Chelsea were closely monitoring and probably felt he was going backwards under us. I personally think that would have been a wrong assessment, as I was noticing other qualities coming out when we were really digging in. I would compare Gallagher with Morgan in games - not on ability but just the way he went about his business and looking at it as soimething Morgan should try to emulate. But Chelsea own him and can make wrong decisions. Conor is such a good player, it is probably hard to damage him anyway but I think he will have benefitted his future game just as much during our desperate spell as the brilliant one at the start or the season. I'd be interested to hear his views on that a few years down the line.
Chelsea were closely monitoring and probably felt he was going backwards under us. I personally think that would have been a wrong assessment, as I was noticing other qualities coming out when we were really digging in. I would compare Gallagher with Morgan in games - not on ability but just the way he went about his business and looking at it as soimething Morgan should try to emulate. But Chelsea own him and can make wrong decisions. Conor is such a good player, it is probably hard to damage him anyway but I think he will have benefitted his future game just as much during our desperate spell as the brilliant one at the start or the season. I'd be interested to hear his views on that a few years down the line.
This is the worrying thing for me. Us as fans are obviously going to look at Conor's time at Charlton through Rose tinted glasses, but if coaches on the outside are worried about players development here, it could effect us getting more top quality loans in the future.
Players of that age go up and down. Conor was developing other aspects to his game and the Chelsea coaches weren't clever enough to notice that. Actually, maybe they were. Gallen did refer to them being happy about that aspect before we lost him. Given the way Chelsea operates, there is a good chance it was all about the money. Other clubs made approaches and maybe we should have anticipated that and said to Chelsea that we were willing to contribute a bit more given how well the lad was doing. It isn't as if we didn't know other clubs were sniffing around and that Chelsea's youth structure is run as a business as much as for anything else.
Chelsea were closely monitoring and probably felt he was going backwards under us. I personally think that would have been a wrong assessment, as I was noticing other qualities coming out when we were really digging in. I would compare Gallagher with Morgan in games - not on ability but just the way he went about his business and looking at it as soimething Morgan should try to emulate. But Chelsea own him and can make wrong decisions. Conor is such a good player, it is probably hard to damage him anyway but I think he will have benefitted his future game just as much during our desperate spell as the brilliant one at the start or the season. I'd be interested to hear his views on that a few years down the line.
This is the worrying thing for me. Us as fans are obviously going to look at Conor's time at Charlton through Rose tinted glasses, but if coaches on the outside are worried about players development here, it could effect us getting more top quality loans in the future.
Only because of the injuries though. Highly unlikely clubs (including Chelsea) would be put off from loaning to us in the future.
Chelsea were closely monitoring and probably felt he was going backwards under us. I personally think that would have been a wrong assessment, as I was noticing other qualities coming out when we were really digging in. I would compare Gallagher with Morgan in games - not on ability but just the way he went about his business and looking at it as soimething Morgan should try to emulate. But Chelsea own him and can make wrong decisions. Conor is such a good player, it is probably hard to damage him anyway but I think he will have benefitted his future game just as much during our desperate spell as the brilliant one at the start or the season. I'd be interested to hear his views on that a few years down the line.
This is the worrying thing for me. Us as fans are obviously going to look at Conor's time at Charlton through Rose tinted glasses, but if coaches on the outside are worried about players development here, it could effect us getting more top quality loans in the future.
I think it was more to do with the fact that we've been in defensive mode since the injuries kicked in. Good opportunity to test the defensive part of his game for a bit, but for sixteen or seventeen matches in a row, with no real end in sight? He looked like a different player in the first ten games of the season. Because of our changing fortunes he's gone from being a Bryan Robson to being a Nobby Stiles. Valuable, but not what Chelsea were hoping for.
What is true is that both Charlton and Chelsea have benefited from the initial move and it might have been good show for Chelsea to respect that and talk to us first which it looks like they didn't given Bowyer saying how surprised he was.
