Malang Sarr

[jojomk1]

21 yrs old and just signed by Chelsea on a 5 year deal
So, obviously rated by them and now they are said to be looking to loan him out for coming season
Strongest position is left centre back so would appear to be ideal short term replacement for Gibson
We couldn't guarantee first team starts but at least chance to be in match day squads, if we could convince him and Chelsea
Given the form of Tarks and Mee it's going to be difficult to bring in someone like Worrall who starts games at Forrest

[nyclaret]

21 yrs old and just signed by Chelsea on a 5 year deal
So, obviously rated by them and now they are said to be looking to loan him out for coming season
Strongest position is left centre back so would appear to be ideal short term replacement for Gibson
We couldn't guarantee first team starts but at least chance to be in match day squads, if we could convince him and Chelsea
Given the form of Tarks and Mee it's going to be difficult to bring in someone like Worrall who starts games at Forrest

No. Chance.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Three names that Chelsea will consider when we give them a call on Malang Sarr

Danny Drinkwater
Nathanial Chalobah
Patrick Bamford

[Woodleyclaret]

We dont need loans we have our U23 squad to make up the numbers

[JimmyRobbo]

Three names that Chelsea will consider when we give them a call on Malang Sarr

Danny Drinkwater
Nathanial Chalobah
Patrick Bamford

Very true.

Conversely, aren't those the 3 names we should remember next time we consider loaning a player from Chelski?

[tiger76]

Why would Chelsea send him out on loan if he's not going to be playing regularly? Surely they'll want him to be gaining 1st team experience, wherever he goes, if he's got no chance of breaking into our first team, which assuming Mee & Tarks stay fit is incredibly unlikely, then what will he and Chelsea gain from a loan spell with us.

[fanzone]

I thought they were rules being brought in about clubs doing this. Chelsea are the worst for it

[KRBFC]

I thought they were rules being brought in about clubs doing this. Chelsea are the worst for it

Why is it a bad thing though?

[bobinho]

I’d be surprised if any of the top six would seriously consider sending a player to us on loan.

Not a criticism, just an observation based on our recent use of on loan players.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Three names that Chelsea will consider when we give them a call on Malang Sarr

Danny Drinkwater
Nathanial Chalobah
Patrick Bamford

We probably did Chelsea a favour tbh, none of them have gone on to have stellar careers after being with us.

Drinkwater especially is appearing to be a massive waste of time and money.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Why is it a bad thing though?

If we are referring to bigger clubs hoarding young players and farming them out to make millions in loan fees whilst rarely, if ever, giving them a chance in their own first teams I can't see a problem with it at all, it's not like smaller clubs could do with having these youngsters on their books properly instead of having the bigger clubs suck more money out of smaller clubs.

[KRBFC]

If we are referring to bigger clubs hoarding young players and farming them out to make millions in loan fees whilst rarely, if ever, giving them a chance in their own first teams I can't see a problem with it at all, it's not like smaller clubs could do with having these youngsters on their books properly instead of having the bigger clubs suck more money out of smaller clubs.

You’re acting like these youngster always get picked up on free transfers though, it benefits the smaller clubs in more way than one. If it was so bad the youngsters wouldn’t sign, if you were a youngster you would do everything to be at Chelsea over most other clubs, a club you will get loaned out at, paid well and a clear pathway to success even if you never feature for the first team. Loans are vital for player development any player will tell you that.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You’re acting like these youngster always get picked up on free transfers though, it benefits the smaller clubs in more way than one. If it was so bad the youngsters wouldn’t sign, if you were a youngster you would do everything to be at Chelsea over most other clubs, a club you will get loaned out at, paid well and a clear pathway to success even if you never feature for the first team. Loans are vital for player development any player will tell you that.

Loans are good as a short term thing, but then you look at someone like Jack Cork who player just over 100 games out on various different loans before being sold.

That's not good for player development in the long term, nor is it good for smaller clubs.

Tranmere at one point had a large number of loan players, think it was close to 10 in one season, but those players would still need to be replaced when the season ends and that isn't a good mode of operating either.

