What's new

City and Chelsea Destroying Young Talent

goughie1966

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2008
5,150
17,874
With the news that Ante Coric could be joining Man City it got my blood boiling and I think it needs to be looked at and a limit put on the number of players a club can own. I'm getting sick of the likes of City and Chelsea buying up all the young talent in the hope that one might become the new Messi or to stop rivals from getting them.

If I represented a young player like Coric I'd advise him to avoid City like the plague. Sure he'll get good money (his agent certainly will) but will he ever get a game for them and will his career progress or will he end up being loaned out and disappearing without trace. City and Chelsea do not have a good track record in producing and bringing on young talent. Eriksen chose us because he wanted to play regularly and well done to him. Money wasn't his motive and I wonder where he'd be now if he'd joined City.

Imagine if Kane or Dele joined City or Chelsea when they were 16 or 17 years old. Would they been turning out for England at the Euro's this summer? Not a bloody chance. We'd probably not even know who Harry was as he'd still be on loan somewhere doing nothing.

What these clubs fail to realise is that it's all very well and good buying up potential, you need to coach them well and get them playing at the highest level. I look at Jack Rodwell and Scott Sinclair who made the mistake of joining City and their careers have been shot to pieces. Yes they are wealthy, but they'd still be wealthy men had they stayed where they were or joined clubs who would have played them regularly.

I'm sure these clubs buy these young prospects out of spite and to stop their rivals getting hold of a potential star. City and Chelsea will always have a first 11 playing that has been bought for millions. They'll never have players come through their system. No doubt they hope to unearth a Bale or a Kane but they never will because these lads will never get a chance at their clubs.

Limit club ownership to 25 players and make it a level playing field for all of us and scrap this nonsense loan system too.

Rant over
 

Danners9

Available on a Free Transfer
Mar 30, 2004
14,018
20,807
It's part of their business model and the way they become sustainable - on the books, anyway.

Buy cheap, loan out, sell eventually for a profit. Players are investments and comparing Spurs to that is absolutely laughable. Chelsea have 30 or so players out on loan, it's more than just helping them develop, it's a conscious effort to increase the value of assets.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2010
30,031
29,612
It's part of their business model and the way they become sustainable - on the books, anyway.

Buy cheap, loan out, sell eventually for a profit. Players are investments and comparing Spurs to that is absolutely laughable. Chelsea have 30 or so players out on loan, it's more than just helping them develop, it's a conscious effort to increase the value of assets.
Err we were the one who started that business model, dont be angry at chelsea for doing it at a slightly larger scale.

A lot of people forget we had about 20 out on loan not too long ago
 

Danners9

Available on a Free Transfer
Mar 30, 2004
14,018
20,807
Err we were the one who started that business model, dont be angry at chelsea for doing it at a slightly larger scale.

A lot of people forget we had about 20 out on loan not too long ago
including me, so when did Spurs have 20 players who never played for the club out on loan?

Chelsea and City have taken it to a completely different level. Links to agencies, investment clubs around the world, it's a clear strategy. And with FFP in place now, this is a way of circumventing the weak system in place. Buy, never play, sell.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2010
30,031
29,612
including me, so when did Spurs have 20 players who never played for the club out on loan?

Chelsea and City have taken it to a completely different level. Links to agencies, investment clubs around the world, it's a clear strategy. And with FFP in place now, this is a way of circumventing the weak system in place. Buy, never play, sell.
Some did play for the club just like some played for the club for chelsea like Cuadrado, Rahman and etc.

As for when in 2012/2013 we had these guys on loan:
Bostock - Toronto & Swindon
Kane - Norwich & Leicester
Rose - Sunderland
Bryne - Crawley
Pritchard - Peterborough
Bentley - Rostov & Blackburn
Falque - Almeria
Luongo - Swindon & Ipswich
Fredericks - Brentford
Munns - Aldershot
Dawkins - Aston Villa
Archer - Wycombe
Khumulo - POAK
Parrett - Swindon
Miles - Dagenham & Redbridge
Smith - Millwall
Jenas - Nottingham Forest
Townsend - QPR
Mason - FC Lorient
Bryne - Swindon
Stewart - Crewe
Obika - Charlton
Gomes - Hoffenheim
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
I might be wrong on this stat, someone like @Spursidol @beats1 @IGSpur @Spurzinho etc might prove me wrong but I think both Chelsea and ManC gave more debut minutes to their own academy players than we did last season.

