On 04/06/2024 at 16:40, timetowaste said:

Our previous owner sold off Guehi, Tomori, Solanke, Musiala, Ake, Lamptey, Abraham. That's off the top of my head, people need to stop acting as if the evil American overlords have taken over and sold off our academy, we, as a club, have been doing it way before the current owners came in.

Solanke, Musiala, Lamptey all ran their contracts down didn't they? The majority of the rest were sold off because they weren't needed. Tomori and Abraham were the only players that cemented their place in the squad and even they had lost their place and none were too bothered to see go. 

We NEVER in the past sold academy players to fund our transfer market mistakes and replaced them with significantly worse players for a higher transfer fee. 

3 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Solanke, Musiala, Lamptey all ran their contracts down didn't they? The majority of the rest were sold off because they weren't needed. Tomori and Abraham were the only players that cemented their place in the squad and even they had lost their place and none were too bothered to see go. 

We NEVER in the past sold academy players to fund our transfer market mistakes and replaced them with significantly worse players for a higher transfer fee. 

But we had the same thing with Solanke and Lamptey, people complaining that we didn't provide a good enough pathway for them to get into the first team. Musiala I'll give you, wasn't anything we could do really.
 

The second part is just not true, no academy players that we have sold or are up for sale are better than players we have signed aside from maybe Maatsen but that's on Poch. Who are these world beater academy players that we're flogging? I like Gallagher but we can't act like he's an amazing midfielder, in a team going for titles he's a squad player.

I’ve not been on here in a while… new ownerships been an unmitigated disaster IMO for the numerous reasons people have previously listed.

 

I’ve never felt more disconnected from the club since I was born, which is really sad.

7 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

We NEVER in the past sold academy players to fund our transfer market mistakes and replaced them with significantly worse players for a higher transfer fee. 

I don't even want Gallagher to go but this line was drafted out last summer as a reason to keep Mount and we replaced him with a player who turned out to be one of the best players in the league, if not the.

12 hours ago, timetowaste said:

But we had the same thing with Solanke and Lamptey, people complaining that we didn't provide a good enough pathway for them to get into the first team. Musiala I'll give you, wasn't anything we could do really.
 

The second part is just not true, no academy players that we have sold or are up for sale are better than players we have signed aside from maybe Maatsen but that's on Poch. Who are these world beater academy players that we're flogging? I like Gallagher but we can't act like he's an amazing midfielder, in a team going for titles he's a squad player.

Chalobah is better than Disasi and Badiashile.

Gallagher is better than Santos, Ugochukwu and arguably Lavia due to fitness.

RLC is better than the above. 

Lewis Hall would be a perfect squad player to cover the midfield and LB.

You've just answered the point everyone is making. We're flogging the ideal squad players and replacing them with worse squad players for a large transfer fee. We should have the academy lads in the squad rather than the fodder we're picking up for £40m a pop. 

8 hours ago, Argo said:

I don't even want Gallagher to go but this line was drafted out last summer as a reason to keep Mount and we replaced him with a player who turned out to be one of the best players in the league, if not the.

By the same logic we sold Mount to cover the expensive flop signings of Mudryk etc. of which Mount is the better player. We're selling to keep afloat for past stupid mistakes, Palmer is a outlier. Outside of him and Gusto i can't think of a single signing that's been value for money to date. Jackson possibly?

40 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Chalobah is better than Disasi and Badiashile.

Gallagher is better than Santos, Ugochukwu and arguably Lavia due to fitness.

RLC is better than the above. 

Lewis Hall would be a perfect squad player to cover the midfield and LB.

You've just answered the point everyone is making. We're flogging the ideal squad players and replacing them with worse squad players for a large transfer fee. We should have the academy lads in the squad rather than the fodder we're picking up for £40m a pop. 

- No he isn't

- Maybe right now but those are investments in potential, Gallagher has a ceiling and he's reached it in my opinion. 

