Christensen wants to stay in Germany

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

Make of it what you will.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/30/chelsea-andreas-christensen-gladbach-loan

[mad_mac]

Can't say I blame him wanting first team football.  Probably not guaranteed here, and then he still doesn't know who the manager is going to be.

[ShedEnder91]

He's probably right. Without knowing the coach it's impossible for him to know what type of time he'd get so he needs to do what's best for him.

 

What it highlights is how young players are starting to view us as a club, and rightly so. If Aina leaves as well the club surely have to wake up and realise that what they're doing is starting to have negative results.

 

But it's also ridiculous that we didn't insert a break clause of some nature. Yes it gives the team loaning the player something a bit long-term they can build on but there has to be something in there, even if it's financial penalties for recalling a player early. Utterly ridiculous, short-sighted and trademark Chelsea 2016.

[dkw]

And not a single quote from anyone. Impressive.

[mad_mac]

And not a single quote from anyone. Impressive.

 

details....I mean, why bother with any quotes when the media can keep going on about how bad Chelsea are at bringing through youngsters?

[ShedEnder91]

details....I mean, why bother with any quotes when the media can keep going on about how bad Chelsea are at bringing through youngsters?

 

From whom would you expect a quote on something like this?

 

At a guess I'd say that a representative of the player has probably let it be known that he wants to play and until that's sorted out then he won't be looking to return. It could also be contract related. But that is just me speculating.

 

But we are bad at bringing through youngsters and it seems like young players are starting to notice. That's a worry.

[Stim]

From whom would you expect a quote on something like this?

 

Who knows. The player. The players agent.

 

Players dad, players teammate

 

Anyone really.

[Xfaxtor]

Hope he gets to stay for another year, playing regularly is crucial at his age, getting him back to warm the bench would be an aegul decision

[strong centreback]

But we are bad at bringing through youngsters and it seems like young players are starting to notice. That's a worry.

 

Its gonna get worse before it gets better unless the next manager (conte most likely) actually makes a decent fist of bringing some through, roman has been in charge for over ten years and we have had the grand total of no youth players to properly come through and its not for the lack of money thrown at it by the owner.

 

Its the club mentality that stops it from happening which needs to change, pato and falcao are great examples of our clubs strategy, instead of showing bamford a tiny bit of faith and giving him a shot with us after a good loan we go after a busted injury prone flush who proceeds to get injured for the vast bulk of the season whilst bamford gets no where on a bad loan, we then bring bamford back from said bad loan and then bundle him off on another loan after bringing in another injury prone busted flush who had been holidaying for a month or so on his off season break, he then takes 6 weeks to get match fit before it seems the club realise that he too is a busted flush, all the while bamford has stagnated from a bad loan whilst we have paid falcao circa £140k a week all season to get leg massages and use the facilities and pato £30k a week since late jan to do a spot of shopping in london, if I did as poorly in my job as the guy who sanctioned that lot id be sacked plain and simple.

[PedroMendez]

It would be short sighted of the club to bring him back, it would also be poor youth development to bring him back, and those talking about players stagnating on loan also need to consider those players stagnating on the bench or just in the squad and not even on the bench as that is also as bad for the player as a bad loan would be.
Christensen needs game time to develop he is probably at Stones current level which isn't yet good enough for Everton so is he really good enough to be a starter here. If he isn't going to be a starter why remove him for being a starter in a CL side in Germany, where he gets good quality competitive minutes which is precisely what he needs.

Having no clause in Christensen's loan contract is the best thing the club could have done for him as it guarantees him more playing time and allows a still very young player time to develop. He still isn't firat team ready as was never going to be so to give him 2 years was perfect from the club.

Yes we should quite rightly be hyped and yes we should all expect him to be a Chelsea player one day but to suggest the club is wrong not to force him back is a very short sighted view point and seemingly just to try and prove Chelsea can bring through youngsters, which when we are allready trying to integrate Kenedy, Zouma, Baba, Traore and RLC with maybe even Ake in that mix it will likely be asking way to much. If you really want to see Christensen become a great and hopefully very long serving Chelsea CB another season in Germany is more likely to produce this outcome.

 

 

[Stim]

Its gonna get worse before it gets better unless the next manager (conte most likely) actually makes a decent fist of bringing some through, roman has been in charge for over ten years and we have had the grand total of no youth players to properly come through and its not for the lack of money thrown at it by the owner.

 

But our number of Premier League quality players produced has increased.