Saturday he could have been playing in a midfield of
Williams Gallagher Morgan/JFC Pratley
With Morgan/JFC. Cullen/Oztumer/Aneke on the bench.
Green & Hemed up top. Plenty of champ experience there, don't buy the development arguments. All about money.
"Could" being the thing. Not saying that money wasn't an influence or that this won't be the team but how many times have we heard that "such and such" should be fit only to find that they aren't after all?
Chelsea didn't have the luxury of time waiting for "ifs and buts" but did have the two facts to base that decision on - one win in 16 games, a player that has had no rest in that time and one who became the senior pro in a midfield that is weaker than Chelsea's own Under 23 side. The likes of Makelele will have seen that and reported back accordingly.
But when all is said and done he is Chelsea's player. Just as all those that we have recalled in the last month from sides further down the food chain were ours and where those clubs may feel equally hard done by. Perhaps they won't do so simply because those players might not have had the same impact and influence as Gallagher has. I understand that we recalled at least one player recently because we weren't happy with his development and treatment by the club he was loaned to. What's different?
The reason for the recall is almost irrelevant and it happens all the time. We really need to move on otherwise in a decade's time, should we be relegated, some will be blaming Gallagher and Chelsea for our demise in the same way as others continue to blame Parker and Chelsea for us not getting into Europe. It's not all about one player.
Saturday he could have been playing in a midfield of
Williams Gallagher Morgan/JFC Pratley
With Morgan/JFC. Cullen/Oztumer/Aneke on the bench.
Green & Hemed up top. Plenty of champ experience there, don't buy the development arguments. All about money.
"Could" being the thing. Not saying that money wasn't an influence or that this won't be the team but how many times have we heard that "such and such" should be fit only to find that they aren't after all?
Chelsea didn't have the luxury of time waiting for "ifs and buts" but did have the two facts to base that decision on - one win in 16 games, a player that has had no rest in that time and one who became the senior pro in a midfield that is weaker than Chelsea's own Under 23 side. The likes of Makelele will have seen that and reported back accordingly.
But when all is said and done he is Chelsea's player. Just as all those that we have recalled in the last month from sides further down the food chain were ours and where those clubs may feel equally hard done by. Perhaps they won't do so simply because those players might not have had the same impact and influence as Gallagher has. I understand that we recalled at least one player recently because we weren't happy with his development and treatment by the club he was loaned to. What's different?
The reason for the recall is almost irrelevant and it happens all the time. We really need to move on otherwise in a decade's time, should we be relegated, some will be blaming Gallagher and Chelsea for our demise in the same way as others continue to blame Parker and Chelsea for us not getting into Europe. It's not all about one player.
Good post AA, but I dissent from your analogy. Parker and Chelsea were to blame for us not getting into Europe
Saturday he could have been playing in a midfield of
Williams Gallagher Morgan/JFC Pratley
With Morgan/JFC. Cullen/Oztumer/Aneke on the bench.
Green & Hemed up top. Plenty of champ experience there, don't buy the development arguments. All about money.
"Could" being the thing. Not saying that money wasn't an influence or that this won't be the team but how many times have we heard that "such and such" should be fit only to find that they aren't after all?
Chelsea didn't have the luxury of time waiting for "ifs and buts" but did have the two facts to base that decision on - one win in 16 games, a player that has had no rest in that time and one who became the senior pro in a midfield that is weaker than Chelsea's own Under 23 side. The likes of Makelele will have seen that and reported back accordingly.
But when all is said and done he is Chelsea's player. Just as all those that we have recalled in the last month from sides further down the food chain were ours and where those clubs may feel equally hard done by. Perhaps they won't do so simply because those players might not have had the same impact and influence as Gallagher has. I understand that we recalled at least one player recently because we weren't happy with his development and treatment by the club he was loaned to. What's different?
