Former Academy Kids

bluealf said:
Lavia > Phillips saved 100m on fees and wages and another 50m on whoever we buy to replace Phillips.

We needed a backup to give Rodri a rest, not replace him, for what Phillips has done Lavia might as well have been that guy, he was certainly good enough to fill in and to cap it all we even fucked up the buyback part in the transfer deal, allowing Chelsea the chance to jump in and pay 50m for him 12 months later.

As it stands I'd say this rivals Palmer leaving myself, considering we are still looking for a DM/DLP then maybe it is worse.
Click to expand...
I sort of agree with you always though lavia looked a player that could do a job for us and save us a fortune but his injury record has been up there with john stones since signing for Chelsea it may just be one of those things and he's been on a bad run but there's no use having cover for players if there always injured
 
oldius said:
Your posts are quite revealing.
If you make a statement, stand by it and back it up.
Click to expand...

The fact you’re on absolute strings because a fan has a different opinion to you is very revealing. That’s what a forum is for, fans to discuss their opinions.

Yet more demands “back it up” haha. Such a weird place is the internet.
 
City64! said:
The fact you’re on absolute strings because a fan has a different opinion to you is very revealing. That’s what a forum is for, fans to discuss their opinions.

Yet more demands “back it up” haha. Such a weird place is the internet.
Click to expand...
I don't know what your opinion is.
You posted hahahaha to a post I had made.
I said that I didn't know what it meant.
You didn't reply.
You have posted that the club should have not let academy players go.
You were asked which players let go would have replaced those in the first-team.
You refuse to reply.
You seem really odd, or just deliberately antagonistic.
 
oldius said:
I don't know what your opinion is.
You posted hahahaha to a post I had made.
I said that I didn't know what it meant.
You didn't reply.
You have posted that the club should have not let academy players go.
You were asked which players let go would have replaced those in the first-team.
You refuse to reply.
You seem really odd, or just deliberately antagonistic.
Click to expand...
“I don’t know what your opinion is”….
“You posted that the club should have not let academy players go”

Let’s leave it there mate
 
bluealf said:
Lavia > Phillips saved 100m on fees and wages and another 50m on whoever we buy to replace Phillips.

We needed a backup to give Rodri a rest, not replace him, for what Phillips has done Lavia might as well have been that guy, he was certainly good enough to fill in and to cap it all we even fucked up the buyback part in the transfer deal, allowing Chelsea the chance to jump in and pay 50m for him 12 months later.

As it stands I'd say this rivals Palmer leaving myself, considering we are still looking for a DM/DLP then maybe it is worse.
Click to expand...
Lavia has started the grand total of 8 PL games for Chelsea since the start of last season plus 2 sub appearances. He hasn't finished any of those 8 games.

Yes, he's been unfortunate with hamstring issues for 18 months now (not including his injuries when at Southampton) but I'm puzzled as to how £50million is still seen as a bargain and how he would obviously be a shoe in for us, given that people have barely seen him play for that 18 months.

Ignoring the obvious troll on here, it's amazing how people just ignore actual facts in order to "prove" their point. Phillips has absolutely nothing to do with Lavia either.
 
oldius said:
The failure of one buy does not make Lavia the right choice.
Lavia was 18 when he left 2 and a half years ago. He is yet to emerge as a top-flight player. He is a fine prospect but it remains to be seen if we dropped one where he is concerned.
I speak as a fan of merging Academy talent into the first-team.
Click to expand...
You should check his stats when he played the 29 games the season he left us, he was the top teenage player in all kinds of categories and he was top 15 of all players in ball recovery (I only noticed when I was checking something else out lol)
He lost a season to injury but has still played 39 PL games, probably more than Phillips in the same period despite missing a season and that is the reality to your question about who could have played from the YA instead of a first team player.

