Chelsea Youth policy

[Barnfred 55]

In recent years, Chelsea have had some of the very best English youth prospects coming through their academy. They have dominated the F A Youth cup and have large representatives in the England youth set up at all levels.

But the last Chelsea regular to come through their academy was John Terry. And off the top of my head, I'm struggling to think of any of their academy who has gone on to be a big success elsewhere. Maybe Ryan Bertrand can be considered the exception.

Why is this do you think? Even if they don't make it at Chelsea, you'd expect at least some of them to go elsewhere and make the breakthrough.

 

[The Cowboy]

Thought this was going to be about something else tbh.

 

[Rook]

In recent years, Chelsea have had some of the very best English youth prospects coming through their academy. They have dominated the F A Youth cup and have large representatives in the England youth set up at all levels.

But the last Chelsea regular to come through their academy was John Terry. And off the top of my head, I'm struggling to think of any of their academy who has gone on to be a big success elsewhere. Maybe Ryan Bertrand can be considered the exception.

Why is this do you think? Even if they don't make it at Chelsea, you'd expect at least some of them to go elsewhere and make the breakthrough.

Like uh who? They'll be lucky if 1-2 breaks through. They just exist to profit off of. Would you consider Chelsea's handling of someone like Bamford a success?

 

[Kenshin]

Like uh who? They'll be lucky if 1-2 breaks through. They just exist to profit off of. Would you consider Chelsea's handling of someone like Bamford a success?

the issue is that generally you hope 1 or 2 break through ala us with Davies. Chelsea buy the best young players from around the world where they can, so by right their output should be a lot higher than what it is. They aren't hoping their youth are good enough to make the grade, because they sign the ones handpicked to be good enough.

 

[mmmmsnouts]

Chelsea's youth setup is how they dodge FFP.

 

[GerryandthePaceMerchants]

It's a cash cow. Buy player for buttons, loan out to gain value, sell player.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Like uh who? They'll be lucky if 1-2 breaks through. They just exist to profit off of. Would you consider Chelsea's handling of someone like Bamford a success?

That's my point mate. Nobody is coming through. Bamford is a prime example, as was Josh McEachran before him. Plus they don't seem to be making any profit out of them because they don't sell them on to anyone. They seem to give them 4 and 5 year contracts, then loan them out for 6 months here and there until they are around 23, them release them. By that time they're playing lower league football.

At the moment they have the backbone of the England U21 team. Chalaboah (22) Loftus Cheek (21) and Baker (21). In their age groups they are among the best players n the country. Baker's on loan in Holland and the other two are rotting in the reserves, Loftus Cheek getting the occasional game as sub. Everton are giving games to players 2/3 years younger. Chelsea also have a plethora of outstanding players in the age groups below too, the likes of Isaiah Brown, Dominic Solanke and Tammy Abraham to name a few. There's probably another half dozen at different age groups who are equally as well thought of.

Nearly all of them are attack minded players. Even if they had a track record of giving youth a chance, they couldn't accommodate all of them, but in my opinion Chelsea will continue to buy in the finished article for the first XI. It's as if they are monopolising the best English youth to prevent anybody else getting them, but it's ruining the careers of many young footballers.

 

[Billy Dean]

That's my point mate. Nobody is coming through. Bamford is a prime example, as was Josh McEachran before him. Plus they don't seem to be making any profit out of them because they don't sell them on to anyone. They seem to give them 4 and 5 year contracts, then loan them out for 6 months here and there until they are around 23, them release them. By that time they're playing lower league football.

At the moment they have the backbone of the England U21 team. Chalaboah (22) Loftus Cheek (21) and Baker (21). In their age groups they are among the best players n the country. Baker's on loan in Holland and the other two are rotting in the reserves, Loftus Cheek getting the occasional game as sub. Everton are giving games to players 2/3 years younger. Chelsea also have a plethora of outstanding players in the age groups below too, the likes of Isaiah Brown, Dominic Solanke and Tammy Abraham to name a few. There's probably another half dozen at different age groups who are equally as well thought of.

