Ending a stupid policy

comment by Oscar. 2019 YEAR OF THE MACK! #TeamFury (U12980)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by DL11 (U21614)
posted 15 minutes ago
No, its a one off because of the ban.

And quite frankly I'm behind this policy and every Chelsea fan should be, remember what happened when we let our 00s squad grow old on big contracts?

It's one of the few things the club get spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Players do tend to play on for longer these days though, i think it should probably be raised to 32, like as an example hazard is 30 next year, would you only give/offer him a year deal or be p!ssed if he got 4?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a fair point regarding Hazard however if he signs a new deal it will be this summer which will render the situation pointless in his case as he gets to 33 come the end.

comment by DL11 (U21614)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
As a generic rule, I agree it’s wrong. You’re absolutely right, it should be done on a player by player basis. The modern perception is that once a player reaches 30, that’s it - finished.

In actual fact, every squad needs a couple of experienced heads in there - look at Kompany at City for example or what had happened to us since we lost the leadership of Terry. Sometimes what we see on the field is a tiny speck of the actual influence certain players have at a club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to do it on a player by player basis as it's hard to tell at that age when the irreversible decline will arrive and when it does you suddenly have a very average player ny on impossible to shift (ala Malouda).

For one Terry there's ten Essien/Malouda's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree which is why you have to be selective but to have it as a generic rule considering the importance of leadership and experience goes too far.

comment by DL11 (U21614)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Oscar. 2019 YEAR OF THE MACK! #TeamFury (U12980)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by DL11 (U21614)
posted 15 minutes ago
No, its a one off because of the ban.

And quite frankly I'm behind this policy and every Chelsea fan should be, remember what happened when we let our 00s squad grow old on big contracts?

It's one of the few things the club get spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Players do tend to play on for longer these days though, i think it should probably be raised to 32, like as an example hazard is 30 next year, would you only give/offer him a year deal or be p!ssed if he got 4?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a fair point regarding Hazard however if he signs a new deal it will be this summer which will render the situation pointless in his case as he gets to 33 come the end.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair point, i imagine we deliberately do in some cases give contracts until they're 29 if they're that age, e.g. Rudi's contract runs out right before he's 30 so we could give him a 3-4 year deal at 29 etc

Guess we'd make exceptions if we wanted to sign a 30+ year old too, e.g. Bale will be 30 in the summer, not saying we'd go for him or would want him but if we signed him i doubt we'd only give him 1 year

comment by DL11 (U21614)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
As a generic rule, I agree it’s wrong. You’re absolutely right, it should be done on a player by player basis. The modern perception is that once a player reaches 30, that’s it - finished.

In actual fact, every squad needs a couple of experienced heads in there - look at Kompany at City for example or what had happened to us since we lost the leadership of Terry. Sometimes what we see on the field is a tiny speck of the actual influence certain players have at a club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to do it on a player by player basis as it's hard to tell at that age when the irreversible decline will arrive and when it does you suddenly have a very average player ny on impossible to shift (ala Malouda).

For one Terry there's ten Essien/Malouda's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Malouda was treated badly by Chelsea. Punished for wanting to stay at the club

comment by Oscar. 2019 YEAR OF THE MACK! #TeamFury (U12980)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by DL11 (U21614)
posted 15 minutes ago
No, its a one off because of the ban.

And quite frankly I'm behind this policy and every Chelsea fan should be, remember what happened when we let our 00s squad grow old on big contracts?

It's one of the few things the club get spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Players do tend to play on for longer these days though, i think it should probably be raised to 32, like as an example hazard is 30 next year, would you only give/offer him a year deal or be p!ssed if he got 4?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazard is 28.

I agree with the op, a stupid policy with no thought whatsoever as to the different physiolygies and mentalities of each different individual. Lets take the boardroom out of the dressing room a bit ,and give common sense a chance.

comment by Wahl Might (U22137)
posted 13 hours, 22 minutes ago
comment by DL11 (U21614)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
As a generic rule, I agree it’s wrong. You’re absolutely right, it should be done on a player by player basis. The modern perception is that once a player reaches 30, that’s it - finished.

In actual fact, every squad needs a couple of experienced heads in there - look at Kompany at City for example or what had happened to us since we lost the leadership of Terry. Sometimes what we see on the field is a tiny speck of the actual influence certain players have at a club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's hard to do it on a player by player basis as it's hard to tell at that age when the irreversible decline will arrive and when it does you suddenly have a very average player ny on impossible to shift (ala Malouda).

For one Terry there's ten Essien/Malouda's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Malouda was treated badly by Chelsea. Punished for wanting to stay at the club
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Punished

I suppose that this means that Luiz will look even more casual than he has done this season

With regards to the policy I agree that you can't just generalise, as everyone is different. Whilst some could be losing their mojo at 30 others could still be very useful at 34. Everyone ages at different rates.

yeah gotta be in regards to the ban, as luiz has been distinctly average this season

comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 17 hours, 44 minutes ago
I suppose that this means that Luiz will look even more casual than he has done this season

With regards to the policy I agree that you can't just generalise, as everyone is different. Whilst some could be losing their mojo at 30 others could still be very useful at 34. Everyone ages at different rates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People actually get older at the same rate

soccer?lol.