Liverpool banter 212312

 

Use our rumours form to send us liverpool transfer rumours.


26 Jul 2017 12:28:34
Just reading some interesting stats on Chelseas loan situation

Now they have players in 5 different premier league sides, (so I read )
Meaning 5 teams will be weaker playing against Chelsea as these loan players can't play against you.
Although not illegal is it moral ambiguity?

Not trying to make out Chelsea are Russian gangsters or any thing before ed 2 chews me out.
But what's people's thoughts.

Could you buy the 19 best strikers in the world. Loan one two every club in the league and effectively give yourself an easier path to the title.

Over egging this I know, but keen on people's thoughts.

{Ed002's Note - You understand that the majority of the players out on loan have either never or rarely played for the first team - they are kids? One exception is Loftus-Cheek who Chelsea would rather have sold. Obviously experienced players such as Markovic and Sakho were out on loan from Liverpool and others had players out on loan as well. And Chelsea has not quite finished loaning players to the Premier League this season - but it is not for the purpose of gaining any sort of benefit, it is to give them experience in a competitive league.}

Agree2 Disagree1

26 Jul 2017 13:14:15
This is the best secret service spy agency conspiracy I've read for a while. It's great! Chelsea have done great to get their kids loans at prem clubs, I wonder what they do differently to us? Or maybe their kids are just better!?

{Ed002's Note - Chelsea has a plan for the kids which often involves loans - Liverpool's approach is rather more ad hoc.}

26 Jul 2017 14:05:07
Loaning your players to premier league clubs are the best loans if the player plays regularly for the team he's loaned to. He gains what you want him to gain-valuable premier league experience. It's not rocket science. or a conspiracy!

{Ed001's Note - he does have a point though, having players loaned from any club to another alters the competitive balance. Imo loans should be scrapped and teams should just stop stockpiling young players.}

26 Jul 2017 15:03:55
Grujic would surely have benefited from an EPL loan,
Suso would have done in the past too.

It's clear we don't have a structured approach to loans.

{Ed002's Note - Grujic's situation is slightly odd so that would have been very unlikely.}

26 Jul 2017 14:58:41
I'm with you Ed1. Zouma is a very well respected defender who will make stoke (hard to break down at the best of times), harder for everyone else but easier for Chelsea as they will have to break their regular partnership to play. ( I'm assuming Kurt is guaranteed regular playing time or wouldn't have gone there) . Anti competitive process imo, Same league loans should not be allowed, it does cause overbuying by silly money teams.

{Ed001's Note - I am not talking about specifically Chelsea or specifically same league loans, I am talking in general terms. Being able to loan out players allows the bigger clubs to get an edge over the smaller ones, as they can hold the registration of more players than they otherwise would be able to. That makes it difficult for the smaller clubs to build a squad to challenge the bigger clubs.}

26 Jul 2017 15:11:05
Yes Chelsea obviously have a good system when it comes to loan players etc. But I must admit I find it terrible they stock pile all these young players who never see 1st team football. Am I right in saying they had almost 40 players on loan last season? If true that's a joke and you would have to question any youngsters decision to go there really.

{Ed002's Note - The youngster get very good opportunities compared to what they would do at a club like Liverpool that has little or no development stucture for younger players except occasion games in the junior and reserve sides. The Chelsea players have had the opportunity to play regurarly in the first or second tiers of English, Dutch, Belgium and French leagues - sometimes elsewhere. Perhaps rather than suggesting what Chelsea do very successfully is a "joke" then you should look at what Liverpool do very poorly.}

26 Jul 2017 15:35:49
Ed Two you say chelseas players on loan gain valuble experience in top leagues from being loaned out by Chelsea, but wouldn't they gain the same experience if Chelsea didn't recruit so many players giving these other teams opportunity to buy them or develop them themselfes.

This is not a dig at Chelsea nor a way of deflecting liverpools short comings. Just interested to hear your opinion. All though I do think ake, RLC, chabaloa, baker, Abraham should have been something for Chelsea to have in the squad this season to build for the future.

Cheers.

