladbach to have this in the back of their mind when they are setting out their development and integration plans for the player, personally I would prefer that they feel comfortable and plan it as if they have got the player for 2 years with the view of utilising this to the maximum. Even if that means we lose out on a couple of million, as player development is far more important and far more fruitful. With the players values increasing far more than the money we could ever lose out on.

Also if lets say we did choose to pay the hypothetical and probably inflated £4-5m(which would stand as 1/4 of a hyped up value, seeing as it would be for 1 season out of his 4 year contract) to get Gladbach to agree for mutual termination, realistically this high a value wouldn't be needed, this would provide further incentives for other clubs to try and develop our players in a similar manner with the potential to reap significant financial reward, for developing a player to the extent that we would consider recalling them. Surely this counts as a win win scenario for the club. as either way we have created a first team player on the cheap or they are given time space and stability to develop.

 

Edited April 1, 201610 yr by PedroMendez

Hopefully Conte is already having his mates go and keep tabs on players like Christensen.

Imo I think it's an absolutely ridiculous situation for our club to have 31 decent young players out on loan, and it's looking like none of them are ever going to be given a proper chance in our 1st team, which you would have thought at least some of them should have been recalled in the last January transfer window, especially with the way our 1st team has been in decline this past year, by loosing its spine, reliable players like Peter Cech being sidelined and the most ludicrous point of having no home grown young player from the academy making it into the the 1st team since John Terry did it more than 10 years ago.

Our club needs to change.

The pato deal sums up our clubs way of thinking nicely I feel, why trust a youth player probably good enough for the backup role when you can buy/loan a shiny new player instead.

 

Falcao will have cost us 7m in wages by the time he leaves, pato about 750k, bamford no more than 1.5m all season plus we are getting to find out if he can cut it at our level, money saved and upside, we need to stop wasting money when its quite obvious we have a player already at the club who can cover that role, ake and rahman is another example, one has looked good in our league and the other was bought for 13/14m and looks out of his depth and you know full well it will be rahman that gets persisted with and ake will be sold the mind boggles.

The pato deal sums up our clubs way of thinking nicely I feel, why trust a youth player probably good enough for the backup role when you can buy/loan a shiny new player instead.

 

Falcao will have cost us 7m in wages by the time he leaves, pato about 750k, bamford no more than 1.5m all season plus we are getting to find out if he can cut it at our level, money saved and upside, we need to stop wasting money when its quite obvious we have a player already at the club who can cover that role, ake and rahman is another example, one has looked good in our league and the other was bought for 13/14m and looks out of his depth and you know full well it will be rahman that gets persisted with and ake will be sold the mind boggles.

Shiny and new are probably the two nicest words anyone on here has used to describe Pato in a while

The pato deal sums up our clubs way of thinking nicely I feel, why trust a youth player probably good enough for the backup role when you can buy/loan a shiny new player instead.

 

And since Pato has come in he has never played and we have used Traore more than ever before.

And since Pato has come in he has never played and we have used Traore more than ever before.

 

Because he's been woefully short of match fitness. It's not like we had the option of playing Pato because the club signed a player in the January transfer window who wasn't able to contribute on the pitch until April.

Imo I think it's an absolutely ridiculous situation for our club to have 31 decent young players out on loan, and it's looking like none of them are ever going to be given a proper chance in our 1st team, which you would have thought at least some of them should have been recalled in the last January transfer window, especially with the way our 1st team has been in decline this past year, by loosing its spine, reliable players like Peter Cech being sidelined and the most ludicrous point of having no home grown young player from the academy making it into the the 1st team since John Terry did it more than 10 years ago.

Our club needs to change.

 

Respectfully disagree, if the current system allows us to maintain a level of excellence for the first team while generating revenue/or at the very least breaking even I'm all for it. If a similar model is good enough for Barca, Real Madrid, Bayern and Juve it's good enough for us. Change just risks the club falling into a state of mediocrity and going backwards.

Edited April 2, 201610 yr by the special one

Respectfully disagree, if the current system allows us to maintain a level of excellence for the first team while generating revenue/or at the very least breaking even I'm all for it. If a similar model is good enough for Barca, Real Madrid, Bayern and Juve it's good enough for us. Change just risks the club falling into a state of mediocrity and going backwards.

 

Haven't we already gone backwards after years of these practices?

 

What similar model are you referring to at those clubs by the way? Do any of them have close to 30 players on loan like us? They're weird comparisons because a couple of those teams have competitive B teams which is an advantage over us. 

Haven't we already gone backwards after years of these practices?

 

What similar model are you referring to at those clubs by the way? Do any of them have close to 30 players on loan like us? They're weird comparisons because a couple of those teams have competitive B teams which is an advantage over us. 

