8 minutes ago, drjonesy1994 said:

Maybe they're just not as good as everyone on here seems to think they are. If they were, they would be in the squad and getting plenty of football. As shown by Chalobah last season, and hopefully Gallagher this. 

My point re the 'old regime' is they put players on mega contracts that they have done nothing to justify since being at Chelsea, and therefore we are stuck with them because nobody else is daft enough to pay Ross Barkley £100k a week. Not sure how you're not getting that. 

I'm getting what you say, but it doesn't justify the fact that they play ahead of the youngsters in a friendly. The two events are independent of each other, and one does not explain the other.

Also, how do they know if they are not good enough if they don't have he chance of showing it in a pre-season friendly? What we do know, and Tuchel knows too, is that Emerson, Barkley, Kenedy or Batshuayi are not good enough and will most likely not be in the first squad this season.

i have the feeling TT doesn't think that a USA tour is the best preparation for a season 

3 minutes ago, RMH said:

I'm getting what you say, but it doesn't justify the fact that they play ahead of the youngsters in a friendly. The two events are independent of each other, and one does not explain the other.

Also, how do they know if they are not good enough if they don't have he chance of showing it in a pre-season friendly? What we do know, and Tuchel knows too, is that Emerson, Barkley, Kenedy or Batshuayi are not good enough and will most likely not be in the first squad this season.

Let's say the oldies trained much better and with much more intensity than those that weren't featured: would you give those youngster a pass and let them play regardless?

Do you think Tuchel isn't aware of how players perform during training to get an idea of their potential and needs a match against Club América to understand that? Not sure mate, seems far fetched.

And should Tuchel come out in a presser and outright tell the public: "Vale wasn't really focussed during our training sessions so I decided to keep him out." 

 

1 minute ago, RMH said:

I'm getting what you say, but it doesn't justify the fact that they play ahead of the youngsters in a friendly. The two events are independent of each other, and one does not explain the other.

Also, how do they know if they are not good enough if they don't have he chance of showing it in a pre-season friendly? What we do know, and Tuchel knows too, is that Emerson, Barkley, Kenedy or Batshuayi are not good enough and will most likely not be in the first squad this season.

Your first point - I think they are semi related though. Barkley on £100k a week and currently unable to shift from the first team. If he doesn't go out on loan, chances are he will be used in the squad as 4th or 5th choice midfielder this season. As I said in a previous post, Gilmour would likely take Barkley's place. Would it aid Gilmour's development in anyway to be 4th/ 5th choice and play maybe less than 500 minutes all season? Probably not - which is why he wants to go elsewhere and be a regular starter. 

From a purely business and not footballing point of view, it makes more sense to try and give Barkley a role in the squad whilst he is on the money he is. Whilst Gilmour at a guess is probably on around £30k a week, can be sold for maybe around £25-30m and is much easier to shift than Barkley. This is purely just me speculating but maybe there is pressure from above to give Barkley a role, due to his wage. The old board could've afforded players on £100k a week not playing regularly, but that might not be the way the with the new owners and they may want more value for their money. As I say that's pure speculation on my part though.

I am gutted about Gilmour if he goes, but realistically he is behind Kova, Kante, Jorginho, Mount, Gallagher, and maybe RLC in the pecking order. Even if he replaced Barkley's place in the squad I don't think he would get regular meaningful minutes, so I can see why he is looking to go. I am not massively fussed about losing Broja tbh. 

part of the appeal of Broja was our despair with our current attackers making any alternative a sort of potential saviour.

Edited July 19, 20223 yr by azpi28

2 hours ago, weetee said:

Let's say the oldies trained much better and with much more intensity than those that weren't featured: would you give those youngster a pass and let them play regardless?

Do you think Tuchel isn't aware of how players perform during training to get an idea of their potential and needs a match against Club América to understand that? Not sure mate, seems far fetched.

