Worth remembering losing Gallagher as a loanee practically relegated us.
Or you could say the injuries relegated us. No disrespect to them as they tried their best but what chance did we have with Dempsey and Vennings in the championship.
The embargo didn't help. Even so, under the embargo we could still sign loans...the fact we ended up with shit loan players in January is because somebody decided to spend the club's money on himself instead. Chelsea said we could keep Gallagher if we paid a small increase in the percentage of his wages. Said man refused and Chelsea sent him to Wales.
We were under an embargo because of him. Less money spent on himself would've meant better loans in Jan and keeping Conor. Matt fucking Southall is why we got relegated. He is why we had to play kids. Yes, 🐍 could've saved us, but we never should have been in that position the first place.
Quite interested to know more about this, as I put a bit of effort into trying to find out what was behind it, but my main source was a bit less solid than I would have liked. Nevertheless this is significantly different to the story I heard. I do understand that Chelsea treat their huge number of loanees as effectively a revenue stream, with its own dedicated staff, largely ex Chelsea pros, but we have had good season long loans from them before (da Silva) and after (Maatsen) and no such complications occurred. And when he arrived I don't think Chelsea expected him to be an immediate starter, I heard they had been delighted with his progress in that short time. So asking for a "small increase in wages" seems a bit petty and not in keeping with the way they've done things, both with Charlton and other clubs. They knew we didn't have a pot to piss in back at the start of the season, too.
For the avoidance of doubt I am no apologist for Matt fucking Southall.
Worth remembering losing Gallagher as a loanee practically relegated us.
Or you could say the injuries relegated us. No disrespect to them as they tried their best but what chance did we have with Dempsey and Vennings in the championship.
The embargo didn't help. Even so, under the embargo we could still sign loans...the fact we ended up with shit loan players in January is because somebody decided to spend the club's money on himself instead. Chelsea said we could keep Gallagher if we paid a small increase in the percentage of his wages. Said man refused and Chelsea sent him to Wales.
We were under an embargo because of him. Less money spent on himself would've meant better loans in Jan and keeping Conor. Matt fucking Southall is why we got relegated. He is why we had to play kids. Yes, 🐍 could've saved us, but we never should have been in that position the first place.
Quite interested to know more about this, as I put a bit of effort into trying to find out what was behind it, but my main source was a bit less solid than I would have liked. Nevertheless this is significantly different to the story I heard. I do understand that Chelsea treat their huge number of loanees as effectively a revenue stream, with its own dedicated staff, largely ex Chelsea pros, but we have had good season long loans from them before (da Silva) and after (Maatsen) and no such complications occurred. And when he arrived I don't think Chelsea expected him to be an immediate starter, I heard they had been delighted with his progress in that short time. So asking for a "small increase in wages" seems a bit petty and not in keeping with the way they've done things, both with Charlton and other clubs. They knew we didn't have a pot to piss in back at the start of the season, too.
For the avoidance of doubt I am no apologist for Matt fucking Southall.
What I was told at the time was that Cooper was very impressed with him in our match against them at The Valley, followed his progress and enquired with Chelsea about the possibility of taking him on loan for the second half of the season. They offered to pay all of his wages plus a loan fee (which we were not). Chelsea then asked us to pay a little bit more (not even match Swansea) as, as you say, they were very happy with his progress.
Caveat is that I'm passing on what I heard five years ago so perhaps I should have prefaced my comment with that. I am not ITK and do not profess to be.
When it comes to loans, I’ve long been of the opinion that, as long as the number of loans a club can have is limited (which is a rule already in place), the onus should be on the lending club to cover most, if not all, of the player’s wages. Suppose lending clubs had to pick up a minimum of 75% of wages for example. This would help smaller clubs to be able to afford better players, while also discourage the big sides from hoovering up talent and loaning out 50 players every season (I’m looking at you in particular, Chelsea, Spurs, Man City) and in turn encourage young players to stay at smaller clubs to continue their development.
But it won’t ever happen, because it would require a handful of big fat selfish turkeys who hold all the power to vote for Christmas.
Classic Chelsea and loanees. Carlton Cole, Smertin, Gallagher. All cut short.
Didn’t Cole do the whole season? I remember him picking up injuries mid season, then scored a cracking goal down the valley toward the end of the season.
If I remember correctly, we wanted him for the 2nd season, and had an agreement in place, and didn’t happen
Classic Chelsea and loanees. Carlton Cole, Smertin, Gallagher. All cut short.
Didn’t Cole do the whole season? I remember him picking up injuries mid season, then scored a cracking goal down the valley toward the end of the season.
If I remember correctly, we wanted him for the 2nd season, and had an agreement in place, and didn’t happen
Just looking it up, play first 2 games the missed 10 games injured and then scored last game of the season against the saints
PL teams arent going to send us a good player to be cover. They want them to play. Would really struggle to loan a centre back when clubs will look and see we have Ramsay and Jones
Classic Chelsea and loanees. Carlton Cole, Smertin, Gallagher. All cut short.
Didn’t Cole do the whole season? I remember him picking up injuries mid season, then scored a cracking goal down the valley toward the end of the season.
If I remember correctly, we wanted him for the 2nd season, and had an agreement in place, and didn’t happen
Just looking it up, play first 2 games the missed 10 games injured and then scored last game of the season against the saints
Didnt he come on as a sub, score and then get subed off?
Comments
For the avoidance of doubt I am no apologist for Matt fucking Southall.
Caveat is that I'm passing on what I heard five years ago so perhaps I should have prefaced my comment with that. I am not ITK and do not profess to be.
But it won’t ever happen, because it would require a handful of big fat selfish turkeys who hold all the power to vote for Christmas.
If I remember correctly, we wanted him for the 2nd season, and had an agreement in place, and didn’t happen
A lot of the games missed were due to the roasted alleged gang rape allegations