egg

He's highlighted Livramento as a reason why youth players shouldn't go there, whereas his career path highlights how they develop players for a career beyond Chelsea. I think his point relates to the prospect of actually playing for Chelsea, rather than a young player acknowledging that they're a well paid Chelsea asset who will be developed through coaching and the loan system to find their level and be moved on for mutual gain in due course. It's a pathway club for kids, not the end destination.

You're not making much sense here. He's ended up at Newcastle, playing CL football, and for his country, after coming through the Chelsea system. The development he got there gave him that opportunity. JJ won't have gone to Chelsea expecting to be playing CL football for them in a few years.

He wouldn't have got that £2m net if he'd stayed here. Lighthouse thinks he'd have done a Dibling if he'd stayed, whereas he could have done a Ballard and still ended up earning £5k pw somewhere if that turns out to be his level. That £2m gives him a decent headstart in life.

Because they're different players. You've ducked my question. It's you that says JJ should have stayed. That must mean you feel we'll have managed his career. Please answer my question. The last point. Sims, Hesketh and the young left back who's name escapes me haven't. We've not done well at all by them. Regardless, for your point to have any validity, there'd have to be a case that JJ won't end up at his level following the Chelsea move. I'm not sure what you base that on. He'll find his level, and bank a few mil on the way.

I'd go with that. I think we need Stewart up top, and someone playing off of him rather than supporting from midfield. Mads was 50/50 for me. He needs to be better positionally than he was in Sunday, and hold the line.

Continually mentioning Dibling misses the point. Dibling is Dibling. JJ isn't. Chelsea have invested in JJ. They're managing his career via loans. They'll want a return on him. They'll get one if he keeps developing. Please explain how you feel JJ's career would have developed better staying here. To me, it seems like he's getting better career development, and more dollar. Sure, he may have sat on our bench a bit, and played a bit in some cup games, but he'll develop more going through the gears in the loan system imo.

Trying to find equivalences doesn't alter that it's strange that people criticise strong punishment of individuals inciting severe violence via Twitter.

The labour MP hasn't been condoned. Someone doing that on TV is a disgrace though , although it's unconnected to some dinlo inciting arson or worse via Twitter.

Err, JJ isn't Dibling. If we're doing daft comparisons, have you forgotten that Dom Ballard exists, as did Ryan Seager, etc etc. Show me one player we've managed well via the loan system over recent years. Just one. I'll spare you the search, there's been none.

What he would he have gained by staying here? I don't think we've developed our young players for life beyond SFC very well at all. They've had loans which haven't developed them, and that hasn't helped them. Since joining Chelsea, and getting over a serious injury, JJ has had half a season in league 2, this season in league 1. In all likelihood, the championship next season, if he's ready. He's playing, and now scoring. He's got the security of a decent contract, and it seems like his career is being well managed. Will he ever play for Chelsea, probably not, but they'll develop him for their gain, and that'll benefit him.

I find these tweet complaints irritating. I'm not sure why people can't acknowledge that inciting people to burn down buildings where people are housed is a tad unpleasant. The fact that the incitement is in writing, and in an arena where it can be pushed out to thousands of people, is a hell of a lot worse than inciting one bloke down the pub.

True...I assumed we'd get some actual tactics though.

Although we have deadlines already...from the refusal to first tier tribunal, then to the upper tribunal, then judicial review. I think what's happened in the case reported above, is that the modern slavery point was made belatedly meaning an injunction preventing deportation. I'm with you completely that all grounds of application/appeal should be made within the laid down process, not new ones lobbed in after you've lost.

I agree that there should be a finite deadline for appeals to be filed, but the appellant can only file the appeal. The rest is down to the system, and then the criteria to be applied.

You said: "If we tell them they are getting deported in a week then they have to put an appeal in with enough time to process and reject it and then get sent off p bthe flight as planned". We can't give them a week to have an appeal dealt with if the appeal can't be dealt with in that timescale. That's a process beyond their control. They can only appeal. The rest is down to the system.