This is almost unbelievable. But its true. Chelsea now have a remarkable 38 players out on loan as Antonio Conte allowed more fringe players to leave Stamford Bridge on transfer deadline day. The Blues have been mocked for the huge number of young squad members they've had out on loan in recent years, and that criticism looks only set to increase following the club's actions in this summer's window. Juan Cuadrado, Loic Remy and Bertrand Traore are just three of the 38 players who will look for more regular football away from the London club in the season ahead, a number that almost beggars belief when it's analysed in depth. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...n-joins-Fulham-loan-Chelsea-January-2017.html
It was said in that discussion where it was claimed clubs only go for young man u players because they're Man U players. Surprised you missed it you were in the discussion. I think Chelsea produce more. Not with the same success or moral duty to the player but I think they defo produce more. They've been hoovering up Europe's talent for years and loaning them all over the shop. Man U have more care and attention imo, waste less careers. Better set up but not as prolific in numbers. Chelsea run like a sweat shop factory.
Yeah, I thought you meant there was some official figures somewhere, I was gonna say the amount of players they 'hoover up' as you say that would surprise me. The problem isn't the hoovering, it's the coaching and the nurturing of talent. I can't think of too many success stories out of the Chelsea academy, in recent years, but I'm sure there's method to their madness somewhere. A lot of the players they send out on loan each season are seniors as well, that they've forked out a lot of money for. Remy, Cuadrado, Baba Rahman, Kenedy, to name a few.
I think the potential problems with Chelsea's set up is Can they offer enough one on one time with the kids. It's logical it works exactly the same as with all education, take the class room, it's proven the bigger the classes the worse the progress as time to individual needs is massively reduced. The second would be the their reliance on other clubs to continue their development on their behalf. If you you're loaning out less players you can give more attention to the club you send it too. Chelsea just seem to lend whoever wants them. Oh they're always plenty of seniors sent out by them I was just sticking to youth because of the OP. I'd ban loans except for U23s.
I'd have to disagree on the success, I'd probably say Chelsea have one of the most productive youth academies in the world, granted it's far from local talent but in terms of quality their players go on to have a lot of success and most players go on loan to La Liga, Bundesliga and the Eredivisie rather than the lower leagues of Britain. One player I rate very highly is Charly Musonda on loan still I believe at the greatest Spanish club, Real Betis. Very very quick and skilful he's definitely one to watch out for in future.
Had a cracking team when I was a young lad and started watching La Liga on sky, Jaoquin, Denilson, Assuncao etc and followed them ever since. Bored me to tears last Friday though, their game finished 0-0 lots of possession, few chances, typical Gus Poyet team!
Lewis Baker at Vitesse Arnhem, he looks a hell of a prospect. Centre midfielder who also plays for England under 21's.
Can remember watching Reuben Loftus-Cheek in an England under 16's game a few years back and as well as his superior height he was head and shoulders above everyone else, he seems to be involved in the 1st team squad quite a bit now
That's Chelsea's feeder team innit? As for the rest, I'm sure Chelsea just juggle them to fulfil the homegrown/English quota, when they need a position filled, in the first team they just wait until the next transfer window, after making do with players out of position. Rashford come out of our academy when we were in the ****, and saved us probably £50m+ this summer.
Odd that you should be discussing MU & Chelski MU just bought back for a record amount, Paul Pogba, a player that they let go for about £2mil only a couple of years or so ago. Cheski are rumoured to have been trying to prize Lukaku from Everton. Rumour says £75mil That's about £50mil more that Everton paid for him. So perhaps neither club can be to boastful about their youth set up. I know we can all make mistakes but with Lukaku in particular he had shown his quality while out on Loan. If just about every Fan in the country rated him, how come he slipped through the Chelsea talent spotters net.
What's that got to do with a youth setup? The reason Pogba went to Juventus is because he wasn't offered a contract he was happy to sign, Fergie was pushing through Cleverley ahead of him and he left for that reason, nobody else but Fergie should be fingered with the blame for that one. As for Chelsea, Lukaku didn't fit into Mourinho's tactics, but that doesn't matter anyhow as he wasn't ever a product of their youth system, he was signed for £15m aged 17/18 IIRC.
That makes no sense to me fella. They're both products of their respective clubs. The money lost isn't lost at youth level is it? It's lost in the board room, in the CEO's office and the managers office. The youth academy did their job 100% and produced two fantastic footballers. Have to disagree fella. That's just putting mistakes made elsewhere in the company on that department unfairly imo. It's like saying if we sold Asoro in Jan for 10m and bought him back for 20m a couple of years later. that it's all Elliot Dickman's fault for being head coach of the u18s. It would be total scapegoating imo.
I'd say they get partial credit like we do with Watmore. Taking them on at the back end of the scholarship. But if you count that, as you say, it's still not the fault of their youth system. Fully agree marra.
