Lack of English players in the squad

[Fernando 6,537]

  On 04/09/2014 at 01:37, Barbara said:

I like you and I respect you, but don't say something stupid. Occasional fans are fans that change their allegiance according to where the occasion and there are many of them, especially in countries where football isn't that strong.

I'd be an hypocrite if I said it's wrong for fans from other countries to support a team somewhere else as I'm one of them. I've never changed teams in my life. So how does it make me an hypocrite? Go read the dictionary before saying something so stupid. You either don't know what occasional is or hypocrite. The thing is you can't call me hypocrite for saying said people exist. I didn't even judge them... I just said they exist and they're not committed with the team. I made a point to say it doesn't matter why a fan decided to support a team, as long as they stick with that team through thin and thick. You can call me a hypocrite all night if you want and while I won't like it,it could make sense... but what you just said makes as much sense as the sun gravitating around the Earth...

As for the rest of your post, well, there are so many weak points there that I might just stop it here because combined with what I just said above we could have end in a fight, which I don't want.

Bandwagnors are people that jump to the most popular thing.

We all started as Bandwagnors by choosing the top teams.

But yes there's a difference in people staying through thick and thin.

But the main point was that we started as that, therefore is ridiculous and hypocritical to call someone a Bandwagnors from a big team unless you was born and raised in that club.

And the other point what you have to say?

Your telling me that amongst the younger people the galácticos didn't became the best thing since slice bread? That revolutionized the modern game.

It up their popularity around the globe exponentially.

Was Fútbol popular in Asia 3 decades ago? USA?

But that galácticos generated mass appeal even in the non Fútbol countries.

[samzilla 517]

  On 04/09/2014 at 00:49, Tomo said:

We have the best medical team around, ever since we appointed Eva we haven't really had a long term injury, Romeu aside.

van ginkel?

[Tomo 21,741]

  On 04/09/2014 at 01:46, samzilla said:

van ginkel?

completely forgot

[Barbara 15,149]

  On 04/09/2014 at 01:44, Fernando said:

Bandwagnors are people that jump to the most popular thing.

We all started as Bandwagnors by choosing the top teams.

But yes there's a difference in people staying through thick and thin.

But the main point was that we started as that, therefore is ridiculous and hypocritical to call someone a Bandwagnors from a big team unless you was born and raised in that club.

And the other point what you have to say?

Your telling me that amongst the younger people the galácticos didn't became the best thing since slice bread? That revolutionized the modern game.

It up their popularity around the globe exponentially.

Was Fútbol popular in Asia 3 decades ago? USA?

But that galácticos generated mass appeal even in the non Fútbol countries.

Fernando, let's agree to disagree. I can't fathom how being a bandwagon fan has anything to do with their nationality. There can be bandwagon fans in England - for example, fans that don't even like football that much, and support Chelsea now after supporting Liverpool, or United.

I know A LOT of fans that started supporting Barcelona around the time the Galactico team was around... how do you explain that? Don't you know those? I also know a lot of people that started supporting RM a few years ago when Barcelona was dominating. Trust it or not, not everyone is going to support a team because of the players they have. One of the main reasons I started supporting Chelsea is quite stupid: I liked the color and the badge. I already shared this story here. I wanted to support a team because I had fallen in love with English football and league. I liked Chelsea and oddly enough Liverpool back then. I chose Chelsea among other things because I liked the color and the badge (and in general I don't like blue), but also because of Stamford Bridge, because I liked the way the team played, a lot of things - but what untied let's say between Liverpool and Chelsea was mainly those two things: color and badge. Can you imagine a more shallow reason? there was a tie between Liverpool and Chelsea about style, about stadiums, about even the support, but what ended up making me go for Chelsea and not Liverpool was a color and a crest... (I hate that cock and I loved our outdated badge)

[Fernando 6,537]

  On 04/09/2014 at 02:20, Barbara said:

Fernando, let's agree to disagree. I can't fathom how being a bandwagon fan has anything to do with their nationality. There can be bandwagon fans in England - for example, fans that don't even like football that much, and support Chelsea now after supporting Liverpool, or United.

I know A LOT of fans that started supporting Barcelona around the time the Galactico team was around... how do you explain that? Don't you know those? I also know a lot of people that started supporting RM a few years ago when Barcelona was dominating. Trust it or not, not everyone is going to support a team because of the players they have. One of the main reasons I started supporting Chelsea is quite stupid: I liked the color and the badge. I already shared this story here. I wanted to support a team because I had fallen in love with English football and league. I liked Chelsea and oddly enough Liverpool back then. I chose Chelsea among other things because I liked the color and the badge (and in general I don't like blue), but also because of Stamford Bridge, because I liked the way the team played, a lot of things - but what untied let's say between Liverpool and Chelsea was mainly those two things: color and badge. Can you imagine a more shallow reason? there was a tie between Liverpool and Chelsea about style, about stadiums, about even the support, but what ended up making me go for Chelsea and not Liverpool was a color and a crest... (I hate that cock and I loved our outdated badge)

Yes but I will repeat I have no problem with such people.

