sephia:

True. Notwithstanding it has managed to produce some good players over the years. The main problem is football is now commercialized. Everyone wants to get a suger daddy and buy the trophies.
The chances of breaking into first team if you play for the top team is almost impossible.

it should be producing more good players than it is currently doing. where are the equivalents of terry, scholes, messi, xavi in this current generation?

In our case, it is the only option for now. Jan is still far off. The established players have suddenly lost their mojo. Moreover, we are unlikely to win any trophies and making it into Europe seems like a dream now. This is the best time to be experimental.

more money will be thrown at the problem and those kids would soon be shipped out to championship sides. the reason england don't produce enough world class players is because of the entire league structure.

all the top 6 clubs in the BPL should have a team B in the championship. they cannot be eligible for promotion or play in cup competitions. this method would prepare the kids well for first team action than the nonsense reserve league.

Ibime:


I don't know Sandro and Munir's game. . . . but I do know Barca B got relegated from Liga Adelante last season.

I'm not sure Chelsea reserves would get relegated from Liga Adelante.

whatever happened, the point is that they've gained very valuable experience.
Asking them to play in a similar set up as we have here wouldn't have improved them anymore than the Liga adelante experience did and that's fact.

Pitching Barcelona youth with Chelsea's wasn't my point
My point is they are advantaged and the genuinely good ones wont find it as hard making that big step to their parent team..

Griffon:

Groom and keep policy is the sole reason Arsenal haven't won the league title in god-knows-how-many-years.
Now why do you need the youth?

I am not a huge fan of Arsene Wenger but this 5h1t must go down as the most perpeutated myth in the whole world. Wenger did not get youth policy wrong. What Wenger failed to do is balance. One will be mad to say Wenger's trusting of Fabregas at the time didn't yield a world class player. What he failed to do is go out there and get a ready made Defender and striker for the much needed balance.

Isn't it funny that when folks want to shut down the Youth argument, they turn to 'Wenger's failed policy?'

And to the question 'why do we need youth?, I repeat again. Count yourselves lucky mate.

No offense but you young and new folks are supporting Chelsea with the 'new money' so I can understand this pride that goes with a seemingly annoying sense of entitlement; the one responsible for the "we need ready-made material" statements. Because just like the half-baked analysis with Arsene Wenger, folks just somehow forget to realise that Roman has covered losses for up to a decade to the tune of over £1bn. And that in another life, with another owner, much of the injected funds will not have happened. Then we will be forced to plug that hole somehow yet still compete. How do you plug the hole? By doing what other clubs do - giving youth a chance. And yes I mean even the inexperienced ones.

Why do we need youth? You folks need to get a proper dose of reality. I hope Roman refuses to spend money for 3 years.

PietroRico:
whatever happened, the point is that they've gained very valuable experience.
Asking them to play in a similar set up as we have here wouldn't have improved them anymore than the Liga adelante experience did and that's fact.

and that's the point ibime is failing to see. when barca team B finished 2nd in the segunda few seasons ago, they weren't promoted....it's not about promotion/relegation.....it's about drilling these players to be ready for the big step!

Pitching Barcelona youth with Chelsea's wasn't my point. My point is they are advantaged and the genuinely good ones wont find it as hard making that big step to their parent team..

leave am!
those barca kids that got relegated will beat chelsea's senior team if they should square off today. there's no way kids who play tough sides in a proper professional league for a season won't be better than the yeye reserve league structure in england.

Bimffo:


Bamford was awarded the best player in Championship last Year. He cant be worse than Falcao. Falcao has 1 Goal.

Ake has gone on series of loans and still doesn't get a Chance. Seriously, we should just scrap off the system.

and about PvA. If his team is rock bottom, where is our team.? Are we any better.? And You cant compare the quality of players at Chelsea with the quality at Sunderland and we are not even better.

