MATCHWATCH : Rotherham United (h)

[Snowflake Royal]

If we are compelled to select Baba as a condition of his loan how come we haven’t always picked him ? He was on the bench away at Swansea (having found one instance that disproves the theory I can’t be bothered to look for more !).
You would also query why Chelsea would want such a clause. It makes sense for a young player who you want to be getting game time and experience but Baba has no future at Chelsea. He’ll simply leave at the end of his contract.

He's been sub 5 times iirc

Vision made the reasonable suggestion he wasn’t fully fit for those ones.

I still don't buy it. It would be a very poor contract to sign for a mediocre player in a position we had options already.

It is possible, but people bandy it around like it's an established fact, when it isn't.

I couldn't find an example of him being an unused sub in the games NGW has started. So it's possible every game he's in the squad he plays.

Convienent he was 'injured' for the recent game he dropped from the squad where we had 6 loanees available.

You'd think Chelsea might require a similar deal for Casadei... but he's dropped after one game for McIntyre in midfield.

[Nameless]

If for some obscure reason Chelsea insist he plays every game he is fit for you would that equally they would insist that if he is not fit enough to play then he should not be involved at all.

I am comfortable with the idea that clubs might waive loan fees while players are involved giving clubs a huge incentive to pick players, but I am far from convinced that a third party dictating selection is not counter to league rules, as well as being a pretty dumb thing to agree to.

[Snowflake Royal]

We could certainly put our FA Cup money to worse uses than paying more for Rahman by not playing him.

That should get us a good 11 games.

If it were true.

[Nameless]

We could certainly put our FA Cup money to worse uses than paying more for Rahman by not playing him.

That should get us a good 11 games.

If it were true.

I’d rather our FA cup money remains on the books to guarantee we don’t have any further points deductions….

[Stranded]

If we are compelled to select Baba as a condition of his loan how come we haven’t always picked him ? He was on the bench away at Swansea (having found one instance that disproves the theory I can’t be bothered to look for more !).
You would also query why Chelsea would want such a clause. It makes sense for a young player who you want to be getting game time and experience but Baba has no future at Chelsea. He’ll simply leave at the end of his contract.

It could be a % of apps or more likely that Ince prefers his experience.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Still don’t understand why fans take so much notice of the rubbish managers speak after a game. It’s a media duty after a highly stressful couple of hours and he’ll be full of emotion

He fcuked up the selection, I expect he realises that and hence why he made the changes so early

Still sounds like an absolute shocker of a first half

On another note our home form really is sensationally good - or at least the results are. 4 wins and 2 draws from the last 6. I can’t really fathom why tbh and why we are so much worse away. We seem to play basically the same way

No I can't work out why it's so much different away from home either. For whatever reason when tyres hit the tarmac it's as if we're a completely different team. Whether that comes down to mentality from the manager, I don't know.

But yes our home form is as good as it's been for a good long while considering we've struggled at home really ever since Stam left bar the season we finished 7th.

C1871 made some good noise after the subs, and there was also motovational booing first half.

Don't really have that away. Best I've got.

You wouldn't imagine it would make that significant a difference to our home for though. Of course fans are vital and all the rest, but we are very poor away and our away fans this year has been better than what I've been subject to before. Even though it's a Saturday afternoon, a 6 and a half hour trip to Sunderland where we have taken 800 fans is good, considering I've been at Saturday games in and around Yorkshire where we've taken about 300/400.

[Nameless]

If we are compelled to select Baba as a condition of his loan how come we haven’t always picked him ? He was on the bench away at Swansea (having found one instance that disproves the theory I can’t be bothered to look for more !).
You would also query why Chelsea would want such a clause. It makes sense for a young player who you want to be getting game time and experience but Baba has no future at Chelsea. He’ll simply leave at the end of his contract.

It could be a % of apps or more likely that Ince prefers his experience.

Doing it asa % of appearances would be ridiculous. Why would Chelsea care ? There would need to be a compelling reason to have a clause so draconian
Much more likely Ince simply prefers him.
Ince may of course be wrong to do so…..

[Royal Rother]

I think Ince's only objective is to stay in the Championship, and he's just playing a percentages game by picking experience, rather than looking for real development at this stage.

Takes me back to one of my major whinges about the club 6 years ago when we had stacks of young talent, but wouldn't play them for fear of getting relegated.

What happened? They all left for bugger all and a number have gone on to have very decent careers - players who we would love to have now. Clearly they wouldn't all be here now still, but by blooding them properly and helping their development, we could have had a couple of decent years with relatively low wage costs and eventually some good transfer fees coming in.

Still, what am I talking about - the fees and savings on wages would all have been frittered away on unfixable big money experienced rubbish once they had left, but to see our Academy youngsters leave for nowt at that time and have good careers elsewhere should give somebody pause for thought at this time.

In this area we are competing with big clubs to get players into the Academy and I've always believed it would be of significant help in that competition if we could show that we give our Academy players a proper chance to establish themselves. I don't believe we do that in the main. Short term over long term is a lot of why we are in the shite financially.