We dropped one by buying Phillips
 
billblu said:
I sort of agree with you always though lavia looked a player that could do a job for us and save us a fortune but his injury record has been up there with john stones since signing for Chelsea it may just be one of those things and he's been on a bad run but there's no use having cover for players if there always injured
Click to expand...
True but at the time that was unknown to us, still be more use than bloody Phillips.
 
bluealf said:
You should check his stats when he played the 29 games the season he left us, he was the top teenage player in all kinds of categories and he was top 15 of all players in ball recovery (I only noticed when I was checking something else out lol)
He lost a season to injury but has still played 39 PL games, probably more than Phillips in the same period despite missing a season and that is the reality to your question about who could have played from the YA instead of a first team player.

We dropped one by buying Phillips
Click to expand...
With hindsight, absolutely, but Lavia has yet to prove himself at PL level and his team were relegated that season. I hope he goes on to do so, and we find someone in our academy ranks too.
 
oldius said:
With hindsight, absolutely, but Lavia has yet to prove himself at PL level. I hope he goes on to do so, and we find someone in our academy ranks too.
Click to expand...
Well, we have two or three but again they need to be given first team football to show it or we will be saying the same thing.

At the end of the day he was let go but 29 games later he was bought for 50m by another PL team, which is more than we paid for Phillips, who despite being a nice guy has been utter clart.

Not saying Lavia was anything other than a prospect but your question was who would a YA product have got in the team for.

I give you these two players ;)

Phillips was so bad we ran Rodri into the ground rather than let him onto the pitch.

We now have Wright, O'Reilly and Susoho, who all impressed on tour in the summer, are they good enough for a treble winning team, probably not, are they good enough to cover and get some minutes in some games, yes and training with the first team squad has got to be better than some loan moves, especially our loan moves lol
 
bluealf said:
Well, we have two or three but again they need to be given first team football to show it or we will be saying the same thing.

At the end of the day he was let go but 29 games later he was bought for 50m by another PL team, which is more than we paid for Phillips, who despite being a nice guy has been utter clart.

Not saying Lavia was anything other than a prospect but your question was who would a YA product have got in the team for.

I give you these two players ;)

Phillips was so bad we ran Rodri into the ground rather than let him onto the pitch.

We now have Wright, O'Reilly and Susoho, who all impressed on tour in the summer, are they good enough for a treble winning team, probably not, are they good enough to cover and get some minutes in some games, yes and training with the first team squad has got to be better than some loan moves, especially our loan moves lol
Click to expand...
I agree with you.
In terms of the players that we let go, there are probably none who could have replaced the world-class in the team. Lavia looked the most likely, to me, along with Palmer, but he was VERY young, and has been consistently injured.
I absolutely think, and have thought for several seasons, that we should be using some of the academy talent more than we have.
 
oldius said:
Not really. I think you have been trolling. Others have said the same.
Click to expand...
Someone that has a different opinion is trolling. Okay mate. If I’m “trolling” that I want City to keep kids that look like they might make it, but you might not agree with that - then just don’t reply mate. Why reply if you think based on that I’m trolling. It’s very very weird.
 
City64! said:
Someone that has a different opinion is trolling. Okay mate. If I’m “trolling” that I want City to keep kids that look like they might make it, but you might not agree with that - then just don’t reply mate. Why reply if you think based on that I’m trolling. It’s very very weird.
Click to expand...
Your first response to me was hahahaha. It was a stupid post and deliberately provocative. Your subsequent posts have been devoid of worthwhile content. My accusation of trolling is based on your content, nothing more.
 
oldius said:
Your first response to me was hahahaha. It was a stupid post and deliberately provocative. Your subsequent posts have been devoid of worthwhile content. My accusation of trolling is based on your content, nothing more.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t bother with that guy. Relatively new, not many posts and always either very negative or confrontational.
 
oldius said:
Your first response to me was hahahaha. It was a stupid post and deliberately provocative. Your subsequent posts have been devoid of worthwhile content. My accusation of trolling is based on your content, nothing more.
Click to expand...
So ignore me then if you don’t like my posts. Weird that you keep replying
 
Lord Blue said:
Wouldn’t bother with that guy. Relatively new, not many posts and always either very negative or confrontational.
Click to expand...
Yes, don’t reply to someone “relatively new”. Another weird post. I joined 2 years ago and before that I had another username that I lost the password for. Just ignore me if my posts bother you that much
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top