I'm all in if he is good enough.

Too much money too early. If they're interested in first team football the money should be secondary. Chalobah signed a five year contract whilst on loan at Watford 30,000 a week, had to leave Watford. Waisted time at Burnley, couldn't get a game. No better at Forest. Prove you can do it at first team level. If Burnley and Forest don't want him in their team he ain't pod enough for us, but it's costing 30,000 a week. Do they lose focus on that sort of money?

I doubt its true. Solanke wouldn't get that sort of money if he left Chelsea so why would he ask for it?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Too much money too early. If they're interested in first team football the money should be secondary. Chalobah signed a five year contract whilst on loan at Watford 30,000 a week, had to leave Watford. Waisted time at Burnley, couldn't get a game. No better at Forest. Prove you can do it at first team level. If Burnley and Forest don't want him in their team he ain't pod enough for us, but it's costing 30,000 a week. Do they lose focus on that sort of money?

 

Nat Chalobah went to Watford as an 18 year old, played 42 games and was a key member of the team that got to the Play-Off Final. He won a Player of the Month award and was the England young player of the year. He earned that contract in my opinion.

 

We f**ked him though. We sent him on-loan to Forest in the middle of September, when Davies didn't play a style of football that suited him and he got sacked in March 2014. The loan to Boro redeemed that year for him, but the Burnley loan (again, after the season had got into full-swing) was a waste of time as has been the Napoli loan.

 

This is the issue with this club. Even if you do everything asked of you in the Academy and then on-loan, the club won't give you a chance unless there's a financial reason to.

 

Kenedy has got matches, but he cost £6 million. Loftus-Cheek got matches but he was on a big contract already. Traore could be the exception, except he's somehow fallen behind Pato in the pecking order because Pato used to be good around 2011.

 

Solanke is doing the right thing. He's looking for opportunity and the one way he can probably get that is by giving the club a financial reason to play him.

 

But to go back to your first point, if a young player in our Academy is interested in first-team football there is one option - Leave.

Will we ever see young ,hungry players coming through again at Chelsea?They are earning too much,too young to ever let them be hungry.I heard Spuds are only paying Kane 50 grand a week and he is established.What is going on ?

Will we ever see young ,hungry players coming through again at Chelsea?

 

 

Yeah. There will be 11 of them on ITV tonight in the Youth Cup Final. 

Too much money too early. If they're interested in first team football the money should be secondary. Chalobah signed a five year contract whilst on loan at Watford 30,000 a week, had to leave Watford. Waisted time at Burnley, couldn't get a game. No better at Forest. Prove you can do it at first team level. If Burnley and Forest don't want him in their team he ain't pod enough for us, but it's costing 30,000 a week. Do they lose focus on that sort of money?

I get your point about the money, but Harry kane struggled during his loan spells, but is now one of the best strikers in Europe playing with better players. Loan performances aren't always the best indicator of whether a player will be good enough.

Nice if we could see some of them playing for the first team eventually.

Will we ever see young ,hungry players coming through again at Chelsea?They are earning too much,too young to ever let them be hungry.I heard Spuds are only paying Kane 50 grand a week and he is established.What is going on ?

Sadly, that's football now mate, the 'big' teams with rising stars will only continue to be more prima donna in their nature, and placed on ever taller pedestals to annoy us all.

Until the bubble bursts, they will only be more obnoxious and detached from the rest of society.

I get your point about the money, but Harry kane struggled during his loan spells, but is now one of the best strikers in Europe playing with better players. Loan performances aren't always the best indicator of whether a player will be good enough.

 

I'd argue life in the lower leagues prepared Kane to be the player he is now, irrespective of performance (same reason I hope Solanke is sent on loan to League 1 next season).

Edited April 27, 201610 yr by the special one

Just read kyle Scott has put a transfer request in now.

Almost looks to be a mini movement from the youth players, maybe trying to force the clubs hand in offering more money to try and at least hold onto 1 or 2.

I really don't mind if we lost our whole youth team.  That may sound like I don't want to see youth progression, I do, but as good as they are I think it would be nearly impossible to replicate a class of 92 situation.  If a player wants to stay and earns the right to play first team then that's all I'm worried about.

