Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Conor Gallagher - Going to Athletico (p81)

1495052545583

Comments

  • edited January 2020
    Chelsea were closely monitoring and probably felt he was going backwards under us. I personally think that would have been a wrong assessment, as I was noticing other qualities coming out when we were really digging in. I would compare Gallagher with Morgan in games - not on ability but just the way he went about his business and looking at it as soimething Morgan should try to emulate. But Chelsea own him and can make wrong decisions. Conor is such a good player, it is probably hard to damage him anyway but I think he will have benefitted his future game just as much during our desperate spell as the brilliant one at the start or the season. I'd be interested to hear his views on that a few years down the line.
  • Chelsea were closely monitoring and probably felt he was going backwards under us. I personally think that would have been a wrong assessment, as I was noticing other qualities coming out when we were really digging in. I would compare Gallagher with Morgan in games - not on ability but just the way he went about his business and looking at it as soimething Morgan should try to emulate. But Chelsea own him and can make wrong decisions. Conor is such a good player, it is probably hard to damage him anyway but I think he will have benefitted his future game just as much during our desperate spell as the brilliant one at the start or the season. I'd be interested to hear his views on that a few years down the line.
    This is the worrying thing for me. Us as fans are obviously going to look at Conor's time at Charlton through Rose tinted glasses, but if coaches on the outside are worried about players development here, it could effect us getting more top quality loans in the future. 
  • Players of that age go up and down. Conor was developing other aspects to his game and the Chelsea coaches weren't clever enough to notice that. Actually, maybe they were. Gallen did refer to them being happy about that aspect before we lost him. Given the way Chelsea operates, there is a good chance it was all about the money. Other clubs made approaches and maybe we should have anticipated that and said to Chelsea that we were willing to contribute a bit more given how well the lad was doing. It isn't as if we didn't know other clubs were sniffing around and that Chelsea's youth structure is run as a business as much as for anything else.
  • Chelsea were closely monitoring and probably felt he was going backwards under us. I personally think that would have been a wrong assessment, as I was noticing other qualities coming out when we were really digging in. I would compare Gallagher with Morgan in games - not on ability but just the way he went about his business and looking at it as soimething Morgan should try to emulate. But Chelsea own him and can make wrong decisions. Conor is such a good player, it is probably hard to damage him anyway but I think he will have benefitted his future game just as much during our desperate spell as the brilliant one at the start or the season. I'd be interested to hear his views on that a few years down the line.
    This is the worrying thing for me. Us as fans are obviously going to look at Conor's time at Charlton through Rose tinted glasses, but if coaches on the outside are worried about players development here, it could effect us getting more top quality loans in the future. 
    Only because of the injuries though. Highly unlikely clubs (including Chelsea) would be put off from loaning to us in the future. 
  • edited January 2020
    Swansea stiring Charlton's custard
  • Chelsea were closely monitoring and probably felt he was going backwards under us. I personally think that would have been a wrong assessment, as I was noticing other qualities coming out when we were really digging in. I would compare Gallagher with Morgan in games - not on ability but just the way he went about his business and looking at it as soimething Morgan should try to emulate. But Chelsea own him and can make wrong decisions. Conor is such a good player, it is probably hard to damage him anyway but I think he will have benefitted his future game just as much during our desperate spell as the brilliant one at the start or the season. I'd be interested to hear his views on that a few years down the line.
    This is the worrying thing for me. Us as fans are obviously going to look at Conor's time at Charlton through Rose tinted glasses, but if coaches on the outside are worried about players development here, it could effect us getting more top quality loans in the future. 
    I think it was more to do with the fact that we've been in defensive mode since the injuries kicked in. Good opportunity to test the defensive part of his game for a bit, but for sixteen or seventeen matches in a row, with no real end in sight? 
    He looked like a different player in the first ten games of the season. Because of our changing fortunes he's gone from being a Bryan Robson to being a Nobby Stiles. Valuable, but not what Chelsea were hoping for.

  • Has a Chelsea player ever completed a loan at Charlton? Carlton Cole & Alexei Smertin also left early.
  • edited January 2020
    Ferryman said:
    Has a Chelsea player ever completed a loan at Charlton? Carlton Cole & Alexei Smertin also left early.
    Jay Dasilva twice.
  • Sponsored links:


  • What is true is that both Charlton and Chelsea have benefited from the initial move and it might have been good show for Chelsea to respect that and talk to us first which it looks like they didn't given Bowyer saying how surprised he was.
  • Saturday he could have been playing in a midfield of 

    Williams
    Gallagher Morgan/JFC
    Pratley 

    With Morgan/JFC. Cullen/Oztumer/Aneke on the bench. 

