Player Suggestion Marcus Edwards

[BushBlade]

To be fair Blackwell deserves most of the credit for their development.

We certainly played some attractive, exciting and successful football under Blackwell. I'd take him back tomorrow.

 

[CockneyBlade93]

We certainly played some attractive, exciting and successful football under Blackwell. I'd take him back tomorrow.

Hoooooooofffffffff.

 

[CockneyBlade93]

Touché on the research, though I wouldn't use Chelsea as an example, as their loan system seems to be more focused on finances rather than player development.

As for Spurs, I hadn't realised they had that many kids out on loan. I dare say that the most valuable youngsters stayed with Tottenham though. I think it's more likely that they were in the shop window as opposed to being thought of as future stars.

Didn't work out bad for the likes of Tammy Abraham, Nathan Ake, John Swift.. but I do understand where you're coming from.

Harry Kane was on loan at Leyton Orient, Millwall, Norwich and Leicester. Wonder if it's too late to get him in on loan

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Didn't work out bad for the likes of Tammy Abraham, Nathan Ake, John Swift.. but I do understand where you're coming from.

Harry Kane was on loan at Leyton Orient, Millwall, Norwich and Leicester. Wonder if it's too late to get him in on loan

Kane is fortunate. He did the square root of feckall during all loan spells (swindon included). He was only thrust into the first team when short and looked like a headless chicken..

Then one day it just seemed to click.

 

[BushBlade]

Kane is fortunate. He did the square root of feckall during all loan spells (swindon included). He was only thrust into the first team when short and looked like a headless chicken..

Then one day it just seemed to click.

He was advised he lacked pace so he spent a lot of time on his own working on it. He trains very hard. That probably made the difference. It was in the Europa League where he made his breakthrough. You're right, he was crap on loan and was close to being shown the door.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

He was advised he lacked pace so he spent a lot of time on his own working on it. He trains very hard. That probably made the difference. It was in the Europa League where he made his breakthrough. You're right, he was crap on loan and was close to being shown the door.

THing is, Pace is something you either have, or you don't. You can't become Linford Christie if the basic components aren't there.

However....I do agree, he seems to have a lot more pace, power and directness in his play now than initially. His transformation reminds me of Dolph Lundgren in Rocky IV.

 

[Chali 2na]

Didn't work out bad for the likes of Tammy Abraham, Nathan Ake, John Swift.. but I do understand where you're coming from.

Harry Kane was on loan at Leyton Orient, Millwall, Norwich and Leicester. Wonder if it's too late to get him in on loan

Abraham, Ake and Swift aren't the finished article yet, none of them are first team regulars at Chelsea.

I think you'll find it very difficult to find many examples of players who Chelsea have "developed" who has then made it into their 1st team.

 

[BushBlade]

THing is, Pace is something you either have, or you don't. You can't become Linford Christie if the basic components aren't there.

However....I do agree, he seems to have a lot more pace, power and directness in his play now than initially. His transformation reminds me of Dolph Lundgren in Rocky IV.

I always thought it was more or less fixed but apparently you can improve it through training. Yeah, I get the Dolph Lundgren thing, I remember commenting to my (Spurs supporting) mate how quick he'd become.

He reminds me of Lampard, not that naturally talented but the product of good coaching and hard work.

 

[BushBlade]

Abraham, Ake and Swift aren't the finished article yet, none of them are first team regulars at Chelsea.

I think you'll find it very difficult to find many examples of players who Chelsea have "developed" who has then made it into their 1st team.

Ake won't be playing in Chelsea's first team. They've sold him to Bournemouth.

I think players are starting to work Chelsea out. Stay there until you're around 21, play in all the youth tournaments for your club and country, earn a shit load, go on loan, start your real career with another club.

 

[Chali 2na]

Ake won't be playing in Chelsea's first team. They've sold him to Bournemouth.

I think players are starting to work Chelsea out. Stay there until you're around 21, play in all the youth tournaments for your club and country, earn a shit load, go on loan, start your real career with another club.

That's my point Bush. CockneyBlade93 was implying Chelsea's system is effective and I disagreed

 

[CockneyBlade93]

It depends what you'd class effective. I know the vast majority of them won't make a team like Chelsea's first 11 but they still produce some top players at our level and prem level. I agree with you that it's financially driven but I'm only concerned about what will benefit us, tapping into the loan market definitely could IMO.

 

[Grizzly blade]

If you consider producing players for other clubs lower down the pyramid a success then well done Chelsea.

However, as they have invested very heavily in the academy, and invested huge sums to attract talent from all over Europe and still produced few if any players for their current first team I would say it's a fail.

Whatever level you are at, the idea should be to supply players for the team and avert the huge cost of buying a player for every position in the squad.
Besides, new regs regarding home grown players in the squad should make things an improvement..:but they along with others will find a way around it.

Fact is.they need the finished article. They cannot wait around and players only get better with games.
That's why if my son had the choice of a prem league club in say top 6, or a club elsewhere to learn his trade I would always direct him elsewhere.
Unless your kids is one of the one in a lifetime wonder kids they may as well go and play.
It's a short career. They should be encouraged to make the most of it. Not just look to earn the most money.