[Elm Park Kid]

If we are compelled to select Baba as a condition of his loan how come we haven’t always picked him ? He was on the bench away at Swansea (having found one instance that disproves the theory I can’t be bothered to look for more !).
You would also query why Chelsea would want such a clause. It makes sense for a young player who you want to be getting game time and experience but Baba has no future at Chelsea. He’ll simply leave at the end of his contract.

It could be a % of apps or more likely that Ince prefers his experience.

Doing it asa % of appearances would be ridiculous. Why would Chelsea care ? There would need to be a compelling reason to have a clause so draconian
Much more likely Ince simply prefers him.
Ince may of course be wrong to do so…..

I made a post on the previous page that explains that this is a known thing that PL clubs do. We obviously have no idea if it applies in this case.

PL clubs care in general because they either want their player to get more experience, or they want them in the 'shop window' more often. And it also gives them an opportunity to potentially pay less of the players wages. A better question might be 'why wouldn't Chelsea want this?". Not caring isn't the same things as not wanting it to happen.

For some reason Reading have struggled to keep left-backs on their books. They are unable to spend any money last summer. Chelsea come to them and say "You can have that Baba guy for another season. But you have to sign this standard contract that means you owe us more money if he doesn't play often enough?". I assume that the club, given the position it was in, just says "sure".

[SCIAG]

I still don't buy it. It would be a very poor contract to sign for a mediocre player in a position we had options already.

We had NGW, who had never played at this level and had started poorly, Hoilett, who was also first choice right wing back, and McIntyre, who was starting at centre back and had never played wing back before (although he's looked very good when filling in there since). Signing the guy who did just fine last season for us made a lot of sense.

You'd think Chelsea might require a similar deal for Casadei... but he's dropped after one game for McIntyre in midfield.

It's likely any deal would be tied to wages - i.e. if Baba plays then Chelsea pay his wages, if he doesn't then we do. I know Chelsea have done similar deals in the past, but can't remember if they were with us (possibly Chalobah, Baker, or Miazga?). It might not be all or nothing, but maybe it's 70% Chelsea if he plays and 30% if he doesn't. Advantage to Chelsea is that if their player plays then theoretically his value should go up - but I don't think that logic holds for a player like Rahman in the final year of his contract.

Rahman is 28, having signed for Chelsea aged 21 after playing 50+ games in the Bundesliga. He's signed at least one new contract since.

Casadei is 20. He's never played professionally before. He's also signed for Chelsea in the post-Abramovic era, when they are cutting wages in favour of big transfer fees.

It seems likely to me that Rahman is on more money than Casadei, and so if we have a choice between paying 10% of Rahman's wage and 80% of Casadei's, or 10% of Casadei's wage and 80% of Rahman's, we're going to choose to pay less of Rahman's.

Obviously lots of hypotheticals and unknowns in there, but that's one way I can see that working out.

[Nameless]

It could be a % of apps or more likely that Ince prefers his experience.

Doing it asa % of appearances would be ridiculous. Why would Chelsea care ? There would need to be a compelling reason to have a clause so draconian
Much more likely Ince simply prefers him.
Ince may of course be wrong to do so…..

I made a post on the previous page that explains that this is a known thing that PL clubs do. We obviously have no idea if it applies in this case.

PL clubs care in general because they either want their player to get more experience, or they want them in the 'shop window' more often. And it also gives them an opportunity to potentially pay less of the players wages. A better question might be 'why wouldn't Chelsea want this?". Not caring isn't the same things as not wanting it to happen.

For some reason Reading have struggled to keep left-backs on their books. They are unable to spend any money last summer. Chelsea come to them and say "You can have that Baba guy for another season. But you have to sign this standard contract that means you owe us more money if he doesn't play often enough?". I assume that the club, given the position it was in, just says "sure".

Your other major problem is explaining how such a deal doesn’t blatantly breach the agreement we signed up to with the EFL…..

[Doolittle]

Hope NGW and Azeez get a run of games now. We looked much more dynamic once they came on. The starting selection had too many holding players and very little pace. The second half line up was much better balanced.

[Sutekh]

What I find most concerning is the inability to understand that the loan deal with Chelsea for Baba insists that he plays if fit (well, that’s my take on it, anyway)

Clearly has to be that and on same par with Hendrick with the difference being the latter is improving with each game.

If chelsea are paying all of the reported £89k a week and must be they clearly have the right to say this with either a clause in that we pay a contribution when he doesn’t play or loan gets terminated. Sounds ridiculous but can be only explanation.

The thing is I believe Baba is out of contract with Chelsea at the end of the season so do they really care if he plays for us?

More importantly hope that doesn't mean he ends up joining Reading permanently.

[Snowflake Royal]

I think Ince's only objective is to stay in the Championship, and he's just playing a percentages game by picking experience, rather than looking for real development at this stage.

Takes me back to one of my major whinges about the club 6 years ago when we had stacks of young talent, but wouldn't play them for fear of getting relegated.

