***Official*** English Football Season 2018-19

[Uppercut]

Chelsea's loan system gets a lot of criticism on highly theoretical grounds, but you couldn't reasonably look at the careers of players that have come through it and conclude that it's bad for development.

I don't like the implications for the league's competitiveness, though. Loans to other Premiership teams should definitely be banned, being able to face (e.g.) West Brom without Lukaku is a massive unfair advantage. And I'm not comfortable with the best lower league sides being the ones with the cosiest relationships with big clubs.

 

[sledger]

Chelsea's loan system gets a lot of criticism on highly theoretical grounds, but you couldn't reasonably look at the careers of players that have come through it and conclude that it's bad for development.

I don't like the implications for the league's competitiveness, though. Loans to other Premiership teams should definitely be banned, being able to face (e.g.) West Brom without Lukaku is a massive unfair advantage. And I'm not comfortable with the best lower league sides being the ones with the cosiest relationships with big clubs.

I think it's more the fact that it prevents other clubs from obtaining good players as their own tbh. For me anyway. Like you say, it's not a bad thing for player development, but to allow clubs like Chelsea to pick up loads of possibly good players, and then loan them out endlessly in case they become good, in which case they will have them back, seems to me to be one of those "having your cake and eating it too" things.

I.e. "No, all these players are ours. We have no plans to use them, but nobody else can have them, just in case they turn out to be amazing.". Just seems like a kind of ill-spirited insurance policy. Not in the spirit of the game in any case. Not that Chelsea could or should care about that at all of course, but it's a type of behaviour that should generally be discouraged imo.

 

[cpr]

It'd be interesting to see who you think has developed well from the system. First impressions tend to Salah and De Bruyne, but both of them didn't move to Chelsea until they were 21, so to call them a product of the youth system is a push. For me the big ones are Lukaku and Courtois, but in both instances they were loaned to top flight clubs and continued to develop by training at such high levels (sounds odd to say that about WBA and Everton, but compared to teams outside the top flight...)

I'd argue that they are among the few who can claim to have reached a level that people in the game expected of them. Even those who are appearing in the Prem, such as Bertrand, Cork, Chalobah and van Aanholt come with a feeling of missed potential to a degree. Then theres the likes of McEachran, Katuta, Mancienne and Bamford who have all been labelled as huge potential, only to see it sliver away. McEachran has done interviews where he directly relates the constant loans to the stunting of his development.

There's a few others who seem to be doing alright, but actually managed to miss much of the loan merry go round. Matic and Sturridge were only loaned out once before leaving, both can be argued that they developed elsewhere.

 

[Uppercut]

I think it's more the fact that it prevents other clubs from obtaining good players as their own tbh. For me anyway. Like you say, it's not a bad thing for player development, but to allow clubs like Chelsea to pick up loads of possibly good players, and then loan them out endlessly in case they become good, in which case they will have them back, seems to me to be one of those "having your cake and eating it too" things.

There's no reason to think that the market for young talent isn't economically competitive, so if Chelsea are able to stockpile it's probably because they have a better scouting network, are willing to pay more money, or offer the players better development prospects than everyone else. Their size gives them risk-pooling advantages over lower-league clubs, but there are still plenty of clubs that should be able to compete.

 

[sledger]

It'd be interesting to see who you think has developed well from the system. First impressions tend to Salah and De Bruyne, but both of them didn't move to Chelsea until they were 21, so to call them a product of the youth system is a push. For me the big ones are Lukaku and Courtois, but in both instances they were loaned to top flight clubs and continued to develop by training at such high levels (sounds odd to say that about WBA and Everton, but compared to teams outside the top flight...)

I'd argue that they are among the few who can claim to have reached a level that people in the game expected of them. Even those who are appearing in the Prem, such as Bertrand, Cork, Chalobah and van Aanholt come with a feeling of missed potential to a degree. Then theres the likes of McEachran, Katuta, Mancienne and Bamford who have all been labelled as huge potential, only to see it sliver away. McEachran has done interviews where he directly relates the constant loans to the stunting of his development.

There's a few others who seem to be doing alright, but actually managed to miss much of the loan merry go round. Matic and Sturridge were only loaned out once before leaving, both can be argued that they developed elsewhere.

Devil is in the detail innit.

Loans that have a dedicated purpose and have been well-thought out can do players a world of good. These do not need to be cracked down on for mine.

It's all the repeated "uh-oh, dunno what to do with this guy, just punt him out anywhere for an indeterminate length of time, and we'll worry about him later" type deals that are no good.