 

[mancunianblade]

If you consider producing players for other clubs lower down the pyramid a success then well done Chelsea.

However, as they have invested very heavily in the academy, and invested huge sums to attract talent from all over Europe and still produced few if any players for their current first team I would say it's a fail.

Whatever level you are at, the idea should be to supply players for the team and avert the huge cost of buying a player for every position in the squad.
Besides, new regs regarding home grown players in the squad should make things an improvement..:but they along with others will find a way around it.

Fact is.they need the finished article. They cannot wait around and players only get better with games.
That's why if my son had the choice of a prem league club in say top 6, or a club elsewhere to learn his trade I would always direct him elsewhere.
Unless your kids is one of the one in a lifetime wonder kids they may as well go and play.
It's a short career. They should be encouraged to make the most of it. Not just look to earn the most money.

Id say much to my annoyance Chelsea and City have it sussed and stitched up, only the authorities can undo what they are doing.

3 years running Chelsea and City has been the U23 final hasn't it? Chelsea academy costs £9m to run every year add to that the cost of signing the worlds best kids and lets say £25m/£30m the £9m is fact the last figure is pure guess work.

they then loan these players out once they reach 17/18/19/20 to top tier European teams, put them all in the shop window, if they excel beyond all expectation they bring them back to the first team, if they simply excel then Clubs coming knocking and they sell them, See Ake £20m and Kamara £10m, so two players have covered the cost of the academy and youth recruitment for the year this happens every year, they insert clauses in the contract of those who have left where they can exercise a buy back for a nominal fee close to the fee they sold them so say Ake becomes Rio Ferdinand in 3 years, they can buy him back for £20m which will be a bargain.all the while helping pay for experienced recruitment and meeting FFP

Chelsea have a kid out on loan at Gladbach who has made 61 apps for them and been in CL teams of the week, a CB at 21 performing that well, knocking back bids of £15m+ already, add to that the fact that if they sign these kids from abroad young enough they're considered "Home Grown" Fabregas for Example.

Its sick and wrong and its ruining the game but whilst its allowed I can't blame them at all.

This is a very interesting read, Chelsea in the past 3 years have won 2 Titles whilst spending a net transfer fee of £17.22m where as Manchester United have a net spend of £288.01m in the same period, and achieved very little in comparison.

its a sad fact that "Footballer Farming" on an industrial scale is the way forward and will carry on being so until FIFA, UEFA and FAs put an end to it.

Sorry you have bared the brunt of my outburst. Its a matter I've discussed at length recently with many people.

 

[Grizzly blade]

Id say much to my annoyance Chelsea and City have it sussed and stitched up, only the authorities can undo what they are doing.

3 years running Chelsea and City has been the U23 final hasn't it? Chelsea academy costs £9m to run every year add to that the cost of signing the worlds best kids and lets say £25m/£30m the £9m is fact the last figure is pure guess work.

they then loan these players out once they reach 17/18/19/20 to top tier European teams, put them all in the shop window, if they excel beyond all expectation they bring them back to the first team, if they simply excel then Clubs coming knocking and they sell them, See Ake £20m and Kamara £10m, so two players have covered the cost of the academy and youth recruitment for the year this happens every year, they insert clauses in the contract of those who have left where they can exercise a buy back for a nominal fee close to the fee they sold them so say Ake becomes Rio Ferdinand in 3 years, they can buy him back for £20m which will be a bargain.all the while helping pay for experienced recruitment and meeting FFP

Chelsea have a kid out on loan at Gladbach who has made 61 apps for them and been in CL teams of the week, a CB at 21 performing that well, knocking back bids of £15m+ already, add to that the fact that if they sign these kids from abroad young enough they're considered "Home Grown" Fabregas for Example.

Its sick and wrong and its ruining the game but whilst its allowed I can't blame them at all.

This is a very interesting read, Chelsea in the past 3 years have won 2 Titles whilst spending a net transfer fee of £17.22m where as Manchester United have a net spend of £288.01m in the same period, and achieved very little in comparison.

its a sad fact that "Footballer Farming" on an industrial scale is the way forward and will carry on being so until FIFA, UEFA and FAs put an end to it.

Sorry you have bared the brunt of my outburst. Its a matter I've discussed at length recently with many people.

Quality post.
Clearly know their system and business far better than me.
I certainly wasn't aware of the depth of
Players they have.

 

[mancunianblade]

Quality post.
Clearly know their system and business far better than me.
I certainly wasn't aware of the depth of
Players they have.

It's ridiculous it really is. It's genius but it's ridiculous.

 

[Chali 2na]

It depends what you'd class effective. I know the vast majority of them won't make a team like Chelsea's first 11 but they still produce some top players at our level and prem level. I agree with you that it's financially driven but I'm only concerned about what will benefit us, tapping into the loan market definitely could IMO.