 

I agree the general performance of the team (in terms of results) has stagnated, but I don't think it's because of the number of players out on loan. I do accept your point that it's a weird comparison however, certainly Barca/Real/Bayern are poor comparisons, the current model is comparable to Juve who also have no competitive B team and 30+ players on loan. I would like to see youth given a chance, but conversely I don't want the club to risk years of mediocrity, i.e. Liverpool/Aston Villa - it's a fine balance.

Edited April 2, 201610 yr by the special one

I agree the general performance of the team (in terms of results) has stagnated, but I don't think it's because of the number of players out on loan. I do accept your point that it's a weird comparison however, certainly Barca/Real/Bayern are poor comparisons, the current model is comparable to Juve who also have no competitive B team and 30+ players on loan). I would like to see youth given a chance, but conversely I don't want the club to risk years of mediocrity, i.e. Liverpool/Aston Villa - it's a fine balance.

 

I think the problem is that when we have had good young talent on loan, we've never capitalised on it to the extent we could've. There's no real development path for Academy players to follow and the classic example of that is Nat Chalobah who was the standout player in the Youth Cup Final a few years ago, opposite Paul Pogba. He was a special young talent and Juventus didn't loan him, but used him. Now Loftus-Cheek might be that for us and we might have changed but our past attempts don't inspire much confidence.

 

Hopefully now is the time when we take a few risks and build something long-term rather than looking for short-term fixes to our issues. That means using players like Christensen.

 

I honestly don't think we can actually become the best team in the world any other way because we don't have the finances at the moment.

"According to the Evening Standard, while Chelsea will not cut the loan short (which is the smartest thing to do from everyone's perspective) they have apparently reassured the 20-year-old that he's got a place earmarked for him in the squad starting the season after next, in 2017-18."

I wonder who is behind this thinking. He or she deserves a pat on the back. The Zouma/Christensen dream is alive. I wonder if that rules a few transfer rumors out

Edited April 13, 201610 yr by TheChelseaBlues

That would be great if true. Hopefully Gladbach manage to get that third CL spot

"According to the Evening Standard, while Chelsea will not cut the loan short (which is the smartest thing to do from everyone's perspective) they have apparently reassured the 20-year-old that he's got a place earmarked for him in the squad starting the season after next, in 2017-18."

I wonder who is behind this thinking. He or she deserves a pat on the back. The Zouma/Christensen dream is alive. I wonder if that rules a few transfer rumors out

 

Earmarking a squad place for a player over 12 months from now seems.....optimistic.

 

That's a long-time, not just for this club but also for the player. He's doing well now and it could be the ideal time to integrate him into the squad this summer when he's got that momentum behind him and there's a new coach bringing a clean slate to the table. 

 

Not only do you have to ask what we do in the meantime (because we NEED defenders) but you have to ask whether it's going to provide him with the best opportunity. I know a lot of people believe that another season of guaranteed football is the only way he can develop into a top-class player but there is always the possibility that Conte could use him next season and develop him at the club. I know that's a radical idea and doesn't fit with our usual way of developing young players (that hasn't yielded a first-team player from the Academy in over a decade hence it's proven track record) but to discount it is perhaps a little unfair.

 

Anyway, roll on the 2017-18 season apparently.

Edited April 13, 201610 yr by ShedEnder91

A "squad" place not a first team place. Maybe the club are hoping he develops enough to guarantee him a first team place, even though most of us know he's better than anyone we have currently at cb (barring terry).

Knowing us if we get him back next season, he will be a squad player, and get chances like Kenedy or Traore. I can bet my bollocks he won't start though, but Christensen - Zouma partnership looks tasty.

A "squad" place not a first team place. Maybe the club are hoping he develops enough to guarantee him a first team place, even though most of us know he's better than anyone we have currently at cb (barring terry).

Zouma?

Christensen definately won't be coming back unless he is given assurances that he is going to get a proper chance of starting in the Chelsea 1st team...........why on earth, would he want to come back just to be a squad player sitting on the bench FFS

Sadly Zouma is gonna take a long time out, recovering , rehabilitation from a serious injury.

If Christensen comes back and I hope he does, then Zouma once he's fit again, will have to fight to get his place back in the side, that's football

It looks like he won't be staying in Germany longer than his current loan -which expires next season.

According to the media we rejected a 14.5 million pounds offer from Borussia to make his move to Germany permanent as we are looking to make him an integral part of our Conte revolution once he finishes his loan next season.

 

And remember we got him on a a free !

I'd have brought him back this season but one more year there wont hurt him.

I really hope we don't sell the boy