the Chelsea board seems to treat the Chelsea academy as a
"factory" to source for undeveloped? talents and than put in a
"made in chelsea" tagmark and then sell them off cheaply to other
clubs. then when the first 11 need players, they will pay 30-40m
just to buy and get ripped by other clubs.
it makes me wonder why do the board even bother to sign young
players for a fee when ultimately they have no intention of them
coming through the ranks.
scott sinclair, miroslov stoch and bensahar are clear
examples... all 3 of them had did well while out on loan but not
given a chance to wear the chelsea shirt. but they all still did
well after leaving chelsea.
scott sinclair has been superb in the Championship...
the next to go will be michael mancienne, jack cork, and all the
other loan players away from chelsea right now.
well, not a lot of EPL clubs chairman/board are patient, cause
once performance slides, they will fear dropping into championship
and lose a slice of EPL money. Look @ Bent's purchase, and U can
see the logic.
only a few clubs like gunners/manU, with established
management/managers, are able to tolerate a greater degree of
testing/trying of youths. for chelsea/mcity, they have to produce
results quicker as the investments are so huge, so expectations are
high.
For most teams, i do believe they get lots of gems, in the hope,
that one of them can turn into aka Ronaldo and really influence the
results. And in some cases, sell for massive profits.