Lastly, Bertrand's case. We sold the ninja for £10 million. I wailed and Cried on this thread the night we sold that guy. Some of You came at me that it was the the best thing to do.. A year later we bought a Shakiri molested Baba. Bertrand was chosen as the best left back of the league, and since he left, we have not got 1 win from a league fixture against Soton.

RLC just needs time and Reorientation. As Ibime said, He lacks work ethics. And maybe a few loans will help him out. But right now he can not perform worse than Ramires.

Oh please....

Is it Mourinho that is keeping Bamford on the bench at Palace?

And Bertrand is an average Left Back. It's one thing to shine at Southampton who dont have any title aspirations and just want to finish somewhere in the top half. It's another thing to go to each match with the club, fans and manager demanding a win each game.

I agree that in hindsight that we maybe should have kept Bertrand...but as what? He had a few chances under several different mangers but failed to make the spot his own.

nateevs:


I am not a huge fan of Arsene Wenger but this 5h1t must go down as the most perpeutated myth in the whole world. Wenger did not get youth policy wrong. What Wenger failed to do is balance. One will be mad to say Wenger's trusting of Fabregas at the time didn't yield a world class player. What he failed to do is go out there and get a ready made Defender and striker for the much needed balance.

Isn't it funny that when folks want to shut down the Youth argument, they turn to 'Wenger's failed policy?'

And to the question 'why do we need youth?, I repeat again. Count yourselves lucky mate.

No offense but you young and new folks are supporting Chelsea with the 'new money' so I can understand this pride that goes with a seemingly annoying sense of entitlement; the one responsible for the "we need ready-made material" statements. Because just like the half-baked analysis with Arsene Wenger, folks just somehow forget to realise that Roman has covered losses for up to a decade to the tune of over £1bn. And that in another life, with another owner, much of the injected funds will not have happened. Then we will be forced to plug that hole somehow yet still compete. How do you plug the hole? By doing what other clubs do - giving youth a chance. And yes I mean even the inexperienced ones.

Why do we need youth? You folks need to get a proper dose of reality. I hope Roman refuses to spend money for 3 years.

Which new money side is not suffering losses?

Which new money side is fielding homegrown youth?

Definitely not PSG. Definitely not City

nateevs:


I am not a huge fan of Arsene Wenger but this 5h1t must go down as the most perpeutated myth in the whole world. Wenger did not get youth policy wrong. What Wenger failed to do is balance. One will be mad to say Wenger's trusting of Fabregas at the time didn't yield a world class player. What he failed to do is go out there and get a ready made Defender and striker for the much needed balance.

Isn't it funny that when folks want to shut down the Youth argument, they turn to 'Wenger's failed policy?'

And to the question 'why do we need youth?, I repeat again. Count yourselves lucky mate.

No offense but you young and new folks are supporting Chelsea with the 'new money' so I can understand this pride that goes with a seemingly annoying sense of entitlement; the one responsible for the "we need ready-made material" statements. Because just like the half-baked analysis with Arsene Wenger, folks just somehow forget to realise that Roman has covered losses for up to a decade to the tune of over £1bn. And that in another life, with another owner, much of the injected funds will not have happened. Then we will be forced to plug that hole somehow yet still compete. How do you plug the hole? By doing what other clubs do - giving youth a chance. And yes I mean even the inexperienced ones.

Why do we need youth? You folks need to get a proper dose of reality. I hope Roman refuses to spend money for 3 years.

The question, 'why do we need youth', was asked to illustrate a bigger point, I hope you see through it.

Being a young fan doesn't negate the fact that commercialization is the order of the day in football and that you must spend to win laurels, any vet who's yet to grasp that has a lotta work to do saving himself from himself.

Look, we'd all be glad to have some graduates in our first team. Neither Nihilist, Ibime, Lalaboy or myself is against that integration. The one question that has gone unanswered is, how ready are the lot that must be integrated?

It's nearly silly to be clamoring for the integration of lads who lack good work ethic, character and unrivalled skillset.

