Chelsea's Loan Army - Should it be allowed?

[BaZ87]

I was watching bits and pieces of the England game tonight and one player stood out, Ruben Loftus-Cheek. I couldn't help but think that he's exactly the type of player Liverpool like to sign and the type of player that somebody like Klopp would love to work with - young, physical, very talented but also very raw and with the right coaching could become a great player. I thought I'd do a quick search and see what his contract situation was like assuming that given that he's been on the fringes at Chelsea for so long, he can't have much longer left on his deal. I was shocked to see that despite barely featuring for Chelsea and how few chances any of these youngsters at Chelsea are given, he actually signed a new 5 year deal last year.

Now I can completely understand from Chelsea's point of view why they'd want to tie Loftus-Cheek down to a long deal but why did he sign that contract? History tells you that he's incredibly unlikely to break through at Chelsea and unless somebody comes along and pays a huge fee for him, he's going to keep getting farmed out year after year.

Liverpool recently signed Solanke on a bosman from Chelsea and in one of the articles relating to that move I remember reading that Chelsea faced the prospect of losing another youngster, Izzy Brown, who was refusing to sign a new deal because just like Solanke, he didn't see how he would ever get a chance at Chelsea. I've just had a search and I was shocked again to see that Brown ended up signing a new 4 year deal with Chelsea and was sent out on loan.

I thought I'd search for any articles on Solanke's contract talks at Chelsea prior to joining us and read something pretty alarming. Chelsea, reportedly, have a policy where by they effectively hold their promising youngsters to ransom - they either sign a new contract or they sit in the reserves for however long they have remaining on their contract. They won't play for Chelsea and they won't allow them to go out on loan either:

That has left Solanke in a difficult position as Chelsea have a policy of securing their young players to new contracts before agreeing to loan them out and will not offer him a route to the first team without a commitment being made.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-with-dominic-solanke-as-youngster-risks-sta/

Obviously the above can't be proved but.....Solanke didn't sign a new deal, Solanke didn't feature for Chelsea and Solanke wasn't loaned out as he had been the previous season.

Searching a bit more, I even found similar stories relating to Courtois from a few years ago when he was out on loan at Atletico. He too was stalling on a new deal and there were a few stories reporting (and quotes from Mourinho subtly hinting) that if he didn't extend his contract he'd spend the last 2 years of his existing deal in the reserves for Chelsea.

I think most people have known for sometime that Chelsea's academy is run as a business and was initially set-up this way to get around FFP. Academy costs aren't included in FFP however the profit from selling these youngsters is. Chelsea set about signing as many promising youngsters as they could (convincing them with huge contracts) and then just farming them out on loan until it reaches a point where they can sell them for a sizeable amount.

I'm not sure what the answer is but surely this can't be right and a point has to come where rules and restrictions are put in place to stop it happening. According to wiki, Chelsea have 33 players out on loan, in comparison Liverpool have 7! As above, I completely understand the sense this makes to Chelsea but the future of dozens of young players being put in the hands of (and reportedly held to ransom by) an academy that's sole focus is to make money isn't right.

 

[BaZ87]

It's cut throat, but from the club's perspective the alternative is something like the Can situation - develop them, play them, etc... then they might not sign a new deal. You mention how Klopp would love to work with RLC, so the Can comparison is even more appropriate. They're being tough because the alternative is to spend millions investing in people and then have them walk for a relative pittance.

They also do a) offer them a route to first team success in football - not necessarily at Chelsea - but they have brought through loads of players who are now playing professional football, b) before that paid them well as kids, and c) sell them for a reasonable price if they want to leave and suitors are out there. So they live up to their end of the bargain.

Everyone involved knows the above before they sign up in the first place - in RLC's case, he'll have known the reality he faced before he signed a professional deal, so could have bailed at that point. But he's stuck with them and now plays first team football in the Premier League, has been capped for England, and has a good chance of being on the plane in the summer.

/Devil's advocate.

As I said, I fully understand the sense in all this for Chelsea but it shouldn't be allowed. Academy's shouldn't be set-up as money making businesses, certainly not at PL level anyway. They should be there to develop players in the best way possible.

You mention that these 16 years old's know what they're signing up to but that's only true to the ones in the last few years*, the likes of Loftus-Cheek, Solanke etc wouldn't have seen what the kids coming through now see. But even still, when you more than likely come from a poor background and you know that only a tiny percentage of prospects will go on to have a career in football at all, let alone at a PL side, it's incredibly difficult for these kids and their families to turn down the money that Chelsea offer them, even over what other top PL sides will pay.