I include myself as a bandwagon person.

I decided to follow Chelsea one of the top teams in the world around 07 or so.

And ever since then this has been the only team I really follow....

Well to be more exact I wouldn't really follow the sport as much. I would watch some highlights here and there. So nothing hard core like watching a whole season for only one team.

Now I watch every Chelsea match. If I missed it, I will download it via torrent.

But in all I would still welcome a bandwagon person or someone that just came because we are the flavor of the month. Because you don't know if that person will become a fan for life as it happened with me. [emoji41]

[iseah100 5,612]

  On 04/09/2014 at 01:37, Barbara said:

First of all, thank you for understanding I wasn't labeling people here as the bandwagon fans, but those who have a new team in the same league every few years - and they're very common because most of those people aren't committed with the club. One example of that is how many Torres fanboys and fangirls started supporting Chelsea because of Blondie and then we the fans started rightfully badmouthing him they turned against THE CLUB because of Blondie. Those guys are now AC Milan fans... Can people deny it happens? It has nothing to do with people here, I'm not labeling anyone here the same, and if for example, a Belgian started supporting Chelsea because of Hazard, it doesn't make said person a lesser fan if they continue to support Chelsea when Hazard leaves... it doesn't mean that Hazard doesn't drag fans globally (not only Belgians) and that those people don't spend money on Chelsea (some of them - but not a significant percentage) spend money on Chelsea. And spending money is what defines a club's marketability that some were questioning here. Marketing is all about money spent - directly or indirectly. A customer that buys a Samsung device because of Chelsea (on a conscious or unconscious level) is cooperating with the club's marketability as well as the one that buys a shirt because Samsung is experiencing a raise in their sales because of a contract they have with Chelsea.

I was against signing Shaw for that ridiculous amount of money and I'd be against buying Sterling, for example, for the price he might cost in a couple of years. My main point here is more conceptual rather than - ironically enough - occasional. I'm not saying we should go there now and spend unnecessary money on English players, but we should keep in mind at all times to keep a core. We should keep and give our English talents more time and invest on them as I hope we do about those names you mention. That's what I'm advocating here. Having a Cahill doesn't compromise us as a team - even if I don't trust him that much - because he works well with JT. Keeping Daniel wouldn't have compromised us. If we work well with Ake, Bamford, Baker and another couple of names from our academy - even if they don't end up being the very best in their position - they could make a job for us. The reason why we don't have English players currently is because we overlooked it a few years ago. I'm against breaking the bank to bring an English player, but we should keep in mind to have them in our ranks as one of our priorities.

I also agree we shouldn't keep mediocre players, but I also believe people in general label English players crap without looking at them properly because of their ridiculous NT (sorry, mates...). There are a lot of names in this generation of English players that I like and that I think could make a job for any balanced team in the world (the key word being balanced - and sometimes to give balance you need some key foreign players).

My main problem here is people disregarding the importance an English core has to an English team, or a Spanish core to a Spanish team, etc... It IS important for marketability, it is important in the local context and as much as we - foreign fans - make Chelsea a bigger club, what makes difference is still the guys that go to Stamford Bridge and support the team, and give them strength playing away - in England or Europe. There's no denial local support is essential for a team... I'm not saying they're better than us, I'm saying they play an instrumental role for a team's success that we can't for geographic reasons... We can buy shirts - and we do; we can pay the cable companies to watch EPL games and we do (and that helps to elevate the TV quota the clubs receive), buy Adidas and Samsung products among other things, but unfortunately we aren't the people in the stadiums week in and out and we all know local support is important for a team...

And that support could suffer if we start losing our identity as an English team. We've survived for 100+ years without winning a lot because the local fans were passionate, saved our stadium, contributed in many ways. We wouldn't have survived without them and no matter how much money is injected, how many stars and silverware we can win, a club will always need the local supporter to survive. So let's suppose having an English core isn't important for fans around the world (to which I disagree, it may not be important for some, but many will want to see Chelsea as a traditional English team), it is still important for the local support and therefore is important for the club as an institution.

And I really, really, really disagree about your last sentence. It isn't Mourinho, much less Roman, that gives Chelsea an identity. Both will pass, the club won't. I have a lot of problems with a statement like that, but that's only me, I'm not saying it as a fact.

