Levi Colwill - possible loan?

[davieG]

https://www.caughtoffside.com/2022/01/17/chelsea-transfer-news-levi-colwill-leicester-city/

 

Leicester City consider January transfer window loan swoop for Chelsea youngster

Posted by Mark Brus39 minutes agoFollow @mbrus88
Leicester City consider January transfer window loan swoop for Chelsea youngster

FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailMore
Leicester City have reportedly shown some interest in a potential January transfer window move to sign Chelsea youngster Levi Colwill on loan.

The talented 18-year-old has had an impressive season on loan at Huddersfield Town, and it seems this has led to some uncertainty over his immediate future.

According to The Athletic, there have been murmurings of Chelsea recalling Colwill, while Leicester have also considered trying to sign him on a loan deal for the second half of the season.

However, the report suggests that Colwill remaining with Huddersfield for the remainder of the campaign currently looks the most likely outcome for him for the moment.

Colwill looks like a hugely promising young player and it will be interesting to see if he can become the latest to rise up from the Blues’ academy into their first-team.

Chelsea have enjoyed plenty of success in promoting homegrown players in recent times, with Mason Mount, Reece James and Trevoh Chalobah the biggest success stories, while Callum Hudson-Odoi and Billy Gilmour are others with big potential, and Tammy Abraham and Fikayo Tomori have gone on to forge fine careers for themselves elsewhere.

Leicester would perhaps do well to revisit a deal for Colwill in the summer, as it could then be an ideal time for Chelsea to get him some experience of playing regularly in the Premier League as he may still not be quite ready to become a regular in Thomas Tuchel’s side yet.

[adejo92]

Thanks but no thanks.

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

https://www.caughtoffside.com/2022/01/17/chelsea-transfer-news-levi-colwill-leicester-city/

 

Leicester City consider January transfer window loan swoop for Chelsea youngster

Posted by Mark Brus39 minutes agoFollow @mbrus88
Leicester City consider January transfer window loan swoop for Chelsea youngster

FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailMore
Leicester City have reportedly shown some interest in a potential January transfer window move to sign Chelsea youngster Levi Colwill on loan.

The talented 18-year-old has had an impressive season on loan at Huddersfield Town, and it seems this has led to some uncertainty over his immediate future.

According to The Athletic, there have been murmurings of Chelsea recalling Colwill, while Leicester have also considered trying to sign him on a loan deal for the second half of the season.

However, the report suggests that Colwill remaining with Huddersfield for the remainder of the campaign currently looks the most likely outcome for him for the moment.

Colwill looks like a hugely promising young player and it will be interesting to see if he can become the latest to rise up from the Blues’ academy into their first-team.

Chelsea have enjoyed plenty of success in promoting homegrown players in recent times, with Mason Mount, Reece James and Trevoh Chalobah the biggest success stories, while Callum Hudson-Odoi and Billy Gilmour are others with big potential, and Tammy Abraham and Fikayo Tomori have gone on to forge fine careers for themselves elsewhere.

Leicester would perhaps do well to revisit a deal for Colwill in the summer, as it could then be an ideal time for Chelsea to get him some experience of playing regularly in the Premier League as he may still not be quite ready to become a regular in Thomas Tuchel’s side yet.

Should only take PL loans if it's with an option to buy. We don't want to be developing other PL teams players.

[EnderbyFox]

Fastest close thread ever? 

 

 

 

 

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Should only take PL loans if it's with an option to buy. We don't want to be developing other PL teams players.

I don't share that view any longer, the goalposts have moved. In an ideal world you are absolutely right but we have hideous injury problems and January in a bad window for us in getting players in. So if its either we get a young player in on loan but with no guaranteed option to sign them permanently if we want them, or no new additions then I'll happily take the former given the detriment may be worse to us if we don't get some players in vs improving a supposed rival of one of their players.

 

Also, we got Tielemans without having an option to buy and I'd do that every day of the week and twice on Sundays again. 

[KFS]

Buying him with a Chelsea buy back clause gets him out of the Huddersfield loan doesn’t it? 

[Ric Flair]

3 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said:

Fastest close thread ever? 

 

 

 

 

Not necessarily, we could pay Chelsea a loan fee that they recompense Huddersfield for sending him back. Has happened before.

[Raw Dykes]

I wouldn't normally want to develop another club's players for them, but right now, with the 25-man squad being full, adding one or two good u21 defenders to the squad would be a massive boost.

 

OP mentioned going back in the summer. I don't think we'd do that, and I'd rather we didn't, unless it was a permanent transfer or a loan with an option to buy. In the summer, you've got time to sort the squad out properly. We haven't got any time now - we just have to try to put a decent defence together any way we can.

