Patrick Bamford

[Jase 43,479]

Bamford on cancelling his loan deal...

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/dec/28/crystal-palace-swansea-city-premier-league-match-report

Alan Pardew had suggested post-match there would be “a conversation” with Chelsea over the forward’s immediate future though, by then, the 22-year-old had already taken matters into his own hands. “This was my last game for Palace and, if I were being honest, it has been terrible,” he said. “No one wants to sit on the bench and not play. I would have been more content if I had been given a chance and not taken it, but I haven’t started a game in the Premier League and, for a young player like me, that’s not what you need.

“It was my decision. The coaches have just found out – I have told them I am going. I think the manager already knew but, the physios and [some of the] coaching staff, I have just let them know and said bye now. The gaffer’s not actually spoken to me and I’ll go in and say goodbye but I think it will be fine. We’ll shake hands and say it didn’t work out. No hard feelings. I had to do it because, for my development, it is crucial I play games. Obviously there are a lot of things I could say that frustrated me. But I got on well with the gaffer and I like him, and it was just one of those that didn’t work out.”

Palace’s strikers have not been a regular source of goals this season with Connor Wickham’s penalty at Stoke their only reward. He is currently out injured, along with the hamstrung Dwight Gayle, while Marouane Chamakh lasted only 45 minutes against Swansea. “There were a few reasons [given for me not playing] but I kind of saw through them,” said Bamford. “I was frustrated because there weren’t many strikers scoring. Connor only scored his first goal last week.

“As a striker, it might be short-sighted of me but obviously scoring goals is a striker’s job. If you are not playing and the other strikers are not scoring and you are not getting a chance, obviously I was, like, pulling my hair out. That was a bit frustrating for me. Apart from that, the team has been doing really well so I couldn’t really complain about getting involved sometimes. I’ve learned things so I wouldn’t say it has been a waste of time, but we’ll see what happens next. I know I can fit in at this level.”

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Hmm.. I don't know what to make of that.

I mean some of us were slating Lukaku once upon a time for not sticking around to breakthrough into our team - Could the same be applicable for Bamford? To be honest though, I don't know why Pardew even wanted him. He signed Wikham for £8m ffs, after that Bamford was always going to be 3/4th choice behind Chamakh and Gayle (until they shifted him).

Still young though, send him back to Boro maybe?

[Special Juan 27,092]

Hmm.. I don't know what to make of that.

I mean some of us were slating Lukaku once upon a time for not sticking around to breakthrough into our team - Could the same be applicable for Bamford? To be honest though, I don't know why Pardew even wanted him. He signed Wikham for £8m ffs, after that Bamford was always going to be 3/4th choice behind Chamakh and Gayle (until they shifted him).

Still young though, send him back to Boro maybe?

No point in him going back to Boro one bit, Stuani, Nugent and Kike all fighting for the striker role, plus they are top of the league and playing really well. Karanka has them playing great football and the team spirit is brilliant there right now, it makes no sense him being there.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

No point in him going back to Boro one bit, Stuani, Nugent and Kike all fighting for the striker role, plus they are top of the league and playing really well. Karanka has them playing great football and the team spirit is brilliant there right now, it makes no sense him being there.

But he is looking for another striker, hot rumour of them going for Rhodes again in Jan.

http://the72.co.uk/42865/middlesbrough-boss-aitor-karanka-weighing-move-jordan-rhodes/

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Championship loan required. Or, fuck me, we could give him a go? Can't be worse than Failcao and the permanently-offside Remy.

[The Power 147]

He's a young hungry, smart lad who has a proven scoring record in the Championship/League 1. I mean, sure he could've dealt with the Palace loan end slightly better but he's clearly frustrated and well, I agree, he will surely be better than Falcao and anyways, if he can try and get in the team here, he'll most likely end up scoring a few and even if he doesn't have the best half-season with us, he can go back on loan to another PL team but this time in even more demand.

[Barbara 15,149]

I think it's far-fetched and wishful thinking of us to expect him to stay with us. I don't see the club doing it. Hiddink, Emenalo or whoever decides things these days have been making it clear the Academy is to make profit, not to promote kids - unless they're some wonder kid. We barely use youth, no matter the manager it seems. The one that used more, used a couple of players sparsely. I completely lost hope...

[Term-X 7,891]

Changing your tune now, aren't you? You could have chosen Essien, Ballack, Drogba or even Terry but you went with a player who you called Judas/traitor?