The reason for the recall is almost irrelevant and it happens all the time. We really need to move on otherwise in a decade's time, should we be relegated, some will be blaming Gallagher and Chelsea for our demise in the same way as others continue to blame Parker and Chelsea for us not getting into Europe. It's not all about one player.
Good post AA, but I dissent from your analogy. Parker and Chelsea were to blame for us not getting into Europe
I truly understand why you and others believe that. I simply cannot share that belief for all the reasons I have expressed previously. We will just have to respectfully beg to differ and that is what debate is all about after all.
Saturday he could have been playing in a midfield of
Williams Gallagher Morgan/JFC Pratley
With Morgan/JFC. Cullen/Oztumer/Aneke on the bench.
Green & Hemed up top. Plenty of champ experience there, don't buy the development arguments. All about money.
"Could" being the thing. Not saying that money wasn't an influence or that this won't be the team but how many times have we heard that "such and such" should be fit only to find that they aren't after all?
Chelsea didn't have the luxury of time waiting for "ifs and buts" but did have the two facts to base that decision on - one win in 16 games, a player that has had no rest in that time and one who became the senior pro in a midfield that is weaker than Chelsea's own Under 23 side. The likes of Makelele will have seen that and reported back accordingly.
But when all is said and done he is Chelsea's player. Just as all those that we have recalled in the last month from sides further down the food chain were ours and where those clubs may feel equally hard done by. Perhaps they won't do so simply because those players might not have had the same impact and influence as Gallagher has. I understand that we recalled at least one player recently because we weren't happy with his development and treatment by the club he was loaned to. What's different?
The reason for the recall is almost irrelevant and it happens all the time. We really need to move on otherwise in a decade's time, should we be relegated, some will be blaming Gallagher and Chelsea for our demise in the same way as others continue to blame Parker and Chelsea for us not getting into Europe. It's not all about one player.
Good post AA, but I dissent from your analogy. Parker and Chelsea were to blame for us not getting into Europe
I truly understand why you and others believe that. I simply cannot share that belief for all the reasons I have expressed previously. We will just have to respectfully beg to differ and that is what debate is all about after all.
I don't believe it was anything to do with his development etc and/or going backwards.....he wasn't
this was purely about money and Swansea stumped up a decent loan fee and are paying his wages
If that’s the case (and it definitely might be), isn’t it weird that we weren’t given a chance to match or better Swansea’s bid?
We know that opportunity wasn’t given because Bowyer and co were basically blindsided by this. Plus it definitely would have leaked if such a discussion was taking place.
I actually think it’s a bit of both, they get to put Gallagher somewhere that they think is better for his development (which requires more than just playing loads of games because our squad has casualty rates like the Somme) and they have improved the financial hit they were taking by subsidising his salary with us.
Saturday he could have been playing in a midfield of
Williams Gallagher Morgan/JFC Pratley
With Morgan/JFC. Cullen/Oztumer/Aneke on the bench.
Green & Hemed up top. Plenty of champ experience there, don't buy the development arguments. All about money.
"Could" being the thing. Not saying that money wasn't an influence or that this won't be the team but how many times have we heard that "such and such" should be fit only to find that they aren't after all?
Chelsea didn't have the luxury of time waiting for "ifs and buts" but did have the two facts to base that decision on - one win in 16 games, a player that has had no rest in that time and one who became the senior pro in a midfield that is weaker than Chelsea's own Under 23 side. The likes of Makelele will have seen that and reported back accordingly.
But when all is said and done he is Chelsea's player. Just as all those that we have recalled in the last month from sides further down the food chain were ours and where those clubs may feel equally hard done by. Perhaps they won't do so simply because those players might not have had the same impact and influence as Gallagher has. I understand that we recalled at least one player recently because we weren't happy with his development and treatment by the club he was loaned to. What's different?
The reason for the recall is almost irrelevant and it happens all the time. We really need to move on otherwise in a decade's time, should we be relegated, some will be blaming Gallagher and Chelsea for our demise in the same way as others continue to blame Parker and Chelsea for us not getting into Europe. It's not all about one player.