- RLC couldn't make it through 5 games in the prem without injury, he was with us for years so you can't say he wasn't given a fair opportunity, we even loaned him out to Fulham and he was poor

- Lewis Hall isn't worth the money Newcastle have paid for him and the fact that he can't get a game over a 6ft 7 centre back at LB.

One thing you're forgetting as well is that there was never these arbitrary PSR rules that have made it more viable for every club to cash in on academy products and then sign players who they can pay for over 5+ years. But given the current rules if you ask do I think selling Hall, Gallagher, Chalobah, Mount, RLC etc is worth it to help fund players like Enzo, Caicedo and Palmer then the answer is yes.

End of the day I know football fans want instant success especially given what we've spent, but this is a long term project.

12 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said:

I’ve not been on here in a while… new ownerships been an unmitigated disaster IMO for the numerous reasons people have previously listed.

 

I’ve never felt more disconnected from the club since I was born, which is really sad.

Same here man. Just near the end of season I was feeling really down and even the last min surge to 6th was a whatever moment. 

Then I saw the way they did Poch, but that's not even the problem.

Everything they have done since they took over is almost a 180° turn from the, what I now identify as garbage, things they were saying. 

They say they have a vision yet have made several moves that seem to be from different visions that don't even complement themselves. 

They came in and rather than go about their business quietly and letting actions and results speak, they boldy proclaimed themselves as the saviours of English football and said they'd teach us Brits how it should be done.

Rather than say nothing about the man whose magnanimity and love for his club gave them London's best club, with valuable player and physical assets and debt free, at a price of course, though with his arm bent forcefully behind him by the almighty British government who by the way could have probably already earned possibly tens to hundreds of millions in interest from the sale, they ran their dirty mouths criticising him for how he ran the club and some of our own fans agree wholeheartedly. 

A man who from the very season after he took over started to deliver trophies, had a tunnel vision for victory, saw that as his ultimate goal and set a high threshold for success in whatever he did for the club.  They are now approaching three seasons in still faffing about how they want their so called vision to be executed. Total lack of vision me thinks. 

Nearly buying the club into problems and that's buying inferior players to what we had whilst selling off better players from our stable. 

They put in charge yes men everywhere who seem to talk a good game and don't pay any attention to the fact that in this sport, fans matter and whilst decisions should not be made solely on the basis of fan sentiments, you need to respect the foundation and glue that has held and propelled the club to its level of popularity worldwide and that's the fan base. Give them some "little wins". Do things to make them feel considered and taken along. Your so called men in charge can't even have the good grace to address the fans concerns honestly  in anyway, via statements  (not that PC statement from Jurasek in season) or any virtual or physical forum to at least assure them or try to, that you even know what you're doing. 

We have now slightly moved on from the let's be like Brighton model to the let's be like Pep and seem to not know how to create our own brand or identity. It's a case of let's try and copy them today or tomorrow let's copy them instead. 

It's all very sad and I have never felt as disconnected as I currently do. Anyway, what does it matter. They will do what they want, it's their club anyway. I either watch and follow for the love of the game and club or I switch off totally. How can I even love the team when they are being built without any underlying team or cultural ethos apart from stats driven which seems to maximise output and manage them like business assets all leveraged to achieve business goals...... in a very robotic way. 

I hope I am reading them wrong and their mis-steps are all part of learning and are taking on board lessons learned from a sport they have proven they actually know nothing about in terms of day to day running.  The thoughts might be good and grandiose but are they feasible and practical? I hope to God I am wrong and they turn things around but if we could sack as they can, the whole lot of them would have been fired twice over for severe underperformance. 

1 hour ago, timetowaste said:

- No he isn't

- Maybe right now but those are investments in potential, Gallagher has a ceiling and he's reached it in my opinion. 

- RLC couldn't make it through 5 games in the prem without injury, he was with us for years so you can't say he wasn't given a fair opportunity, we even loaned him out to Fulham and he was poor

- Lewis Hall isn't worth the money Newcastle have paid for him and the fact that he can't get a game over a 6ft 7 centre back at LB.