    Green & Hemed up top. Plenty of champ experience there, don't buy the development arguments. All about money.
    "Could" being the thing. Not saying that money wasn't an influence or that this won't be the team but how many times have we heard that "such and such" should be fit only to find that they aren't after all?

    Chelsea didn't have the luxury of time waiting for "ifs and buts" but did have the two facts to base that decision on - one win in 16 games, a player that has had no rest in that time and one who became the senior pro in a midfield that is weaker than Chelsea's own Under 23 side. The likes of Makelele will have seen that and reported back accordingly.  

    But when all is said and done he is Chelsea's player.  Just as all those that we have recalled in the last month from sides further down the food chain were ours and where those clubs may feel equally hard done by. Perhaps they won't do so simply because those players might not have had the same impact and influence as Gallagher has. I understand that we recalled at least one player recently because we weren't happy with his development and treatment by the club he was loaned to. What's different?

    The reason for the recall is almost irrelevant and it happens all the time. We really need to move on otherwise in a decade's time, should we be relegated, some will be blaming Gallagher and Chelsea for our demise in the same way as others continue to blame Parker and Chelsea for us not getting into Europe. It's not all about one player.
  • Saturday he could have been playing in a midfield of 

    Williams
    Gallagher Morgan/JFC
    Pratley 

    With Morgan/JFC. Cullen/Oztumer/Aneke on the bench. 

    Green & Hemed up top. Plenty of champ experience there, don't buy the development arguments. All about money.
    "Could" being the thing. Not saying that money wasn't an influence or that this won't be the team but how many times have we heard that "such and such" should be fit only to find that they aren't after all?

    Chelsea didn't have the luxury of time waiting for "ifs and buts" but did have the two facts to base that decision on - one win in 16 games, a player that has had no rest in that time and one who became the senior pro in a midfield that is weaker than Chelsea's own Under 23 side. The likes of Makelele will have seen that and reported back accordingly.  

    But when all is said and done he is Chelsea's player.  Just as all those that we have recalled in the last month from sides further down the food chain were ours and where those clubs may feel equally hard done by. Perhaps they won't do so simply because those players might not have had the same impact and influence as Gallagher has. I understand that we recalled at least one player recently because we weren't happy with his development and treatment by the club he was loaned to. What's different?

    The reason for the recall is almost irrelevant and it happens all the time. We really need to move on otherwise in a decade's time, should we be relegated, some will be blaming Gallagher and Chelsea for our demise in the same way as others continue to blame Parker and Chelsea for us not getting into Europe. It's not all about one player.
    Good post AA, but I dissent from your analogy.
    Parker and Chelsea were to blame for us not getting into Europe
    I truly understand why you and others believe that. I simply cannot share that belief for all the reasons I have expressed previously. We will just have to respectfully beg to differ and that is what debate is all about after all.
  • Saturday he could have been playing in a midfield of 

    Williams
    Gallagher Morgan/JFC
    Pratley 

    With Morgan/JFC. Cullen/Oztumer/Aneke on the bench. 

    Green & Hemed up top. Plenty of champ experience there, don't buy the development arguments. All about money.
    "Could" being the thing. Not saying that money wasn't an influence or that this won't be the team but how many times have we heard that "such and such" should be fit only to find that they aren't after all?

    Chelsea didn't have the luxury of time waiting for "ifs and buts" but did have the two facts to base that decision on - one win in 16 games, a player that has had no rest in that time and one who became the senior pro in a midfield that is weaker than Chelsea's own Under 23 side. The likes of Makelele will have seen that and reported back accordingly.  

    But when all is said and done he is Chelsea's player.  Just as all those that we have recalled in the last month from sides further down the food chain were ours and where those clubs may feel equally hard done by. Perhaps they won't do so simply because those players might not have had the same impact and influence as Gallagher has. I understand that we recalled at least one player recently because we weren't happy with his development and treatment by the club he was loaned to. What's different?

    The reason for the recall is almost irrelevant and it happens all the time. We really need to move on otherwise in a decade's time, should we be relegated, some will be blaming Gallagher and Chelsea for our demise in the same way as others continue to blame Parker and Chelsea for us not getting into Europe. It's not all about one player.
    Good post AA, but I dissent from your analogy.
    Parker and Chelsea were to blame for us not getting into Europe
    I truly understand why you and others believe that. I simply cannot share that belief for all the reasons I have expressed previously. We will just have to respectfully beg to differ and that is what debate is all about after all.
    Amen mate
  • Ferryman said:
    Has a Chelsea player ever completed a loan at Charlton? Carlton Cole & Alexei Smertin also left early.
    Jay Dasilva twice.
    Oh yea 1/4
  • I don't believe it was anything to do with his development etc and/or going backwards.....he wasn't

    this was purely about money and Swansea stumped up a decent loan fee and are paying his wages

    If that’s the case (and it definitely might be), isn’t it weird that we weren’t given a chance to match or better Swansea’s bid? 