[davieG]

35 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I don't share that view any longer, the goalposts have moved. In an ideal world you are absolutely right but we have hideous injury problems and January in a bad window for us in getting players in. So if its either we get a young player in on loan but with no guaranteed option to sign them permanently if we want them, or no new additions then I'll happily take the former given the detriment may be worse to us if we don't get some players in vs improving a supposed rival of one of their players.

 

Also, we got Tielemans without having an option to buy and I'd do that every day of the week and twice on Sundays again. 

 

I guess it depends on what position he plays and if he is better than our current Academy options who I'd sooner be given the chance to develop and prove whether they are good enough to be retained.. If we're that desperate then I suppose it's a yes.

 

Re Tielemans not being a PL player or even an Academy player makes him a different choice for which I have no problem even though it's a risk he could have gone to another PL club after our loan period. I'm just against helping clubs like Chelsea to develop their players who they then either keep or sell

l on at a profit due to our development.

[Pick Good Name Later]

Whether or not this works out, we’d not be going far wrong in adopting this approach.

 

I too viewed this as why would we develop other clubs young players for the benefit of the parent club. It’s not really that simple though.

 

Chelsea seemingly are producing standout talent through their academy time and again.

 

Borja at Soton. Livramento and Soton. Guehi at Palace are 3 examples this season alone that have come out of Chelsea’s academy, and in spite of lack of experience are making big impacts. Not to mention the obvious names. James, Mount, Hudson-Odi, Abraham etc. Probably other examples that I’ve missed.

 

Chelsea, City, Liverpool, and Utd do offer clear paths for youngsters coming through. It’s almost impossible however for all of the talent coming through these bigger clubs to make the breakthrough. 
 

Something id like to see us target more. Not just for our academy set up but being braver in throwing some into the first team mix as well.

 

 

[BKLFox]

This could have been the guy Rodgers had his eye on prior to Fofana's injury & the subsequent force handing of getting Vestergaard in, as he mentioned the original plan was to get a young up & comer in who he could develop....damn you Nino.

The mere fact at 18yrs old he's out on loan in the Championship with @ Huddersfield with 20+ appearances under his belt so far this season would suggest he is further down the devolpment line than our Nelson, Brunt (as CB) or Grist so very plausible.
Even our Sam Hughes is only playing in Lge 1 & although Josh Knight is in the championship these guys are 24yrs old now i don't see them coming back to our 1st team.

[CloudFox]

Initial thought was "He's too young, and would block the development of our current crop of youth."

 

However, he's 18, has 20-odd appearances at senior level in the Championship, and we need those coming in to be able to fit into our existing squad. He seems...an unexpected, but good fit.

 

Good article on him here:

 

https://breakingthelines.com/player-analysis/player-analysis-levi-colwill/

[sacreblueits442]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I don't share that view any longer, the goalposts have moved. In an ideal world you are absolutely right but we have hideous injury problems and January in a bad window for us in getting players in. So if its either we get a young player in on loan but with no guaranteed option to sign them permanently if we want them, or no new additions then I'll happily take the former given the detriment may be worse to us if we don't get some players in vs improving a supposed rival of one of their players.

 

Also, we got Tielemans without having an option to buy and I'd do that every day of the week and twice on Sundays again. 

 

...the difference with Tielemans was that his club was not looking for him to come back!!!

  The idea was for him to succeed and then get the best deal for Monaco as possible. Their manager at the time was not prepared to have him back, so any deal to go anywhere they would been happy with.

  Unless there is an option to buy then, no. We are not looking to be Chelsea's feeder team and like it or not, they probably see us that way.

  I am sure there are suitable options outthere, and that we have not sat and hedged our bets, on long term absentees recovering in time to save our season.

Edited 17 January 2022 by sacreblueits442

[Ric Flair]

16 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

 

...the difference with Tielemans was that his club was not looking for him to come back!!!

  The idea was for him to succeed and then get the best deal for Monaco as possible. Their manager at the time was not prepared to have him back, so any deal to go anywhere they would been happy with.

  Unless there is an option to buy then, no. We are not looking to be Chelsea's feeder team and like it or not, they probably see us that way.

  I am sure there are suitable options outthere, and that we have not sat and hedged our bets, on long term absentees recovering in time to save our season.

I'm not as precious as some with regard to helping to strengthen our rivals, that goes out the window every time we sell players to them. Year on year the elite will make the effort to improve by throwing vast amounts of money around and the way we try and compete is on marginal gains and exploiting them for vast sums for our players.

 

In order for us to strengthen them by taking a player of theirs on loan and help develop them would entail them making a significant impact here and the benefit to us is that they've had a positive short term impact and helped us to succeed. That's really all that matters short term, whilst we navigate this horrendous run of injuries etc. If these players at big clubs don't come here, they'll go elsewhere so again it's a pretty irrelevant stance to take when times are desperate. Don't forget that each January when we shop for players, we only ever want a short term loan.

