Chelsea’s “Concern” Over Bamford’s Palace Woes Don’t Ring True

0 Posted by - October 13, 2015 - Daily Thoughts, News

Chelsea loanee Patrick Bamford hasn’t enjoyed his first few months in SE25, starting just once for Alan Pardew’s side (in the Capital One Cup against Shrewsbury) and now it seems as though Mourinho and co. are getting increasingly worried.

To read exactly why Mourinho and his coaches are getting flustered, click here

The Blues are no strangers to letting their players leave Stamford Bridge on a temporary basis, indeed more than 30 of their squad are currently on loan elsewhere, but it seems as though both Chelsea and the player himself had assumed that he would feature week in, week out at Selhurst Park, before returning to the King’s Road in a blaze of glory at the start of the 2016/17 season.

Sadly for both of the aforementioned parties, life is seldom as straightforward as that, with Bamford struggling hugely to edge ahead of Dwight Gayle, Connor Wickham and Fraizer Campbell in the Palace pecking order. Such has been Chelsea’s frustration at Patrick’s lack of game time that they are considering recalling the frontman in January in an attempt to salvage something from his season before it’s too late.

For all of the bluster, there should be no blame placed at our feet for Bamford’s failure to make a significant impact in South London, given the competition for places in Alan Pardew’s matchday squad. Far from being a finishing school for the Premier League’s “elite” clubs, we are doing our level best to select teams that are capable of winning games; a feat which, since August, we have managed far more easily than Jose and his merry band of multi-millionaires.

In truth, real questions have to be raised over the motivation behind Chelsea’s attitude towards the loan market in general, such is the frequency with which they buy up young talent before promptly packing them off across Europe for nine months at a time, often never to be seen anywhere near a Chelsea shirt again. Is Bamford ever likely to become a first-team regular at Chelsea regardless of his highs and lows in red and blue? Doubtful. More to the point, if he can’t provoke Alan Pardew to risk using him in a league game for us, what chance does he have of convincing Mourinho or whoever eventually follows him that he is the man to fire them to a Premier League title.

Ideally, both clubs and the player would meet, agree that it hadn’t worked out as first hoped and go their seperate ways, but as is often the case in matters that involve the defending champions, blame is being rapidly kicked away from their doorstep and in our direction, which simply isn’t right. Not that we should expect anything else in the circumstances.

HLTCO has no adverts, we cannot survive without your help.


  • Jose Fonte Baby! Jose Fonte, Oh, Oh, Oh October 13, 2015 - 1:16 pm Reply

    Its a shame because in Wickham’s absense his size would have been useful upfront. I still think he is better than Campbell but for whatever reason he hasnt impressed Pardew. Mourinho will be gone by the end of the season most likely anyway so no bridges will have been burnt.

    Chelsea’s main motivation for loaning so many players is the hope that they score against rivals. If Bamford, Moses, Van Ginkel et al play key roles against the big boys but not Chelsea then it gives them an unfair advantage in my eyes.

    I dont know why but Chelsea are the club i hate most. More than our rivals and more than Utd. The fans, manager, style of play and method of success are just so hideously unsporting. If you had kept Bamford yourselves maybe you would have someone to play when Costa is suspended…….

  • Richard C October 13, 2015 - 3:14 pm Reply

    I agree with both Hoppo and JFB!JFOOO, but I think in addition, a more sinister reason is that they simply don’t want other teams being able to sign the young talent and so they either buy them out by paying more than anyone else can afford or use their elite status to attract them to their club and offer the prospect of a glittering future. As you rightly say, this hardly ever comes to fruition. This sort of behaviour is no good for the game or the players involved.

    Whilst I hate to say it, the Americans have got it right in the NFL with young talent through the draft pick system, but unfortunately I can’t ever see it working in football.

    I suppose the simplest way round it is to have a maximum number of players allowed out on loan, although that could be worse because some players may never get to play football again!

    • Jose Fonte Baby! Jose Fonte, Oh, Oh, Oh October 13, 2015 - 3:52 pm Reply

      Agreed some of the asset hoarding is to prevent clubs from signing top talent. This talent is then sold for a profit in 2-5 years time.

      Michael Hector, the reading centre back they pinched from under our noses is a classic example. He is a good age, well experienced but also has development potential. But will he seriously challenge Terry, Cahill, Zouma, Kalas, Ake, Christensen, Omeruo, Dijiolbodji and whoever else they sign?

      I know we havent had an academy player break through in a while but atleast ours get in and around the first team on a regular basis.

    Leave a reply