And should Tuchel come out in a presser and outright tell the public: "Vale wasn't really focussed during our training sessions so I decided to keep him out." 

 

Fair enough, but he insists in playing Batshayi whom he knows, positively, is not good enough no matter how much energy he spends in training and who he is going to send away as soon as possible. Do you think that Broja, who’s had a season in the PL, is not ready for a friendly against Club America?

Look, I’m not against not playing the youngsters or selling/loaning them. I’m just asking why have they not featured in a friendly ahead of players that we all positively know are not going to feature in the squad and are not good enough, after years of senior football, to play for Chelsea.

These are all ifs and buts, neither you nor I know what’s happening behind the scenes, and the reality will be somewhere in between. But in a preseason friendly, I’d definitely would be playing the youth instead of the deadwood we’re trying to get rid of for years.

2 hours ago, drjonesy1994 said:

Your first point - I think they are semi related though. Barkley on £100k a week and currently unable to shift from the first team. If he doesn't go out on loan, chances are he will be used in the squad as 4th or 5th choice midfielder this season. As I said in a previous post, Gilmour would likely take Barkley's place. Would it aid Gilmour's development in anyway to be 4th/ 5th choice and play maybe less than 500 minutes all season? Probably not - which is why he wants to go elsewhere and be a regular starter. 

From a purely business and not footballing point of view, it makes more sense to try and give Barkley a role in the squad whilst he is on the money he is. Whilst Gilmour at a guess is probably on around £30k a week, can be sold for maybe around £25-30m and is much easier to shift than Barkley. This is purely just me speculating but maybe there is pressure from above to give Barkley a role, due to his wage. The old board could've afforded players on £100k a week not playing regularly, but that might not be the way the with the new owners and they may want more value for their money. As I say that's pure speculation on my part though.

I am gutted about Gilmour if he goes, but realistically he is behind Kova, Kante, Jorginho, Mount, Gallagher, and maybe RLC in the pecking order. Even if he replaced Barkley's place in the squad I don't think he would get regular meaningful minutes, so I can see why he is looking to go. I am not massively fussed about losing Broja tbh. 

Your first point, I agree that Gilmour needs to play minutes, so it would make more sense to, first, check if he’s good enough to rotate Jorginho, and second, if not, put him on the spot so he can gain the interest from other teams and we can get the best loan for him.

Your second point would be valid if Barkley was good enough and had shown that he can be in the squad. If you’ve got a tool that’s useless to make what you sell, no matter how much it cost, you don’t use it. Instead you’ve got a cheaper, newer tool you’ve never tried, would you persist using the old, expensive tool or try the new one and see if it works better? In other example, would you insist with an employee whom you know is not up to the task or would you try one of the new recruits who you have never used but could be a good fit for the task?

I get that Gilmour needs to go on loan, I really do get it even though I would pick him over RLC in that list of players that you’ve made. But seriously, wouldn’t it be better to check what he’s capable of while, at the same time, putting him on the window for other teams to see? It’s a friendly, not the CL final.

4 hours ago, drjonesy1994 said:

 

If the likes of Broja and Gilmour want to go elsewhere to get plenty of football, then so be it. But as a team who wants to compete for the Premier League and Champions League, we cannot bow to a youth player everytime they make noise about wanting regular first team football. 

I have copied the quoted passage below from the Broja to West Ham thread in the rumours forum. It is written by @abramovich and I completely agree with it.

 

"He's still got four years left on his contract so they don't have to sell him no matter what his current thinking is. I know Daniel Levi is a c**t but he wasn't wrong when he told so many of his Spu.s wantaway players, too bad you have a contract, so get on with it. I'm not saying we should keep Broja against his will but at the same time we're in a very strong position and don't have to do anything that's not in our immediate interest.

That's why selling him to West Ham (of all places!), especially given our dire centre forward situation is odd. Unless we're getting Rice or Bowen at a discount I don't see the reason to accomodate the player and/or that f**king club".