It's just greed on the part of the bigger clubs, to generate revenue partly so they can stay within FFP rules etc.

[KRBFC]

Loans are good as a short term thing, but then you look at someone like Jack Cork who player just over 100 games out on various different loans before being sold.

That's not good for player development in the long term, nor is it good for smaller clubs.

Tranmere at one point had a large number of loan players, think it was close to 10 in one season, but those players would still need to be replaced when the season ends and that isn't a good mode of operating either.

It's just greed on the part of the bigger clubs, to generate revenue partly so they can stay within FFP rules etc.

You say it isn’t good for player development but look at how many players we’ve produced in the last 20 years, so while in your eyes Chelsea are wrong and Burnley are right, Chelsea’s model looks a better one for producing professional footballers.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You say it isn’t good for player development but look at how many players we’ve produced in the last 20 years, so while in your eyes Chelsea are wrong and Burnley are right, Chelsea’s model looks a better one for producing professional footballers.

I haven't said Burnleys was right though.
It's only recently Burnley have been able to chuck some money at overhauling a system that clearly wasn't working for a variety of reasons.
Locality to bigger clubs and poor training facilities being the 2 main ones.

The big clubs can just hoover up however many they like and just spit out the ones they don't want.

For every Foden there are 30 plus that are sent on their way, many of whom will never return to playing football such is their disillusionment with the game.

When we loaned Chabolah from Chelsea he was on £40k a week, same with Bamford yet they'd done nothing to merit that sort of wage.

Personally I think there should be a limit on the number of clubs in an academy along with a limit on those being loaned out.

Then there's the case of someone like Moses, been at Chelsea since 2012 and has been loaned out 5 times

[Dyched]

If we are referring to bigger clubs hoarding young players and farming them out to make millions in loan fees whilst rarely, if ever, giving them a chance in their own first teams I can't see a problem with it at all, it's not like smaller clubs could do with having these youngsters on their books properly instead of having the bigger clubs suck more money out of smaller clubs.

Why is it wrong when Chelsea do it, but not us? All clubs, at every level do it.

99% of the players under our 1st team will never kick a ball in the PL. Ever. But when 1, just 1 makes it out of 100 then it’s worth it.

I believe top clubs do teams like us a huge favour in doing it, as we will smaller clubs in the lower leagues. They go out on loan at clubs, gain experience, different types of experience at several clubs, playing different styles under different managers in both successful and unsuccessful teams.

[Chester Perry]

Fifa are bringing in restrictions on loaning players over the age of 23 - maximum of 8 per club.

Chelsea have made a revenue generating business out of loaning players under Abramovich regularly having as many as 40+ players out on loan at any one time - there are players who are in their (higher) mid 20's who have been with the club for 5+ years, never played for the first team but farmed out on loan (for a profit) this is what FIFA are try to block,

I would personally like them to stop the multi-club model (CFG being a leading, though by no means only example) as this also hovers talent for a group to control and develop across multiple regions. It is astonishing just how many clubs are involved in this kind of activity and how many Belgian clubs in particular are subject to this approach.

[Dyched]

I also don’t believe in this “limiting” stuff. Rubbish.

Say for example Chelsea have 100 currently. That’s limited to 30. Where do the rest go? Teams like us will pick them up, where do ours go? Blackburn? Where do Blackburns go? Stanley? And so on and so on. Eventually they’ll be 1000’s of youngster thrown to the waste because clubs are limited to how many they can have, rather than being not good enough, as is currently the case.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Why is it wrong when Chelsea do it, but not us? All clubs, at every level do it.

99% of the players under our 1st team will never kick a ball in the PL. Ever. But when 1, just 1 makes it out of 100 then it’s worth it.

I believe top clubs do teams like us a huge favour in doing it, as we will smaller clubs in the lower leagues. They go out on loan at clubs, gain experience, different types of experience at several clubs, playing different styles under different managers in both successful and unsuccessful teams.

Again, where have I said its right what we do?

I'm looking at the bigger picture.

