Who Signed Jay Dasilva?
Has only played one match.
Jackson preferred at left back.
Doesn't ever seem to be mentioned.
Comments
-
Roland made the signing. He tells his puppets the only signings we can have are kids with no experience or signing youngsters with a bit of experience on freebies who if come good he can sell on and if not then he can get rid of knowing he hasn't paid much out for them. The whole system is a joke. But too many fans still believe they have learned from their mistakes.14
-
KR probably went to Belgium and said he needed some depth but Roland wouldn't pay any wages so we had to go fishing for a club that would let us take on a player for nothing.1
-
Waste of time for the lad...would be better training with his parent club than the likes of RoJo2
-
I kind of feel like we want it both ways here. He was signed as a wingback/winger/#10. He provides depth to the squad. JJ was preferred at LB presumably because he has height and we were getting bombarded in the air. Dasilva presumably costs us almost nothing, and is our 4th-5th choice winger. It sounded like he had a bit of something against Millwall, though quite raw. But what he provides is some squad depth, which we've desperately needed for years. Is he perfect? No, far from it. But like Mavididi he's low risk, high reward and has pedigree.
For all of the problems we have, he's very, very, very far down the list.7 -
Wouldn't presume he costs us nothing.SDAddick said:I kind of feel like we want it both ways here. He was signed as a wingback/winger/#10. He provides depth to the squad. JJ was preferred at LB presumably because he has height and we were getting bombarded in the air. Dasilva presumably costs us almost nothing, and is our 4th-5th choice winger. It sounded like he had a bit of something against Millwall, though quite raw. But what he provides is some squad depth, which we've desperately needed for years. Is he perfect? No, far from it. But like Mavididi he's low risk, high reward and has pedigree.
For all of the problems we have, he's very, very, very far down the list.0 -
To me, it demonstrates that even after all the lessons they've supposedly learned there is still a massive disconnect between the recruitment and playing sides of the club. The players the first team needs and the players that eventually get recruited just don't tally. A club is only permitted a limited number of loans but they continue to waste them on players who don't play and aren't likely to. A parent club loans a player for them to play, get experience, regain form/fitness. Not kick about at training, that's a waste of everybody's time.3
-
Hence the "ALMOST."Henry Irving said:
Wouldn't presume he costs us nothing.SDAddick said:I kind of feel like we want it both ways here. He was signed as a wingback/winger/#10. He provides depth to the squad. JJ was preferred at LB presumably because he has height and we were getting bombarded in the air. Dasilva presumably costs us almost nothing, and is our 4th-5th choice winger. It sounded like he had a bit of something against Millwall, though quite raw. But what he provides is some squad depth, which we've desperately needed for years. Is he perfect? No, far from it. But like Mavididi he's low risk, high reward and has pedigree.
For all of the problems we have, he's very, very, very far down the list.
I think it's pretty common that, for young players, the loaning team will eat at least some of the wages, particularly if the player is playing. I think that was the case for Sanogo last year. "Comparatively little" might have been better phrasing, but hopefully you get my larger point.0 -
But there is a risk for both sides in every loan. I'd be a bit surprised if Chelsea expected him to start every game. Also, I think he's made the bench all but once.Missed It said:To me, it demonstrates that even after all the lessons they've supposedly learned there is still a massive disconnect between the recruitment and playing sides of the club. The players the first team needs and the players that eventually get recruited just don't tally. A club is only permitted a limited number of loans but they continue to waste them on players who don't play and aren't likely to. A parent club loans a player for them to play, get experience, regain form/fitness. Not kick about at training, that's a waste of everybody's time.
I completely agree that a lot of our recruitment and the "processes" (assuming there are any) in place aren't good, or at least haven't been. I just don't think this is a prime example of it (same with Mavididi, who some were painting with that brush when he joined). Low risk, high reward for someone like Dasilva. He's been here about a month and there's another three in the season so, like a squad member, he could still play a part.
And even though what's good for Chelsea isn't really my concern, he probably wouldn't be training with the first team if he were still there. Having to deal with the size and strength of players in "men's football" in training is probably worth something in terms of experience for him. Now I wouldn't want my young prodigies, or even my worst enemy, going up against RoJo in training but it will help him to understand more physical players who he will inevitably come up against in his career.
The reason I feel quite strongly (or something, maybe not strongly) about this is because I think it weakens our case to criticize everything the regime does. We just let Ba go and we still have Johnson on our books, plenty enough evidence of transfer failings. I don't think we need to point at short loans for young players with high potential as a "failure." If he were playing every game, then it'd be a failure as he's clearly not ready and there would rightly be outcry. But he's a squad team member, no more at the moment.1 -
Sonogo wages went from full wages down by 20% each game he played to zero after five games.SDAddick said:
Hence the "ALMOST."Henry Irving said:
Wouldn't presume he costs us nothing.SDAddick said:I kind of feel like we want it both ways here. He was signed as a wingback/winger/#10. He provides depth to the squad. JJ was preferred at LB presumably because he has height and we were getting bombarded in the air. Dasilva presumably costs us almost nothing, and is our 4th-5th choice winger. It sounded like he had a bit of something against Millwall, though quite raw. But what he provides is some squad depth, which we've desperately needed for years. Is he perfect? No, far from it. But like Mavididi he's low risk, high reward and has pedigree.
For all of the problems we have, he's very, very, very far down the list.
I think it's pretty common that, for young players, the loaning team will eat at least some of the wages, particularly if the player is playing. I think that was the case for Sanogo last year. "Comparatively little" might have been better phrasing, but hopefully you get my larger point.
No idea if same deal with dasilva.