Agreed - No new players through the door , no manager signing on the dotted line , and no guarentee of plaing in a championship midfield any time soon. If we were still top 8/10 without a dressing room looking like a hospital ward i am sure we would have hung onto him.
I don't know if anyone here has access to The Athletic (I don't a friend sent me the article) but it talks about Conor getting recalled, but more so to do with them seeing Swansea as a "feeder" club and looks like they'll be getting more Chelsea players in the near future.
After six very productive months at Charlton Athletic, Conor Gallagher has a new temporary home in Swansea. Chelsea’s decision to recall him from south London and send him to South Wales this month has raised a few eyebrows — and annoyed Charlton manager Lee Bowyer — but the logic behind it is comprehensive and the potential benefits go beyond one promising footballer’s development.
Sources have told The Athletic that Chelsea’s academy staff are hoping to build a lasting relationship that could see Swansea City become the preferred loan destination for some of their brightest prospects in the years to come. It is likely that others will follow Gallagher, and defender Marc Guehi, in being farmed out from Cobham to the Liberty Stadium.
Gallagher’s first three months in senior football went better than he or anyone else expected. Five goals from midfield in his first 12 appearances established him as the most exciting talent in Chelsea’s cohort of loanees, as well as helping to propel Charlton to the fringes of the Championship play-off race. But gravity came for Bowyer’s newly-promoted side long before his recall did.
Charlton now lie 19th, five points above the relegation places, having won just one of their last 15 Championship matches. Gallagher remained a key starter for them but Chelsea did not feel his long-term development would be best served by a relegation battle in the second tier — particularly when his early performances had turned so many heads at clubs with loftier ambitions.
Swansea, seventh in the Championship, tick that particular box.
And unlike leaders West Bromwich Albion, who also pushed hard to get Gallagher, they could also offer credible assurances he would walk straight into their starting midfield. Maintaining regular playing time for the remainder of the season was unsurprisingly the top priority for Chelsea, as well as for the 19-year-old and his representatives.
Gallagher spent Tuesday at Cobham and trained with the first team, giving Frank Lampard — loaned to Swansea for a season himself as a West Ham United teenager in the mid-1990s — the opportunity to get another look at him up close. But the plan was always to send him straight back out, with former academy coaches Jody Morris and Joe Edwards continuing to offer the regular advice and encouragement from afar that they provided throughout his time at The Valley.
Discussions about his next destination factored in statistical analysis of each interested team’s style.
Swansea’s emphasis on short passing, possession play and creation with the ball were all regarded as positives in their case for helping Gallagher to continue honing his tactical and technical attributes. All moves are made with the ultimate goal of a first-team breakthrough at Stamford Bridge in mind.
But undoubtedly Swansea’s most significant asset in their pursuit of Gallagher, as it was for Guehi last week, was manager Steve Cooper. The former Liverpool academy manager led a talented England squad featuring both players to win the Under-17 World Cup in 2017 and personally spoke to them to explain his development plan and how they would fit into his team.
Five Chelsea players appeared in that final against Spain in India: Guehi, Gallagher, Callum Hudson-Odoi, George McEachran and Jonathan Panzo (now at Monaco). They are pictured below with Rhian Brewster, the Chelsea academy old boy and now Liverpool striker who is currently on loan at… Swansea.
Back row, left to right: Guehi, Hudson-Odoi, Panzo and Gallagher. Front row: McEachran and Brewster (Photo: Jan Kruger – FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images)
Cooper is highly regarded at Cobham. As coach of the England under-16s and later the under-17s, he often found himself at Chelsea’s training ground to watch training and matches, talking to staff about the many talented teenagers making their way through the most dominant youth academy in the country. Time and familiarity helped build close professional relationships.