 

[sledger]

There's no reason to think that the market for young talent isn't economically competitive, so if Chelsea are able to stockpile it's probably because they have a better scouting network, are willing to pay more money, or offer the players better development prospects than everyone else. Their size gives them risk-pooling advantages over lower-league clubs, but there are still plenty of clubs that should be able to compete.

Yeah probably. I just don't find it an especially agreeable practice.

 

[Uppercut]

It'd be interesting to see who you think has developed well from the system. First impressions tend to Salah and De Bruyne, but both of them didn't move to Chelsea until they were 21, so to call them a product of the youth system is a push. For me the big ones are Lukaku and Courtois, but in both instances they were loaned to top flight clubs and continued to develop by training at such high levels (sounds odd to say that about WBA and Everton, but compared to teams outside the top flight...)

I'd argue that they are among the few who can claim to have reached a level that people in the game expected of them. Even those who are appearing in the Prem, such as Bertrand, Cork, Chalobah and van Aanholt come with a feeling of missed potential to a degree. Then theres the likes of McEachran, Katuta, Mancienne and Bamford who have all been labelled as huge potential, only to see it sliver away. McEachran has done interviews where he directly relates the constant loans to the stunting of his development.

There's a few others who seem to be doing alright, but actually managed to miss much of the loan merry go round. Matic and Sturridge were only loaned out once before leaving, both can be argued that they developed elsewhere.

Right, but I'm talking about Chelsea's system as a whole, not its youth training wing. The fact that they're willing to let players like Matic, Sturridge, and Lukaku join good footballing teams for a reasonable price is a good thing from a development perspective, not a bad thing. It's rarely a bad career move for a young player to move to Chelsea.

 

[duffer]

Losing Giroud last season and now Ramsey makes our team a lot less handsome.

Really needs to be factored into our recruitment policy this summer.

 

[Cabinet96]

The outflow Arsenal have had in the last year is crazy. The squad is going to be barely recognisable.

 

[sledger]

Sad, but oh well, Hardly irreplaceable.

 

[Furball]

It's probably best for the player.

I think he's great but could probably do with a new challenge.

 

[Furball]

Chelsea's loan system gets a lot of criticism on highly theoretical grounds, but you couldn't reasonably look at the careers of players that have come through it and conclude that it's bad for development.

I don't like the implications for the league's competitiveness, though. Loans to other Premiership teams should definitely be banned, being able to face (e.g.) West Brom without Lukaku is a massive unfair advantage. And I'm not comfortable with the best lower league sides being the ones with the cosiest relationships with big clubs.

How do you identify whether a player is good enough for the Premier League if you ban loaning players within the league?

I don't see why players should be prevented from facing their parent club.

 

[Uppercut]

How do you identify whether a player is good enough for the Premier League if you ban loaning players within the league?

I don't see why players should be prevented from facing their parent club.

You can loan them to another top league.

Conflict of interest. Like that time Wenger picked Ox against Liverpool just before he moved there and he took a dive.

 

[sledger]

That time when Newcastle loaned Lua Lua to Portsmouth and he scored against him in a 1-0 win created all kinds of anger, it was hilarious. Agree that it shouldn't be allowed though.

 

[andmark]

That time when Newcastle loaned Lua Lua to Portsmouth and he scored against him in a 1-0 win created all kinds of anger, it was hilarious. Agree that it shouldn't be allowed though.

I was checking to see if there'd be a video of this but no luck. I hope he celebrated like he'd been drinking Red Bull for a month.

EDIT: Yes! The Guardian provides this: "Newcastle were close to opening a four-point cushion in fourth place when Lua-Lua's volley earned Pompey a deserved share of the spoils. His celebrations involved not only trademark backflips but a less polished shirt removal, and the flamboyance was fitting."

 

[sledger]

Ah was it only a draw? I thought Portsmouth beat them, but guess not. In any case, I can remember the massive stink it caused quite well. Very amusing.

 

[Furball]

Pretty sure Juventus lost a title in the late 90s/early 00s (possibly to Lazio) when a striker they had on loan at Perugia scored the only goal of the game in a 1-0 win vs Juventus on the last day of the season.

 

[Furball]

You can loan them to another top league.

Conflict of interest. Like that time Wenger picked Ox against Liverpool just before he moved there and he took a dive.

The worry about a conflict of interest seems to be a uniquely English worry. It's the same with Bosman moves, no other league restricts players agreeing a Bosman move domestically.

The example you've highlighted was idiotic management more than anything else.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Morientes eliminating Real from the 04 Champions league was hilarious. Obviously he was loaned to a different league but that just made it funnier when it happened.

 

[sledger]

Ramsey talks supposedly broke down because he wasn't offered the same wages as Ozil. I guess I sympathise with him, but he's just not that good.