 

Take Conor Gallagher. We could have been offered him but without an option to buy. We could have said no as we don't want to take players that we've no possibility of being here long term and so he goes elsewhere instead. He goes on to be a contender for young player of the season and scores and assists north of 20 goals. Who's the winner there? Our club certainly isn't.

[sacreblueits442]

2 hours ago, Pick Good Name Later said:

Whether or not this works out, we’d not be going far wrong in adopting this approach.

 

I too viewed this as why would we develop other clubs young players for the benefit of the parent club. It’s not really that simple though.

 

Chelsea seemingly are producing standout talent through their academy time and again.

 

Borja at Soton. Livramento and Soton. Guehi at Palace are 3 examples this season alone that have come out of Chelsea’s academy, and in spite of lack of experience are making big impacts. Not to mention the obvious names. James, Mount, Hudson-Odi, Abraham etc. Probably other examples that I’ve missed.

 

Chelsea, City, Liverpool, and Utd do offer clear paths for youngsters coming through. It’s almost impossible however for all of the talent coming through these bigger clubs to make the breakthrough. 
 

Something id like to see us target more. Not just for our academy set up but being braver in throwing some into the first team mix as well.

 

 

....the area that Chelsea are scouting in are huge, Arsenal were the team in London for young talents to gravitate to, but those days are now gone!!!

  We are now looking to increase our areas of recruitment and bringing in young talent into our academy to push us along.

  If we have to develop a player, we need to see the benefit to our club. If they (Chelsea) choose to hoover up all the talent in the south and then look for outlets to develop them, I do not want to see us become in any way an extension of their policy.

  We are developing nicely and want to continue that way.

[Buzzell]

Who?

[KingsX]

11 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'm not as precious as some with regard to helping to strengthen our rivals, that goes out the window every time we sell players to them. Year on year the elite will make the effort to improve by throwing vast amounts of money around and the way we try and compete is on marginal gains and exploiting them for vast sums for our players.

 

In order for us to strengthen them by taking a player of theirs on loan and help develop them would entail them making a significant impact here and the benefit to us is that they've had a positive short term impact and helped us to succeed. That's really all that matters short term, whilst we navigate this horrendous run of injuries etc. If these players at big clubs don't come here, they'll go elsewhere so again it's a pretty irrelevant stance to take when times are desperate. Don't forget that each January when we shop for players, we only ever want a short term loan.

 

Take Conor Gallagher. We could have been offered him but without an option to buy. We could have said no as we don't want to take players that we've no possibility of being here long term and so he goes elsewhere instead. He goes on to be a contender for young player of the season and scores and assists north of 20 goals. Who's the winner there? Our club certainly isn't.

 

I agree with your premise.  Flexibility is needed, more so when you’re desperate.  But I’m having a tough time applying it in the case of a teenage center back.

 

This kid is so young.  One to buy and develop.  But is he worth loaning for a few months?  Only if he’s immediately ready to help us in the PL, at a position that usually demands experience and maturity.  CB is a costly position to blood a player into, and if we’re going to absorb the “pain” of youthful errors, I’d rather we also enjoy the later “gain” from playing them out of him.

 

We were all surprised that Little Wes -- who has all the gifts -- did so well at 19.  Colwell is only 18.  If he’s another one in a thousand, great.  But what if he’s one of the other 999?  We’d simply be absorbing the pain of getting a young CB “over the hump”, while the experience he gains will be of benefit elsewhere down the road.

[davieG]

8 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'm not as precious as some with regard to helping to strengthen our rivals, that goes out the window every time we sell players to them. Year on year the elite will make the effort to improve by throwing vast amounts of money around and the way we try and compete is on marginal gains and exploiting them for vast sums for our players.

 

In order for us to strengthen them by taking a player of theirs on loan and help develop them would entail them making a significant impact here and the benefit to us is that they've had a positive short term impact and helped us to succeed. That's really all that matters short term, whilst we navigate this horrendous run of injuries etc. If these players at big clubs don't come here, they'll go elsewhere so again it's a pretty irrelevant stance to take when times are desperate. Don't forget that each January when we shop for players, we only ever want a short term loan.

 

Take Conor Gallagher. We could have been offered him but without an option to buy. We could have said no as we don't want to take players that we've no possibility of being here long term and so he goes elsewhere instead. He goes on to be a contender for young player of the season and scores and assists north of 20 goals. Who's the winner there? Our club certainly isn't.

