Chelsea’s loan army not quite at a mutiny, but certainly having an awakening

Patrick van Aanholt’s loan to Wigan – his third of five – nearly caused him to leave football. Chelsea cannot put a stopper on the growing number of ex-loanees who lay bare the realities of the loan system.

Patrick van Aanholt’s interview with the Daily Mail could not have come at a worse time for Chelsea FC, which means it came at the perfect time for those youngsters who most need to hear what he has to say. As Callum Hudson-Odoi and Marcin Bulka are being strong-armed into signing a multi-year contract extension with a loan as a “reward,” Van Aanholt added his voice to that of Josh McEachran and a few others who were utterly demoralized by their bouncing through the loan system.

Van Aanholt made eight appearances for 299 minutes with Chelsea. Of his five loans, only two came with fewer appearances: Newcastle (7) and Wigan (4). But both gave him more playing time. He played six complete games with Newcastle, so he had double the minutes.

Wigan, though, was the experience that almost brought his career to an early end. He played four complete games (360 minutes, more than he accumulated as a Blue) in September, and was not even in the squad for the remainder of the calendar year. With the passage of time, van Aanholt has come to accept his share of responsibility for that season:

"At the time my mentality was wrong, I’m not going to lie. I thought, “F*** it, I’m not going to train (properly)”. I didn’t want to play in the reserves. It was the wrong attitude. I could have trained for myself, so when I got the chance I was ready. I didn’t do that. I was just training and going home. That was just a waste of time. – Daily Mail"

This passage is particularly important for current loanees who may carry a sense of entitlement since they belong to Chelsea FC, and feel that loans are beneath them (Hi, Charly!). But perhaps more relevant to the broader swath of current and prospective loanees – and Chelsea’s footballing staff – is how alienated and discouraged the overall process left van Aanholt. Things came to a head at Wigan, but they built up at Coventry, Newcastle and Leicester.

Missing from van Aanholt’s mature self-reflection is any thought that, despite the adversity, it was all worth it because it got him to where he is today. He acknowledges he could have done things better at his low point, Wigan. But nowhere are the words or the sense that the path to stability and success at Crystal Palace had to be paved through Coventry, Newcastle, Leicester, Wigan and Vitesse.

Just the opposite, in fact. Van Aanholt went on to say the exact thing (humble brag incoming) we’ve said repeatedly here over the years.

"I think I made the right move to leave Chelsea behind. They kept sending me on loan to get more experience. How long does it take to become more experienced? In your head you’re thinking, “I need stability to prove myself in the Premier League.”"

These are the words Chelsea does not want Callum Hudson-Odoi or Marcin Bulka to read at this juncture, let alone the few dozen players currently out on loan. We in the chatterati can say these things all the time, and we can speculate about what’s said in the loan army WhatsApp group. But here is one of the loan army’s success stories putting it right out there in the Daily Mail.

Van Aanholt’s statements will reaffirm Jonathan Panzo’s and Harvey St. Clair’s decisions to take early permanent transfers rather than enter the loan system. It also reinforces Jadon Sancho’s decision to depart Manchester City for Borussia Dortmund, not that his decision is in need of any validation given his success in Germany and call-up to England’s senior team.

More and more former loanees are speaking frankly about their experiences, and few are towing the company line. At a time when the current batch of loanees have a threat of a recall for every success story and there has been no strategic leadership in the 379 days since Michael Emenalo retired, if these statements are the only thing young Chelsea players hear, they will think long and hard before signing  extension just to gain admission to the loan system.

It would be one thing if there was a well-defined pathway that Chelsea, the player and the loan club could agree to, with milestones and decision points along the way. But there is not.

Instead, there is the club offering a take-it-or-leave-it one-sided contract. The club knows that if the player refuses, Cobham is full of many others who would jump at the chance, and if not at Cobham, then available for an arbitration fee somewhere else in England.

For now. And perhaps not for long. Chelsea’s youth are not the only ones reading Patrick Van Aanholt’s interview. Many players at many clubs are, and they will be considering his words and maybe even calling him up for a conversation before they sign anything.

Knowing Chelsea, they will probably see this as a problem of messaging and public relations. Knowing Chelsea, they will not do anything to resolve the deep systemic roots of the problem until they are completely bound in a crisis of their own making. Sadly, that’s become the Chelsea way.

I’m sorry, we were saying….