And yeah, I don't care about what you think but I strongly believe, Wenger's over-reliance on unseasoned chaps is the major reason he failed to land a major silverware.

Nihilist:


Oh please....

Is it Mourinho that is keeping Bamford on the bench at Palace?

And Bertrand is an average Left Back. It's one thing to shine at Southampton who dont have any title aspirations and just want to finish somewhere in the top half. It's another thing to go to each match with the club, fans and manager demanding a win each game.

I agree that in hindsight that we maybe should have kept Bertrand...but as what? He had a few chances under several different mangers but failed to make the spot his own.

A little insight is needed here. . .

1st, Bertrand never failed as a left back at Chelsea. . . . all his left-back performances were solid 7/10. . . . it was as left-midfield that some ninjas got frustrated with him.

2nd, Bamford is "not failing to shine at Palace". It is a bad loan. Palace team is set up for rapid counterattack. Their no 9 must be fast to fit into their tactical system. It is no fault of Bamford, he is just not a tactical fit for Palace.

Griffon:
And yeah, I don't care about what you think but I strongly believe, Wenger's over-reliance on unseasoned chaps is the major reason he failed to land a major silverware.

you are making nateevs' point!

wenger's "over reliance" is the problem not his reliance. wenger didn't get the right-mix of youth players and the ready made players - that's one of the reasons why he's failed.

Ibime:


A little insight is needed here. . .

1st, Bertrand never failed as a left back at Chelsea. . . . all his left-back performances were solid 7/10. . . . it was as left-midfield that some ninjas got frustrated with him.

2nd, Bamford is "not failing to shine at Palace". It is a bad loan. Palace team is set up for rapid counterattack. Their no 9 must be fast to fit into their tactical system. It is no fault of Bamford, he is just not a tactical fit for Palace.

Nobody said Bertrand failed. The question was did he do enough to warrant a first team spot? It's not it was Jose that refused to make him the first choice LB. Ancelotti and De Matteo also didn't rate him high enough. Neither did Benitez.

That's 4 managers bro.

The Bamford excuse is just an excuse. Their current 9 is Connor Wickham. He definitely isnt a pacy player. Last year it was Glenn Murray no pace there either. The year before it was Marouane Chamakh. By now you get the picture.
Going by FIFA stats, Bamford is faster than most of those strikers. Dwight gayle is even faster than all of them but is also bench fodder. Its NOT pace that is keeping Bamford on the bench bro. It's talent..or more to the point, a lack of it.

coogar:


you are making nateevs' point!

wenger's "over reliance" is the problem not his reliance. wenger didn't get the right-mix of youth players and the ready made players - that's one of the reasons why he's failed.

I admit that i'm making his point there.

In event where the entire team was made up of established stars, don't you think Arsenal coulda enjoy some success over the years?

If yes, don't you then think that the claim 'groom and keep' policy contributed to Arsenal's poor run is valid in this discourse?

coogar:


you are making nateevs' point!

wenger's "over reliance" is the problem not his reliance. wenger didn't get the right-mix of youth players and the ready made players - that's one of the reasons why he's failed.

Which then begs the question....what is the 'right mix'?

One youth player? two? four? eleven?

And at what level of talent? Average? Prodigy? If the youth are not that good, does the manager play them regardless in the hope that they develop, at the expense of ready made talent, and the risk of his job?

Griffon:

I admit that i'm making his point there.

In event where the entire team was made up of established stars, don't you think Arsenal coulda enjoy some success over the years?

of course, he woulda enjoyed some success over the years but it doesn't mean keeping the youths wouldn't have gotten him success too if he had gotten the mixing right!

If yes, don't you then think that the claim 'groom and keep' policy contributed to Arsenal's poor run is valid in this discourse?

the "groom & keep" policy didn't contribute to arsenal's poor run. wenger never got the team balance right. besides, his tactics, his goalkeeper blind spot, etc all contributed to his failure.

remember arsenal were building a stadium & they had to be prudent for many years. relying on youth was inevitable. the only issue was wenger overrelied on them.