Edwards, now part of Lampard’s backroom staff, often saw Cooper at St George’s Park when he spent a year as an assistant to then-England under-18s coach Neil Dewsnip. Before and after every international camp, Cooper made Edwards and Jim Fraser, Chelsea’s assistant head of youth development, his first ports of call at Cobham when liaising about player performance and progress.
The connections between Swansea and Chelsea don’t end there. The Welsh club’s chairman, Trevor Birch, was chief executive at Stamford Bridge in 2002 when head of youth development Neil Bath was first handed senior academy responsibilities.
But it is Cooper’s presence that provides the foundation for what both clubs hope will prove a sustained and successful working relationship. Chelsea academy staff trust him to take the lead in developing Guehi, Gallagher and others who may follow as people as well as players, their confidence reinforced by his impressive track record in the England set-up.
Equally, there is an understanding Chelsea will continue to help coach Guehi and Gallagher from afar, with the club’s loan technical staff supplying both youngsters with regular detailed feedback on their performances and visiting them frequently in Wales to check in.
There is a clear comparison to be made with the time Mason Mount and Fikayo Tomori spent playing for Lampard and Morris at Derby County last season, getting regular Championship football under the guidance of a trusted coaching team somewhere there is an expectation to win and compete for promotion. Derby ended up reaching the play-off final before losing to Aston Villa. That experience prepared them as well as any loan could for life as Chelsea players.
Sources have told The Athletic that Guehi’s loan is expected to extend to next season providing all parties are happy while Gallagher’s situation will be re-assessed in the summer. If all goes well, more Chelsea prospects are likely to be entrusted to Cooper.
Every player’s development curve is different and loans are far from an exact science.
Chelsea have been burned in their attempts to find a safe pair of hands before, even when it comes to their own former employees. Ex-academy coach Brendan Rodgers infuriated many at Cobham by ignoring Josh McEachran at Swansea, Victor Moses when Liverpool boss and Charly Musonda with Celtic.
Other relationships have been more productive.
Chelsea’s long-standing link with Vitesse Arnhem, borne out of owner Roman Abramovich’s close ties to fellow Russian billionaire Alexander Chigirinsky, who owns the Dutch club, has been well documented. Bristol City built on the goodwill fostered by Tammy Abraham’s prolific first Championship loan in 2016-17 to sign Jay Dasilva, Tomas Kalas and Kasey Palmer permanently.
But over the years, Chelsea have learned that the most reliable loan relationships are forged with specific managers. It is why Derby’s spectacular success in bringing along Mount and Tomori last season counted for little once Lampard and Morris returned to Stamford Bridge, and why Cooper has brought Swansea so emphatically into favour despite the recent memory of Josh McEachran’s one league start in five months.
Gallagher and Guehi both attracted interest from the Premier League and Chelsea turned down more lucrative options to send them to the Championship club.
It is a big statement of faith from Cobham academy staff in the developmental qualities of Cooper and, if it pays off, the benefits for all parties will stretch well beyond this season.
Always had an irrational dislike of Cooper since I subtitled his opening press conference for Swansea. Seems like a more corporate Karl Robinson with less banter and even more Brentish management cliches.
That article, which had a distinct whiff of deference to Chelsea about it, does not address why they loaned him to Charlton in the first place if those were the criteria, or at what point the huge bureaucracy of loan coaches and academy coaches decided that they had changed the criteria or that Charlton didnt meet original criteria after all, nor when they informed Charlton of this important change in plans/criteria.
Yes yes , i know, Chelsea dont have to explain any of that. But as I have said before, even in business it pays, long term, to behave with class.
Comments
I don't believe it was anything to do with his development etc and/or going backwards.....he wasn't
this was purely about money and Swansea stumped up a decent loan fee and are paying his wages
He looked like a different player in the first ten games of the season. Because of our changing fortunes he's gone from being a Bryan Robson to being a Nobby Stiles. Valuable, but not what Chelsea were hoping for.
Williams
Gallagher Morgan/JFC
Pratley
With Morgan/JFC. Cullen/Oztumer/Aneke on the bench.