    We know that opportunity wasn’t given because Bowyer and co were basically blindsided by this. Plus it definitely would have leaked if such a discussion was taking place. 

    I actually think it’s a bit of both, they get to put Gallagher somewhere that they think is better for his development (which requires more than just playing loads of games because our squad has casualty rates like the Somme) and they have improved the financial hit they were taking by subsidising his salary with us.
  • Ferryman said:
    Ferryman said:
    Has a Chelsea player ever completed a loan at Charlton? Carlton Cole & Alexei Smertin also left early.
    Jay Dasilva twice.
    Oh yea 1/4
    2/5 really
  • Saturday he could have been playing in a midfield of 

    Williams
    Gallagher Morgan/JFC
    Pratley 

    With Morgan/JFC. Cullen/Oztumer/Aneke on the bench. 

    Green & Hemed up top. Plenty of champ experience there, don't buy the development arguments. All about money.
    "Could" being the thing. Not saying that money wasn't an influence or that this won't be the team but how many times have we heard that "such and such" should be fit only to find that they aren't after all?

    Chelsea didn't have the luxury of time waiting for "ifs and buts" but did have the two facts to base that decision on - one win in 16 games, a player that has had no rest in that time and one who became the senior pro in a midfield that is weaker than Chelsea's own Under 23 side. The likes of Makelele will have seen that and reported back accordingly.  

    But when all is said and done he is Chelsea's player.  Just as all those that we have recalled in the last month from sides further down the food chain were ours and where those clubs may feel equally hard done by. Perhaps they won't do so simply because those players might not have had the same impact and influence as Gallagher has. I understand that we recalled at least one player recently because we weren't happy with his development and treatment by the club he was loaned to. What's different?

    The reason for the recall is almost irrelevant and it happens all the time. We really need to move on otherwise in a decade's time, should we be relegated, some will be blaming Gallagher and Chelsea for our demise in the same way as others continue to blame Parker and Chelsea for us not getting into Europe. It's not all about one player.

    Agreed - No new players through the door , no manager signing on the dotted line , and no guarentee of plaing in a championship midfield any time soon. If we were still top 8/10 without a dressing room looking like a hospital ward i am sure we would have hung onto him.
  • Ferryman said:
    Has a Chelsea player ever completed a loan at Charlton? Carlton Cole & Alexei Smertin also left early.
    If I remember rightly Chelsea ended up having to pay us a fee after going back on their agreement to extend Carlton Cole's loan
  • Sponsored links:


  • Ferryman said:
    Has a Chelsea player ever completed a loan at Charlton? Carlton Cole & Alexei Smertin also left early.
    If I remember rightly Chelsea ended up having to pay us a fee after going back on their agreement to extend Carlton Cole's loan
    That's right, a reported £1.5M but was part of the Parker deal.
  • Smertin went to Russia to play against Brazil, and signed for a club over there following the recall.
  • I don't know if anyone here has access to The Athletic (I don't a friend sent me the article) but it talks about Conor getting recalled, but more so to do with them seeing Swansea as a "feeder" club and looks like they'll be getting more Chelsea players in the near future.

    Sheep sh*gging pr*cks
  • The above statement is bang on the money for me. If I was Chelsea I would rather him in a promotion battle than a dog fight at the bottom.

    Good luck Conor, thanks for what you did for us. 
  • Always had an irrational dislike of Cooper since I subtitled his opening press conference for Swansea. Seems like a more corporate Karl Robinson with less banter and even more Brentish management cliches. 
  • Bit more context, some will like being called victims

    Liam Twomey
    STAFF
    2h ago
    Thanks for reading and for the comment. It absolutely sucks for Charlton, particularly in light of their recent form. But unfortunately for them this kind of situation is always a possibility when loans are agreed with recall clauses. 

    Charlton have ended up being victims of their own success in a way. Gallagher has progressed so quickly under Bowyer that both he and Chelsea became convinced that he was ready for a bigger challenge, and maintaining his development will always come first. 

    I’m confident, though, that Gallagher’s experience at Charlton will boost their chances of getting other loan players from Chelsea, whether it’s this month or further down the line.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!