Now, that doesn't mean they have a better general record, as I'm sure over the last 3-5 years we have given much more minutes to our own academy products and may again this season (hopefully) and in the future, especially whilst funding a stadium being built etc.

hopefully, if true, last year was just an anomaly and I know even some Chelsea youth watchers and bloggers have been highly critical of their integration policy.
 

Danners9

Available on a Free Transfer
Mar 30, 2004
14,018
20,807
Some did play for the club just like some played for the club for chelsea like Cuadrado, Rahman and etc.

As for when in 2012/2013 we had these guys on loan:
Bostock - Toronto & Swindon
Kane - Norwich & Leicester
Rose - Sunderland
Bryne - Crawley
Pritchard - Peterborough
Bentley - Rostov & Blackburn
Falque - Almeria
Luongo - Swindon & Ipswich
Fredericks - Brentford
Munns - Aldershot
Dawkins - Aston Villa
Archer - Wycombe
Khumulo - POAK
Parrett - Swindon
Miles - Dagenham & Redbridge
Smith - Millwall
Jenas - Nottingham Forest
Townsend - QPR
Mason - FC Lorient
Bryne - Swindon
Stewart - Crewe
Obika - Charlton
Gomes - Hoffenheim
That isn't exactly the same thing, is it. The vast majority are local loans and youth loans of players who were already at the club and this isn't what Chelsea/City have been doing.

This is a bit old, but 150m of talent out on loan, that's 150m then not after they were developed (how they came to the figure, I don't know) - it says 28 but I think they got to 33. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/01/29/where-are-chelseas-28-on-loan-players1/

They have two types of academy team. One is the local lads and one are the talented prospects from around the world who come in and never play, go out on loan then get sold. This week City signed two Spanish players, a bit older than their usual targets, and sent them straight out - one to Girona: http://www.sport-english.com/en/new...une-and-sobrino-then-loan-them-girona-4463870 // http://www.football.co.uk/mancheste...et-for-girona-lo/7717466/#IfUGTEY1kY45Occq.97 - and then the Rulli saga from a few weeks ago, which was a bit weird. Deportivo Maldonado and all that.

Juventus have done the same thing, 58 this says: http://forzaitalianfootball.com/2015/06/the-58-youngsters-juventus-have-earmarked-for-greatness/

226 at Parma: http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/24/cash-...taggering-226-players-on-their-books-5076964/

Slightly different systems there, where the co-own system was in place. But then, it's very different to how teams operate now - Kia Joorabchian, Jorge Mendes and Peter Kenyon's agency funneling players to certain clubs - https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ge-mendes-agent-third-party-ownership-players

Of course, the real issue is that the loan system allows this sort of abuse but you do have to wonder about the ethics, the way the players feel about it all, and why the PL allows it. Third party rules were outlawed, so why don't they make a maximum limit of professional players allowed to be registered to any one club... although football being such a murky business, there would be ways round that, too.
 

mike_l

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2005
5,171
3,676
Oh City and Chelsea are holding these youngsters at gunpoint and forcing them to sign are they?

No, youngsters are destroying themselves would be more accurate...
 

Col_M

Pointing out the Obvious
Feb 28, 2012
22,786
45,888
Oh City and Chelsea are holding these youngsters at gunpoint and forcing them to sign are they?

No, youngsters are destroying themselves would be more accurate...

Totally agree. They are either super confident young men who believe they can succeed, or just greedy and stupid.
 

Navin R Johnson

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2011
6,423
15,212
Oh City and Chelsea are holding these youngsters at gunpoint and forcing them to sign are they?

No, youngsters are destroying themselves would be more accurate...
Just imagine getting a pro contract at a relatively measly £5k these days and never actually representing your club, is there anybody on SC who would turn that down? I'd take it and take my chances, may not always turn out but he who dares wins.
 

