He should really have gone to Liverpool if they were interested. In Jordan Ibe and Raheem Sterling they've shown there is a clear route from youth football to first team football, as well as a general regard for British talent. Would have been a far better move. I suspect the attraction of being a City Balla was more glamourous/lucrative for him.
"I have the telephone numbers of a number of a diverse group of attractive ladies" Then something about pancakes.
Nothing special, pretty sure I've done that before. I was falling over and did it completely by mistake but still...
Give it a few years and he'll probably be working part-time in Boots in the Arndale Centre a la Michael Bryan.
Agreed that transfer s for kids should be banned . Unlikely he ll ever turn out for Man City but also quite unlikely he would get a game at Watford if he stayed .
Good luck to him if he thinks this the best thing for his development, if you think you are good enough to play for a team at that level why wouldn't you make the move. The issue here is that top teams can grab all the player who might be good enough, not just those who will be. There needs to be a change in the loan rules to stop this so top teams have to make a decision quickly, not just keep loaning players out. I know he not old enough to loan out yet but you can see him playing many games on loan before he gets a real chance in thier first team. The loan restrictions should be put on the clubs loaning out (and the player) not the receiving club.
To all those saying this will hurt his development: http://www.theoriginalcoach.com/#!the-man-city-academy-way/cbha Alongside part of an article I wrote (http://outsideoftheboot.com/2014/12/21/multi-club-ownerships-the-future-of-football/) City are making youth development their priority. They do not, and cannot continue to spend £100m a season on new players. They'll be ruling English football for a long long time.
Don't Chelsea have a similar set-up though? They no doubt produce good players, but they're never given a chance in the first team because they need proven stars to be able to compete and they're expected to compete every single year.
It's similar but very different, Chelsea go round hoovering up young players who have a high re-sell value for a smaller amount (De Bruyne, Lukaku, Schurlle, Mata etc etc), this gives them the revenue to continue to spend big. Saying that their academy has churned out some decent youngsters recently, but it's Mourinho that's the problem there, as he's so focused on winning now that he doesn't really focus on the future (except in exceptional cases such as Courtois). I'm sure I remember reading that Mourinho said that if Baker, Loftus-Cheek and Chalobah don't break into the Chelsea squad in the next couple of seasons he'll have failed as a manager. To be perfectly honest I can't see that happening, but that's all down to Mourinho, they could easily introduce them for the last 15-25 minutes of a match that they're 2-0 up in already but he just doesn't want to take that risk.
Lewis Baker, Izzy Brown and Dominic Solanke - '‘My conscience tells me that if, for example, Baker, Brown, and Solanke are not national team players in a few years, I should blame myself.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...minic-Solanke-dont-play-England-blame-ME.html
You can have the fanciest facilities in the world, and heaps of talent, but if you don't have the opportunity for regular, senior football in a settled environment, then you won't develop to your full potential. It's really that simple and, like Chelsea, I don't see City offering that to their academy players any time soon.
It's no surprise that the best young players in the Chelsea team come from smaller clubs where they played consistently. Zouma. Courtois. Hazard. Even Matic, who only became a world class player once he got out of Chelsea.
Aha that's the one, cheers. I was a bit wrong with it but it still stands that he won't give them much game-time, as their combined game-time of 0 minutes in the PL this season stands to suggest...
Disagree that they're going to continue to dominate due to investment in youth. It's never been just about facilities; the big clubs have had superior facilities for years. It's about opportunities to learn and to gain real game experience. There is a reason Southampton have been churning out Premier League quality academy graduates for years. Neither City nor Chelsea have an established track record of developing youngsters in recent years; quite the opposite. That's not going to suddenly change since both clubs expect success every single season. There is no room to give their young players extensive playing time to develop. Sending players on loan is all well and good, but it's not the same as having a personal investment in the success of a club you belong to. Many young players from top teams go out on loan to get experience and then swan about like the lower division owes them something. They're not invested in what they're doing and as a result they'll never develop as well. Unless a club has a culture where it is willing to potentially compromise results on the pitch in order to give young players a chance to thrive, young players will never come through at that club. I don't see it changing at Nan City or Chelsea, and I envision Man Utd going the same way.
It's not just about the facilities, it's about the bigger picture. Cities partnerships and new teams (in the 2 biggest growing football countries in the world at the moment) give them great young talent to pick from, not just English youngsters but foreign as well. City have developed a few decent players (especially considering about 6-7 years ago they weren't even in the PL), like SWP (was decent for a while!), Kasper Schmeichel, Micah Richards, Onuhua, Barton etc. Sure they might not be world class, but they're established Premier League players. If they'd had the standard of coaching available at City now or the facilities, they might've been even better. I agree entirely with the loan part, which is what Chelsea do and it's awful and benefits nobody. Given the approach that City are trying so hard to promote and show-off, I imagine the manager and future managers will be given targets to introduce more youth players into the side (as what Pellegrini has sort of done this season, a bit anyway, if they get Guardiola in, that'll be perfect for them)
Furthermore, if any of these loaned players have a great season for some (i.e. Chalobah) they reward them with a contract that is too big for the player to turn down at that age and it is possible they lose a bit of hunger because they think they've 'made it'. IMO Chalobah should have been mentored better after his season with us, instead his career is in danger of going backwards. Although he does have a lot of time on his side.
Man City fans raving about what he's doing for their U18 side and scored for England U17 the other night. :doom:
I saw the under 17 tournament. He was amazing. The best young player I have seen for a long time. Angel Gomes is a star in the making, and even he paled slightly in comparison (although is a bit further behind in his physical development). If he didn't play for City, I'd say he was the closest thing you get to a certainty at that age, to make it.
The rules need changed, but when ever they are the big clubs find a loophole and act on it. We're guilty of this in other areas. It's the smaller clubs in the lower echelons I feel for, gone are the days of looking through a panini sticker book and most the players being local lads. And that local team giving said young prodigy a break and then selling him for a fee that can keep that local team afloat for years. Now it seems these acadamies snap them up and throw 99% out the door in years to come. I would say to any youth player if your good enough to become a pro then your make it wherever you are (within reason )