[ShedEnder91]

It would be short sighted of the club to bring him back, it would also be poor youth development to bring him back, and those talking about players stagnating on loan also need to consider those players stagnating on the bench or just in the squad and not even on the bench as that is also as bad for the player as a bad loan would be.

Christensen needs game time to develop he is probably at Stones current level which isn't yet good enough for Everton so is he really good enough to be a starter here. If he isn't going to be a starter why remove him for being a starter in a CL side in Germany, where he gets good quality competitive minutes which is precisely what he needs.

 

 

That's all based on an assumption that he wouldn't get minutes here which we don't know yet. We don't know who the new coach is, what formation he'd use and what other defenders we would either retain or sign. There's every possibility that Christensen becomes a starter because he offers something we don't have at the moment and that's ability on the ball, something that is very necessary in three defender formations.

 

Having no clause in Christensen's loan contract is the best thing the club could have done for him as it guarantees him more playing time and allows a still very young player time to develop. He still isn't firat team ready as was never going to be so to give him 2 years was perfect from the club.

 

 

But it gives the club less options, less manoeuvrability and in any business that is a bad idea. What you can insert instead of penalties for recalling a player early but to have no recall clause whatsoever is ridiculous.

 

Yes we should quite rightly be hyped and yes we should all expect him to be a Chelsea player one day but to suggest the club is wrong not to force him back is a very short sighted view point and seemingly just to try and prove Chelsea can bring through youngsters, which when we are allready trying to integrate Kenedy, Zouma, Baba, Traore and RLC with maybe even Ake in that mix it will likely be asking way to much. If you really want to see Christensen become a great and hopefully very long serving Chelsea CB another season in Germany is more likely to produce this outcome.

 

 

Four of the six players you've mentioned aren't actually Academy graduates, one has played just 108 minutes of league football for us and Ake is being linked with moves away from the club. That's not a great amount of evidence for this idea that you're trying to push that we're not failing at developing talented youngsters into first-team options.

 

In fact your whole premise is based on us developing Christensen 'the Chelsea way' which hasn't worked in over a decade and that's understandable. The only youth development strategy you've probably ever seen at this club is the one that's currently in place and you don't want to be critical of it. I get that.

 

But here's something interesting. Christensen right now has played more league minutes in a single season, more Champions League minutes in a single season and more international minutes in a single season than Kurt Zouma had managed before he broke into our first-team. Now I'm sure the 'physicality' argument might be brought up but Christensen is never going to be Zouma's size but that's not his strength. He's a different kind of defender. Does that make him ready? I don't know.

 

But that's the point. I don't know and I'm ok saying that. You don't know who the coach will be, what style he'll play, how Christensen might fit into that, what competition he might have or how the rest of his season might play out but instead of acknowledge that, you're defending a system of youth development that has very little in the way of success to show for itself because......well why are you doing that? Loyalty? It's admirable in a way but the reality is that Christensen right now could be our best option come August.

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

And not a single quote from anyone. Impressive.

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

[Ukraine Bolt]

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

 

Well quotes usually back up an argument so without them it could quite easily be bullsh*t and a journo could've just pulled it from a hat. I don't really see the issue and what people are failing to grasp here. 

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

Well quotes usually back up an argument so without them it could quite easily be bullsh*t and a journo could've just pulled it from a hat. I don't really see the issue and what people are failing to grasp here.

So we can say the same about conte then? That could just be made up bullsh*t by a journo?

[Kev123]

So we can say the same about conte then? That could just be made up bullsh*t by a journo?

It could be, although there are several facts that support it, such as him having announced leaving the national team after the euros. However, yes, it could all be bs.

[PedroMendez]

That's all based on an assumption that he wouldn't get minutes here which we don't know yet. We don't know who the new coach is, what formation he'd use and what other defenders we would either retain or sign. There's every possibility that Christensen becomes a starter because he offers something we don't have at the moment and that's ability on the ball, something that is very necessary in three defender formations.

 

 

But it gives the club less options, less manoeuvrability and in any business that is a bad idea. What you can insert instead of penalties for recalling a player early but to have no recall clause whatsoever is ridiculous.

 

In fact your whole premise is based on us developing Christensen 'the Chelsea way' which hasn't worked in over a decade and that's understandable. The only youth development strategy you've probably ever seen at this club is the one that's currently in place and you don't want to be critical of it. I get that.

 

But here's something interesting. Christensen right now has played more league minutes in a single season, more Champions League minutes in a single season and more international minutes in a single season than Kurt Zouma had managed before he broke into our first-team. Now I'm sure the 'physicality' argument might be brought up but Christensen is never going to be Zouma's size but that's not his strength. He's a different kind of defender. Does that make him ready? I don't know.