No, it's all about the image itself.. it's a sky sports poster and I like what they did with the design.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,773]

I think it's far-fetched and wishful thinking of us to expect him to stay with us. I don't see the club doing it. Hiddink, Emenalo or whoever decides things these days have been making it clear the Academy is to make profit, not to promote kids - unless they're some wonder kid. We barely use youth, no matter the manager it seems. The one that used more, used a couple of players sparsely. I completely lost hope...

I doubt they would agree that they have been making it clear that profit is the purpose of the academy. Rather I think they'd claim that the aim remains to develop Chelsea players but that ensuring it realises a turnover from player sales helps the club to continue funding it as lavishly as it does.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Yep, he's going elsewhere.

[Barbara 15,149]

I doubt they would agree that they have been making it clear that profit is the purpose of the academy. Rather I think they'd claim that the aim remains to develop Chelsea players but that ensuring it realises a turnover from player sales helps the club to continue funding it as lavishly as it does.

if the way we've handled the kids for years now under many managers doesn't give you a clue about how it works, then I don't know what else does.

Then there's the tweet just above my post to reinforce what everybody already felt would happen, he won't be here because the manager (or whoever is behind this decision in addition to Hiddink) doesn't want him in the squad.

[LAM09 6,535]

Happy to see that he's cutting his loan short. A move to another Prem side would be ideal, but playing time is a must wherever he ends up

[Tomo 21,681]

Happy to see that he's cutting his loan short. A move to another Prem side would be ideal, but playing time is a must wherever he ends up

Why does it have to be a must? Just because they are on loan from Chelsea doesn't make playing time compulsory, that way ones that do play (Ake) are playing because they deserve it.

[-Kaplan- 410]

Can we send him to Newcastle?

?

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Swansea thinking about offloading Gomis if they can get Bamford on loan.

[LAM09 6,535]

Why does it have to be a must? Just because they are on loan from Chelsea doesn't make playing time compulsory, that way ones that do play (Ake) are playing because they deserve it.

I'm talking about being given a chance to find form. That wasn't the case at Palace and he has essentially wasted 5 months. I didn't say he has to be a guaranteed starter, but chances of playing have to be a higher priority than joining a good club. I think Villa could be the ideal place for him in a sense. However, it looks like it would be a losing battle to keep them up and possibly wouldn't be a great experience.

[Ossie the King 634]

Give the lad a go here. For years we've said young players could benefit from a loan to a team in the bottom of the Premier League....well WE'RE that team now.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,773]

if the way we've handled the kids for years now under many managers doesn't give you a clue about how it works, then I don't know what else does.

Then there's the tweet just above my post to reinforce what everybody already felt would happen, he won't be here because the manager (or whoever is behind this decision in addition to Hiddink) doesn't want him in the squad.

Thanks Barbara. Hope you are well.

I don't agree with you on this.

It is true of course that we have failed to produce any first teamers through the academy for more than a decade but I do not believe this is because we're not trying. I'm convinced that we are trying hard but, for one reason or another, we are not very good at it. If any Cobham graduates had gone on to have top level careers elsewhere then maybe the claim could be made that we are ignoring young talent that deserves to be picked. The only possible example, Bertrand, is a debatable one in my opinion and, in any case, was not fully schooled at Cobham.

I have been a long term defender of the academy and feel that we have only just reached the time when we can begin to judge their work. It takes a long time to set up a facility, its systems and its staff. Then it takes much, much longer to take 8 year old lads through the programme to first team age. It is still early days for Cobham. Having said that my early judgement on Cobham is must do better.

I approved of the dismissal of Dermot Drummy. It was spun differently of course but he was moved sideways and rightly so. I am concerned however that we still don't have the coaching staff right. Our coaches have not, in my opinion, made RLC into the best player he can be and, equally worrying, Jeremie Boga is no better a footballer today than he was 3 years ago. In both cases the flaws in their games are things which can be coached yet the flaws remain. This is the real problem in my opinion. It's not that we are ignoring the talent, it's that we're not producing it to the required standard. The law of averages says a club isn't going to get many recruits of the right calibre in the first place so we can't afford to waste the ones we do find.

Apologies for the length of this but there is one more point I'd like to make. All that an academy can honestly promise a young recruit is that they will help him become the best player he can possibly be. If that turns out to be up to the level which matches Chelsea's ambition then great, but if not then help the young man find another club and collect a transfer fee for him if appropriate. In other words, there is no distinction between what the academy needs to do to produce Chelsea players and what it must do to make a profit. In either case, just turn out the best footballers possible. The profit or player debate is therefore a non issue as far as I'm concerned.

P.S. The manager does not want Patrick because, as I said when I saw him play for our development squads a few years ago, he isn't good enough. At least that's my opinion anyway.