Edited 21 hours ago by abramovich

Edited July 19, 20223 yr by just

4 minutes ago, RMH said:

Your first point, I agree that Gilmour needs to play minutes, so it would make more sense to, first, check if he’s good enough to rotate Jorginho, and second, if not, put him on the spot so he can gain the interest from other teams and we can get the best loan for him.

Your second point would be valid if Barkley was good enough and had shown that he can be in the squad. If you’ve got a tool that’s useless to make what you sell, no matter how much it cost, you don’t use it. Instead you’ve got a cheaper, newer tool you’ve never tried, would you persist using the old, expensive tool or try the new one and see if it works better? In other example, would you insist with an employee whom you know is not up to the task or would you try one of the new recruits who you have never used but could be a good fit for the task?

I get that Gilmour needs to go on loan, I really do get it even though I would pick him over RLC in that list of players that you’ve made. But seriously, wouldn’t it be better to check what he’s capable of while, at the same time, putting him on the window for other teams to see? It’s a friendly, not the CL final.

If he is to go on loan then I think that makes sense for all involved, but the noise is that he's looking to go permanently. The thing is he needs to go on loan to a team that plays with the ball and not sit deep, trouble is there's not many teams outside of the top 6 who do that and would start him. Brighton or Palace maybe? Going to Norwich was a disaster and the club never should have agreed to that - it should have been clear that they would be whipping boys last season and it would have had an awful effect on Gilmour and his development. Hindsight is a wonderful thing eh. 

I love your analogy for your second point, and I do agree. But then who would you make redundant in that scenario - Barkley who has been there for years and will cost more to pay him off, or the new kid Gilmour with a relatively cheap pay off? Again from a business point of view, you're going to take the option thats cheaper or makes you the most money, whether that's right or not. 

My initial point at the start of our conversation was the wages that the old board have set for those types of players have left us lumbered with players we can't sell. I agree I would have liked to see Gilmour at least get some minutes in pre-season, the fact that he has been sent home is of course entirely Tuchel's decision, and nothing to do with Marina etc. 

10 minutes ago, just said:

I have copied the quoted passage below from the Broja to West Ham thread in the rumours forum. It is written by @abramovich and I completely agree with it.

 

"He's still got four years left on his contract so they don't have to sell him no matter what his current thinking is. I know Daniel Levi is a c**t but he wasn't wrong when he told so many of his Spu.s wantaway players, too bad you have a contract, so get on with it. I'm not saying we should keep Broja against his will but at the same time we're in a very strong position and don't have to do anything that's not in our immediate interest.

That's why selling him to West Ham (of all places!), especially given our dire centre forward situation is odd. Unless we're getting Rice or Bowen at a discount I don't see the reason to accomodate the player and/or that f**king club".

Edited 21 hours ago by abramovich

If Borja want to leave, not sure what is the point of keeping him here. At best he is going to be kai backup, not sure he is suited to false 9ish/target man role that Tuchel need his cf to do. 

It is a lose lose situation. Borja will lose one year of development, we lose more money and not sure we need him. 

10 minutes ago, just said:

I have copied the quoted passage below from the Broja to West Ham thread in the rumours forum. It is written by @abramovich and I completely agree with it.

 

"He's still got four years left on his contract so they don't have to sell him no matter what his current thinking is. I know Daniel Levi is a c**t but he wasn't wrong when he told so many of his Spu.s wantaway players, too bad you have a contract, so get on with it. I'm not saying we should keep Broja against his will but at the same time we're in a very strong position and don't have to do anything that's not in our immediate interest.

That's why selling him to West Ham (of all places!), especially given our dire centre forward situation is odd. Unless we're getting Rice or Bowen at a discount I don't see the reason to accomodate the player and/or that f**king club".