Green & Hemed up top. Plenty of champ experience there, don't buy the development arguments. All about money.
Chelsea didn't have the luxury of time waiting for "ifs and buts" but did have the two facts to base that decision on - one win in 16 games, a player that has had no rest in that time and one who became the senior pro in a midfield that is weaker than Chelsea's own Under 23 side. The likes of Makelele will have seen that and reported back accordingly.
But when all is said and done he is Chelsea's player. Just as all those that we have recalled in the last month from sides further down the food chain were ours and where those clubs may feel equally hard done by. Perhaps they won't do so simply because those players might not have had the same impact and influence as Gallagher has. I understand that we recalled at least one player recently because we weren't happy with his development and treatment by the club he was loaned to. What's different?
The reason for the recall is almost irrelevant and it happens all the time. We really need to move on otherwise in a decade's time, should we be relegated, some will be blaming Gallagher and Chelsea for our demise in the same way as others continue to blame Parker and Chelsea for us not getting into Europe. It's not all about one player.
Parker and Chelsea were to blame for us not getting into Europe
Agreed - No new players through the door , no manager signing on the dotted line , and no guarentee of plaing in a championship midfield any time soon. If we were still top 8/10 without a dressing room looking like a hospital ward i am sure we would have hung onto him.
Sheep sh*gging pr*cks
Why Chelsea are putting faith in Steve Cooper and Swansea: from U17 World Cup glory to promise of stylish football
After six very productive months at Charlton Athletic, Conor Gallagher has a new temporary home in Swansea. Chelsea’s decision to recall him from south London and send him to South Wales this month has raised a few eyebrows — and annoyed Charlton manager Lee Bowyer — but the logic behind it is comprehensive and the potential benefits go beyond one promising footballer’s development.
Sources have told The Athletic that Chelsea’s academy staff are hoping to build a lasting relationship that could see Swansea City become the preferred loan destination for some of their brightest prospects in the years to come. It is likely that others will follow Gallagher, and defender Marc Guehi, in being farmed out from Cobham to the Liberty Stadium.
Gallagher’s first three months in senior football went better than he or anyone else expected. Five goals from midfield in his first 12 appearances established him as the most exciting talent in Chelsea’s cohort of loanees, as well as helping to propel Charlton to the fringes of the Championship play-off race. But gravity came for Bowyer’s newly-promoted side long before his recall did.
Charlton now lie 19th, five points above the relegation places, having won just one of their last 15 Championship matches. Gallagher remained a key starter for them but Chelsea did not feel his long-term development would be best served by a relegation battle in the second tier — particularly when his early performances had turned so many heads at clubs with loftier ambitions.
Who remembers this Conor Gallagher lightning strike goal?
#EFLonQuest #EFL #CAFC
Swansea, seventh in the Championship, tick that particular box.
And unlike leaders West Bromwich Albion, who also pushed hard to get Gallagher, they could also offer credible assurances he would walk straight into their starting midfield. Maintaining regular playing time for the remainder of the season was unsurprisingly the top priority for Chelsea, as well as for the 19-year-old and his representatives.
Gallagher spent Tuesday at Cobham and trained with the first team, giving Frank Lampard — loaned to Swansea for a season himself as a West Ham United teenager in the mid-1990s — the opportunity to get another look at him up close. But the plan was always to send him straight back out, with former academy coaches Jody Morris and Joe Edwards continuing to offer the regular advice and encouragement from afar that they provided throughout his time at The Valley.
Discussions about his next destination factored in statistical analysis of each interested team’s style.
Swansea’s emphasis on short passing, possession play and creation with the ball were all regarded as positives in their case for helping Gallagher to continue honing his tactical and technical attributes. All moves are made with the ultimate goal of a first-team breakthrough at Stamford Bridge in mind.
