Kind of funny that as soon as it happens to another club the media report on the heinous and despicable attitudes and actions of the worst elements of that toxic fan base. 

 

We've been getting that treatment for decades but the Liverpool sycophants swept it all under the carpet.  If they continue to shine a light on it, they might not like what they find, as anyone thats been to an Anfield away day knows... 

Sky Sports put it up on Twitter and pretty much every Liverpool fan is deflecting and playing victim like they always do. 

 

Q: Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, an intelligent Liverpool fan, and an old drunk are walking down the street together when simultaneously they each spot a £50 note. So who gets the £50?

A: The old drunk, of course; the other three are mythical creatures.

 

Decent opening performance by Gilmour yesterday. Some evidence that a full-season loan was the correct decision in my view but it will be very interesting to see how he develops throughout the season.

22 minutes ago, Upsetter said:

Q: Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, an intelligent Liverpool fan, and an old drunk are walking down the street together when simultaneously they each spot a £50 note. So who gets the £50?

A: The old drunk, of course; the other three are mythical creatures.

Watched some of thedenmark v Scotland game. Billy looks really good when Scotland has the ball, but to my eye not much use when denmark had it. Mind you I only watched the last 30 minutes and  bits of the Norwich games. 

Let's hope Norwich gets a point soon, that game against Arsenal is a must win 😁 For Gilmour, his reputations won't be enhanced playing for a team conceding 2-3 every game, and not what he needs to prove he's good enough for Chelsea.

Billy has always impressed me carrying the ball forward, he has great vision for passes too.  He stated before that he saw himself as a "Fabregas" type player.  I think he's good, but really excels with a solid DM beside him 

I still think going to Norwich will do nothing for him. Losing every week isn't going to do much for his development. Surely there was a better club he could have gone on loan to. 

5 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

I still think going to Norwich will do nothing for him. Losing every week isn't going to do much for his development. Surely there was a better club he could have gone on loan to. 

There was a better club and he didn’t have to go on loan, it’s called CFC. We should have kept him to rotate. He’d have got a lot of game time and he’s bound to learn more from our WC midfield players. But, someone thought he’d learn more at Norwich…

On 14/09/2021 at 15:34, Scott Harris said:

I still think going to Norwich will do nothing for him. Losing every week isn't going to do much for his development. Surely there was a better club he could have gone on loan to. 

Absolutely spot on Scott.

21 hours ago, RMH said:

There was a better club and he didn’t have to go on loan, it’s called CFC. We should have kept him to rotate. He’d have got a lot of game time and he’s bound to learn more from our WC midfield players. But, someone thought he’d learn more at Norwich…

This is also spot on. Playing in a poor midfield with weak partners is doing nothing for him at all. No questions at all for me we should have kept him. I realise that it is incredibly early days for Saul but my worry with him was not as sh*te as he was, it was how casual he was. Would much rather we had kept Billy and let him learn his trade surounded by world class talent. 

Agree, I am bemused why would take Saul on loan, and even court Declan Rice for a fortune when we have Billy at the club. Even before their move and for their national teams for me neither are as good as Billy 

however it is a game of opinions and you have to trust the manager and the powers that be, maybe they see something in training we don’t 

For me Saul Ñíguez was a good option given that Gilmour was sent on loan. What it was baffling for me was that we sent him on loan when it was clear as daylight that we were thin in the midfield and we had a gem that could make it at a Chelsea. Someone in the Club thought we were better off sending him on loan, and Norwich was a good option because of the football they play. However, if they’d been paying attention they’d know that we needed a fourth midfielder and that Gilmour was the better option while we could develop him at home. It’s just baffling.

On 14/09/2021 at 14:34, Scott Harris said:

I still think going to Norwich will do nothing for him. Losing every week isn't going to do much for his development. Surely there was a better club he could have gone on loan to. 

I totally disagree with your assessment. Conor Gallagher went on loan to a losing team In westbrom but has clearly grown from the experience.