One thing you're forgetting as well is that there was never these arbitrary PSR rules that have made it more viable for every club to cash in on academy products and then sign players who they can pay for over 5+ years. But given the current rules if you ask do I think selling Hall, Gallagher, Chalobah, Mount, RLC etc is worth it to help fund players like Enzo, Caicedo and Palmer then the answer is yes.

End of the day I know football fans want instant success especially given what we've spent, but this is a long term project.

Chalobah is far better than the brothers of destruction.

You've just watched Gallagher improve leaps and bounds over the season and you've come to the conclusion he's peaked at 24 y/o?

RLC never let us down when he played, amazing squad player and far better than what we have on the bench now. 

He can't get a game because Newcastle didn't want to activate the clause, we all saw what he could do in a Chelsea shirt which was a hell of a lot more than his replacements have done.

We should be able to to afford those players without selling academy, we're selling academy because we overpaid massively for Enzo and Caicedo and then spent about hald a billion on bang average kids. Golden boy list was announced earlier, not a single chelsea signing in the top 25...

19 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Chalobah is far better than the brothers of destruction.

You've just watched Gallagher improve leaps and bounds over the season and you've come to the conclusion he's peaked at 24 y/o?

RLC never let us down when he played, amazing squad player and far better than what we have on the bench now. 

He can't get a game because Newcastle didn't want to activate the clause, we all saw what he could do in a Chelsea shirt which was a hell of a lot more than his replacements have done.

We should be able to to afford those players without selling academy, we're selling academy because we overpaid massively for Enzo and Caicedo and then spent about hald a billion on bang average kids. Golden boy list was announced earlier, not a single chelsea signing in the top 25...

We could go on for ages about the signings so we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I don't know why you're putting any sort of value on that list, it's utterly worthless.

15 hours ago, timetowaste said:

But we had the same thing with Solanke and Lamptey, people complaining that we didn't provide a good enough pathway for them to get into the first team. Musiala I'll give you, wasn't anything we could do really.
 

The second part is just not true, no academy players that we have sold or are up for sale are better than players we have signed aside from maybe Maatsen but that's on Poch. Who are these world beater academy players that we're flogging? I like Gallagher but we can't act like he's an amazing midfielder, in a team going for titles he's a squad player.

Lamptey opted out because he wanted to play. At the time he was behind Azpi and Reece. Different times.

26 minutes ago, dermott said:

Lamptey opted out because he wanted to play. At the time he was behind Azpi and Reece. Different times.

But we still had the same sort of conversations at the time questioning why we let him go etc, especially when he started really well at Brighton.

3 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

But we still had the same sort of conversations at the time questioning why we let him go etc, especially when he started really well at Brighton.

I don't think we let him go, i think we just pedaled slowly, as we often do, and he knew his head and made his decision, IIRC

Just now, timetowaste said:

But we still had the same sort of conversations at the time questioning why we let him go etc, especially when he started really well at Brighton.

We didn't let him go. He was offered a new contract. He declined because, behind Azpi and Reece in the pecking order at the time, he couldn't see game time on the horizon. It was a matter of timing. It happens.

34 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

I don't think we let him go, i think we just pedaled slowly, as we often do, and he knew his head and made his decision, IIRC

31 minutes ago, dermott said:

We didn't let him go. He was offered a new contract. He declined because, behind Azpi and Reece in the pecking order at the time, he couldn't see game time on the horizon. It was a matter of timing. It happens.

By let him go I mean sold him but it was for only a few million because he wouldn't sign a new contract, but there was still the same conversations with people annoyed at a good academy player leaving, we didn't do enough to keep him etc. 

All in all I fully believe in what the owners are doing (well, 90%) and unfortunately due to the stupid PSR rules we're forced to make decisions like letting squad players like Chalobah and Gallagher go.

36 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

By let him go I mean sold him but it was for only a few million because he wouldn't sign a new contract, but there was still the same conversations with people annoyed at a good academy player leaving, we didn't do enough to keep him etc. 

All in all I fully believe in what the owners are doing (well, 90%) and unfortunately due to the stupid PSR rules we're forced to make decisions like letting squad players like Chalobah and Gallagher go.