A lot of talk about not seeing any youth progression at Chelsea, but there haven't many we've produced that have gone on to make it big at another club. Having talent doesn't make you a champion and with our supporters desire and expectation for success, we often can't guarantee the minutes young players need to develop.

If Solanke moves on, gets first team football and turns into a premierleague weapon, there is a great chance he'll want to return one day to the club he grew up with to win the grand prize. 

I'd argue life in the lower leagues prepared Kane to be the player he is now, irrespective of performance (same reason I hope Solanke is sent on loan to League 1 next season).

 

But would he still get a chance? Patrick Bamford did exactly what Kane did, except better. When he came back in January he was sent out on loan again because we had signed Falcao last summer and then signed Pato.

 

 

Almost looks to be a mini movement from the youth players, maybe trying to force the clubs hand in offering more money to try and at least hold onto 1 or 2.

I really don't mind if we lost our whole youth team.  That may sound like I don't want to see youth progression, I do, but as good as they are I think it would be nearly impossible to replicate a class of 92 situation.  If a player wants to stay and earns the right to play first team then that's all I'm worried about.

 

 

It kinda sounds like you don't care about youth development, but the issue is that we don't give players the chance to earn a spot. 

 

A lot of talk about not seeing any youth progression at Chelsea, but there haven't many we've produced that have gone on to make it big at another club. Having talent doesn't make you a champion and with our supporters desire and expectation for success, we often can't guarantee the minutes young players need to develop.

If Solanke moves on, gets first team football and turns into a premierleague weapon, there is a great chance he'll want to return one day to the club he grew up with to win the grand prize. 

 

Young players need opportunities. They're hard to come by, but they're an integral part of their development. JT got a chance here (after we almost sold him) and the rest is history. Loftus-Cheek is getting a chance here and he's getting close to claiming a squad place. Just because other players missed out on that crucial part of their development (playing with the first-team) it doesn't mean that they weren't good enough.

 

Nemanja Matic was judged to be 'not good enough' and that mistake only cost us about £18 million to fix. 

Edited April 27, 201610 yr by ShedEnder91

Nemanja Matic was also not a Chelsea youth product.

Nemanja Matic was also not a Chelsea youth product.

 

He didn't come through the academy no, but he did feature in the under-21s before treading that all too familiar path to Vitesse Arnhem.

No, he was brought straight into the first team before that loan.

 

We f**ked him though. We sent him on-loan to Forest in the middle of September, when Davies didn't play a style of football that suited him and he got sacked in March 2014.

Do you not think maybe we send players to clubs that dont suit there style for a reason? Young players should learn not every game will suit them, not every manager, not every situation. They need to be taken out of their comfort zone to see how they cope.

Do you not think maybe we send players to clubs that dont suit there style for a reason? Young players should learn not every game will suit them, not every manager, not every situation. They need to be taken out of their comfort zone to see how they cope.

 

If we want to take players out of their comfort zone then they could just stay here. With the regularity with which we change coaches and playing systems they'd get the same effect wouldn't they?

 

As it is he went from Watford who played a similar system to us (3 in the middle/double pivot) to Forest who I seem to remember playing a 442 (again, from memory so apologies if it's off a bit). Vitesse also play a similarish system to us broadly speaking. I get the logic of taking players out of their comfort zones but if we're trying to develop them to play in our system, isn't it better that they become as familiar with that as possible?

 

If it was one loan that we got wrong with him then maybe it'd be excusable but it's been three now and it would appear any momentum he had built up has long since gone. Sure we can blame the player but I personally think there's a path he could've been offered after the Watford loan that takes his career somewhere different, just like so many players have before. 

 

Now he just becomes another cautionary tale of the Chelsea Academy and unfortunately it seems like other players are now taking note.

Edited April 27, 201610 yr by ShedEnder91

I doubt its true. Solanke wouldn't get that sort of money if he left Chelsea so why would he ask for it?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Because it's not about the money, it's about what the money represents.

No, he was brought straight into the first team before that loan.

 

Where he made two substitute appearances lasting a total of 40 minutes. He was something of a firm fixture in the under-21s that season though although I can't recall just how many games he played so apologies if that's slightly off.

If we want to take players out of their comfort zone then they could just stay here. With the regularity with which we change coaches and playing systems they'd get the same effect wouldn't they?