Nihilist:

Which then begs the question....what is the 'right mix'?
One youth player? two? four? eleven?
And at what level of talent? Average? Prodigy?

the right mix = "6 + 5" or "7 + 4"
as far as i am concerned, the spine of a team is the most important. goalie-CB-CDM-CAM-ST. all these positions can be filled by mercenaries! the other parts can be filled by youngsters.

If the youth are not that good, does the manager play them regardless in the hope that they develop, at the expense of ready made talent, and the risk of his job?

they won't be good on the bench either.....
they can only be good when you continue to play them. even when they are inconsistent, the mercenaries can always bail them out.

look at barcelona.....about 6-7 of them are from la masia @any point in time. in the positions where they cannot get quality, they go all out there and buy quality.

coogar:


of course, he woulda enjoyed some success over the years but it doesn't mean keeping the youths wouldn't have gotten him success too if he had gotten the mixing right!

the "groom & keep" policy didn't contribute to arsenal's poor run. wenger never got the team balance right. besides, his tactics, his goalkeeper blind spot, etc all contributed to his failure.

remember arsenal were building a stadium & they had to be prudent for many years. relying on youth was inevitable. the only issue was wenger overrelied on them.

I can't help but think that the claim about inbalance is mere conjecture.

You and nateevs are only pushing this b'cos you two think it is how it should be. Nateevs' claim that one ready made defender and striker coulda struck the balance.

Now Is there any evidence or even a case study to prove that is true?

Most championship winning sides were made up of established stars with one or two graduates in the mix, how it's the other way round amazes me.

Coog let's go extreme with logic.

Ibime:


A little insight is needed here. . .

1st, Bertrand never failed as a left back at Chelsea. . . . all his left-back performances were solid 7/10. . . . it was as left-midfield that some ninjas got frustrated with him.

2nd, Bamford is "not failing to shine at Palace". It is a bad loan. Palace team is set up for rapid counterattack. Their no 9 must be fast to fit into their tactical system. It is no fault of Bamford, he is just not a tactical fit for Palace.

Which is the point most have made so far. Akin to the occurence at Napoli with Chalobah. A lad who was a fixture in the Watford side in the championship at 18 only 2 seasons ago.

One very important part to consider also is the political struggle within these loan clubs. The fact that many managers are not in the business of developing young players for big clubs and that most will rather field their own players and die by their own sword than field a player on loan from Chelsea; one the club's technical director has said is the next best thing.

According to Marca, Ronaldo has admitted he's open to working with Mourinho again.

Metro on the other hand has it that Higuan would be joining us in January.

Something is ticking.

Griffon:


I can't help but think that the claim about inbalance is mere conjecture.

You and nateevs are only pushing this b'cos you two think it is how it should be. Nateevs' claim that one ready made defender and striker coulda struck the balance.

Now Is there any evidence or even a case study to prove that is true?

Most championship winning sides were made up of established stars with one or two graduates in the mix, how it's the other way round amazes me.

Coog let's go extreme with logic.

But with your own logic, you fail to realise that someone is actually bank-rolling it to the tune of £1bn. And that the logic by itself is unsustainable without the injection of some major funds and the rather extraterrestial benevolence emanating from the young Russian.

How would you define this 'commercialization to stay relevant' if Roman did not wipe off over £700m of debt? Do you think you will be here telling me I don't know the impact of commericials on success?

Mate you cannot tell me about the financial side of the game. Thousands of arguments have happened here between Coogar, Myself and Ibime over the years about the commercial side of the game.

I think you don't really understand the position we are in. You guys have either forgotten or were not aware enough to understand the impact at the time of occurence. We should be eternally grateful to Roman.

Let me tell you how financials work in real life and not in the Chelsea bubble. Conside a Chelsea that hardly makes profits and then we have £700m worth of debt hanging over our heads and we need to service that debt, do you know how much we have to pay annually at only 4% of interest? Ibime will tell you. He's the CIMA guy.