I would class it as ineffective if it is yet to produce a single player for Chelsea's first team personally.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

The had Kevin De Bruyne in their academy..... he never played a first team game for them and they sold him to Wolfsburg for around 18m.

2 Seasons later Man C pay 50m for him.

And because he hasn't played a single game for Chelsea.....it's a failure?

I think they're laughing personally.

 

[Balham Blade]

The had Kevin De Bruyne in their academy..... he never played a first team game for them and they sold him to Wolfsburg for around 18m.

2 Seasons later Man C pay 50m for him.

And because he hasn't played a single game for Chelsea.....it's a failure?

I think they're laughing personally.

De Bruyn was never in Chelsea's academy; they signed him from Genk at 20. He also played 3 Premier League games for them...but other than that you're spot on.

 

[Chali 2na]

The had Kevin De Bruyne in their academy

No they didn't.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

ok :-(

 

[sheffielder]

Problem with Edwards (for us anyway) is that he literally is a Messi. There is no position for him that fits into our 3-5-2.

He is good by all accounts and mentioned him for a few years. This was his turn of pace to set up the u19 goal the other night.

 

[CockneyBlade93]

I would class it as ineffective if it is yet to produce a single player for Chelsea's first team personally.

While that may be true, it still provides a steady cash flow to invest in first team players. As mancunianblade pointed out, not good at all ethically but effective as a business.

 

[CockneyBlade93]

This is a very interesting read, Chelsea in the past 3 years have won 2 Titles whilst spending a net transfer fee of £17.22m where as Manchester United have a net spend of £288.01m in the same period, and achieved very little in comparison.

Wow that's incredible, was not aware of that.

 

[CockneyBlade93]

Problem with Edwards (for us anyway) is that he literally is a Messi. There is no position for him that fits into our 3-5-2.

He is good by all accounts and mentioned him for a few years. This was his turn of pace to set up the u19 goal the other night.

I guess it all depends on what formation Wilder is thinking of going with for the Championship. Personally, I hope he sticks to 3-5-2 but there'll be times where he'll need to mix it up, and Edwards would be a great option to have and could turn a game on it's head. Only snag I foresee is that I imagine Spurs would want some guarantees regarding game time which I don't agree with at all, and CW thankfully doesn't either.

 

[Chali 2na]

While that may be true, it still provides a steady cash flow to invest in first team players. As mancunianblade pointed out, not good at all ethically but effective as a business.

I don't doubt it's financial effectiveness, but I personally think that all club academies are set up with the goal of producing players for the 1st team, and additional revenue from player sales is a fortunate bi-product.
That's my opinion though, I suppose Mr Abramovich may think differently.

 

[BushBlade]

Problem with Edwards (for us anyway) is that he literally is a Messi. There is no position for him that fits into our 3-5-2.

He is good by all accounts and mentioned him for a few years. This was his turn of pace to set up the u19 goal the other night.

More of a 3412 though. Duffy was further forward.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Just heard from a Spurs mate of mine with reasonable contacts at the club that he turned down a loan move to us yesterday as he's wanting to fight for a place in their first team.

 

[Bladeinleeds]

Just heard from a Spurs mate of mine with reasonable contacts at the club that he turned down a loan move to us yesterday as he's wanting to fight for a place in their first team.

Might be one to reassess in jan then....

 

[Mouth of the South]

Just heard from a Spurs mate of mine with reasonable contacts at the club that he turned down a loan move to us yesterday as he's wanting to fight for a place in their first team.

I read that he turned down a loan move yesterday in favour of fighting it out for a starting place at Spurs but didn't realise the loan would have been to Utd.

Of course it's his choice and if he thinks he can breakthrough into their first team then fair enough but he'll have to go some to do that. Not many players are able to go directly into the team of clubs able to purchase finished articles especially when they top 4 of the Prem. I hope for his sake he's made the right choice.

 

[Harrisblade]

If you consider producing players for other clubs lower down the pyramid a success then well done Chelsea.

However, as they have invested very heavily in the academy, and invested huge sums to attract talent from all over Europe and still produced few if any players for their current first team I would say it's a fail.

Whatever level you are at, the idea should be to supply players for the team and avert the huge cost of buying a player for every position in the squad.
Besides, new regs regarding home grown players in the squad should make things an improvement..:but they along with others will find a way around it.

Fact is.they need the finished article. They cannot wait around and players only get better with games.
That's why if my son had the choice of a prem league club in say top 6, or a club elsewhere to learn his trade I would always direct him elsewhere.
Unless your kids is one of the one in a lifetime wonder kids they may as well go and play.
It's a short career. They should be encouraged to make the most of it. Not just look to earn the most money.

Chelsea are operating a 'player-farm'
Those kids aren't there to supply the first team, they're there to develop and keep loaning each time for a fee

"Chelsea balk at suggestions they are running some kind of football factory, an economic model to generate income and help them comply with Financial Fair Play but what they have developed is not, yet, a clear path into the first team – although that is changing under manager Antonio Conte, it seems – but rather an astute business model."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...tory-cashes-became-best-selling-club-premier/