Spurzinho

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2016
2,517
8,373
I might be wrong on this stat, someone like @Spursidol @beats1 @IGSpur @Spurzinho etc might prove me wrong but I think both Chelsea and ManC gave more debut minutes to their own academy players than we did last season.

Now, that doesn't mean they have a better general record, as I'm sure over the last 3-5 years we have given much more minutes to our own academy products and may again this season (hopefully) and in the future, especially whilst funding a stadium being built etc.

hopefully, if true, last year was just an anomaly and I know even some Chelsea youth watchers and bloggers have been highly critical of their integration policy.

City seem to have only given three league debuts last season. Iheanacho who you may or may not count as home grown, Bersant Celina & Manu Garcia who both spent time in the academy and made 1 appearence each.

Chelsea gave Loftus-Cheek 4 starts, Jake Clarke-Salter & Fikayo Timori both made 1 sub appearence & Tammy Abraham made 2.

Arsenal only had 1 home grown debutant in Alex Iwobi who started 8 & came off the bench 5 times.

Man Utd gave debuts to Marcus Rashford, Donald Love, Cameron Borthwick-Jackson, Timothy Fosu-Mensah & sub debuts for Andreas Pereira, James Weir & Will Keane.

Liverpool handed starting debuts to Cameron Brannagan, Danny Ward, Sheyi Ojo, Connor Randell & Pedro Chirivella. Jordan Rossiter & Serge Canos made 1 sub appearence each.

We handed out no league starts to home grown debutants last season but we did see Alex Pritchard & Josh Onomah debut from the bench.

As an aside comparing the squad stats from last season, it looks at first glance that we used considerably fewer players over the season than the other clubs mentioned. There was very little rotation beyond the core group.
 

Spurzinho

Well-Known Member
Jan 24, 2016
2,517
8,373
To round out the analysis Southampton gave no debuts, West Ham gave Reece Oxford a handful of starts and midfielder Josh Cullen came off the bench once. The only league debut Leicester gave was to a forward called Joe Dodoo. Everton gave starting debuts to Callum Connelly & Matthew Pennington, and sub debuts to Jonjoe Kenny & Kieran Dowell.
 

Sweech

Ruh Roh Ressegnon
Jun 27, 2013
6,752
16,378
Err we were the one who started that business model, dont be angry at chelsea for doing it at a slightly larger scale.

A lot of people forget we had about 20 out on loan not too long ago
It still shouldn't be allowed, whether we did it/do it or not.

I agree there should be a contract cap for each club.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
It's on the players to protect their own career really, if you value your ability and potential then stay away from City or Chelsea - you can't really blame the clubs here for ruining these players when they know they're going to find it increasingly difficult to get games.
 

mike_l

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2005
5,171
3,676
It's on the players to protect their own career really, if you value your ability and potential then stay away from City or Chelsea - you can't really blame the clubs here for ruining these players when they know they're going to find it increasingly difficult to get games.
Plus, it's not as though the club's want these players to do badly, it's in their interest for the player to be as good as he can be to either force his way into their squad or to be able to generate a profit...

Sending them out on loan is surely better than having them rot in the reserves getting no football. The players make their own decisions and it's down to them to sink or swim, can't blame the clubs for looking out for their own interests.
 

Sweech

Ruh Roh Ressegnon
Jun 27, 2013
6,752
16,378
Why??? Because you're jealous of them signing these players???
For the integrity of sport and the growth of talent.

I think it's pretty obvious that $$$ will trump most things and that in the end players will flush their own careers down the drains because of it. That damages the sport and its leagues. The more talent developed the better the league is.

It's no surprise that most other top pro sports leagues implement these rules. Yet somehow football shouldn't?
 

Sweech

Ruh Roh Ressegnon
Jun 27, 2013
6,752
16,378
It's on the players to protect their own career really, if you value your ability and potential then stay away from City or Chelsea - you can't really blame the clubs here for ruining these players when they know they're going to find it increasingly difficult to get games.
Yet you're often asking very young individuals to manage these concepts, or adults who will be faced with a load of cash to go against what may be against the player's interests. This is inherently wrong.

It's like telling a 16 year old he has to set up his pension and health care insurance immediately with no take-backs, and if he makes a bad choice...well too bad, it's on you - you fucked up your own life.
 
Top