You will be the one offering to drive the 'inexperienced kids' to Stamford Bridge and then returning home to your TV, screaming at it, wondering why the kids have not made it yet.

So when I tell you that your POV is only propped up by our fortunate stance, BELIEVE IT!

Here's a piece of goodnews for all ice-cream loving Chelsea fans.

Zola has got something creamy on sale for y'all in Bromley.

So anyday you find yourself in south london, just know the cafe to be.

nateevs:


But with your own logic, you fail to realise that someone is actually bank-rolling it to the tune of £1bn. And that the logic by itself is unsustainable without the injection of some major funds and the rather extraterrestial benevolence emanating from the young Russian.

How would you define this 'commercialization to stay relevant' if Roman did not wipe off over £700m of debt? Do you think you will be here telling me I don't know the impact of commericials on success?

Mate you cannot tell me about the financial side of the game. Thousands of arguments have happened here between Coogar, Myself and Ibime over the years about the commercial side of the game.

I think you don't really understand the position we are in. You guys have either forgotten or were not aware enough to understand the impact at the time of occurence. We should be eternally grateful to Roman.

Let me tell you how financials work in real life and not in the Chelsea bubble. Conside a Chelsea that hardly makes profits and then we have £700m worth of debt hanging over our heads and we need to service that debt, do you know how much we have to pay annually at only 4% of interest? Ibime will tell you. He's the CIMA guy.

You will be the one offering to drive the 'inexperienced kids' to Stamford Bridge and then returning home to your TV, screaming at it, wondering why the kids have not made it yet.

So when I tell you that your POV is only propped up by our fortunate stance, BELIEVE IT!

I'm not exactly sure what the point of this statement is.

FFP was established because some clubs are quite happy to operate on a deficit as long as they win silverware.

If not for Roman's wealth, we would not be competing for and winning the title. We would obviously be free to develop youth outside the the 'Chelsea bubble' as you put it.

We are in an 'either or' situation that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Idealism says "develop youth whilst City keep buying everybody and hope that Solanke can compete with Aguero and Baker with Debruyne"

Reality says " Nateevs please wake up"

Nihilist:

The Bamford excuse is just an excuse. Their current 9 is Connor Wickham. He definitely isnt a pacy player. Last year it was Glenn Murray no pace there either. The year before it was Marouane Chamakh. By now you get the picture.
Going by FIFA stats, Bamford is faster than most of those strikers. Dwight gayle is even faster than all of them but is also bench fodder. Its NOT pace that is keeping Bamford on the bench bro. It's talent..or more to the point, a lack of it.

How many games has Connor Wickham played this season? - 4 - and not all starts.

How many games has Dwight Gayle played? - 6

Marouane Chamhakh? - 0

Glenn Murray - Sold

Tip for your fantasy team - Bakary Sakho is their no 9 if you missed it.

Besides a counterattacking team needs 2 things - a fast no 9 or a hold-up play specialist like Wickham to hold the ball till wingers join him.

Bamfords main strength is neither of these things.

The problem with this sports section is people try to over analyze.

Gradually integrate your best youth player into the senior team.
You could start by playing them in smaller competitions or bringing them in around the last 10 minutes. That's the only way to build confidence and gain experience. Youth players tend to be more loyal in the long run, in my own opinion, unlike the professional mercenaries.

Nobody says replace your whole squad with youth players. Like some rightly said, Wenger missed it because there was no balance. Even with the youth team he kept making top 4. How long are we going to keep spending heavily on the full squad? One day Roman will bail out and we will return to the Chelsea of old.

Nihilist:


Nobody said Bertrand failed. The question was did he do enough to warrant a first team spot? It's not it was Jose that refused to make him the first choice LB. Ancelotti and De Matteo also didn't rate him high enough. Neither did Benitez.

