What's new

Ian Maatsen

OriginalS said:
These loan + obligation deals we've done for Hall & Maatsen more or less gives the business plan away. We are set up in such a way that selling many if not nearly all of our best academy talents is necessary to comply with FFP. Chalobah & Gallagher are both also very much on the market remember in addition to Hall & Maatsen and Mount and CHO who we have already sold.

It puts us in an awkward position though. You need to sell Lewis Hall for dirt cheap so we can comply with FFP for next season. Unless Maatsen puts his foot down he'll be another victim of that need and so on. And are the players we are purchasing from South America and other places better than the ones we are selling? Highly unlikely for me.
Click to expand...
Exactly and my point is that next year it could be Colwill, Humphreys, Gilchrist, but what then for the year after. We'll be two years into the project and we will have to start farming our way through these kids that we have been paying 20m plus for. It's a shame cos even if the model works there is a good chance of a reduction in unity and connection with these kids.  Very few farm animals hang around before being shipped off to market

 
This is from the BBC live feed.

Burnley have agreed a deal with Chelsea to sign left-back Ian Maatsen - but he has not agreed personal terms.

 
just said:
This is from the BBC live feed.

Burnley have agreed a deal with Chelsea to sign left-back Ian Maatsen - but he has not agreed personal terms.
Click to expand...
For the player this is a bit uncomfortable. Club is ready to let him go for a reason and he doesn't want to leave. Hopefully he lands a deal with us. Great potential with this lad.

 
WhiteWall said:
This is the exact model. It is doomed to failure IMO ultimately as you have suggested as all of those coming up behind would have been purchased and would therefore have an FFP impact and those remaining academy lads won't have the opportunity to shine to have any saleability in the market anyway.

How does a lad like Kiano Dyer get to showcase himself through loans or first team cameos if we already have 5 south american 16 year old midfielders ready to come in when permits allow, already in the position. 

I get the mopdel and it partly makes sense, but there seems little if any sustainability with it.
Click to expand...
My issue with the model is not the fact we are happy to sell academy players, because that has been pretty normal across the board anyway. 

The issue I have is how much money we are spending on players that have achieved nothing, and how much we are willing to spend on potential. 

If you go back check the top 100 u21 players from 10 years ago, this board wouldve paid £50m for Barkley, £25m for Kerlon, £20m for Kerrison, £30m for Promes etc. 

Now with hindsight we know that wouldve been dead money.

The question is how many of these £700m+ under 21 players get close to fulfilling there potential? If we dont get 4 or 5 absolute gems, then what position will that leave the club in? 

It's very difficult to predict which u21 players go on to have stellar careers, I think we shouldve spent more on players in their mid 20's who have already established themselves as good players, and who could turn into great players in the next couple of years. 

Massive gamble in my humble opinion.

 
big blue said:
My issue with the model is not the fact we are happy to sell academy players, because that has been pretty normal across the board anyway. 

The issue I have is how much money we are spending on players that have achieved nothing, and how much we are willing to spend on potential. 

If you go back check the top 100 u21 players from 10 years ago, this board wouldve paid £50m for Barkley, £25m for Kerlon, £20m for Kerrison, £30m for Promes etc. 

Now with hindsight we know that wouldve been dead money.

The question is how many of these £700m+ under 21 players get close to fulfilling there potential? If we dont get 4 or 5 absolute gems, then what position will that leave the club in? 

It's very difficult to predict which u21 players go on to have stellar careers, I think we shouldve spent more on players in their mid 20's who have already established themselves as good players, and who could turn into great players in the next couple of years. 

Massive gamble in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
A lot of it depends on character, so the hope is the due diligence in that regard is done. For example, I would have without hesitation paid £30m for a teenage Barkley if I did my research and found out he had Gallagher or Lampard's drive and desire (if he had that he was 99% going to the top), I would have without a moments thought paid even more for an 18 year old Reece James if someone else had him.

Funnily enough we did do a similar youth project 10 years ago and if we held our nerve that time it would have resulted in one of the best attacks this leagues ever seen.

 
It might have been mind games from Chelsea - We accepted the offer because you haven't accepted the contract renewal.

Fact is Chelsea want him to stay but he hasn't signed the contract yet.
 
nonotnowjim said:
It's not a good look - accepting an offer to get a player out, then offering a new contract.
Click to expand...
Au contraire, it sends a strong message about the commitment from the player that is required.

Sign the new contract or we will sell you.

Still think he'll be sold in January mind you, and the same goes for Chalobah. Gallagher I think might get a stay of execution as he's started the season well and is clearly in the manager's plans for the starting XI as it stands (remains to be seen if that is the case when other players have recovered from injury)

 
Decent performance against Brighton. 

It's interesting to see that since the beginning of the season, Pochettino uses him as an attacking player.

What I liked him in that he played very simple and did the right things, he worked very well in defense and helped Cucurella especially when we took the lead and Brighton put more shift into the game. 

He's a quality player and also interesting to see him as a LB. This season we're not that good in attack by our fullbacks so far.. maybe with Chilwell injured , we can use him there to see what he can offer in attack as LB.

 
while he does have some good awareness and looks decent in attack, i still think he needs to be played as LB as there are better options that we can play in attack over him. 

 
dermott said:
No. Seems he also turned down two contract offers before the Burnley deal which he declined.
Click to expand...
He is trying to play into a bigger deal. Let's say he plays 5 games in a row and is excellent his weekly salary could double. I think he is doing the right thing. He wants to stay but if his playtime is very low till January he looks a move away which would be much easier without a long big money deal. This is what Matt Law said of him.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top