What does this have to do with Poch

Yeah, they're also finally giving the youth a chance, which is working out well for them at the moment. You'd have to credit Lampard with that.

I believe that they have the most. I'm pretty sure I read they had ninety on loan once.

Long way to go for many on that list but it is something they have done very well.

In fact if you'd told me 20 years ago that Chelsea would be battering Juve with three youth products scoring and another setting one up I would have said I find that doubtful.

Chelsea have been picking up the best youth for a while. They give the parents the full package. City are following suit so I am not surprised they have so many good young players spread across.

A couple of our flops who sold for loads were from Chelsea in Brewster and Solanke.

Personally I don’t like it at all but Chelsea (and increasingly us) are doing very well out of the current academy setup.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 second ago
Personally I don’t like it at all but Chelsea (and increasingly us) are doing very well out of the current academy setup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's producing some very good footballer for England though.

Could the Chelsea academy start making good young Australian players please ? Cheers. We’ll send you the next Kewell’s and Cahill’s.

It helps being the biggest side in London, offering the best youth wages in the region.

London is a hotbed of talent, and Chelsea pay academy players more than anyone in football.

My son's friend was approached by United, City and Chelsea and they were blown away by the package Chelsea offered. In the end he picked Man City despite them being hardcore United fans because the City package again was impressive.

They have the money to offer kids better security should it not work out.

comment by Busby (U19985)
It helps being the biggest side in London, offering the best youth structure, coaches, education in the region.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There. Fixed it for you.

Its a number game for Chelsea. They have a lot of players in the academy and churn them out. Fair play to them, they have turned their academy into a revenue stream, taking best ones for themselves and making a decent profit on those they decide to sell.

It helps when the two clubs who are hoovering up most of the talent aren't ran to make money. They are ran to win so it's no surprise they offer the best packages.

Oil money goes a lot further than just the transfer window. It's totally flipped the English game on its head.

So it’s money 💰 that still has an influence not the scouting are we saying , interesting 🤔

It's not just money, clearly.

comment by Glazers_Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 6 minutes ago
It helps when the two clubs who are hoovering up most of the talent aren't ran to make money. They are ran to win so it's no surprise they offer the best packages.

Oil money goes a lot further than just the transfer window. It's totally flipped the English game on its head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Chelsea academy is run to make money, as well as produce talent for their first team. That is why they work with such high numbers.

comment by der kloppites Hi, wie geht es dir * (U13373)
posted 9 minutes ago
So it’s money 💰 that still has an influence not the scouting are we saying , interesting 🤔
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you mean? I think it is partly the money/package that they offer the kids that helps them secure them. Of course, they also have to identify the players first.

comment by Robbing Hoody - Legacy Fan (U6374)
posted 22 minutes ago
It's not just money, clearly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s mainly money. Compared to other academies, Chelsea’s investment is obscene.

20 years ago we didn't have a youth policy to speak of, if had been run down over the previous 20 years due to the cost of saving our club by having to fight a lengthy legal battle to secure our ground then a further ten years whilst we started to invest in our first team and then redeveloping the Bridge.

Proper investment began again under Roman, that was only 17 years ago, we take kids on in the academy from about 10 I think so what we are seeing now are the benefits. I like many other fans believe some of the earlier crop could have made it however there are many theories as to why they haven't. We have dominated youth competition for a good few years and whilst others will catch up, I expect us to be at least competitive for some time to come.

Our youth team structure is also intended to be a revenue stream, and last transfer window it pretty much funded our purchases. Some may not like that but it's a fact, football requires revenue to compete at the highest level and clubs will always be looking fir ways to maximise revenue or they will not compete.

Is it the best, I really don't care, watching the youth thrive is great and knowing that if they don't make it with us then they are pretty well equipped to make a decent career somewhere in the game is great too. It burns when we loose a promising youngster but they have ambitions and have to chase them, and let's face it up to recently that probably was for the best.

Wherever we sit or however we are measured, long may it continue.

It’ll be interesting to see how Palace’s new academy infrastructure impacts Chelsea, because the latter have been picking up a lot of players from that area of the last few years. The changes in the rules of the academies really facked clubs like Palace.

On the flip side though Chelsea have put a good chunk of their halfway line season tickets up to £3500-4000 from next season. £1500 to sit behind the goal. That does include home cup ties but it's still absolutely grotesque.

Oil money is great for the game eh lads? 😂

Didn't realise quite how impressive it had been, nothing for about 15 years then that list.

Credit to Chelsea.

comment by Glazers_Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 11 seconds ago
On the flip side though Chelsea have put a good chunk of their halfway line season tickets up to £3500-4000 from next season. £1500 to sit behind the goal. That does include home cup ties but it's still absolutely grotesque.

Oil money is great for the game eh lads? 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's actually a small chunk of what was already the most expensive seats in the house bar corporate. What will be interesting to see is what happens to the vast majority of season tickets and general admission tickets next year. Since Roman arrived our tickets have not increased much. I can't remember what I was paying 20 years ago, £550, I think but that was in the family section which is the cheapest area, now in the MHL I pay £750.

comment by Glazers_Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 9 minutes ago
On the flip side though Chelsea have put a good chunk of their halfway line season tickets up to £3500-4000 from next season. £1500 to sit behind the goal. That does include home cup ties but it's still absolutely grotesque.

Oil money is great for the game eh lads? 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is ‘oil money’ driving up the prices of Chelsea’s season tickets?