The Official Chelsea Thread [Vol 2]

[Black can man]

Does anybody on here know just how many players Chelsea have out on loan ?

[The jiffle king]

Assume Pogba is just paper talk?

[Challo]

Black can man said:

Does anybody on here know just how many players Chelsea have out on loan ?

I think it was quoted as 28 i think?

[GarryDK]

Black can man said:

Does anybody on here know just how many players Chelsea have out on loan ?

Nathan Ake
Wallace
Andreas Christensen
Todd Kane
Alex Davey
Kenneth Omeruo
Tomas Kalas
Marko Marin
Jordan Houghton
Isaiah Brown
Mohamed Salah
Gael Kakuta
Nathan
Cristian Cuevas
Marco van Ginkel
Juan Guillermo Cuadrado
Christian Atsu
Danilo Pantic
Mario Pasalic
Lewis Baker
Stipe Perica
Ulises Davila
Patrick Bamford
Dominic Solanke
Joao Rodriguez Gonzalez

[bodhi]

London424 said:

Could replace him with Klopp.

Last rumour I heard was that Klopp was off to Zenit to replace AVB.

[m3sye]

Cikey only Chelsea fans would talk about getting rid of a manger who is the current champion, 4 games into a new season......

[Negative Creep]

Not really, I've already heard calls for Rodgers, van gaal and Wenger to be sacked

[GT03ROB]

GT03ROB said:

.....Jose will be gone by Christmas.....

I can see him jumping, rather than being pushed.

[Wacky Racer]

m3sye said:

Cikey only Chelsea fans would talk about getting rid of a manger who is the current champion, 4 games into a new season......

City fans did the same with Mancini.

Now't new.

[m3sye]

Negative Creep said:

Not really, I've already heard calls for Rodgers, van gaal and Wenger to be sacked

Jose won you the league last year, Rodgers got us 7th , i could go on about the other 2 as reasons for them to be sacked but there is none for Jose , just fking ridiculous...

[968]

What is bizarre is there is no call back for Kalas!

[smn159]

Unless I've missed something no-one is calling for Jose to be sacked. If there are problems then they are with whoever should have been doing the recruiting over the summer - believe that JM provided a list of transfer targets quite early on which for various reasons haven't been achieved.

[DeltonaS]

GarryDK said:

Black can man said:

Does anybody on here know just how many players Chelsea have out on loan ?

Nathan Ake
Wallace
Andreas Christensen
Todd Kane
Alex Davey
Kenneth Omeruo
Tomas Kalas
Marko Marin
Jordan Houghton
Isaiah Brown
Mohamed Salah
Gael Kakuta
Nathan
Cristian Cuevas
Marco van Ginkel
Juan Guillermo Cuadrado
Christian Atsu
Danilo Pantic
Mario Pasalic
Lewis Baker
Stipe Perica
Ulises Davila
Patrick Bamford
Dominic Solanke
Joao Rodriguez Gonzalez

+ Lucas Piazon (21 year old Brazilian just started his 4th season on loan for Chelsea, with 4 different clubs in 4 different country's).

Chelsea's Foreign Legion, anymore missing ( in action;-) ?

Terrible club.

[toasty]

Challo said:

Black can man said:

Does anybody on here know just how many players Chelsea have out on loan ?

I think it was quoted as 28 i think?

They said on Talksport it was now 33 after today's transfers.

I really don't know who benefits from this. Is it short term cash for the smaller clubs and a longer term investment for Chelsea?

[trackdemon]

+Victor Moses @ West Ham.... Sign new contract extension, immediately loan out. Buy-to-let players.

[Negative Creep]

smn159 said:

Unless I've missed something no-one is calling for Jose to be sacked. If there are problems then they are with whoever should have been doing the recruiting over the summer - believe that JM provided a list of transfer targets quite early on which for various reasons haven't been achieved.

Can't help but wonder if those last two transfers are Jose's way of complaining about our transfer policy

[bodhi]

Good article on our summer spending on WAGNH, seems to put it all in perspective and has some good quotes from Jose.

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2015/9/2/91...

[DeltonaS]

bodhi said:

Good article on our summer spending on WAGNH, seems to put it all in perspective and has some good quotes from Jose.

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2015/9/2/91...

Good article ?? from the NOT SO independent Chelsea community weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com.....


"Chelsea's loan army, by the way, is now thirty-three players strong, the largest its ever been (to keep track of them all, the always-excellent @chelseayouth created this unique Google Map).

There has been a bit of grumbling about Chelsea's innovation with regards to the loan system, but there is no question that it benefits all parties involved.

When a young player signs for Chelsea and is then sent on loan, he receives a massive wage increase and is provided with the opportunity to earn first-team football that just isn't possible at Stamford Bridge, where each of the eleven starters is an established star, both at the club level and on the international stage.

The loaning club gets the services of a talented young player that it wouldn't have otherwise been able to sign, and Chelsea gets help in developing their talented (and cost-effective) young players."

"There's no question it benefits all parties involved"....Bullst ofcourse.