Issue is he isn't even coming off the bench despite all the injuries so the opportunity cost of having him is high both in terms of preventing us loaning someone else or having Dijksteel or anyone else on the bench
I was one of the few on here who thought he did well v the spanners btw1 -
He was given to Robinson as the new Lookman to sweeten the pill of selling him to Everton. Clearly Robinson wasn't convinced.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
He didn't do *that* badly at The Valley on his debut, despite getting subbed, I thought.Henry Irving said:
Sonogo wages went from full wages down by 20% each game he played to zero after five games.SDAddick said:
Hence the "ALMOST."Henry Irving said:
Wouldn't presume he costs us nothing.SDAddick said:I kind of feel like we want it both ways here. He was signed as a wingback/winger/#10. He provides depth to the squad. JJ was preferred at LB presumably because he has height and we were getting bombarded in the air. Dasilva presumably costs us almost nothing, and is our 4th-5th choice winger. It sounded like he had a bit of something against Millwall, though quite raw. But what he provides is some squad depth, which we've desperately needed for years. Is he perfect? No, far from it. But like Mavididi he's low risk, high reward and has pedigree.
For all of the problems we have, he's very, very, very far down the list.
I think it's pretty common that, for young players, the loaning team will eat at least some of the wages, particularly if the player is playing. I think that was the case for Sanogo last year. "Comparatively little" might have been better phrasing, but hopefully you get my larger point.
No idea if same deal with dasilva.
Issue is he isn't even coming off the bench despite all the injuries so the opportunity cost of having him is high both in terms of preventing us loaning someone else or having Dijksteel or anyone else on the bench
I was one of the few on here who thought he did well v the spanners btw0 -
He was only needed for a month really, as Holmes had been out injured, and Botaka was in Africa. Once they both became available again, then he became a bit surplus to requirementsJamesSeed said:
He didn't do *that* badly at The Valley on his debut, despite getting subbed, I thought.Henry Irving said:
Sonogo wages went from full wages down by 20% each game he played to zero after five games.SDAddick said:
Hence the "ALMOST."Henry Irving said:
Wouldn't presume he costs us nothing.SDAddick said:I kind of feel like we want it both ways here. He was signed as a wingback/winger/#10. He provides depth to the squad. JJ was preferred at LB presumably because he has height and we were getting bombarded in the air. Dasilva presumably costs us almost nothing, and is our 4th-5th choice winger. It sounded like he had a bit of something against Millwall, though quite raw. But what he provides is some squad depth, which we've desperately needed for years. Is he perfect? No, far from it. But like Mavididi he's low risk, high reward and has pedigree.
For all of the problems we have, he's very, very, very far down the list.
I think it's pretty common that, for young players, the loaning team will eat at least some of the wages, particularly if the player is playing. I think that was the case for Sanogo last year. "Comparatively little" might have been better phrasing, but hopefully you get my larger point.
No idea if same deal with dasilva.
Issue is he isn't even coming off the bench despite all the injuries so the opportunity cost of having him is high both in terms of preventing us loaning someone else or having Dijksteel or anyone else on the bench
I was one of the few on here who thought he did well v the spanners btw3 -
But on Sat he was ahead of Chicksen on the bench which makes little sense.1
-
Just read the first few comments on this thread, lets give the lad a chance ffs2
-
Has he been on the bench EVERY game since he's arrived? It seems like it, even if he's hardly appeared in the last 4 weeksWeegie Addick said:But on Sat he was ahead of Chicksen on the bench which makes little sense.
1 -
Probably a clause of the loan that if he's classed as fit he must be in the match day squad0
-
CAFC0
-
I don't think we can necessarily blame Roland for this one. There have been plenty of poor signings and poor loan deals over the years. If this loan was made on Roland's instructions, it is one of his smaller mistakes.0
-
It is starting to look that wayDizzle said:Probably a clause of the loan that if he's classed as fit he must be in the match day squad
0 -
In this league he will just get bundled off the ball. Just like Reza did.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
If any further evidence is needed of the sheer stupidity of those running the club, then look no further than this young lad.
Dasilva has now been named as a substitute for the last 13 games. Of those, he has only come on twice - and in one of those he was substituted before the end! Hard to say anything other than Jimmy Tarbuck doesn't rate him and can only assume he just "turned up at the training ground" rather than JT having any say in his signing.
Presumably, the fact he keeps being named as sub must mean there is a clause in his loan deal that he has to be in the 16 named for a game for his wages to be paid/subsidised. So effectively he is the first name on the team sheet even though the likelihood of him playing is negligible.
Ludicrous deal all round. He takes up one of the subs position that could be given to one of our young players so they can gain some experience whilst at the same time Dasilva's confidence must be being shattered by his inability to force his way into a sruggling League 1 side.
Roland, just sell the club and take Daisy with you. Please.5 -
He was warming up with Ahearne-Grant on Saturday for quite a while.0
-
He's no Cory Gibbs.0
-
The weirdest thing is I've heard good things about Dasilva at Chelsea and we're rubbish. Could do a lot worse than give him a chance but instead neither party can benefit from the current arrangement. Classic Charlton under Roland0
-
Yes, but he'd be better off at any other club than this one.Bigbadbozman said:Just read the first few comments on this thread, lets give the lad a chance ffs
0 -
He looked totally out of his depth went he came on against Millwall ( replacing the injured Page ) and was then subbed off again in the second half. Couldn't have done his confidence much good, he still looks like a school boy.3
-
Premier League loans have been a disaster this year. One they overplayed and sent back seriously broken and the other they don't play at all and waste a seat on the bench every game. Can't see too many Premier League clubs choosing Charlton to loan out their young players to under the current owners.2
-
Did okay when he came on tonight.6
-
Was very good2