What happened? They all left for bugger all and a number have gone on to have very decent careers - players who we would love to have now. Clearly they wouldn't all be here now still, but by blooding them properly and helping their development, we could have had a couple of decent years with relatively low wage costs and eventually some good transfer fees coming in.

Still, what am I talking about - the fees and savings on wages would all have been frittered away on unfixable big money experienced rubbish once they had left, but to see our Academy youngsters leave for nowt at that time and have good careers elsewhere should give somebody pause for thought at this time.

In this area we are competing with big clubs to get players into the Academy and I've always believed it would be of significant help in that competition if we could show that we give our Academy players a proper chance to establish themselves. I don't believe we do that in the main. Short term over long term is a lot of why we are in the shite financially.

Amen, been saying the same, like you, for ages.

[tmesis]

Baba has no future at Chelsea. He’ll simply leave at the end of his contract.

This is what amazes me. He's been there for 8 years, and at 28, isn't likely to improve.

He must have had at least a couple of contract extensions in that time, presumably for more money each time. I know Chelsea are hardly counting the pennies, but it seems weird they haven't just let him go before.

[Snowflake Royal]

I still don't buy it. It would be a very poor contract to sign for a mediocre player in a position we had options already.

We had NGW, who had never played at this level and had started poorly, Hoilett, who was also first choice right wing back, and McIntyre, who was starting at centre back and had never played wing back before (although he's looked very good when filling in there since). Signing the guy who did just fine last season for us made a lot of sense.

You'd think Chelsea might require a similar deal for Casadei... but he's dropped after one game for McIntyre in midfield.

It's likely any deal would be tied to wages - i.e. if Baba plays then Chelsea pay his wages, if he doesn't then we do. I know Chelsea have done similar deals in the past, but can't remember if they were with us (possibly Chalobah, Baker, or Miazga?). It might not be all or nothing, but maybe it's 70% Chelsea if he plays and 30% if he doesn't. Advantage to Chelsea is that if their player plays then theoretically his value should go up - but I don't think that logic holds for a player like Rahman in the final year of his contract.

Rahman is 28, having signed for Chelsea aged 21 after playing 50+ games in the Bundesliga. He's signed at least one new contract since.

Casadei is 20. He's never played professionally before. He's also signed for Chelsea in the post-Abramovic era, when they are cutting wages in favour of big transfer fees.

It seems likely to me that Rahman is on more money than Casadei, and so if we have a choice between paying 10% of Rahman's wage and 80% of Casadei's, or 10% of Casadei's wage and 80% of Rahman's, we're going to choose to pay less of Rahman's.

Obviously lots of hypotheticals and unknowns in there, but that's one way I can see that working out.

NGW started a littly wobbly, but still managed to be one of the real bright sparks. Which is why no one can understand why Rahman is ahead of him.

You've missed several options. There was also John Clarke, and the opportunity to play Yiadom on the left with Abrefa or Hoilett on the right.

Your last point about choosing to pay less of Rahman's as its likely bigger than Casadei directly contradicts your point given that would mean Casadei would have missed out when all the loanees were available, not Rahman as actually happened.

[Vision]

No I can't work out why it's so much different away from home either. For whatever reason when tyres hit the tarmac it's as if we're a completely different team. Whether that comes down to mentality from the manager, I don't know.

But yes our home form is as good as it's been for a good long while considering we've struggled at home really ever since Stam left bar the season we finished 7th.

Thing is we’re not a completely different team. Totally different results but performances much tbe same. We set up the same, play the same way etc. just seems we more often than not get a bit more luck at home, make slightly fewer shit mistakes, or they at least don’t get punished as much

It's got to be a mentality issue.

Given the remit has been survival, you can imagine that the manager has gone over some principles for that, compact unit, strong home form, competitive, tough to play against etc and these are mantras that P.Ince has used on numerous occasions during pre/post-match press conferences this season.

That's exactly what it is I think. They obviously sat down and worked out what is the best way to pick up 50 points in 46 games and want to stick with it.

My argument is that having watched everyone at least once, we know there is little to fear from the vast majority of teams in this division. Parachute teams aside , at least half have the same mixture of journeymen, youngsters, players no-one else wants, sprinkled with the odd "Matchwinner on their day" player.

I honestly believe that the negativity of settling for 21st place as success is ding a disservice to the hard work Ince, Bowen and co put into the preseason and early season.

[Hound]

Tbf I don’t think we’re really settling for 21st place and it’d still take a pretty rubbish end of the season to get there

Maybe at the start of the year and its still minimum requirement but we should get low mid table now

[dizzynewheights]

Think that was my 4th time seeing Reading this season including a couple of aways and by feck I'm never not amazed by how shite we've been this season yet still sit where we are in the table. Andy C needs a statue put up IMHO tbh tbf

As an occasional visitor and all joking and cynism aside, whoever arranged the Club 1871 (or whatever its called) on the South stand should be applauded and have their STs paid for life. To have that kind of noise and enthusasm at a game like that is really an achievement.

Fair play to em

[SouthDownsRoyal]

Once this season is out the way are all our FFP restrictions etc out the way?