7 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

This is the exact model. It is doomed to failure IMO ultimately as you have suggested as all of those coming up behind would have been purchased and would therefore have an FFP impact and those remaining academy lads won't have the opportunity to shine to have any saleability in the market anyway.

How does a lad like Kiano Dyer get to showcase himself through loans or first team cameos if we already have 5 south american 16 year old midfielders ready to come in when permits allow, already in the position. 

I get the mopdel and it partly makes sense, but there seems little if any sustainability with it.

My issue with the model is not the fact we are happy to sell academy players, because that has been pretty normal across the board anyway. 

The issue I have is how much money we are spending on players that have achieved nothing, and how much we are willing to spend on potential. 

If you go back check the top 100 u21 players from 10 years ago, this board wouldve paid £50m for Barkley, £25m for Kerlon, £20m for Kerrison, £30m for Promes etc. 

Now with hindsight we know that wouldve been dead money.

The question is how many of these £700m+ under 21 players get close to fulfilling there potential? If we dont get 4 or 5 absolute gems, then what position will that leave the club in? 

It's very difficult to predict which u21 players go on to have stellar careers, I think we shouldve spent more on players in their mid 20's who have already established themselves as good players, and who could turn into great players in the next couple of years. 

Massive gamble in my humble opinion.

16 minutes ago, big blue said:

My issue with the model is not the fact we are happy to sell academy players, because that has been pretty normal across the board anyway. 

The issue I have is how much money we are spending on players that have achieved nothing, and how much we are willing to spend on potential. 

If you go back check the top 100 u21 players from 10 years ago, this board wouldve paid £50m for Barkley, £25m for Kerlon, £20m for Kerrison, £30m for Promes etc. 

Now with hindsight we know that wouldve been dead money.

The question is how many of these £700m+ under 21 players get close to fulfilling there potential? If we dont get 4 or 5 absolute gems, then what position will that leave the club in? 

It's very difficult to predict which u21 players go on to have stellar careers, I think we shouldve spent more on players in their mid 20's who have already established themselves as good players, and who could turn into great players in the next couple of years. 

Massive gamble in my humble opinion.

A lot of it depends on character, so the hope is the due diligence in that regard is done. For example, I would have without hesitation paid £30m for a teenage Barkley if I did my research and found out he had Gallagher or Lampard's drive and desire (if he had that he was 99% going to the top), I would have without a moments thought paid even more for an 18 year old Reece James if someone else had him.

Funnily enough we did do a similar youth project 10 years ago and if we held our nerve that time it would have resulted in one of the best attacks this leagues ever seen.

So now we really need to tie him down to a new deal

4 minutes ago, Adamrb said:

So now we really need to tie him down to a new deal

Don't think he signs unless he gets game time. Given we tried to move him on that may not help matters.

3 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Don't think he signs unless he gets game time. Given we tried to move him on that may not help matters.

It's not a good look - accepting an offer to get a player out, then offering a new contract.

It might have been mind games from Chelsea - We accepted the offer because you haven't accepted the contract renewal.

Fact is Chelsea want him to stay but he hasn't signed the contract yet.

I can’t imagine he plays unless he signs

3 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

It's not a good look - accepting an offer to get a player out, then offering a new contract.

Au contraire, it sends a strong message about the commitment from the player that is required.

Sign the new contract or we will sell you.

Still think he'll be sold in January mind you, and the same goes for Chalobah. Gallagher I think might get a stay of execution as he's started the season well and is clearly in the manager's plans for the starting XI as it stands (remains to be seen if that is the case when other players have recovered from injury)

Decent performance against Brighton. 

It's interesting to see that since the beginning of the season, Pochettino uses him as an attacking player.

What I liked him in that he played very simple and did the right things, he worked very well in defense and helped Cucurella especially when we took the lead and Brighton put more shift into the game. 

He's a quality player and also interesting to see him as a LB. This season we're not that good in attack by our fullbacks so far.. maybe with Chilwell injured , we can use him there to see what he can offer in attack as LB.

while he does have some good awareness and looks decent in attack, i still think he needs to be played as LB as there are better options that we can play in attack over him. 