And while Chelsea have developed players if not for themselves for other clubs, that's besides the point. How many have had their careers stall or be completely ruined as a result of Chelsea's set-up? How many players have been frozen out for a year or 2 because they wouldn't sign a contract extension? I saw several people ask the question on twitter last night, how long ago would have Loftus-Cheek made his England debut had he came through Spurs, Liverpool or Utd's academy?

Restrictions should be put in place to stop clubs stockpiling kids in the hope that 1 might make it or they can sell them on later to make money. There should be limits on the number of kids clubs are allowed to sign and how many players a club can send out on loan.

*Chelsea actually lost one of their most promising youngsters to Liverpool recently. Rhian Brewster left Chelsea for Liverpool, citing that he felt he had more chance of breaking through at Liverpool than had he stayed at Chelsea. As above though, given the money that's on offer to these kids it's easy to see why they take it.

I'm missing the bit where someone is suffering and being hard done by with this.

I'd say players that are being threatened with having their careers jeopardised if they don't sign a new contract falls into that category but the point of the post was whether what Chelsea are doing should be allowed.

 

[BaZ87]

Don't these things go hand in hand? They maximise their profit by developing the kids to their potential.

No, they don't go hand in hand. Chelsea are maximising the overall profit of their academy set-up, not looking to give the best to every kid there. They are happy to leave a kid in the reserves for an entire season and lose him for next to nothing because it sends out a warning to all the others stalling on contracts. Pure speculation but would Izzy Brown have signed his new deal had Chelsea not frozen Solanke out for a year? I have no idea but I'm sure it makes players think twice about not signing a new deal. Chelsea would have been in a far stronger position when it comes to determining Solanke's compensation fee had they let him go out on loan and play last season - they choose to take a financial hit on him and lose him because it strengthens their position with all the other kids thinking of leaving.

RLC would have known before moving from youth to professional terms, no?

Would have known what? That he had next to no hope of making it at Chelsea and reportedly threatened with being stuck in the reserves for years if he tried to force a move away by not signing a new contract? I doubt that was part of Chelsea's sales pitch, no. It's only the players in the past couple of years, that have seen the blocked pathway to the first team for Loftus-Cheek etc and you'd assume seen Chelsea's negotiation tactics, that are going into the situation with their eyes open. But as I've said, just because players sign up to it, it doesn't make it right. You could point blank tell a kid that there's no chance you'll ever make it at Chelsea but we'll pay you £5k per week and lots will still sign that contract because Spurs are only offering £2k per week and you know it's still far from certain that he'll make it.

These kids and their families shouldn't be put in the position to make that choice. Stop clubs stockpiling players, make them work harder with fewer youngsters. The best youngsters will still get paid the most money because the competition to sign them will be even greater as they can sign fewer of them but at least do all you can to make sure academies are working towards producing the best footballers.

Would he have made it much younger? No one knows. But it's not as though he was lost in the wilderness for ages. He's 21. Imo it'd be good for our younger players to stay in the age group sides as long as possible, tbh, so the fact he's been protected from the first team is a good thing. Would he have been as good now if he'd started playing for the full England team two years ago? Or has the fact he's bossed it at every youth level helped him get to where he is now?

I remember looking up Iniesta the other day because I was talking about Phil Foden with a friend from work - we were saying it'll be tough to get into the first team with KDB and Silva ahead of him, but then he's only 17 and we compared him to Iniesta who was 20 when playing properly for Barca... so he could still have to wait as a bit part player for a few years and still not be behind him, for example.

Of course nobody can say for certain whether any one player would have made it or not but I think it's fair to say that players at clubs who are actively looking to develop players for themselves stand a better chance of getting the best out of youngsters than a set-up that's designed to maximise profit. Loftus-Cheek would have been in and around the first team for years at a number of top PL clubs had he been their player and been given chances to play, rather than farmed out to get exposure for a future sale.

I first heard of Loftus-Cheek after he played a Liverpool youth side which iirc contained Sterling - after the game everybody was raving about Loftus-Cheek and a number of journalists commenting that he's the biggest prospect in the country. Coincidently, Southgate has just come out and said he first saw Loftus-Cheek play in the under 16's alongside Dele Alli. Forgetting that Loftus-Cheek was thought of much higher than the other 2 at 15-16 years old, who's career has progressed the least in the past 5 years?

Why'd that necessarily be better for the kids?

Because it would stop clubs doing what Chelsea are doing, stockpiling players in the hope or expectancy that if you sign enough one or two will make it/be worth a few quid later. It would force clubs to work harder to develop the players they have.

