₦airaland Forum

Griffon:
For the records, I'm following the progress of Ake, Christensen and Pasalic.

I see Monaco's, Gladbach's and Watford's games cos of the lads.

Do you really think they will come back under JM to the team? You've seen Pasalic haven't you? Do you or do you not think that this dude can definitely do 30 mins here and there without compromising the overall quality of the team?

Under JM, these guys will all suffer the fate of Tomas Kalas.

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?

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:
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!

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!

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.

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.

I don't think any prudent things are happening. My guess is someone has been able to convince Roman that spending £100m on the team in January is a wiser bit of expenditure than sacking JM for £30m.

Not bad thinking by any means when considered as a solitary point. However, when I remember that it is Jose that is spending the £100m, I begin to wonder if Roman is actually not ill.

coogar:
leaving a trailing leg = a dive!

what do you expect butland to do? jump out of the way or he should completely vaporise himself so that remy can walk through him?

You can hear Jamie saying the same thing.

coogar:
it wasn't a penalty at all. there was no contact between butland & remy. remy landed awkwardly and lost his balance. if he had gone down, it woulda been a dive!

That was only because he hopped over the goalie. If he left a trailing leg in there and went down, it would have been a valid pen.

pamcode:
Nateevs you were saying what pls

Everyone will make mistakes. Ultimately, everyone is judged by their contribution to the game and Remy since coming on has popped up in more interesting positions in a few minutes than Costa all game.

He should have phucking gone downnnnn!
Come on mannnnnn

See as Remy assist forward play in less than 3 minutes of joining.

Ramires. Lord of mercy.

Costa's doing absolutely nothing to improve forward play. Drifting to the left when he should be attacking the box, travelling with the ball when he doesn't even have the skill to do it.

I don't understand the guy.

Now we need 2 goals.

Chei! Willian's pulled something there.

So far, we have been playing well. The forward line except Costa has been dynamic.

Why does Costa drift left still?

Ramires with another typical brain fart.

All this una theories wey dey fly left right and centre is only propped up by the fortunate situation we have found ourselves - having an immensely benevolent Billionaire. I doubt if the same tune will be sung if our owner was Randy Lerner.

It is also a subjective point that we are trying to be Barcelona 'only' in terms of trophies won. I do not remember what moment in time the official declaration was made. If anything, I believe we are trying to be like the elite in terms of trophies won and very importantly, the enviable STATUS of producing players from the academy. Otherwise, I would require an alternative explanation on why Roman will spend hundreds of millions on the academy to build arguably the best facilities in the land.

Nihilist:
The question is where is the 'somewhere' though?

It can't be at a high pressure environment like the bridge.

Let them show themselves on loan first.

I remember when Bimffo used to rave about PvA. The lad is now an integral member of one of the worst defences to be seen over the last 4-5 years. Admittedly it's not all his fault, but the point stands.

Chelsea needs ready made sure things, not a bunch of maybes and could bes

The idea that it cannot be at a high pressure environment will always remain subjective. Chelsea cannot be more of a high-pressure environment than Barcelona, United, Madrid and Bayern. Yet these clubs from time to time commit to giving a few kids decent minutes in competitive games. In the end, it always depends on the mentality of the current manager.

No one's asking number two and number 3 strikers to be Isaiah Brown and Dom Solanke. That would be pushing it. But as it's turned out this season, no one can tell me we would have fared worse if Patrick Bamford was chosen as no 3 striker instead of Falcao. That is one scenario where the "ready-made" ideology falls flat on its face. Some dudes who are feeling brave like me would have chosen RLC every single time this season in place of Mikel.

Many people will rave about this player and that player. 90% of them will not turn out use-able. FACT! But there are times where you can clearly see that some just have it and the right thing to do is to field them. End of!

Griffon:
So if you're looking at giving some kids playing time at Chelsea, you should be looking at chaps like Christensen, Pasalic and Ake, chaps who are holding down first team shirts at average good sides like Monchengladbach, Monaco and Watford.

