Ross Barkley

[Damo70]

A caller on WM tonight reckons we payed a loan fee of £11 million for Barkley.

[eamonn]

That's what was reported at the time by any press outlet which mentioned the fee. I said it on here during the week. Plenty of people sceptical, I hope they're right.

[robbo1874]

Presumably they’ll refund us 3 mill if we sign him permanently?

[SaddVillan]

Since 2016 Chelsea have loaned out 76 players.
43 of whom never made a first team appearance.

Part of Chelsea's business model is based on earning income from  loan fees and from sales of players deemed not good enough for the first team.

The Academy is seen as a profit centre to make money, rather than a source of players for the first team.

They have over 30 players out on loan this season..

[ChicagoLion]

Presumably they’ll refund us 3 mill if we sign him permanently?

I think they would pay us to take him off their hands.

[TopDeck113]

Can't we simply send him back to the Bridge so that he can be a sulking presence whilst they try to prepare for a Champions League semi-final?  Probably not, but anything that could undermine Chelsea is worth considering.

It has been said before but it worth repeating: the Chelsea loan model stinks.  Whilst accepting that we were the beneficiaries when it came to having Tammy in our promotion season, it is simply not right that a club can hoover up far more talent than it can possibly need to the detriment of both the vast majority of those players and the game in general.

If - IF - the Premier league and the EFL had any backbone, then they would limit the number of players a PL club could loan out.  I would suggest a maximum of two to other PL clubs (plus scrap the rule that prevents a player playing against his parent club) and a maximum of five to EFL clubs (from a developmental perspective, I accept that it is often beneficial for a player who will ultimately make it to spend a season playing regularly at a competitive level a rung or two down the ladder).   

[RamboandBruno]

It’s a different deal, different player etc to Drinkwater last year, but ultimately Smith didn’t shirk from bombing him out. Although Barkley hasn’t head butted any 5ft Spaniards that we know of, after last weeks chance was blown (again), I really wouldn’t be surprised if he gets very few minutes from the bench in the remaining 7 games he’s eligible to play in. Think he’s done at Villa to be honest.

[ChicagoLion]

Contract expires June 2023.
Hi isn’t getting anywhere near the Chelsea squad let alone the team.
Continual injury problems- probably permanent.
Poor attitude.
£4.8 million salary
28 years old so no sell on value
I think he sits out his contract at Chelsea whilst they try desperately to get him off their books.

[dcdavecollett]

He more or less did the same at Everton, didn't he?

[eamonn]

Maybe he's sad that he'll never play in a SuperLeague.

[mr underhill]

He's Drinkwater Mark2

[Dick Edwards]

It has been said before but it worth repeating: the Chelsea loan model stinks.  Whilst accepting that we were the beneficiaries when it came to having Tammy in our promotion season, it is simply not right that a club can hoover up far more talent than it can possibly need to the detriment of both the vast majority of those players and the game in general.

If - IF - the Premier league and the EFL had any backbone, then they would limit the number of players a PL club could loan out.  I would suggest a maximum of two to other PL clubs (plus scrap the rule that prevents a player playing against his parent club) and a maximum of five to EFL clubs (from a developmental perspective, I accept that it is often beneficial for a player who will ultimately make it to spend a season playing regularly at a competitive level a rung or two down the ladder).

I've said this before but the loan system was not designed for this level of abuse. It was primarily for players recovering from injury who could go on loan with a view to signing for the new team when he'd proved his fitness. It should be clamped down on, especially in light of this Super League business. I propose all loans should only be made with an agreed fee at the end of the season to make the deal permanent. This would stop clubs like Chelsea hoovering up all these players as they couldn't just send young players out on loan to get experience and boost their value or make them more first team ready.

[paul_e]

It has been said before but it worth repeating: the Chelsea loan model stinks.  Whilst accepting that we were the beneficiaries when it came to having Tammy in our promotion season, it is simply not right that a club can hoover up far more talent than it can possibly need to the detriment of both the vast majority of those players and the game in general.

If - IF - the Premier league and the EFL had any backbone, then they would limit the number of players a PL club could loan out.  I would suggest a maximum of two to other PL clubs (plus scrap the rule that prevents a player playing against his parent club) and a maximum of five to EFL clubs (from a developmental perspective, I accept that it is often beneficial for a player who will ultimately make it to spend a season playing regularly at a competitive level a rung or two down the ladder).

I've said this before but the loan system was not designed for this level of abuse. It was primarily for players recovering from injury who could go on loan with a view to signing for the new team when he'd proved his fitness. It should be clamped down on, especially in light of this Super League business. I propose all loans should only be made with an agreed fee at the end of the season to make the deal permanent. This would stop clubs like Chelsea hoovering up all these players as they couldn't just send young players out on loan to get experience and boost their value or make them more first team ready.

Only if the player is over a certain age (21 for me). Younger players need the opportunity to go out on loans and lower league teams rely on them, a blanket rule like this would do far more damage than good.

[Dick Edwards]

It has been said before but it worth repeating: the Chelsea loan model stinks.  Whilst accepting that we were the beneficiaries when it came to having Tammy in our promotion season, it is simply not right that a club can hoover up far more talent than it can possibly need to the detriment of both the vast majority of those players and the game in general.

If - IF - the Premier league and the EFL had any backbone, then they would limit the number of players a PL club could loan out.  I would suggest a maximum of two to other PL clubs (plus scrap the rule that prevents a player playing against his parent club) and a maximum of five to EFL clubs (from a developmental perspective, I accept that it is often beneficial for a player who will ultimately make it to spend a season playing regularly at a competitive level a rung or two down the ladder).

I've said this before but the loan system was not designed for this level of abuse. It was primarily for players recovering from injury who could go on loan with a view to signing for the new team when he'd proved his fitness. It should be clamped down on, especially in light of this Super League business. I propose all loans should only be made with an agreed fee at the end of the season to make the deal permanent. This would stop clubs like Chelsea hoovering up all these players as they couldn't just send young players out on loan to get experience and boost their value or make them more first team ready.

Only if the player is over a certain age (21 for me). Younger players need the opportunity to go out on loans and lower league teams rely on them, a blanket rule like this would do far more damage than good.

But big clubs, not necessarily Chelsea wouldn't have so many players if they knew they couldn't send them out on loan to gain experience. The majority have next to no chance coming through the system to first team as the bigger clubs of this world buy the finished article. That would mean youngsters would be more likely to sign for lower league clubs knowing they'd see a route from development through to regular first team action. Once mature, the bigger clubs would have to pay a healthy fee to the developing club instead of smaller clubs having to pay big clubs for the privilege of developing players.

[paul_e]

Under that system premier league clubs might as well not bother having academies and if they don't have them then the actual result, in my opinion, would be a massive drop in quality of English players. You'd be creating a huge problem to solve an issue that only really exists at 1 club. In fact what I suspect would happen is that a bunch of smaller clubs would just become reserve teams for the big clubs with lots of free transfers either way every window.

Imagine the harm to Grealish if he either had to come through at Walsall or had been permanently signed by notts county or hadn't been able to have a season at that level and had just played u23s instead.

For young players the loan system works perfectly and benefits everyone.