 

True, nothing takes a player out of his comfort zone quite like keeping him in the exact same environment, playing with the same players, being coached by the same coaches, playing the exact same way etc blah blah.

What a stupid statement.

True, nothing takes a player out of his comfort zone quite like keeping him in the exact same environment, playing with the same players, being coached by the same coaches, playing the exact same way etc blah blah.

What a stupid statement.

 

Apologies, I should've put a smilie after that to indicate that it was a humorous statement. Obviously it funny enough to convey that it was less than serious.

 

Funnily enough though, Butch just mentioned him on the ITV4 Youth Cup feed saying how surprised he hasn't secured his spot here. For my money Chalobah was better than pretty much any other talent I've seen come through. At the same age I'd have certainly had him ahead of Loftus-Cheek so it's a real shame he appears to have slipped through the cracks because he had everything needed to be a big player for us.

I get your point about the money, but Harry kane struggled during his loan spells, but is now one of the best strikers in Europe playing with better players. Loan performances aren't always the best indicator of whether a player will be good enough.

if they aren't fancied by the loan team in mid table then that is not going to help them get in the Chelsea 1st team. They have got to make an impression.

Nat Chalobah went to Watford as an 18 year old, played 42 games and was a key member of the team that got to the Play-Off Final. He won a Player of the Month award and was the England young player of the year. He earned that contract in my opinion.

We f**ked him though. We sent him on-loan to Forest in the middle of September, when Davies didn't play a style of football that suited him and he got sacked in March 2014. The loan to Boro redeemed that year for him, but the Burnley loan (again, after the season had got into full-swing) was a waste of time as has been the Napoli loan.

This is the issue with this club. Even if you do everything asked of you in the Academy and then on-loan, the club won't give you a chance unless there's a financial reason to.

Kenedy has got matches, but he cost £6 million. Loftus-Cheek got matches but he was on a big contract already. Traore could be the exception, except he's somehow fallen behind Pato in the pecking order because Pato used to be good around 2011.

Solanke is doing the right thing. He's looking for opportunity and the one way he can probably get that is by giving the club a financial reason to play him.

But to go back to your first point, if a young player in our Academy is interested in first-team football there is one option - Leave.

If his money hadn't of gone up he could have stayed at Watford but they couldn't afford the wages in the championship. So for him has the money been more important than the development of his career, earning 30,000£ a week without 1st team appearance?

I find Akes time at Burnley to be far more beneficial to him than being here. He would never have been a starter or gotten nearly as many minutes.

 

I find that it's always the clubs fault when a players loan doesn't work out but if they were good enough for Chelsea they should be able to force themselves into any first team on loan.

If his money hadn't of gone up he could have stayed at Watford but they couldn't afford the wages in the championship. So for him has the money been more important than the development of his career, earning 30,000£ a week without 1st team appearance?

 

The guy came back to Chelsea having done everything asked of him so he earned that contract. It isn't massively big either so this notion that we couldn't have subsidised it so he could go back seems very strange. Fact it we waited until September to loan him out when he could've played a role in the squad is pretty much the story of youth at this club.

 

 

I find Akes time at Burnley to be far more beneficial to him than being here. He would never have been a starter or gotten nearly as many minutes.

 

I find that it's always the clubs fault when a players loan doesn't work out but if they were good enough for Chelsea they should be able to force themselves into any first team on loan.

 

Chalobah? He got a grand total of 66 minutes across 4 appearances at Burnley. This is the problem when you hire a new coach who isn't familiar with the players and set him the target of success within two years. That's not really a knock on Jose because the guy knows how to win but this club needed to be about more than that in my opinion. Like Butch said, players just need opportunities and Nat Chalobah was being groomed to be captain of this club.

 

Some players do deserve blame and some players simply aren't good enough. But the idea that they'll just 'force themselves into any first team on loan' is something I can't agree with. These teams have their own short-term and long-term aims, as well as tactics and if a player doesn't fit into that then it doesn't mean they aren't good enough.

 

Which of the litany of players we've let go would you like me to cite as an example? Was Paul Pogba not good enough for United because he couldn't force his way into the first-team, or is it that Conte gave him an opportunity to prove himself?