Chelsea's loan policy is failing its players, so say the players
The close of the transfer window cast a critical spotlight on Chelsea’s loan policy when people noticed that Chelsea has 38 players on loan. Now Chelsea has a more serious problem: the loanees themselves are adding their voices.
Andreas Christensen is in the second year of his loan at Borussia Monchengladbach. The near-universal opinion of Chelsea watchers is that Christensen will – or at least should – be at the heart of Chelsea’s defence in coming years.
If that is the plan, Christensen is the last to know.
Bold.dk: Have you talked to Chelsea during the summer about how their plans are with you?Christensen: I have not talked to them about my situation, no. I have only talked to them about what I would like to have feedback and video from them after my matches… I have a hard time choosing (between Chelsea and Monchengladbach), so I opted for not really thinking about it. I enjoy life and that we win matches, and so I let all the rest be. – Bold.dk (original in German)
Damning.
Clubs send players on loan to develop their skills with one of two endgames in mind: prepare them for the first team or increase their transfer value. A club can do neither of these if they do not monitor and communicate with their loanees.
Chelsea is failing to uphold their most basic, most selfish responsibility: monitoring their investment. At the very least, they should be following Christensen’s progress to assess his prospects for the team or to determine his transfer fee. Neither the coaching staff nor Michael Emenalo & friends will be able to accurately determine Christensen’s value either on the pitch or on the transfer market.
As a basic matter of football economics, Chelsea’s loan policy is failing the club.
If Chelsea’s loan policy is irresponsible at a pragmatic level, it is nearly criminal as a human matter. A player’s ambition and hunger for his home club should increase alongside the skills and competence he develops while on loan. With every improvement he makes on loan, he should be thinking about what that will mean when he plays for his home club.
Andreas Christensen, like Tomas Kalas and Lucas Piazon, is barely even thinking about playing at Chelsea, let alone playing for Chelsea. When a young player barely hears from his home club after years out on loan, what chance is there that he will ever sound like David Luiz and say he wants to wear the shirt?
Christensen sounds like he would be just as happy – maybe more so – wearing green as he would be wearing Blue. And why shouldn’t he be? The fans rewarded him with Player of the Year honors. The club showed their faith in him by making a £15 million bid.
Meanwhile, he can barely get Chelsea to return his calls. At least he has the loan army WhatsApp group.
Chelsea’s coaching staff deserves as much blame for this situation as Michael Emenalo. Perhaps 38 players are a few more than the coaches and scouts can monitor. Slavisa Jokanovic may have had a point when he said that Piazon’s loan to Fulham will keep in Chelsea’s sights better than when he was on more distant loans.
If that is the case, that is one more reason why Chelsea needs to reduce the number of players on loan. Keeping players on loan when they have little chance of making the first team is bad enough. But knowing that they will be overlooked or ignored while on loan is coaching and management malpractice.
Chelsea’s loan policy is creating a very real problem for the club. Upper management and the board will tire quickly of reading these interviews, and the dam appears to be bursting. Michael Emenalo may be insensible to these things, but his bosses are not. A public relations crisis is one of the few things that can spur reform inside a football club. Let’s hope this one does.
More from The Pride of London
This article originally appeared on 