For me the answer is to not allow inter-loans between PL Clubs, This would help to prevent these clubs stock piling players and they would have to play or sell these players. I just think it's fundamentally wrong and that's partly recognised by them not being allowed to play against their contracted team, I think there should also be consideration for the rivals of these teams that loaning the players as it distorts the league

[BKLFox]

49 minutes ago, CloudFox said:

Initial thought was "He's too young, and would block the development of our current crop of youth."

 

However, he's 18, has 20-odd appearances at senior level in the Championship, and we need those coming in to be able to fit into our existing squad. He seems...an unexpected, but good fit.

 

Good article on him here:

 

https://breakingthelines.com/player-analysis/player-analysis-levi-colwill/

As i'm reading the article the more convinced i am that this is who Rodgers wanted in the summer as his attributes tick all of Rodgers boxes, especially the recovery pace that he often mentions.

[Finnegan]

Beggars can't be choosers. We need inexpensive temporary cover. It'll do. 

[Out Foxed]

11 minutes ago, buzzer_b said:

Who?

Levi from Coalville

 

sells pingers

[sacreblueits442]

10 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I'm not as precious as some with regard to helping to strengthen our rivals, that goes out the window every time we sell players to them. Year on year the elite will make the effort to improve by throwing vast amounts of money around and the way we try and compete is on marginal gains and exploiting them for vast sums for our players.

 

In order for us to strengthen them by taking a player of theirs on loan and help develop them would entail them making a significant impact here and the benefit to us is that they've had a positive short term impact and helped us to succeed. That's really all that matters short term, whilst we navigate this horrendous run of injuries etc. If these players at big clubs don't come here, they'll go elsewhere so again it's a pretty irrelevant stance to take when times are desperate. Don't forget that each January when we shop for players, we only ever want a short term loan.

 

Take Conor Gallagher. We could have been offered him but without an option to buy. We could have said no as we don't want to take players that we've no possibility of being here long term and so he goes elsewhere instead. He goes on to be a contender for young player of the season and scores and assists north of 20 goals. Who's the winner there? Our club certainly isn't.

...I  understand your point of view, I am speaking generally as opposed to what we deem to require at this very moment!!!

  Sometimes the short term loan only kicks the can down the street and you will have to address the problem later, by bringing someone else in, and hoping he gets up to speed as soon as possible, or worse case scenario, he is not be able to make the grade. That would be 6 months wasted for you, either to wait for the next window, or better still, have had the opportunity to retain the loan player as a permanent member of the team.

  Not a fan of Gallacher, I would not be unduly worried in anyway, if we could afford him, and he chose to go elsewhere. 

[Lambert09]

3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I don't share that view any longer, the goalposts have moved. In an ideal world you are absolutely right but we have hideous injury problems and January in a bad window for us in getting players in. So if its either we get a young player in on loan but with no guaranteed option to sign them permanently if we want them, or no new additions then I'll happily take the former given the detriment may be worse to us if we don't get some players in vs improving a supposed rival of one of their players.

 

Also, we got Tielemans without having an option to buy and I'd do that every day of the week and twice on Sundays again. 

I’d be overjoyed with a dragovic style loan right now. Even a Molla wague would do me. Maybe vitor fancies another loan

[Ric Flair]

18 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...I  understand your point of view, I am speaking generally as opposed to what we deem to require at this very moment!!!

  Sometimes the short term loan only kicks the can down the street and you will have to address the problem later, by bringing someone else in, and hoping he gets up to speed as soon as possible, or worse case scenario, he is not be able to make the grade. That would be 6 months wasted for you, either to wait for the next window, or better still, have had the opportunity to retain the loan player as a permanent member of the team.

  Not a fan of Gallacher, I would not be unduly worried in anyway, if we could afford him, and he chose to go elsewhere. 

Not a fan of Gallagher? Honestly?

[turlo]

42 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

I agree with your premise.  Flexibility is needed, more so when you’re desperate.  But I’m having a tough time applying it in the case of a teenage center back.

 

This kid is so young.  One to buy and develop.  But is he worth loaning for a few months?  Only if he’s immediately ready to help us in the PL, at a position that usually demands experience and maturity.  CB is a costly position to blood a player into, and if we’re going to absorb the “pain” of youthful errors, I’d rather we also enjoy the later “gain” from playing them out of him.

 

We were all surprised that Little Wes -- who has all the gifts -- did so well at 19.  Colwell is only 18.  If he’s another one in a thousand, great.  But what if he’s one of the other 999?  We’d simply be absorbing the pain of getting a young CB “over the hump”, while the experience he gains will be of benefit elsewhere down the road.

Little Wes had experienced defenders alongside him like Evans and Fuchs when he first came into the team, which would've helped him no end during the first few months. We don't have that stability at the back at the minute with Evans out and Cags form all over the place.