Livramento similarly actually. And the same position

1 hour ago, timetowaste said:

By let him go I mean sold him but it was for only a few million because he wouldn't sign a new contract, but there was still the same conversations with people annoyed at a good academy player leaving, we didn't do enough to keep him etc. 

All in all I fully believe in what the owners are doing (well, 90%) and unfortunately due to the stupid PSR rules we're forced to make decisions like letting squad players like Chalobah and Gallagher go.

Misguided and ill-informed people in Lamptey's case. He was offered a new contract, he declined. Full stop. End of.

17 minutes ago, dermott said:

Misguided and ill-informed people in Lamptey's case. He was offered a new contract, he declined. Full stop. End of.

Purposely missing my point but whatever 

4 hours ago, timetowaste said:

- No he isn't

- Maybe right now but those are investments in potential, Gallagher has a ceiling and he's reached it in my opinion. 

- RLC couldn't make it through 5 games in the prem without injury, he was with us for years so you can't say he wasn't given a fair opportunity, we even loaned him out to Fulham and he was poor

- Lewis Hall isn't worth the money Newcastle have paid for him and the fact that he can't get a game over a 6ft 7 centre back at LB.

One thing you're forgetting as well is that there was never these arbitrary PSR rules that have made it more viable for every club to cash in on academy products and then sign players who they can pay for over 5+ years. But given the current rules if you ask do I think selling Hall, Gallagher, Chalobah, Mount, RLC etc is worth it to help fund players like Enzo, Caicedo and Palmer then the answer is yes.

End of the day I know football fans want instant success especially given what we've spent, but this is a long term project.

I think you have hit the nail full square on the head.

What so many forget is that many of the players made it quite clear that they wouldn’t sign new contracts. As you quite rightly say the PSR regulations make it absolutely clear that balancing the books is an absolute must.

Its incredibly easy with hindsight to say we should have kept say CHO but everything we knew about him prior to this season pointed to potential but due to his injury record it was highly unlikely you would get a season out of him you could say the same about RLC .

Or what about Lamptey, Livermento and Mount . Wouldn’t sign new contracts so what do you do? 
 

We still haven’t got close to seeing the full potential of the younger players we have bought in so I find it churlish to talk about many who are still making adjustments that players go through when they move to a new country.

Oh by the way I agree with your assessment of Gallagher from where I think we are in that  he is close to running down his contract clearly he wants more than the club think he is worth and if he doesn’t sign he will be off and in my mind quite rightly 

 

20 hours ago, timetowaste said:

But we had the same thing with Solanke and Lamptey, people complaining that we didn't provide a good enough pathway for them to get into the first team. Musiala I'll give you, wasn't anything we could do really.
 

The second part is just not true, no academy players that we have sold or are up for sale are better than players we have signed aside from maybe Maatsen but that's on Poch. Who are these world beater academy players that we're flogging? I like Gallagher but we can't act like he's an amazing midfielder, in a team going for titles he's a squad player.

Why is it that ONLY our academy players are up for sale because apparently they aren't good enough ?

They are not being sold for lack of ability but for financial reasons.

Do you really think that the Chelsea academy is coaching our youngsters for years and then  churning.out endless Chelsea duds ?

No , it's not about football at all. If it was,  then Mudryk and others would be up for sale

4 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Why is it that ONLY our academy players are up for sale because apparently they aren't good enough ?

They are not being sold for lack of ability but for financial reasons.

Do you really think that the Chelsea academy is coaching our youngsters for years and then  churning.out endless Chelsea duds ?

No , it's not about football at all. If it was,  then Mudryk and others would be up for sale

At the end of the day, the academy is a means for business. It gives clubs an incentive to improve their academies for additional streamlines of revenue. (Selling an academy player for enormous profit). I think Roman, and even Clearlake to a certain extent, have done a good enough job by keeping the best talent. The only players I can say for absolute certainty walk into our starting XI are Guehi, Musiala, and potentially Rice.