They make a huge impact, like Sir Alex for Man U. Maybe not as big but somewhat.

Great post, but sooo long

[Barbara 15,149]

  On 04/09/2014 at 02:30, Fernando said:

Yes but I will repeat I have no problem with such people.

I include myself as a bandwagon person.

I decided to follow Chelsea one of the top teams in the world around 07 or so.

And ever since then this has been the only team I really follow....

Well to be more exact I wouldn't really follow the sport as much. I would watch some highlights here and there. So nothing hard core like watching a whole season for only one team.

Now I watch every Chelsea match. If I missed it, I will download it via torrent.

But in all I would still welcome a bandwagon person or someone that just came because we are the flavor of the month. Because you don't know if that person will become a fan for life as it happened with me. [emoji41]

but sweetie, that's the thing, just because you chose to support a team because they're good it doesn't make you a bandwagon fan. The very definition of flavor of the month is that every month there's a new flavor. You stuck with your decision... what I meant before is that there are a lot of fans that will support Chelsea now and Arsenal in a few years for whatever reason. Those are the flavor of the month fans, not the ones that chose a team because they win things or have big names. Which means those people will give their money - if they give money at all - to another team a few years down the road. It's the fluctuating market - and it's a significant one btw.

Also, I'm not a fan of postmodern world. I think many people are losing their sense of loyalty. It's a shame... This new generation of very young people don't care about staying loyal to anything... it's weird.

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

Jebus some of you need to start your own blog!

But isn't this supposed to be a board of directors love fest? Emenalo is the king! English players, later for that..

[Jase 43,479]

  On 03/09/2014 at 23:51, Chelsea Legend 11 said:

I have read your posts and if you read mine you would see that I don't think overspending for English talent is prudent with FFP. If you want to see English players in the team then you'll have to wait till Jose is here for more than 4-5 years. And for all of you talking about culture and tradition there is no better way to preserve that than by producing our own.

Like I said to Fernando previously, no one seem to have mentioned that when we had Lampard and Cole in the team - the two English players we were proud to have in the team despite not being produced by us. Think you're confusing the concept of having English players in the squad with producing our own homegrown talent.

[Jase 43,479]

  On 04/09/2014 at 03:21, Chelsea Legend 11 said:

Jebus some of you need to start your own blog!

But isn't this supposed to be a board of directors love fest? Emenalo is the king! English players, later for that..

While I do agree we all have completely gone off topic in this thread, I have to ask - is complaining (or indirectly complaining) about the length of someone's post the new way to avoid a debate with a person?

[The only place to be 11,313]

What a weird discussion. Barbara, I haven't read any of your posts so I'm not addressing you.

Firstly, I think this whole discussion actually belongs in a different thread and not the board one. In terms of the board's handling of English talent, well they bought Gary Cahill in 2012 and that was about as good a bit of business that could be done in that regard in the last three years.

I'll state from the outset that I want us to have an English core. We're an English club (very specifically a London club) and it's important to the supporters that we have English players. That won't change.

But amongst the mewling for English players I see very few actual names of players that we should be buying and that's because there aren't many suitable ones. By suitable I mean a) good enough for this squad and b ) available at c) a decent price.

Who exactly should we be targetting? Specifically which players?

Shaw? £30 million when we just bought Luis and promoted Nathan Ake (young, talented and homegrown) to the squad. A guy who would earn more than Cahill, Oscar, Azpi, Ivanovic, Courtois, Matic and Schurrle? Not realistic.

Stones? Possibly but the prices quoted are twice what we paid for Zouma, three times what we paid for Cahill (who he's probably closest too in terms of style) and more than what we paid for Kalas, Omeruo, Christensen, Zouma and Ake combined.

The way forward for this club to produce young English talent seems obvious to me - produce it in-house.....and that's what we're doing. There is no new Lampard on the horizon for England, but maybe Loftus-Cheek or Baker or Boga can become our own. Ashley Cole is the greatest left-back this country has produced, but maybe we can get close with DaSilva. Then there's the Chalobahs, Solankes, Ainas and even Colketts who might come through.

English talent needs to be exceptional to succeed here and exceptional English talent is thin on the ground. Until we have the framework to insert these players into the squad and the first-team then it's hard to get the production line going but we're getting closer than we have done for years and for that the board (to bring it back on-topic) deserves credit.

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

  On 03/09/2014 at 23:29, Tomo said:

I don't think Jason is saying we should buy English players at the expense of our best players, that's upsurd. However there are players like AOC who in my opinion could easily be squad players here.

Like Le Chels said would we be worse with say AOC instead of Salah? for example.