There's having players with a chance of progressing and having players just to rake in loan fees.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I also don’t believe in this “limiting” stuff. Rubbish.

Say for example Chelsea have 100 currently. That’s limited to 30. Where do the rest go? Teams like us will pick them up, where do ours go? Blackburn? Where do Blackburns go? Stanley? And so on and so on. Eventually they’ll be 1000’s of youngster thrown to the waste because clubs are limited to how many they can have, rather than being not good enough, as is currently the case.

As Chester has said, Chelsea loan on average 40 plus players out a season.

That's blocking youngsters further down the chain from getting a chance at their parent clubs because players from bigger clubs are there and many have it written into their loan contracts that they must play a certain amount of games.

[Dyched]

As Chester has said, Chelsea loan on average 40 plus players out a season.

That's blocking youngsters further down the chain from getting a chance at their parent clubs because players from bigger clubs are there and many have it written into their loan contracts that they must play a certain amount of games.

If the clubs owned those players instead having them on loan from Chelsea, those clubs wouldn’t have 40 others in their squads. Where do those players go if limits started? I do get the reasoning behind it, but in reality far less players would be given a chance if limits applied.

[KRBFC]

Again, where have I said its right what we do?

I'm looking at the bigger picture.

There's having players with a chance of progressing and having players just to rake in loan fees.

They were paying Bamford and Chalobah big wages but you make that sound like a bad thing?would it be better if they exploited the young players and tied them to contracts on peanuts?

There’s a reason young players chose clubs like Chelsea over us and it’s not because their system is wrong.

You also forget those players they loan out benefit everyone, clubs in need of cash get decent fees for youngsters and also are you saying Derby didn’t benefit from having Tomori and Mount on loan last year? Two PL quality players on loan in the Championship, how did either club or player lose out in that situation?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

They were paying Bamford and Chalobah big wages but you make that sound like a bad thing?would it be better if they exploited the young players and tied them to contracts on peanuts?

There’s a reason young players chose clubs like Chelsea over us and it’s not because their system is wrong.

You also forget those players they loan out benefit everyone, clubs in need of cash get decent fees for youngsters and also are you saying Derby didn’t benefit from having Tomori and Mount on loan last year? Two PL quality players on loan in the Championship, how did either club or player lose out in that situation?

40k a week to players at a young age isn't necessarily a good thing though, some will think they've made it when they haven't.
I'm not saying they should be on a pittance either but I think it was West Ham who signed a player from abroad on about 15k a week for the first team and when he'd actually proven he could do it here then he got a new and improved contract, that's a better way of doing it.

Bamford wasn't worth 40k a week, nor was Chabolah at the time.

Derby didn't get promoted, they're struggling financially and just about avoided getting hammered by FFP by selling their ground

[KRBFC]

40k a week to players at a young age isn't necessarily a good thing though, some will think they've made it when they haven't.
I'm not saying they should be on a pittance either but I think it was West Ham who signed a player from abroad on about 15k a week for the first team and when he'd actually proven he could do it here then he got a new and improved contract, that's a better way of doing it.

Bamford wasn't worth 40k a week, nor was Chabolah at the time.

Derby didn't get promoted, they're struggling financially and just about avoided getting hammered by FFP by selling their ground

It doesn’t matter if they get promoted or not when judging how successful the loan signing was. Tell me how player or either club missed out with Mount and Tomori at Derby, Gallagher at Swansea/Charlton or James at Wigan.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

It doesn’t matter if they get promoted or not when judging how successful the loan signing was. Tell me how player or either club missed out with Mount and Tomori at Derby, Gallagher at Swansea/Charlton or James at Wigan.

What about the other 30 plus players though?

Clubs are at the risk of becoming over reliant on loans like Tranmere as mentioned and in some cases that's at the extent of their own youth players.

Some players thrive when they've got stability, Sam Vokes being a prime example when he signed for us permanently.

Oh and promotion does matter, those players were signed with the belief they'd help the club achieve promotion and financially Derby are getting desperate for that now.