Doesn't that show kids can leave a particular club if they don't like it/feel they'll be better off elsewhere? (I know there's compensation issues which is a bigger problem with more average players... but for the best the compo isn't enough to put clubs off).

It shows the younger kids coming through are seeing the problems at Chelsea and are leaving. But as I said, Chelsea pay more than even the likes of Liverpool at that level - put yourself in the position of a young kid and his family coming from a poor background. It's so easy to understand why they take that big contract at 15-16 because they know there's no guarantees they'll make it at any club.

 

[BaZ87]

Cheeky will be getting well paid (£35-60k/week depending on what you read); better for him to sign a long contract on good money and then if his career stagnates he's still got 5 years on the gravy train. Even if he gets the bottom end of salary range that is still £8.5m in the sky rocket, he's already set up for life. I would sign that contract before the printer ink had even dried in his shoes. The alternative is on a shorter contract he could just be another castoff that ends up slumming it in the lower leagues after a couple of 'meh' loan spells, we've seen it happen before with others. Regarding a team coming in to pay a huge fee, it depends a bit on the situation, if he doesn't develop then probably after 2-3 years Chelsea would be happy to cut their losses and sell for a reasonable fee to get him off the books.

If he signed a long term deal at a club paying lower wages then I would question it as well, but this is great because either he flops and keeps minting it or is a raging success and either gets into the Chelsea setup (and probably gets a pay rise eventually) or is sold on elsewhere with a pay rise.

Your whole argument is based on money. I'd like to think that a player in his position would have looked at more than just the money on offer. Even if he was purely money motivated, the mega money only comes if he makes it as a PL player and I think it's fair to say that he'd have a better chance at doing that else where. As I mentioned above, look at Sterling and Alli. Loftus-Cheek came through the youth ranks around the same time as them, was considered the bigger prospect and given his size and physicality, was probably more likely to break through at a younger age than them yet he's barely kicked a ball and they're established international players earning far more than he is.

Obviously I could be wrong and Loftus-Cheek is purely money motivated and took the best short term offer but I'm sure that signing a new Chelsea deal wasn't best for his development as a footballer and given what's being reported and what's happened, it doesn't sit right.

 

[BaZ87]

I agree that its not a good thing but someone is agreeing to sign for Chelsea at some point and they must know the way Chelsea operate with their youngsters. If you are a talented young player and Chelsea are knocking on your door you can bet there will be plenty of other good sides there too. Being too greedy too young is probably what is drawing these players to Chelsea.

I don't know how you stop that because common sense would tell young players not to touch Chelsea with a barge pole and yet they still do a roaring trade.

I partially accept this argument for youngsters that have signed over the last couple of years but even then, you have to put yourself in the position of these 15 year olds, often coming from poor backgrounds, about to sign their first pro deal. Chelsea reportedly pay a hell of a lot more to youngsters than other top PL sides - I'm not sure it's fair to call a 15 year old accepting £100k per year over £30k per year greedy, it's understandable.

You'll never be able to stop a certain club paying massive money to sign the best youngsters, regardless of their intentions but if there was limits on how many kids academies could sign and how many players clubs could loan out, it would stop Chelsea stockpiling youngsters and it would force them (and all other clubs) to concentrate more on the players they have rather than sign 100 kids in the hope that 1 makes it/gets sold for £20m.

 

[BaZ87]

And if they are all getting game time?

So you don't have a cap and allow Chelsea to have 33 players out on loan, including 2 of the players I mentioned when I created this thread nearly 4 years ago.

I have no idea what the number should be but there will be a reasonable number that allows clubs to continue to run their academy sensibly and allow players that require first team football to go out on loan without having a club hoard players and ruin so many of their careers. You don't even have to have a hard cap - set the cap at 7 u23 players and if you want to loan out any more you need to get special dispensation from the FA.

 

[BaZ87]

I like the idea actually. If Billy Bigshot wants to stay at Chelsea, being farmed out on loan every season, picking up his £20k per week rather than go elsewhere and earn less money then let him. If he's happy with that scenario and Chelsea are happy with it then there's no issue.

What really prompted me to create this thread 4 years ago was the idea that Chelsea were essentially blackmailing these young players - renew your contract or spend the next 12, 18 or 24 months rotting in the reserves. Monty's idea would remove that threat and Chelsea (or whoever) would have to pay even bigger money to persuade that player to stay or convince them that Chelsea is the best place for them.

Chelsea aren't the only club that does this, they're just doing it on a bigger scale and something needs to change. Capping the number of kids a club can have at their academy, capping the number of players that can be loaned out, shortening the maximum length of contract u23s can sign or putting break clauses in deals, allowing players to leave if they're not being played.