{Ed002's Note - You do realise how ridiculous your first comment is? The club wanted to hang on to Chalobah and Ake but they both wanted first team foortball on a regular basis - Chelsea can't give such guarantees. Abraham and Baker have never played for the first team and are not ready to play for the first team on any sort of regular basis at Chelsea. Chelsea would happily have sold RLC but there were no takers.}

26 Jul 2017 15:37:33
Ed002 how many of those players loaned out to gain experience end up in Chelsea's first team as a result? pretty low to zero. so let's not pretend that the righteous Chelsea program is to provide a ready made answer to their long term playing plans - its to sweep up the talent and sell on under the Chelsea 'we made em good' banner!

A good commercial angle I will grant you, but basically amoral if not immoral.

{Ed002's Note - Plenty have played for the first team after being loaned out, Loftus-Cheek, Ake, Chalobah, Bertrand, Courtois is a regular etc.. You can take a dig at Chelsea because I guess you are jealous of their success because it is planned and where players have need to move on the money they have made - certailnly in comparison to the ad hoc approach Liverpool use.. But at the end of the day the players get good experience.

Did Ojo, Kent, Flanagan, Awoniy, Allan, Markovic, Sakho, Balotelli, Randall, Chirivella, Bogdan, Ward and Brannagan all go on loan? Yes, of course they did.}

26 Jul 2017 15:42:51
So you agree that a team is right to stockpile upto or over 40 players with little or no chance to ever play for team they have signed for (Chelsea)? And ed002 iam in no way suggesting lfc system is better etc you have jumped to that conclusion. I nevereven mentioned lfc in my post! I have a few friends who support Chelsea and they all agree on my said point and they don't even know half the players they have on loan!

{Ed002's Note - The post id on the Liverpool page and it is just the usual whining about Chelsea. I have not said anything about right and wrong. Liverpool have had plenty of players on loan recently which you seem to forget. Chelsea has a planned approach to the development of players - Liverpool doesn't - Ojo, Kent, Flanagan, Awoniy, Allan, Markovic, Sakho, Balotelli, Randall, Chirivella, Bogdan, Ward and Brannagan. Ibe and Stewart - they got loans and moved on.

Maybe if your friends knew anything of the club they support then perhaps they would know the players.}

26 Jul 2017 16:35:03
Fair enough ed002 you are clearly not getting the point. And making it an us v them when that was never what i wanted. Id say same thing if it was lfc or swansea for that matter. I also praised Chelsea for having a good system in place. I just don't agree that its fair or right to just stock pile an obscene amount of players. And naming 16 players over a 2/ 3 year period that lfc have loaned out. Am talking about around 40 players last year alone! Anyway I shall leave it at that as football is about opinions, and regardless if we disagree on some things, I still love the site and think you eds are great and am grateful for work you all do.

{Ed002's Note - Ah, so it is not fair to Liverpool are you saying. Is that because Liverpool don't have a good enough youth system and a development plan for players. Perhaps you need to look at Liverpool getting better rather than dragging everyone else down to the same level.}

26 Jul 2017 16:56:39
The loan system is by and large misused and is damaging to football, particularly to the smaller teams who don't have the financial muscle of a side like Liverpool or Chelsea for example.

What Chelsea do in stockpiling youngsters is damaging and wrong in my opinion. However, I do not agree with how most major clubs use the loan system.

It needs a major revamp to make sure it is fit for purpose which right now it isn't.

26 Jul 2017 17:03:46
Oh dear ed002 try reading what people say! You've twisted what I have said and neglected the points we all make. We are very much aware of lfc shortcomings and I will repeat again you brought up lfc when this discussion was a general one, granted on a lfc page. But I made it clear in my earlier reply as I said I'd feel same if it was Swansea etc just my opinion and obviously a lot of football fans opinion Inc some of Chelsea's own!

{Ed002's Note - The post is the LIVERPOOL page. We get it, you feel hard done by.}

27 Jul 2017 01:11:13
Thanks for replies and info. As a Liverpool fan, I'm jealous of Chelsea system.
It seems like a well oiled almost self funding system. Percentages state they will find a super star.

My original post was not intended to say Liverpool are hard done by.

Ed 1 put it better by suggesting it creates an imbalance.

Just thought it would be interesting topic away from the nonsense.

So ultimately what is wrong with our youth system?
Why aren't we doing similar?
Geography pull?

{Ed002's Note - The youth system is OK - the problem is a lack of structure.}







 

 

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass  
 
Change Consent