And this. . . . he performed more than competently for me. . . .no youngster will warrant a first team spot when Ashley Cole is his competition.

Under RDM and Benitez, Ashley was one of the best in his position.

If Di Matteo did not believe in him, he won't start him in the UCL final.

I always maintained he was a good left back at Chelsea. A solid 7/10 which is all I need from my full-backs. . . .

There is no point arguing whether he was good or not. He has proved it.

I'm sure there is an InterMilan fan somewhere opining that Pirlo, Seedorf and co never did well at Inter, while a Milan fan would be telling his peers that Patrick Vieira did not do enough at Milan. All that one na yarns.

nateevs:


But with your own logic, you fail to realise that someone is actually bank-rolling it to the tune of £1bn. And that the logic by itself is unsustainable without the injection of some major funds and the rather extraterrestial benevolence emanating from the young Russian.

How would you define this 'commercialization to stay relevant' if Roman did not wipe off over £700m of debt? Do you think you will be here telling me I don't know the impact of commericials on success?

Mate you cannot tell me about the financial side of the game. Thousands of arguments have happened here between Coogar, Myself and Ibime over the years about the commercial side of the game.

I think you don't really understand the position we are in. You guys have either forgotten or were not aware enough to understand the impact at the time of occurence. We should be eternally grateful to Roman.

Let me tell you how financials work in real life and not in the Chelsea bubble. Conside a Chelsea that hardly makes profits and then we have £700m worth of debt hanging over our heads and we need to service that debt, do you know how much we have to pay annually at only 4% of interest? Ibime will tell you. He's the CIMA guy.

You will be the one offering to drive the 'inexperienced kids' to Stamford Bridge and then returning home to your TV, screaming at it, wondering why the kids have not made it yet.

So when I tell you that your POV is only propped up by our fortunate stance, BELIEVE IT!

Oga we're financially sound, so do spare me this wall street retreat.

Roman's early approach to running Chelsea was reminiscent of Jay Gatsby's approach to throwing a party but that's all history now. We're grateful that he had to offset our standing debt, but that's also history now. So I don't see the need to bring up the man past benevolence in a discourse that concerns the present - a present we're dealing with nicely.

We don't need to fill the team with youngsters just to curb our spending, instead, a continuation of a savvy transfer policy and a seeking out of more lucrative sponsorship is the way to go.

Our last year's summer transfers was certainly more nuanced than a manic splurge on the biggest names, we even recorded an £18.4m profit.

We've been frugal and you know it. Except there are other reasons why you so much want the integration of the youth, I don't see this as a reason.

Nihilist:


I'm not exactly sure what the point of this statement is.

FFP was established because some clubs are quite happy to operate on a deficit as long as they win silverware.

If not for Roman's wealth, we would not be competing for and winning the title. We would obviously be free to develop youth outside the the 'Chelsea bubble' as you put it.

We are in an 'either or' situation that you are refusing to acknowledge.

Idealism says "develop youth whilst City keep buying everybody and hope that Solanke can compete with Aguero and Baker with Debruyne"

Reality says " Nateevs please wake up"

And just like Lacer this is an argument on the other end of the spectrum. May I suggest to you, the hundreds of possibilities in between?

Nobody defines this as an 'either or' situation except you fellas. There is nothing to suggest that barring this capitulation Chelsea had, if in place of Falcao, Bamford is chosen instead and given a few games, that we will lose the league to City.

There is nothing to suggest that if in place of Mikel, Lewis Baker or Nathan Ake is given those few minutes of closing up shop after 60 mins during a cruising 4-0 lead over AFC Bournemouth, that we will lose the league to City.

Absolutely nothing suggests this! Plus not wil we be in it to compete, we will still be favourites to win it. So from where does this "Either or" thing come? It only resides in the minds of those who have somehow confused eternal injection of unearned income for a club's geniune football investment.

