Si (I think) said that the new U21 manager wanted to be very strong in the PL2 this season. Having American owners, my understanding is that a lot of American sports have their academy teams having equal support to the franchises (i.e., college football).
I would be very content if eligible players gain their experience from the PL2 with some of those players stepping up to first team as needed... Lesley, Guiu, Wiley, Tyrique.
I get that it is playing against fellow young players, but the EFL trophy offers a good experience too.
The PL2 will be beneficial for some players definitely, but there is nothing like playing and learning in senior football.
As a scout that watches a lot of PL2 football it is an excellent technical standard but the physicality is fairly low and thats where younger players have to learn to adapt.
Both senior football and PL2 football can help a player develop, just in different ways.
In the end players don't play for money at least not at the start of their careers, they play because they want to play football and they are good at it. A professional career is basically 14 years max, 18-32 and a number of these guys will spend some years either injured or sitting on the bench or both. Meaning that they won't get to do much of what they were born to do. In some cases I expect they would have happier and more fulfilled lives if they went to a club where they would regularly get selected at whatever their level is.
If I was a young player (with skills significantly better than my own) then I would be avoiding CFC like the plague. Obviously money talks, but we are an absolute graveyard for young ambition.
This ignores the fact that the Chelsea Academy is seen by parents and young players as one of the best environments for them to learn their trade. They get a really good education and are set up well in life should they not succeed at football. If they do, become professional footballers but not at Chelsea they get some of the best training and have good careers. That still makes the Chelsea Academy extremely attractive.
I think the bigger issue is the prices we're paying. Signings like Guiu and Omari are clearly smart, but I'm not sure how much profit we can make on signings that cost us 20m a pop unless they really explode onto the scene. Only so many leagues/teams that tend to sign players for much more than that.
Agreed Jon. Samu looks a stretch at £40. His first touch makes Romelu look like Messi. No idea how we make a turn on Gabriel, Washington et al. I know they amortise while they learn and most are on 7 years contracts but PSR depreciation is only 2 m a year.
I agree, look at the success of picking up Hutchinson from Arsenal. I am sure that some of the players that we bought in the last two years will be sold this summer and we will make some money on them. Presley, I’m like you Luke I like the overall plan and as you say, people got to understand that football is big business and has to be run that way. I will continued to repeat that Manchester City have raised £450 million from their Academy in the last 10 years. That is allowed them to get ahead of every other club at first team level and that must be something that we have a desire to mirror.
I normally agree with your posts but picking the one success out of 30 kids is not a balanced argument. We have signed 45 players in the last two years. Soon many will hit 21 with no track record and we can only loan out 6. I fear we will become distressed sellers or will need to buy more clubs to house them.
Toby, I can understand your comments and point of view and I guess I was trying to give an example which I accept was only one at this stage. Whilst you said we have signed 45 players, I have no idea if this is correct, they’re not all what I will call players for the future. I was generally saying that I agreed like Luke was stating with a philosophy, but I do also understand that there are going to be failures in this process. I was also making the point that we seem to have a completely negative view of selling young players and players from the Academy when we are not alone utilising this process. Added to this it’s nothing new at CFC. Under Romans leadership/ownership it was prevalent as well, perhaps for different reasons. I have heard it said that in Roman time there was absolutely no pathway until we were under a transfer band and that perhaps there’s a greater pathway today with the ownership aiming to have a squad of young players.
There are so many component parts to this discussion and argument and you are right that my comment does not really stand up to scrutiny by just picking out one. It was an examples I said on the back of earlier comments and I should’ve been more careful with the way I presented it.
Once again, a great review of a subject I know is close to hearts of many of us. Thank you again for raising these topics.
Luke - have you set up the Fantasy Football league yet ? If so what are the details. thanks
I will quickly pin an article to the homepage mate
What about the PL2?
Si (I think) said that the new U21 manager wanted to be very strong in the PL2 this season. Having American owners, my understanding is that a lot of American sports have their academy teams having equal support to the franchises (i.e., college football).
I would be very content if eligible players gain their experience from the PL2 with some of those players stepping up to first team as needed... Lesley, Guiu, Wiley, Tyrique.
I get that it is playing against fellow young players, but the EFL trophy offers a good experience too.
The PL2 will be beneficial for some players definitely, but there is nothing like playing and learning in senior football.
As a scout that watches a lot of PL2 football it is an excellent technical standard but the physicality is fairly low and thats where younger players have to learn to adapt.
Both senior football and PL2 football can help a player develop, just in different ways.
In the end players don't play for money at least not at the start of their careers, they play because they want to play football and they are good at it. A professional career is basically 14 years max, 18-32 and a number of these guys will spend some years either injured or sitting on the bench or both. Meaning that they won't get to do much of what they were born to do. In some cases I expect they would have happier and more fulfilled lives if they went to a club where they would regularly get selected at whatever their level is.
agree with this.
If I was a young player (with skills significantly better than my own) then I would be avoiding CFC like the plague. Obviously money talks, but we are an absolute graveyard for young ambition.
This ignores the fact that the Chelsea Academy is seen by parents and young players as one of the best environments for them to learn their trade. They get a really good education and are set up well in life should they not succeed at football. If they do, become professional footballers but not at Chelsea they get some of the best training and have good careers. That still makes the Chelsea Academy extremely attractive.
I think the bigger issue is the prices we're paying. Signings like Guiu and Omari are clearly smart, but I'm not sure how much profit we can make on signings that cost us 20m a pop unless they really explode onto the scene. Only so many leagues/teams that tend to sign players for much more than that.
Agreed Jon. Samu looks a stretch at £40. His first touch makes Romelu look like Messi. No idea how we make a turn on Gabriel, Washington et al. I know they amortise while they learn and most are on 7 years contracts but PSR depreciation is only 2 m a year.
That all depends on their development, if they meet their potential then profit will be made but to do that then they have to play and develop
I agree, look at the success of picking up Hutchinson from Arsenal. I am sure that some of the players that we bought in the last two years will be sold this summer and we will make some money on them. Presley, I’m like you Luke I like the overall plan and as you say, people got to understand that football is big business and has to be run that way. I will continued to repeat that Manchester City have raised £450 million from their Academy in the last 10 years. That is allowed them to get ahead of every other club at first team level and that must be something that we have a desire to mirror.
Craig
I normally agree with your posts but picking the one success out of 30 kids is not a balanced argument. We have signed 45 players in the last two years. Soon many will hit 21 with no track record and we can only loan out 6. I fear we will become distressed sellers or will need to buy more clubs to house them.
Toby, I can understand your comments and point of view and I guess I was trying to give an example which I accept was only one at this stage. Whilst you said we have signed 45 players, I have no idea if this is correct, they’re not all what I will call players for the future. I was generally saying that I agreed like Luke was stating with a philosophy, but I do also understand that there are going to be failures in this process. I was also making the point that we seem to have a completely negative view of selling young players and players from the Academy when we are not alone utilising this process. Added to this it’s nothing new at CFC. Under Romans leadership/ownership it was prevalent as well, perhaps for different reasons. I have heard it said that in Roman time there was absolutely no pathway until we were under a transfer band and that perhaps there’s a greater pathway today with the ownership aiming to have a squad of young players.
There are so many component parts to this discussion and argument and you are right that my comment does not really stand up to scrutiny by just picking out one. It was an examples I said on the back of earlier comments and I should’ve been more careful with the way I presented it.