Edited 21 hours ago by abramovich

Because I don't think we should bow to players who automatically assume they should be getting first team football, no player is bigger than the club whether you are a youth academy or not. The difference with Spurs is I am assuming you are referring to players like Kane, Modric and Bale over the years. They are key players who at the time all started for Spurs week in week out, why would you sell your best players and deliberately strengthen your rivals? Broja is not a key player and tbh a team like West Ham is probably his level for now.

In my own opinion I am happy with Havertz having a full season as the main man through the middle this year, and if it doesnt work then fine we look elsewhere. Broja would have got plenty of minutes here this season as a back up striker and probably the odd start as well. If he wants to leave and try and be the main man elsewhere, then good luck to him. He's come off the back of scoring 6 goals at Southampton, it's not that impressive. 

If he wants to leave rather than fight for an opportunity at a team who has a 'dire centre forward situation' then that tells me he feels he is probably not good enough to ever be the main man here. 

3 hours ago, Sindre said:

And not just this. The spot he potentially could have had in this squad is literally going to be taken by another youngster of our who's about the same age as Gilmour. And that's Conor Gallagher. Gallagher have quite simply just proved he's a much better footballer and that's why he and not Gilmour will be a key part of the squad and play a lot of games for us this season.

So much for the "Tuchel hates the youngsters and are going to sell them for some shiny toy from abroad" arguments that some stupidos continue to spout.

Hugely simplistic take IMO Sindre. So many variables. For starters Gallagher and Gilmour are very different players, both physically and stylistically. Also the loan "lottery" factor has to be considered.

A great many of us on here, me included, raised doubts about Norwich being the right club for Gilmour, and so it proved. One of the worst EPL teams ever. He could perhaps, for example, have gone to Brighton, a better side, with better players, better manager, and played beside a top draw defensive midfielder in Yves Bissouma. Gilmour's season probably would have turned out completely different.

Personally I do feel Tuchel might think Gilmour is too diminutive and not physical enough for our midfield. He could have a point there I think. We are woefully short of physicality in our midfield and for all his creative vision and range of passing Gilmour won't solve that. There again, we are also woefully short of a midfield player who has creative vision and a wide range of passing with either foot.

Edited July 19, 20223 yr by just

4 minutes ago, drjonesy1994 said:

Because I don't think we should bow to players who automatically assume they should be getting first team football, no player is bigger than the club whether you are a youth academy or not. The difference with Spurs is I am assuming you are referring to players like Kane, Modric and Bale over the years. They are key players who at the time all started for Spurs week in week out, why would you sell your best players and deliberately strengthen your rivals? Broja is not a key player and tbh a team like West Ham is probably his level for now.

In my own opinion I am happy with Havertz having a full season as the main man through the middle this year, and if it doesnt work then fine we look elsewhere. Broja would have got plenty of minutes here this season as a back up striker and probably the odd start as well. If he wants to leave and try and be the main man elsewhere, then good luck to him. He's come off the back of scoring 6 goals at Southampton, it's not that impressive. 

If he wants to leave rather than fight for an opportunity at a team who has a 'dire centre forward situation' then that tells me he feels he is probably not good enough to ever be the main man here. 

But you wouldn't be bowing to him. Nor would you be promising him first team football. You'd be telling him, you are under contract, we see a future for you here, we are desperately short of a quality centre-forward your chance will come, and so under no circumstances are we selling. 

10 minutes ago, just said:

Hugely simplistic take IMO Sindre. So many variables. For starters Gallagher and Gilmour are very different players, both physically and stylistically. Also the loan "lottery" factor has to be considered.

A great many of us on here, me included, raised doubts about Norwich being the right club for Gilmour, and so it proved. One of the worst EPL teams ever. He could perhaps, for example, have gone to Brighton, a better side, with better players, better manager, and played beside a top draw defensive midfielder in Yves Bissouma. Gilmour's season probably would have turned out completely different.

Personally I do feel Tuchel might think Gilmour is too diminutive and not physical enough for our midfield. He could have a point there I think. We are woefully short of physicality in our midfield and for all his creative vision and range of passing Gilmour won't solve that. There again, we are also woefully short of a midfield player who has creative vision and a wide range of passing with either foot.