It only benefits Chelsea. Take Piazon as an example he signes for Chelsea but is on loan for 4 years for 4 different clubs, went form Portugal, to Vitesse, to Frankfurt, and now to Reading; first of all, whats he doing in the Championship at Reading after the Bundesliga and the Dutch Eredivisie, makes no sence; dumped by Chelsea. Secondly he gets a new country, playing style, coach, language, living environment, etc.etc. every year without having a say in it. And without ever playing 1 minute for Chelsea. Yes, he probably gets a decent salary but from a career perspective, as a youngster, he would be better of at 1 club only for a number of years where he can play each week and grow and develop as a player.

Another exaple; the Dutch side Vitesse, a Chelsea branch, gets on average 3 to 4 young talented Chelsea players a year (eg. Traore last season), just 1 year, then their taken away, add a few transfers and Vitesse is forced to start every season at 0. Consequence; first of all it means distortion of the Dutch Leaque. Secondly Vitesse played Southampton in the EL playoffs, 1st match of the season, lots of (Chelsea)talent on the pitch, but a completey new squad, never played with eachother therefore lost without chance. But Chelsea isn't interested in Vitesse's elimination, nor in the Dutch leaque.

Chelsea has 1 aim; is not even interested in the 33 talents they have either; their interest lies in the 1 a year that they can add to their own squad; this year Traore. Therby avoiding a)huge transfer fees for talent and b) Financial Fair Play.

If Chelsea wants to develop young talent; they should do it in their own youth academy.

The UEFA should maximize the number of players on loan per club.

[bodhi]

DeltonaS said:

Good article ?? from the NOT SO independent Chelsea community weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com.....


"Chelsea's loan army, by the way, is now thirty-three players strong, the largest its ever been (to keep track of them all, the always-excellent @chelseayouth created this unique Google Map).

There has been a bit of grumbling about Chelsea's innovation with regards to the loan system, but there is no question that it benefits all parties involved.

When a young player signs for Chelsea and is then sent on loan, he receives a massive wage increase and is provided with the opportunity to earn first-team football that just isn't possible at Stamford Bridge, where each of the eleven starters is an established star, both at the club level and on the international stage.

The loaning club gets the services of a talented young player that it wouldn't have otherwise been able to sign, and Chelsea gets help in developing their talented (and cost-effective) young players."

"There's no question it benefits all parties involved"....Bullst ofcourse.

It only benefits Chelsea. Take Piazon as an example he signes for Chelsea but is on loan for 4 years for 4 different clubs, went form Portugal, to Vitesse, to Frankfurt, and now to Reading; first of all, whats he doing in the Championship at Reading after the Bundesliga and the Dutch Eredivisie, makes no sence; dumped by Chelsea. Secondly he gets a new country, playing style, coach, language, living environment, etc.etc. every year without having a say in it. And without ever playing 1 minute for Chelsea. Yes, he probably gets a decent salary but from a career perspective, as a youngster, he would be better of at 1 club only for a number of years where he can play each week and grow and develop as a player.

Another exaple; the Dutch side Vitesse, a Chelsea branch, gets on average 3 to 4 young talented Chelsea players a year (eg. Traore last season), just 1 year, then their taken away, add a few transfers and Vitesse is forced to start every season at 0. Consequence; first of all it means distortion of the Dutch Leaque. Secondly Vitesse played Southampton in the EL playoffs, 1st match of the season, lots of (Chelsea)talent on the pitch, but a completey new squad, never played with eachother therefore lost without chance. But Chelsea isn't interested in Vitesse's elimination, nor in the Dutch leaque.

Chelsea has 1 aim; is not even interested in the 33 talents they have either; their interest lies in the 1 a year that they can add to their own squad; this year Traore. Therby avoiding a)huge transfer fees for talent and b) Financial Fair Play.

If Chelsea wants to develop young talent; they should do it in their own youth academy.

The UEFA should maximize the number of players on loan per club.

I know, silly me - posting an article from a Chelsea fan site on a Chelsea thread. It's almost I was expecting it to be of interest to Chelsea fans, not bitter trolls from rival clubs.

I'm pretty sure Chelsea's interest lies in affording these young players some playing time and experience of different leagues to see how they develop - those who are first team material join up with the first team squad (Traore, RLC), those that don't get sold, often at a tidy profit (Lukaku, De Bruyne). The clubs taking the loan player on gain a player at a much reduced cost, and the player gets a chance to play and develop better than they would in Chelsea Reserves or rotting on the bench. Sounds like a win win to me.

The thing you have to bear in mind as well, is that in order to have 33 players out on loan, there have to be other clubs out there who see what we are doing and would like to take advantage. As we have 33 out on loan now, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of such clubs.

[m3sye]

bodhi said:

I know, silly me - posting an article from a Chelsea fan site on a Chelsea thread. It's almost I was expecting it to be of interest to Chelsea fans, not bitter trolls from rival clubs.

.

I am not sure his reply comes across as a troll at all, comes across without a different view point which makes a discussion ???