Not even Roman the billionaire believes this lie. Or how do we explain his endeavour in spending of millions to develop, in this age, one of the best academies in the world? You think he wants to sit, watch a bunch of kids run around and pleasure himself to ecstasy while at it? Absolutely NOT! It is because he genuinely believes in the "hundreds of possibilities" in between those two extremes.

There is no idealism in this suggestion. If anything, it is one aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the club long after Roman gets bored with this 5hit and leaves.

So you guys should wake up! Well. . Unless ofcourse Roman is just another idealist!

sephia:
The problem with this sports section is people try to over analyze.

Gradually integrate your best youth player into the senior team.
You could start by playing them in smaller competitions or bringing them in around the last 10 minutes. That's the only way to build confidence and gain experience. Youth players tend to be more loyal in the long run, in my own opinion, unlike the professional mercenaries.

Nobody says replace your whole squad with youth players. Like some rightly said, Wenger missed it because there was no balance. Even with the youth team he kept making top 4. How long are we going to keep spending heavily on the full squad? One day Roman will bail out and we will return to the Chelsea of old.

thank you, madam sephia!

you have written everything i wanted to put in my rejoinder to griffon's comment.....

Ibime:


How many games has Connor Wickham played this season? - 4 - and not all starts.

How many games has Dwight Gayle played? - 6

Marouane Chamhakh? - 0

Glenn Murray - Sold

Tip for your fantasy team - Bakary Sakho is their no 9 if you missed it.

Besides a counterattacking team needs 2 things - a fast no 9 or a hold-up play specialist like Wickham to hold the ball till wingers join him.

Bamfords main strength is neither of these things.

Negro please...

Wickham is their 1st choice striker who has now been injured.

Sako came in at 10 when Bolasie's father died.

Gayle got the red card at Westham and has always been 3rd choice.

"We've really missed Connor, we've lost him since we beat Chelsea, and I think his presence through the middle has been a factor in us not getting more points than we've got,' said Pardew just before the Liverpool game.

Anyway, back to Bamford. If as you say, Bamford is not quick, and he's not strong, then what is it he's good for?

Look at what Pardew said about Bamford.

"I spoke to him when he first came to the football club. I said: 'You have to understand that although Middlesbrough is a high level, coming into the Premier League with this team is an even higher level. So you're going to have to work hard at it.'

"Like all young players, they sometimes have to add something to their game to get over that final hurdle. We're a good side – we've proved that. OK, our last results in the last three haven't been what we wanted but the performance level has been there, apart from the Man City game. It's a tough team for him to get in to."


Note that Bamford is being referred to as a 'young player'

Wickham and Bamford are both 22.

nateevs:



And just like Lacer this is an argument on the other end of the spectrum. May I suggest to you, the hundreds of possibilities in between?

Nobody defines this as an 'either or' situation except you fellas. There is nothing to suggest that barring this capitulation Chelsea had, if in place of Falcao, Bamford is chosen instead and given a few games, that we will lose the league to City.

There is nothing to suggest that if in place of Mikel, Lewis Baker or Nathan Ake is given those few minutes of closing up shop after 60 mins during a cruising 4-0 lead over AFC Bournemouth, that we will lose the league to City.

Absolutely nothing suggests this! Plus not wil we be in it to compete, we will still be favourites to win it. So from where does this "Either or" thing come? It only resides in the minds of those who have somehow confused eternal injection of unearned income for a club's geniune football investment.

Not even Roman the billionaire believes this lie. Or how do we explain his endeavour in spending of millions to develop, in this age, one of the best academies in the world? You think he wants to sit, watch a bunch of kids run around and pleasure himself to ecstasy while at it? Absolutely NOT! It is because he genuinely believes in the "hundreds of possibilities" in between those two extremes.

There is no idealism in this suggestion. If anything, it is one aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the club long after Roman gets bored with this 5hit and leaves.

So you guys should wake up! Well. . Unless ofcourse Roman is just another idealist!

This is why I asked the question, what level of talent do we 'integrate'?