A con of having one of the best academies in the world is consistently producing young talent that attract agents who have a snake's tongue. They make it known to them that they can get paid better and have more playing time elsewhere, whilst also getting a nice fat agent fee as a bonus. 

Chalobah seems content with a squad role and is tailored for Maresca's football. Gallagher too but I think the directors don't value him for what he may be asking. 

 

6 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

At the end of the day, the academy is a means for business. It gives clubs an incentive to improve their academies for additional streamlines of revenue. (Selling an academy player for enormous profit). I think Roman, and even Clearlake to a certain extent, have done a good enough job by keeping the best talent. The only players I can say for absolute certainty walk into our starting XI are Guehi, Musiala, and potentially Rice.

A con of having one of the best academies in the world is consistently producing young talent that attract agents who have a snake's tongue. They make it known to them that they can get paid better and have more playing time elsewhere, whilst also getting a nice fat agent fee as a bonus. 

Chalobah seems content with a squad role and is tailored for Maresca's football. Gallagher too but I think the directors don't value him for what he may be asking. 

 

But it should also be a means of saving money by keeping those good enough to be rotation options and saving us from spending on Disasi, Badiashille, Cucurella, Mudryk etc. I'm not against selling academy players but, in my opinion, the academy can be used more wisely. Why pay a shed load for Cucurella when you have Maatsen or Hall that could do the role at least as well as Cucu? If you're going to spend, do it on players with higher quality that can go straight into the first team.

Just now, RMH said:

But it should also be a means of saving money by keeping those good enough to be rotation options and saving us from spending on Disasi, Badiashille, Cucurella, Mudryk etc. I'm not against selling academy players but, in my opinion, the academy can be used more wisely. Why pay a shed load for Cucurella when you have Maatsen or Hall that could do the role at least as well as Cucu? If you're going to spend, do it on players with higher quality that can go straight into the first team.

Of course.

But again, a difficulty in doing that is per my argument below...

14 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

A con of having one of the best academies in the world is consistently producing young talent that attract agents who have a snake's tongue. They make it known to them that they can get paid better and have more playing time elsewhere, whilst also getting a nice fat agent fee as a bonus. 

Hall, Livramento, Tammy, Tomori and Lamptey all left for greater pastures. None of them wanted to be squad options and they all pushed for their moves. Hall I agree we should of kept, and I believe we would've had Newcastle not come along with their very generous transfer fee. 

City are now facing this same situation (Lavia, Palmer, Porro, Diaz,) but have an effective enough scouting network/recruitment policy to make up for it. We are striving to match it. 

39 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Why is it that ONLY our academy players are up for sale because apparently they aren't good enough ?

They are not being sold for lack of ability but for financial reasons.

Do you really think that the Chelsea academy is coaching our youngsters for years and then  churning.out endless Chelsea duds ?

No , it's not about football at all. If it was,  then Mudryk and others would be up for sale

Well the answer to that is simple, the PSR rules have made it so that if a player of equal or less value from the academy is more profitable going towards the rules. I've said throughout they're stupid but unfortunately it's something the club has to stick to. 

12 minutes ago, RMH said:

But it should also be a means of saving money by keeping those good enough to be rotation options and saving us from spending on Disasi, Badiashille, Cucurella, Mudryk etc. I'm not against selling academy players but, in my opinion, the academy can be used more wisely. Why pay a shed load for Cucurella when you have Maatsen or Hall that could do the role at least as well as Cucu? If you're going to spend, do it on players with higher quality that can go straight into the first team.

You would think that to date the new owners have sold dozens of players from the academy.

I might have missed one maybe two  but to date I think they have sold from the academy 1) Mount 2) RLC 3) Hall 4) CHO 5) Gilmour & 6 )Ampadu

Of course there will be some others sold in the window likely to be Chalobah, Mattesen & maybe Gallagher but I am extremely comfortable with one two or all three being sold 

We all need to accept that the new owners aren’t RA but when you consider the numbers of  players that were sold under his ownership dwarf the six Bohley has sold and when you consider how some of those players careers have panned out players like Guehi, Abraham and Tomori sorry but I think some have got selective memories