Yes we would be because Alex would cost us a fortune to acquire. We need to develop HG talent not buy it.

[Nike 373]

TBH, if Chelsea wasnt an english team, I doubt Roman would buy english players....

However, the only England national I would want is OX, who can play multiple positions and has time to grow.

At Barcelona, they are buying players like rakitic, suarez, neymar, however, their juventile a and b are producing very good players that will come through soon. Being a Barcelona is not really feasible for Chelsea imo.

At least Chelsea doesnt have a nutcase like Perez as their board.

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

  On 04/09/2014 at 07:37, Jason said:

Like I said to Fernando previously, no one seem to have mentioned that when we had Lampard and Cole in the team - the two English players we were proud to have in the team despite not being produced by us. Think you're confusing the concept of having English players in the squad with producing our own homegrown talent.

Not at all. I think you guys fail to acknowledge the playing field has literally changed. We can no longer go out and just buy whoever we want like we could when we got Cole and Lamps, the punishment for doing that is severe.(sort of) Beyond that the reason we could put money into buying Cole and Lamps is because the club deemed them as or projected they would be world class in a few years and they were.

You say you want people to sit on the bench, how much money would you spend to buy AOC and sit him on the bench? Do you think Shaw was a gross overpayment? Lallana for the same money Cesc was purchased for? I think you guys are overlooking the simple logistics of it, we have the squad we do because we plan to develop our HG players not spend ridiculous fees to acquire them so we can save face amongst our english supporters.... Its the right thing to do!

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

  On 04/09/2014 at 07:39, Jason said:

While I do agree we all have completely gone off topic in this thread, I have to ask - is complaining (or indirectly complaining) about the length of someone's post the new way to avoid a debate with a person?

Honestly I didn't even bother reading them, was way too long to engage.

[mediator 2,026]

You all forgot someone that could be Chelsea material one day, Ross Barkley

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

  On 04/09/2014 at 07:48, The only place to be said:

What a weird discussion. Barbara, I haven't read any of your posts so I'm not addressing you.

Firstly, I think this whole discussion actually belongs in a different thread and not the board one. In terms of the board's handling of English talent, well they bought Gary Cahill in 2012 and that was about as good a bit of business that could be done in that regard in the last three years.

I'll state from the outset that I want us to have an English core. We're an English club (very specifically a London club) and it's important to the supporters that we have English players. That won't change.

But amongst the mewling for English players I see very few actual names of players that we should be buying and that's because there aren't many suitable ones. By suitable I mean a) good enough for this squad and b ) available at c) a decent price.

Who exactly should we be targetting? Specifically which players?

Shaw? £30 million when we just bought Luis and promoted Nathan Ake (young, talented and homegrown) to the squad. A guy who would earn more than Cahill, Oscar, Azpi, Ivanovic, Courtois, Matic and Schurrle? Not realistic.

Stones? Possibly but the prices quoted are twice what we paid for Zouma, three times what we paid for Cahill (who he's probably closest too in terms of style) and more than what we paid for Kalas, Omeruo, Christensen, Zouma and Ake combined.

The way forward for this club to produce young English talent seems obvious to me - produce it in-house.....and that's what we're doing. There is no new Lampard on the horizon for England, but maybe Loftus-Cheek or Baker or Boga can become our own. Ashley Cole is the greatest left-back this country has produced, but maybe we can get close with DaSilva. Then there's the Chalobahs, Solankes, Ainas and even Colketts who might come through.

English talent needs to be exceptional to succeed here and exceptional English talent is thin on the ground. Until we have the framework to insert these players into the squad and the first-team then it's hard to get the production line going but we're getting closer than we have done for years and for that the board (to bring it back on-topic) deserves credit.

Quoted for truth every word of it is 100% accurate.

Makes absolutely no sense to overspend on English talent just so they can sit on the bench and so the supporters can say we have English talent on the team. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly not well in tune with the economics of the game we're playing these days.

The way to graduate youth to the first team is with a stable management group who drill the kids with our philosophy from 14,15,16 and on. The ones that adapt to what we want to do as a team will get promoted, the ones that aren't quite there will be sold to a lesser side.

The problem with the growth of our first team players is exactly the same with our youth, we can't keep changing philosophies every year or so and expect players to adapt and grow... When youth players experience a change at the top they usually have to wait a couple years before the new Manager can fully assess them and possibly integrate them. Its a slower process than people want to acknowledge, especially at a top side like Chelsea.

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

  On 04/09/2014 at 13:21, mediator said:

You all forgot someone that could be Chelsea material one day, Ross Barkley

He'd have to be acquired on a free. If Lallana was 27m and Shaw 30m, I don't even want to think what Barkley will cost...