None of the players you mentioned are prodigies. Should Bamford be entitled to a spot on the Bench when he is clearly not good enough just because he is a youth product?

Should he be given chances to play when there is nothing to suggest that he would improve to the required level?

Senderos and Djourou. Frimpong. Fran Merida. Bendtner. Szcezny. Hoyte. Lupoli. Pennant.

Is it until we have a litany of failed youth experiments and 9 years of barrenness that some of us will be satisfied?

I see nothing to suggest that RLC will ever be a player of the required calibre. Ditto Ake, Bamford, Baker etc.

Should we just start and continue to play them

Griffon:


Oga we're financially sound, so do spare me this wall street retreat.

Roman's early approach to running Chelsea was reminiscent of Jay Gatsby's approach to throwing a party but that's all history now. We're grateful that he had to offset our standing debt, but that's also history now. So I don't see the need to bring up the man past benevolence in a discourse that concerns the present - a present we're dealing with nicely.

We don't need to fill the team with youngsters just to curb our spending, instead, a continuation of a savvy transfer policy and a seeking out of more lucrative sponsorship is the way to go.

Our last year's summer transfers was certainly more nuanced than a manic splurge on the biggest names, we even recorded an £18.4m profit.

We've been frugal and you know it. Except there are other reasons why you so much want the integration of the youth, I don't see this as a reason.

You have not been paying attention obviously. We are no going to win the league. Neither would we win the CL. We will most likely be bundled out of the CL at the first serious hurdle. So no revenue coming in.

We are going to need to spend close to £100m to make this team finish in a decent spot. Amortize £100m over say 5 years' contract for whoever is bought and that alone is already a £20m deficit this season (or not, because it's mid-season purchase but some will be due).

Next year, many will consider even the £100m not enough (especially if Jose is allowed to spend it - you can bet he blows it on only Pogba and Stones) and there will be need for even further spending.

Now imagine the fact that we not have finished in the top four. That means no CL revenue next season. And another £20m amortizaton fee is due, plus whatever we spend more. This is perspective man! Real life football. Not this fantasy you guys are perpetuating! Like. . . We are financially sound without considering the FACTS!


----------------------------------------

And you also need to stop this thing you are doing. You will not find anyone who has asked to fill the squad with young players. Where has this come from even though you have been corrected over and over?

Nihilist:


This is why I asked the question, what level of talent do we 'integrate'?

None of the players you mentioned are prodigies. Should Bamford be entitled to a spot on the Bench when he is clearly not good enough just because he is a youth product?

Should he be given chances to play when there is nothing to suggest that he would improve to the required level?

Senderos and Djourou. Frimpong. Fran Merida. Bendtner. Szcezny. Hoyte. Lupoli. Pennant.

Is it until we have a litany of failed youth experiments and 9 years of barrenness that some of us will be satisfied?

I see nothing to suggest that RLC will ever be a player of the required calibre. Ditto Ake, Bamford, Baker etc.

Should we just start and continue to play them

Okay. You tell me one player, 17/18 years old right now, in the world, that you know, for absolute certainty, will make it to the top level.
Then I will show you a selfie of me and Obama in my garden.

Did you even know Didier was not serious footballer at 20?

nateevs:

Okay. You tell me one player, 17/18 years old right now, in the world, that you know, for absolute certainty, will make it to the top level.
Then I will show you a selfie of me and Obama in my garden.

Did you even know Didier was not serious footballer at 20?

at age 20, i was better than drogba @20.

nateevs:



Okay. You tell me one player, 17/18 years old right now, in the world, that you know, for absolute certainty, will make it to the top level.
Then I will show you a selfie of me and Obama in my garden.

Did you even know Didier was not serious footballer at 20?

Ok now you understand where I'm coming from.

We now both agree that using youth is a huge gamble...

I'm sure you can see where I'm going to go with this...

Is there any one our current youth today that justifies the gamble?

.