🇳🇱 Nathan Aké

[gadget 126]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

Ake and Christensen should be considered for the LCB position. They are on the level of defenders we have been linked with - Koulibaly, van Dijk, Manolas - and adding a defender into the mix disturbs the integration of Christensen, Ake or even both into the first team.

Azpi, Luiz, Ake, Christensen, Cahill with youngsters as emergency cover Tomori (?) Omeruo (?) Kalas (?) Aina (?) 

I've been baffled myself why we're getting linked with so many cb's at stupid prices. I think Ake is a good fit for the LCB, Christensen a good fit for RCB and Zouma suiting the central role. Pretty well covered for CB's we should look at strengthening elsewhere

[mccg 1,528]

Nathan Ake Loan deals do count

Bournemouth 1/5

Everton 16/1

Watford 20/1

West Ham 25/1

To Stay at Chelsea (Does not include returning on loan following a permanent deal elsewhere) 7/2

Looks like he is gone ffs according to slybet , i will be pissed if we let Ake go 4sure

[the wes 7,212]

On 2017-6-20 at 11:34 AM, mccg said:

Nathan Ake Loan deals do count

Bournemouth 1/5

Everton 16/1

Watford 20/1

West Ham 25/1

To Stay at Chelsea (Does not include returning on loan following a permanent deal elsewhere) 7/2

Looks like he is gone ffs according to slybet , i will be pissed if we let Ake go 4sure

If he does go I hope we put a buy back clause on him 

[mccg 1,528]

3 hours ago, the wes said:

If he does go I hope we put a buy back clause on him 

 If they do sell him......

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

Nathan Aké set to join Bournemouth for £20m. (Daily Mail)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/3876881/bournemouth-closing-in-on-nathan-ake-from-chelsea/?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SprnklrSUNOrganic&UTMX=Editorial:TheSunFootball:TwImageandlink:Statement:Sport

[Chelsea4 1,521]

Ake to Bournemouth for £20m + there is a buyback clause.This is a great deal for both Chelsea and Ake. It's a great opportunity for Ake to develop and maybe come back one day.

[marflow 39]

Great deal for someone I doubt is in Contes plans, majority of his minutes were against Watford, after we had won the league. I prefer we concentrate on giving Christensen and Alonso enough minutes, if we are buying VVD + A.Sandro. 

The  £20m we should spend on Conti.

[Strike 7,490]

If true, this is another promising youngster not given a chance at the club. The buy-back clause does nothing to appease me. I would rather see him given a chance to play LCB ahead of Cahill. I think he is good enough for the LCB position. He has the technique, calmness and the athleticism for the position and is left footed. He proved himself in the Premier League at Watford and then Bournemouth before sitting on the Chelsea bench for the second half of this season. He stepped up in the FA Cup Semi-final when he was picked. 

Should the club really go out and splash 60million on Virgil van Dijk when there is Nathan and Christensen waiting to break in? 

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

Bournemouth are set to snap-up defender Nathan Ake with a £20million-plus offer after missing out on #Chelsea legend John Terry. [Sun]

Nathan Ake's expected to sign a deal with Bournemouth when he returns from his holiday in July, with other clubs being interested too. [Sun]

Conte is believed to be happy to offload Ake as he tries to bring in Van Dijk from Southampton, while also making a move for Bonucci. [Sun]

#Chelsea are expected to make a £60million offer for Virgil van Dijk, however, the 25-year-old is still keen on a move to Liverpool. [Mail]

 

[the wes 7,212]

I don't want to see Ake go but if we are going to spend big we have to sell big £20m is alot of money for Ake that £20m can go towards getting VVD 

[Georgy 439]

Does the buy back clause stand if say Ake renews his contract in 1-2 years?

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

58 minutes ago, Georgy said:

Does the buy back clause stand if say Ake renews his contract in 1-2 years?

its a part of the agreement between chelsea and bourn....

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

Bournemouth close to £20m signing of Chelsea's Nathan Ake: Conte has replacement lined up

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/821088/Bournemouth-Chelsea-Nathan-Ake-Antonio-Conte-Premier-League-Transfer-News

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I want to believe that this is an indicator that Christensen is set to be given a proper chance here next season.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

10 hours ago, Strike said:

If true, this is another promising youngster not given a chance at the club. The buy-back clause does nothing to appease me. I would rather see him given a chance to play LCB ahead of Cahill. I think he is good enough for the LCB position. He has the technique, calmness and the athleticism for the position and is left footed. He proved himself in the Premier League at Watford and then Bournemouth before sitting on the Chelsea bench for the second half of this season. He stepped up in the FA Cup Semi-final when he was picked. 

Should the club really go out and splash 60million on Virgil van Dijk when there is Nathan and Christensen waiting to break in? 

I tried ti quote you in another thread but then couldnt find the post, anyway its basicaly same topic so I will just quote you here...

I dont think we are as bad with youth as some imply. Yes we messed up with KdB big time and maybe Bertrand, but thats about it. 

I dont get this; player should get chance. They do get chance. But its not like they will play 10, 20 games in season. 

We apparently had so many great youngsters we didnt give them chance. I dont buy it. They are simply not good enough. Doing it in youth levels is entirely different than senior level. They are average on senior level, thats why they dont and didnt play more for us. Its the sad truth.