Nearly all of them are attack minded players. Even if they had a track record of giving youth a chance, they couldn't accommodate all of them, but in my opinion Chelsea will continue to buy in the finished article for the first XI. It's as if they are monopolising the best English youth to prevent anybody else getting them, but it's ruining the careers of many young footballers.

Really disappointing. McEachran is such a waste of talent. Terribly handled. RLC too. 21 already and hardly played. Baker is at least doing well in Holland and should make a good career for himself. And at least Conte seems to have the likes of Chalobah and Aina making appearances off the bench. Abraham looks a great talent, hopefully he won't go the same way as bamford.

 

[roydo]

It's a cash cow. Buy player for buttons, loan out to gain value, sell player.

Pretty much this. Saw an article about the profits they have made from selling reasonably Ok players for decent fees.

 

[Barnfred 55]

Pretty much this. Saw an article about the profits they have made from selling reasonably Ok players for decent fees.

They do this a lot too, buy promising players in then loan them out without playing them, getting the wages covered and maybe even loan fees, then sell them on for a profit. It is a cash cow plus it stops their direct competitors buying those players and developing them.

But I'm talking more about their academy. They buy in some of the best payers in the country at a very young age, have a great record of bringing them through to age 20/21, and then they seem to fall off the radar because they aren't getting the playing experience to develop further. You look at clubs like Everton, Liverpool, United, Spurs, Arsenal, Southampton, and the cream of their academies do get an opportunity. That doesn't happen at Chelsea and in recent years they've arguably the had best of the crop.

 

[Milk]

Thought it was strange that they recalled Nathan Ake from Bournemouth. He was playing well enough for Bournemouth to offer £10m this last window but all I have seen of him since his recall is a rather gloom face sitting on the bench.
Doubt he will ever get more than the odd sub appearance before he too is sold off.

 

[Rook]

That's my point mate. Nobody is coming through. Bamford is a prime example, as was Josh McEachran before him. Plus they don't seem to be making any profit out of them because they don't sell them on to anyone. They seem to give them 4 and 5 year contracts, then loan them out for 6 months here and there until they are around 23, them release them. By that time they're playing lower league football.

At the moment they have the backbone of the England U21 team. Chalaboah (22) Loftus Cheek (21) and Baker (21). In their age groups they are among the best players n the country. Baker's on loan in Holland and the other two are rotting in the reserves, Loftus Cheek getting the occasional game as sub. Everton are giving games to players 2/3 years younger. Chelsea also have a plethora of outstanding players in the age groups below too, the likes of Isaiah Brown, Dominic Solanke and Tammy Abraham to name a few. There's probably another half dozen at different age groups who are equally as well thought of.

Nearly all of them are attack minded players. Even if they had a track record of giving youth a chance, they couldn't accommodate all of them, but in my opinion Chelsea will continue to buy in the finished article for the first XI. It's as if they are monopolising the best English youth to prevent anybody else getting them, but it's ruining the careers of many young footballers.

If you buy them at say 1-2M (but really its probably not that much for most of them) and loan them off 4-5 times you made your money back and then some. Plus you can sell the player later. They made a killing off Bamford.

 

[hallamblue]

They do this a lot too, buy promising players in then loan them out without playing them, getting the wages covered and maybe even loan fees, then sell them on for a profit. It is a cash cow plus it stops their direct competitors buying those players and developing them.

But I'm talking more about their academy. They buy in some of the best payers in the country at a very young age, have a great record of bringing them through to age 20/21, and then they seem to fall off the radar because they aren't getting the playing experience to develop further. You look at clubs like Everton, Liverpool, United, Spurs, Arsenal, Southampton, and the cream of their academies do get an opportunity. That doesn't happen at Chelsea and in recent years they've arguably the had best of the crop.

Not sure about Arsenal. They tend to play them in the League Cup, then not have faith in them, and then they end up as Liverpool's right back who is better than most of their defence!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You'd think the youngsters would have cottoned on to the fact that they have practically no chance of ever making the first team and go elsewhere. I mean is the money they earn as a Chelsea youth that much more than they'd get elsewhere?

 

[Ashtonian]

Think it's a catch 22. They want the best young players but they aren't good enough at that age to be playing the level of football Chelsea play. When you look at the likes of their best young talent, do they rival your hazards and Kante?