I don't think we were wrong sending him to Norwich. Remember the Norwich of 19/20 (atleast pre lockdown)? Despite not great results they were getting plaudits for the way they were trying to play and how well the likes of Aarons, Cantwell, Godfrey and Lewis were performing and developing (I remember at the time thinking I wouldn't have been against getting the former two ourselves if we didn't have James and Mount) and Skipp did well for them all be it in a lower division.

I don't think we could have forseen a purist like Farke suddenly sh*tting it and going all Pulis. But even after that he still should have done a lot better. You mention Gallagher, the year before that I don't think we or he forseen him playing under Sam Allardyce for half a season but he made the best of it and look at him now.

1 hour ago, drjonesy1994 said:

If he is to go on loan then I think that makes sense for all involved, but the noise is that he's looking to go permanently. The thing is he needs to go on loan to a team that plays with the ball and not sit deep, trouble is there's not many teams outside of the top 6 who do that and would start him. Brighton or Palace maybe? Going to Norwich was a disaster and the club never should have agreed to that - it should have been clear that they would be whipping boys last season and it would have had an awful effect on Gilmour and his development. Hindsight is a wonderful thing eh. 

I love your analogy for your second point, and I do agree. But then who would you make redundant in that scenario - Barkley who has been there for years and will cost more to pay him off, or the new kid Gilmour with a relatively cheap pay off? Again from a business point of view, you're going to take the option thats cheaper or makes you the most money, whether that's right or not. 

My initial point at the start of our conversation was the wages that the old board have set for those types of players have left us lumbered with players we can't sell. I agree I would have liked to see Gilmour at least get some minutes in pre-season, the fact that he has been sent home is of course entirely Tuchel's decision, and nothing to do with Marina etc. 

I can agree with your post except the second point. Businesses have been making redundant the older, better paid generation for the best part of this century replacing them with cheaper, newer recruits. In the short term it may make more financial sense not to negotiate redundancy packages with the older “gits”, but in the medium to long term it makes sense to them (and I am not advocating for this to be right, it’s just simply how businesses and the ones on top have been doing things). And we’ve done that with our biggest (in price and size) mistake, Lukaku, taking a heavy loss of money.

Found on reddit:

Since his arrival on January 26 of 2021, Thomas Tuchel had fielded 14 Cobham graduates in competitive matches, with 6 being given over 1000 minutes. Those being: Mason (5,967'), Reece (4,781'), AC (4,008'), CHO (2,842'), Chalobah (2,305'), and RLC (2,250'). With 1 of those 6 being let go on a free.

Klopp, who has been at Liverpool for 5 years and 4 months longer, also has given 6 Melwood graduates over 1000 minutes. With 3 sent out on loan or sold by Klopp.

Guardiola, who has been at city for 4 years and 6 months longer, has given 3 academy graduates over 1000 minutes. With 2 being sold or let go on a free.

Arteta, who has been at Arsenal for 1 year and 1 month longer, has given 7 Hale end graduates over 1000 minutes. With 4 being sent out on loan or sold by Arteta.

Current European and LaLiga champions, Real Madrid, only have 3 academy products who racked up more than 1000 minutes last season with all 3 of them being over 30 years of age.

European powerhouse, Bayern Munich, only had 2 academy products rack up over 1000 minutes last season with one of them being Thomas muller.

PSG, who have arguably the best academy in Europe, only had 1 academy product rack up over 1000 minutes last season.

Barcelona's famous La Masia has only produced 5 players who have played over 1000s minutes in LaLiga for the club since 2020.

9 minutes ago, Argo said:

Found on reddit:

Since his arrival on January 26 of 2021, Thomas Tuchel had fielded 14 Cobham graduates in competitive matches, with 6 being given over 1000 minutes. Those being: Mason (5,967'), Reece (4,781'), AC (4,008'), CHO (2,842'), Chalobah (2,305'), and RLC (2,250'). With 1 of those 6 being let go on a free.