We loaned several players out, to foreign leagues, to championship, to PL. Several didnt even get to play regular football. And we are to blame for loanining them out instead of giving them a chance? If they were good, they would play, they would play well and return here. And continue playing. But most didnt play on loan or played very average, thats why they got sold and we hear almost nothing about them. 

Lahm was loaned to stuttgart and played well. He returned to bayerna, got a game and played well. He didnt get 30 games to catch form. RLC is getting playtime and he is absolutely average most of time. How can someone keep giving him playtime? Mceachran, Boga, Solanke, Lukaku...they were loaned, but never made any serious waves. We cant just give them playtime. And when they sit on bench, they start complaining like they are the biggest stars in football. We are not ideal club for youngsters indeed, but if there was world class talent here, they would play. Again, only one of such calibre was KdB, in this case the board made big mistake. 

With Ake, its different, he was good but we are simply stuffed in this department. Christensen will get that role. Then there is Zouma. We all know Ake might be realy good one day and if that clause is real, we can easily get him back. 

The best example is Courtois clearly. He was loaned, he took his chance and he is now playing here because he is top player. Christensen has potential to be similar. 

[ja1 1,166]

1 hour ago, BlueLyon said:

I tried ti quote you in another thread but then couldnt find the post, anyway its basicaly same topic so I will just quote you here...

I dont think we are as bad with youth as some imply. Yes we messed up with KdB big time and maybe Bertrand, but thats about it. 

I dont get this; player should get chance. They do get chance. But its not like they will play 10, 20 games in season. 

We apparently had so many great youngsters we didnt give them chance. I dont buy it. They are simply not good enough. Doing it in youth levels is entirely different than senior level. They are average on senior level, thats why they dont and didnt play more for us. Its the sad truth.

We loaned several players out, to foreign leagues, to championship, to PL. Several didnt even get to play regular football. And we are to blame for loanining them out instead of giving them a chance? If they were good, they would play, they would play well and return here. And continue playing. But most didnt play on loan or played very average, thats why they got sold and we hear almost nothing about them. 

Lahm was loaned to stuttgart and played well. He returned to bayerna, got a game and played well. He didnt get 30 games to catch form. RLC is getting playtime and he is absolutely average most of time. How can someone keep giving him playtime? Mceachran, Boga, Solanke, Lukaku...they were loaned, but never made any serious waves. We cant just give them playtime. And when they sit on bench, they start complaining like they are the biggest stars in football. We are not ideal club for youngsters indeed, but if there was world class talent here, they would play. Again, only one of such calibre was KdB, in this case the board made big mistake. 

With Ake, its different, he was good but we are simply stuffed in this department. Christensen will get that role. Then there is Zouma. We all know Ake might be realy good one day and if that clause is real, we can easily get him back. 

The best example is Courtois clearly. He was loaned, he took his chance and he is now playing here because he is top player. Christensen has potential to be similar. 

Lukaku's loans were very good, much better than Boga's, Solanke's and McEachran's..

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

1 hour ago, BlueLyon said:

Mceachran, Boga, Solanke, Lukaku...they were loaned, but never made any serious waves

Lukaku done really well for W.B.A and Everton. A lot of people myself included believe McEachran would have been given a longer run in the team if Ancelotti hadn't been sacked.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

43 minutes ago, Iggy Doonican said:

Lukaku done really well for W.B.A and Everton. A lot of people myself included believe McEachran would have been given a longer run in the team if Ancelotti hadn't been sacked.

 

53 minutes ago, ja1 said:

Lukaku's loans were very good, much better than Boga's, Solanke's and McEachran's..

I explained it here;

1 hour ago, BlueLyon said:

IMceachran, Boga, Solanke, Lukaku...they were loaned, but never made any serious waves. We cant just give them playtime. And when they sit on bench, they start complaining like they are the biggest stars in football.

Lukaku was not even close being good enough to leading our line. He came of good season, but he was extremely raw player. He should wait and take his chances when given, but instead decided to leave. I agree there is favorism of proven, experienced players in our team, but at one point, he would get the game time if he stayed.

Should we decide to play him every game since that first everton season on loan? Not buy Costa, because we had Lukaku? Everyone knows he wasnt good enough to be starter. He would still need to prove it here, at Chelsea. United bought Ibra last summer and Rashford is still playing and playing well. Lukaku decided to leave on loan when we had Etoo and Torres, he then decided to leave permamently when we bought Costa. He could easily play games if he proven he is good on the pitch. Costa was injured and banned in quite a few games in first season. But Lukaku thought straight he has to play every game. So be it. But he wasnt good enough to start for Chelsea every week. Even now when it seems we are buying him back, Im not convinced. He will need to play well here before I make any judgement that he is good enough to lead our attack.

As for Mceachran, he was promising under Ancelotti, but completely lost it on loans. If Carlo stayed, maybe it would be different, but its a big if. We cant say Chelsea made any mistake with Josh, he just didnt perform on loans.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

14 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

And when they sit on bench, they start complaining like they are the biggest stars in football.

Don't think that's true at all who exactly ?. Lukaku might well have felt aggrieved being kept out of the side by Eto and especially Torres. No footballers enjoy sitting on the bench apart from Winston Bogarde.