The most important thing regarding Gilmours loan was to send him to a team where he would be guaranteed to start and also a possession team not a long ball team . Norwich ticks both boxes and I can guarantee he will come back to Chelsea a man after his experience

On 16/09/2021 at 04:40, The Don Antonio said:

I totally disagree with your assessment. Conor Gallagher went on loan to a losing team In westbrom but has clearly grown from the experience.

The most important thing regarding Gilmours loan was to send him to a team where he would be guaranteed to start and also a possession team not a long ball team . Norwich ticks both boxes and I can guarantee he will come back to Chelsea a man after his experience

Agree completely.

I find it baffling that so many people are quick to question this method that has worked well in the recent past. I'm pretty sure the club is taking these decisions after a lot of discussion with more information than we can ever have.

The confidence with which people are saying his development would be best if he stayed is baffling.

1 hour ago, ashwin said:

Agree completely.

I find it baffling that so many people are quick to question this method that has worked well in the recent past. I'm pretty sure the club is taking these decisions after a lot of discussion with more information than we can ever have.

The confidence with which people are saying his development would be best if he stayed is baffling.

Yeah right? All of the players from our youth that feature regularly for us now (Mount, James, Christensen) went to lower level clubs on loan first. We try to bring CHO through without a loan and it doesn't work too well. Also remember RLC's path? He stayed with us for two seasons (15/16, 16/17) and never really managed to break through, then he went on loan to a poor Crystal Palace team, came back and started to really cement his place in the team before his horrible injury set him back again.

Really struggling at Norwich from what I'm hearing. He doesn't have the physicality for a relegation fight. This loan is looking like a mistake

1 hour ago, Drogba1 said:

Really struggling at Norwich from what I'm hearing. He doesn't have the physicality for a relegation fight. This loan is looking like a mistake

Yeah he's not meant for that level and I think Norwich are going to fully bench him soon. We need to cancel the loan and send him to a better team.

4 hours ago, sonic90 said:

Yeah he's not meant for that level and I think Norwich are going to fully bench him soon. We need to cancel the loan and send him to a better team.

I reckon the issue is they are playing him alone deep in midfield, he needs someone next him to him to flourish.

Whoscored seemed to think he did ok in the latest Norwich game ... best rating in the team !

 

Learning his trade at a team who will have to defend and still try to play possesion football will do wonders for his development, he will learn more about defending than he would sitting on our bench for 90% of games, he will come back a better player as long as he keeps getting minutes

3 hours ago, Juan Nil said:

Learning his trade at a team who will have to defend and still try to play possesion football will do wonders for his development, he will learn more about defending than he would sitting on our bench for 90% of games, he will come back a better player as long as he keeps getting minutes

If the results keep going the way they are for Norwich one of two things is likely to happen. 

Farke gets sacked, new man comes in and turns to more senior players to shore things up. 

Farke gets desperate, abandons his possession based style and Gilmour is stuck playing direct football that doesn't benefit his football education. 

Personally, I'm not a fan of sending our promising players to relegation fodder. 

On 19/09/2021 at 13:20, ForeverCarefree said:

If the results keep going the way they are for Norwich one of two things is likely to happen. 

Farke gets sacked, new man comes in and turns to more senior players to shore things up. 

Farke gets desperate, abandons his possession based style and Gilmour is stuck playing direct football that doesn't benefit his football education. 

Personally, I'm not a fan of sending our promising players to relegation fodder. 

Left out of the starting XI today and was a non used substitute. 

Still early days yet but I continue to doubt the wisdom of this loan move. 

1 hour ago, ForeverCarefree said:

Left out of the starting XI today and was a non used substitute. 

Still early days yet but I continue to doubt the wisdom of this loan move. 

To be fair he has played a lot of minutes so far this season and at 20, he was never going to play every game, wherever he went.

But I must admit, it's hard to see where Norwich are going to pick up ANY points this season and a loan to a mid-table side or even a Championship side battling for promotion rather than relegation, would in hindsight have been a better move.