And how would you have known this if someone somewhere did not decide to give them that chance at some point? Answer is NO WAY!
I think that just summarizes Bimfo's general point.

FBS:
My friend stop chatting rubbish. Even a donkey can tell you that Messi is HYPER VITAL for Barca and yes, he has on several occasions lifted his team. Ever wonder why people used to say Barca na a one-man team?

If you need the team to perform first before Hazard does, then you are even chatting more rubbish.

And FYI, it was nateevs who brought up the silly question about Messi and Argentina. What has that got to do with the price of snake fish?

Na me dey ask silly question. This guy no get respect again.

raumdeuter:
The way bayern disgraced the epl joint leaders emphatically should have cleared any doubt that we would win the epl with a cigar in our mouth by mid season

Talk about foaming in the mouth. Na frustration go chase una comot. You think 75% of the PL come to games with their nyash open like Arsenal?

Griffon:
Although we've not been geniunely tested, I still see a lot of positives tonite.

We've been neat at the back and deadly upfront. We're displaying the synchronicity and zest that a confident team of winners can ooze.

Not to mention that the fans have been terrific too.

Actually I will be treating it as just another game. We will never get that much space in the opposition back line in a PL game. JM is still bent on fielding Ramires and that means a whole lot of wayward passes.

Plus Diego is drifting to the left still. WTF is that about?

God bless Zouma.

Bimffo:
What a ball from Baba Rahman. Compare that to Ivanovic's crosses.

That cross from Rahman is not happening if Azpilicueta was LB.

Diego works his way to the box and then has the time to think of a dive when shooting was easier.

Griffon:
I'm enjoying this game, are you?

I am man. Willian on fire.

Ope o. Goal.

Nihilist:
IF this is true, then the rumours that there is currently a player revolt underway may be even more concrete than even I imagined.

One would assume that Jose would have been despatched quickly for that money if the board truly believed that our bad form was for footballing reasons...

I would have thought concerning this point, the reverse logic will be the case. Footballing issues could well be solved buy allowing Jose to buy a few players in January therefore making it worth keeping Jose and that a player revolt will be harder to solve.

Nihilist:
Mr Nateevs, I never said we don't have a midfield problem. I'm on my phone now, but if you go back a few pages you would see that I also was shouting about the midfield from last season and even through to this season.

That being said, do you honestly believe that Fab's regression is normal? Or Hazard's or Costa?

This morning, at least 3 or 4 papers are running with the Story that Fabregas is leading a mutiny against Jose. If this is true, as I suspect it is, how can we 'play our way out of it?'

Can you play your way out of trouble with a player that won't play for you?

This is where you guys are failing to understand my point. Yes Midfield is A problem, but the midfield problem does NOT explain Hazard misplacing simple passes and missing simple penalties. It doesn't explain Costa's drought.

There is a much bigger problem of saboteurs at play here. I don't know why that is not obvious to you guys...

My last post was meant to address the following:-
1. The 'midfield' arguments on here.
2. The fact that I felt at certain times, you seemed to not remember how we stumbled to the finish line last season
3. A few other misconceptions.

The post was in fact a reflection of a collective view, aimed at shedding light on a long standing problem. Then there is the additional individual opinion and that opinion view does not necessarily disagree with your POV of off-field activities. I will refer you to end of my last long post on the issue.

nateevs:
JM cannot fix this. It is beyond him. Because the very solution to the problem is fundamentally in contrast to his philosophy of the game.

It's time for a change. This is an operational/tactical blunder allowed to carry on for so long, the effects are now manifesting in manner of an insurmountable mental uphill.

It's time to make a change. Because although it sounds implausible right now to many, we could very well be in a relegation battle very soon. There is bad blood and total disrespect for JM's approach from everyone - players, team medics, FA, referees and the media.

You can see that I don't disagree with you that there are other problems. So if papers are carrying news that there is mutiny, it's not difficult for me to believe. The question though is "why is there a possible mutiny?".