But undoubtedly Swansea’s most significant asset in their pursuit of Gallagher, as it was for Guehi last week, was manager Steve Cooper. The former Liverpool academy manager led a talented England squad featuring both players to win the Under-17 World Cup in 2017 and personally spoke to them to explain his development plan and how they would fit into his team.
Five Chelsea players appeared in that final against Spain in India: Guehi, Gallagher, Callum Hudson-Odoi, George McEachran and Jonathan Panzo (now at Monaco). They are pictured below with Rhian Brewster, the Chelsea academy old boy and now Liverpool striker who is currently on loan at… Swansea.
Cooper is highly regarded at Cobham. As coach of the England under-16s and later the under-17s, he often found himself at Chelsea’s training ground to watch training and matches, talking to staff about the many talented teenagers making their way through the most dominant youth academy in the country. Time and familiarity helped build close professional relationships.
Edwards, now part of Lampard’s backroom staff, often saw Cooper at St George’s Park when he spent a year as an assistant to then-England under-18s coach Neil Dewsnip. Before and after every international camp, Cooper made Edwards and Jim Fraser, Chelsea’s assistant head of youth development, his first ports of call at Cobham when liaising about player performance and progress.
The connections between Swansea and Chelsea don’t end there. The Welsh club’s chairman, Trevor Birch, was chief executive at Stamford Bridge in 2002 when head of youth development Neil Bath was first handed senior academy responsibilities.
But it is Cooper’s presence that provides the foundation for what both clubs hope will prove a sustained and successful working relationship. Chelsea academy staff trust him to take the lead in developing Guehi, Gallagher and others who may follow as people as well as players, their confidence reinforced by his impressive track record in the England set-up.
Equally, there is an understanding Chelsea will continue to help coach Guehi and Gallagher from afar, with the club’s loan technical staff supplying both youngsters with regular detailed feedback on their performances and visiting them frequently in Wales to check in.
There is a clear comparison to be made with the time Mason Mount and Fikayo Tomori spent playing for Lampard and Morris at Derby County last season, getting regular Championship football under the guidance of a trusted coaching team somewhere there is an expectation to win and compete for promotion. Derby ended up reaching the play-off final before losing to Aston Villa. That experience prepared them as well as any loan could for life as Chelsea players.
Sources have told The Athletic that Guehi’s loan is expected to extend to next season providing all parties are happy while Gallagher’s situation will be re-assessed in the summer. If all goes well, more Chelsea prospects are likely to be entrusted to Cooper.
Every player’s development curve is different and loans are far from an exact science.
Chelsea have been burned in their attempts to find a safe pair of hands before, even when it comes to their own former employees. Ex-academy coach Brendan Rodgers infuriated many at Cobham by ignoring Josh McEachran at Swansea, Victor Moses when Liverpool boss and Charly Musonda with Celtic.
Other relationships have been more productive.
Chelsea’s long-standing link with Vitesse Arnhem, borne out of owner Roman Abramovich’s close ties to fellow Russian billionaire Alexander Chigirinsky, who owns the Dutch club, has been well documented. Bristol City built on the goodwill fostered by Tammy Abraham’s prolific first Championship loan in 2016-17 to sign Jay Dasilva, Tomas Kalas and Kasey Palmer permanently.
But over the years, Chelsea have learned that the most reliable loan relationships are forged with specific managers. It is why Derby’s spectacular success in bringing along Mount and Tomori last season counted for little once Lampard and Morris returned to Stamford Bridge, and why Cooper has brought Swansea so emphatically into favour despite the recent memory of Josh McEachran’s one league start in five months.
Gallagher and Guehi both attracted interest from the Premier League and Chelsea turned down more lucrative options to send them to the Championship club.
It is a big statement of faith from Cobham academy staff in the developmental qualities of Cooper and, if it pays off, the benefits for all parties will stretch well beyond this season.
Good luck Conor, thanks for what you did for us.
Yes yes , i know, Chelsea dont have to explain any of that. But as I have said before, even in business it pays, long term, to behave with class.
The author can therefore fuck off.