Klopp, who has been at Liverpool for 5 years and 4 months longer, also has given 6 Melwood graduates over 1000 minutes. With 3 sent out on loan or sold by Klopp.

Guardiola, who has been at city for 4 years and 6 months longer, has given 3 academy graduates over 1000 minutes. With 2 being sold or let go on a free.

Arteta, who has been at Arsenal for 1 year and 1 month longer, has given 7 Hale end graduates over 1000 minutes. With 4 being sent out on loan or sold by Arteta.

Current European and LaLiga champions, Real Madrid, only have 3 academy products who racked up more than 1000 minutes last season with all 3 of them being over 30 years of age.

European powerhouse, Bayern Munich, only had 2 academy products rack up over 1000 minutes last season with one of them being Thomas muller.

PSG, who have arguably the best academy in Europe, only had 1 academy product rack up over 1000 minutes last season.

Barcelona's famous La Masia has only produced 5 players who have played over 1000s minutes in LaLiga for the club since 2020.

Evidence for that?

I think we're a bit too knee-jerk-y already. It's only game 1 of preseason. 

Tuchel gave youth players chances, it's up to them to perform. Mason/James/Chalobah all took their chances when they got them. You just can't expect him to keep giving free minutes just because you come from the Chelsea Academy. It breeds the wrong mentality

1 hour ago, just said:

Hugely simplistic take IMO Sindre. So many variables. For starters Gallagher and Gilmour are very different players, both physically and stylistically. Also the loan "lottery" factor has to be considered.

A great many of us on here, me included, raised doubts about Norwich being the right club for Gilmour, and so it proved. One of the worst EPL teams ever. He could perhaps, for example, have gone to Brighton, a better side, with better players, better manager, and played beside a top draw defensive midfielder in Yves Bissouma. Gilmour's season probably would have turned out completely different.

Personally I do feel Tuchel might think Gilmour is too diminutive and not physical enough for our midfield. He could have a point there I think. We are woefully short of physicality in our midfield and for all his creative vision and range of passing Gilmour won't solve that. There again, we are also woefully short of a midfield player who has creative vision and a wide range of passing with either foot.

My point was that this whole agenda that Tuchel hates the youngsters is ridiculous. I think we can all agree that Gallagher is both the better player and a better fit stylistically for what we need now and that's why he's staying and Gilmour probably won't be staying. But that fact that Gallagher is staying should in my opinion shut up those who believe there is an ongoing agenda against the youth from Tuchel's side.

If you'd listen to some on here you'd think we should give Vale, Soonsup-Bell, Simons, Lewis Hall, Gilmour, Colwill and Broja significant minutes this season in addition to everyone else. And if the likes of Hall, Vale and Simons don't play for us this season it's because the manager got some agenda against them. Just ridiculous stuff like that.

I can only be thankful they aren't in charge of the team because we'd be nowhere near Top 4 if they were. We are trying to compete with some absolute machines in City & Liverpool and Tottenham who's going all out to support Conte + United and Arsenal so only the very, very best like Gallagher will make it here at the club. At that is the way it should be for a club of our ambitions in my opinion.

7 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

Evidence for that?

It was voted the best in 2019 and 2020. I guess best is debatable hence the arguably bit but it for sure looks there or there abouts.

https://en.psg.fr/youth-teams/about#:~:text=Voted best Youth Academy by,for the last few seasons.

1 hour ago, just said:

Hugely simplistic take IMO Sindre. So many variables. For starters Gallagher and Gilmour are very different players, both physically and stylistically. Also the loan "lottery" factor has to be considered.

A great many of us on here, me included, raised doubts about Norwich being the right club for Gilmour, and so it proved. One of the worst EPL teams ever. He could perhaps, for example, have gone to Brighton, a better side, with better players, better manager, and played beside a top draw defensive midfielder in Yves Bissouma. Gilmour's season probably would have turned out completely different.