 

Has he signed an extension yet?

46 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Has he signed an extension yet?

No. Seems he also turned down two contract offers before the Burnley deal which he declined.

32 minutes ago, dermott said:

No. Seems he also turned down two contract offers before the Burnley deal which he declined.

He is trying to play into a bigger deal. Let's say he plays 5 games in a row and is excellent his weekly salary could double. I think he is doing the right thing. He wants to stay but if his playtime is very low till January he looks a move away which would be much easier without a long big money deal. This is what Matt Law said of him.

Not sure how anyone can watch Maatsen play and still want him to play LB. 

Poch has likely watched videos of him at LB for Burnley. Defence wasn't a strong point, in fact not really a priority. It didn't matter so much at Burnley because they were a class above their Championship rivals. 

Maatsen now contracted until 2025:

 

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-fc-ian-maatsen-contract-barcelona-b1114529.html

Better than losing on a free. 

48 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Better than losing on a free. 

 

Was always going to be tricky to give him game time with Chilwell here and being unable to shift Cucurella in summer. Didn't expect to see Colwill being used as an actual LB either. 

Seems to be fighting for a position in attack now where we're also stacked.

Lets hope he can keep working hard and force Poch's hand to get into the starting 11. Would be a shame to lose another academy product, but we could get £30m+ for him in summer. 

I don't think either Poch or the directors view Maatsen as a left back. Even at Burnley he was poor defensively and judging from what we've seen at Burnley and with us his value is certainly in the attacking end. 

Think we sell in January. 

21 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

I don't think either Poch or the directors view Maatsen as a left back. Even at Burnley he was poor defensively and judging from what we've seen at Burnley and with us his value is certainly in the attacking end. 

Think we sell in January. 

I'm worried if the directors opinion on a players position is being listened to.

His defensive numbers at Burnley last season are better than Chilwell's. Don't get this myth that gets regurgitated online about him being a bad defender at Burnley.

For comparison with Robertson and Zinchenko, who most would agree are of the standard we should be after (Robertson multiple title winner and Zinchenko, although a whiny little bitch, is challenging for the league).

2 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

I'm worried if the directors opinion on a players position is being listened to.

His defensive numbers at Burnley last season are better than Chilwell's. Don't get this myth that gets regurgitated online about him being a bad defender at Burnley.

For comparison with Robertson and Zinchenko, who most would agree are of the standard we should be after (Robertson multiple title winner and Zinchenko, although a whiny little bitch, is challenging for the league).

It's not just the directors, its Poch as well who not once played Maatsen at LB. 

Also not sure comparing metrics with two different reference points, the Premier League & The Championship is the best way about it. 

4 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Also not sure comparing metrics with two different reference points, the Premier League & The Championship is the best way about it. 

How else is he supposed to compare them since they're the respective leagues they played in? 

6 minutes ago, Gonoir Beniashile said:

How else is he supposed to compare them since they're the respective leagues they played in? 

Comparing players by their defensive metrics when the leagues in question are vastly different in quality will carry loads of discrepancies. I can only go by who actually watches him the most, and Burnley fans have praised his attacking qualities yet criticized his defensive game. Think his development has naturally blossomed his attacking game ala Bukayo Saka. From what I've seen so far from him in a Chelsea kit, LB is honestly one of the last positions i'd play him. He's a winger or CAM for me. 

Essentially a victim of circumstance. Can't get a game in attack even with Nkunku and Carney injured, and the club clearly don't value him as a LB. 

16 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

It's not just the directors, its Poch as well who not once played Maatsen at LB. 

Also not sure comparing metrics with two different reference points, the Premier League & The Championship is the best way about it. 

Not been played there because of the abundance of options we have tbf.

I don't see why they're not comparable. Burnley walked the Championship, so having such good defensive numbers in that side is even more impressive. Are we never able to compare players unless they've played in the same league?