 

But that's the point. I don't know and I'm ok saying that. You don't know who the coach will be, what style he'll play, how Christensen might fit into that, what competition he might have or how the rest of his season might play out but instead of acknowledge that, you're defending a system of youth development that has very little in the way of success to show for itself because......well why are you doing that? Loyalty? It's admirable in a way but the reality is that Christensen right now could be our best option come August.

 

All of this is conjecture as we don't actually know the details of the contract between the 2 sides. I would imagine there are stipulations in the contract which would allow him to be recalled (injury, lack of player appearances and there is obviously mutual termination) 

The only good reason I can see for us bringing Christensen back is if we wish him to be a first team starter.

We currently have Ivanovic and Cahill who are likely to need transitioning out of the side in the coming seasons so we don't really have the need to bring him back as a squad player.     

If we had ambitions of bringing him back as a first team starter, lets face it this is football, we could quite easily offer Gladbach some money to make them feel a termination of the contract is mutually beneficial, I would also imagine that Christensen would want to return if this was the case and would Gladbach really force Christensen to sit in their squad for a year unhappy, so this wouldn't likely be too expensive in footballing terms, so inputting a recall clause is pretty immaterial. It might give them the bargaining power to request first option on any departing youngsters for instance lets say if we were looking to sell Ake, but in reality they don't have that much power. 

On the point of him being recalled as a first team starter I can't really see it. 

It would be great for Christensen's development but I just don't think it would be the best option for the club (especially considering he is already getting high quality first team football, so we would be hampering his overall development).

Mainly because I imagine given Roman's history we will have aspirations of trying to get back to the top again next season and I don't think Christensen is currently good enough defensively to meet that level, as he is still prone to having lapses of concentration and letting a runner get into a position in which he can't defend, which has cost Gladbach a few goals this season, sort of like Stones for Everton/England.

If Roman were to lower his expectations and if potentially missing out on Europe would be acceptable then it would definitely be worth bringing Christensen back and giving him a starting birth but I can't envision this.

This opinion does not come form blind loyalty to the club and I am definitely not basing this decision on our clubs previously forays into the loan market as we have messed up a lot of loans and stagnated quite a few youth players as a result. But that doesn't mean it can't be beneficial and it doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't try and make the most of it.

and since the hardest part of the loan market (finding somewhere which is competitive and they play regularly), has already been done there isn't really any drawbacks to allowing Christensen to stay on loan one that has been very beneficial to date and has allowed him to come on leaps and bounds, surely part of this has to be attributed to the way in which we approached the loan, yes as you say we get more freedom and control if we insert a clause break into the contract but exactly how much including such a clause affects Gladbach patience in developing Christensen we will never know so I would rather commend them for having success in a market which is usually fruitless than lambasting them for missing out on the potential ability to bring back a player who will most likely gain more from being on loan. 

Look at what Everton are going through with Stones, this may be a slightly accentuated version to that Gladbach have gone through with Christensen but the idea applies and will highlight a reason why inputting this clause might have been detrimental to Christensen's loan experience,

At Everton Martinez knows that Stones will make the occasional error which will on average mean that his team concedes more goals through out the season but he also knows the more game time Stones is given the sooner Stones will reach his potential, which in the long run (half/1/2 seasons time) he will have a player that will make the team better, and even in a team that has nothing to play for and has very little expectations he has lost patience with developing the player, with this in mind do we really want to put extra barriers in the way of Gladbach playing Christensen maybe with hindsight but when you consider at the beginning of the season he wasn't expected to be their starter and was dropped simply because he wasn't playing well enough, giving Gladbach all the incentives we could to play him was probably a good idea. 

Also comparing Zouma and Chrstensen in terms of experience per season is a bit odd, but it does highlight how impressive Christensen's first proper season at senior level has been and that deserves applause.

I will also agree none of us know what the future holds and if the new manager comes in and wants to give Christensen a shot in the first team good on him, but I really don't see the point of bringing him back if he is to sit on the bench.

   

[ShedEnder91]

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.

Edited April 1, 2016 by ShedEnder91

[Ukraine Bolt]

So we can say the same about conte then? That could just be made up bullsh*t by a journo?

 

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. 

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

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. 

 

 

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. 

[Stim]

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.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Stim

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

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.

 

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. 

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

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.

 

you've entirely missed the point, as usual. 

[Stim]

you've entirely missed the point, as usual. 

 

Thanks for enlightening me and not being an ass about it.

[CFC_RFC_TID!]

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.

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.