Personally I do feel Tuchel might think Gilmour is too diminutive and not physical enough for our midfield. He could have a point there I think. We are woefully short of physicality in our midfield and for all his creative vision and range of passing Gilmour won't solve that. There again, we are also woefully short of a midfield player who has creative vision and a wide range of passing with either foot.

A simplistic take would have been this:

Gilmour failed in his loan spell and Gallagher succeeded, so Gallagher gets the minutes to prove he can be vital to the team. 

The point of a loan is to:

1) Learn(steal/gather) every knowledge and information to improve the loanee's unique style of football

2) Become the best player/crucial player in the loaning team. 

If the loanee can't accomplish both then it'd be very tough for him to succeed at this level. 

5 hours ago, azpi28 said:

i have the feeling TT doesn't think that a USA tour is the best preparation for a season 

Also said Broja went home to nurse his injuries not to sign for WH. And the players that were sent to train with the reserves are in a seperate camp in the US, they weren't sent back to the UK as some papers mentioned.

2 hours ago, Argo said:

I don't think we were wrong sending him to Norwich. Remember the Norwich of 19/20 (atleast pre lockdown)? Despite not great results they were getting plaudits for the way they were trying to play and how well the likes of Aarons, Cantwell, Godfrey and Lewis were performing and developing (I remember at the time thinking I wouldn't have been against getting the former two ourselves if we didn't have James and Mount) and Skipp did well for them all be it in a lower division.

I don't think we could have forseen a purist like Farke suddenly sh*tting it and going all Pulis. But even after that he still should have done a lot better. You mention Gallagher, the year before that I don't think we or he forseen him playing under Sam Allardyce for half a season but he made the best of it and look at him now.

Personally, I think Gallagher is exactly the type of player Big Sam would work well with. All action, covers lots of ground, not frightened to make a tackle.

As for Norwich there were a good many on here who felt it was the wrong loan for Gilmour and strongly voiced that opinion. The perennial yo-yo team, relegated from the EPL more times than any other club. You name checked Aaron's, Cantwell, Godfrey and Lewis as supposedly being decent players. I really don't think they are Argo. Either at the start of last season or now. None of them would make it at Chelsea IMO.

 

19 minutes ago, just said:

As for Norwich there were a good many on here who felt it was the wrong loan for Gilmour and strongly voiced that opinion. The perennial yo-yo team, relegated from the EPL more times than any other club. You name checked Aaron's, Cantwell, Godfrey and Lewis as supposedly being decent players. I really don't think they are Argo. Either at the start of last season or now. None of them would make it at Chelsea IMO.

Mathias Normann did well for them in midfield tbf. Gilmour simply didn't get going there.

With that said I like Gilmour. There is a lot of potential there and who knows, in time he could perhaps develop into a player in the "Modric-mold". Preferably I would have liked a loan for him but it's understandable if he wants a permanent club where he will be in the XI every week. Perhaps he will go back to Rangers for all I know.

 

 

1 hour ago, just said:

Personally, I think Gallagher is exactly the type of player Big Sam would work well with. All action, covers lots of ground, not frightened to make a tackle.

As for Norwich there were a good many on here who felt it was the wrong loan for Gilmour and strongly voiced that opinion. The perennial yo-yo team, relegated from the EPL more times than any other club. You name checked Aaron's, Cantwell, Godfrey and Lewis as supposedly being decent players. I really don't think they are Argo. Either at the start of last season or now. None of them would make it at Chelsea IMO.

 

In hindsight I'd agree I overrated Cantwell but I think Aarons has something about him. Bayern have had their eye on him in the past, not sure if they still do.

And I know many said it was a bad move but I thought it would a decent one and if Farke stuck to his blueprint last time they were up I believe they would have been even if the end result was another relegation.

Edited July 19, 20223 yr by Argo