Billy Gilmour

[Gordopolis]

He's finished

[Satoshi]

6 hours ago, NickMcG said:

For me the problem with Billy Gilmour is not that he hasn't got time to improve but that he appears to have been going backwards. The other players mentioned on this thread might have been at a lower level at the same age but could you say they were going backwards?

I don't think he is going backwards either, he made 24 EPL appearances last season and another (better) PL team spent a decent chunk of money bringing him in this season.

He has already made two sub appearances and I think I will be fairly accurate with my prediction of 10-15 appearances this season (made before he moved).

And it's.without doubt he's miles ahead of Kante and Jorginho were at the same age, decent shout he was ahead of Modric too.

3 hours ago, Lex said:

 

The forgotten man. Looks like we will shortly be adding the Brighton manager to the list of club managers who are incorrectly leaving him out of their teams and missing out on his world class talent.
Farke
Tuchel
Smith
De Zerbi?
How many more unused sub appearances for Scotland till Clarke gets added?

 

Dean Smith played him regularly and Tuchel openly wanted him to stay at Chelsea rather than go on loan to Norwich.

It was said when he signed that he wouldn't immediately go into the team, and for many reasons will have to be patient for games. He could have easily stayed at Chelsea who wanted him but chose to go - good for him.

Your predictions on this thread have been a complete car crash, keep it up, if you think he won't make it he almost certainly will.

[Chewing Taffies]

7 hours ago, Satoshi said:

He could have easily stayed at Chelsea who wanted him but chose to go - good for him.

You make it out as if Glimour was in control of this situation when he clearly wasn't. He returned for pre-season and was told he wasn't part of Tuchels plans for the coming season and would have to go back out on loan. He refused to go on loan and was subsequently dumped into the youth squad for pre-season. Chelsea then sold him for a relatively small fee. He was essentially pushed out of Chelsea.

[Satoshi]

25 minutes ago, Chewing Taffies said:

You make it out as if Glimour was in control of this situation when he clearly wasn't. He returned for pre-season and was told he wasn't part of Tuchels plans for the coming season and would have to go back out on loan. He refused to go on loan and was subsequently dumped into the youth squad for pre-season. Chelsea then sold him for a relatively small fee. He was essentially pushed out of Chelsea.

Not accurate, there's no evidence that I can see that Chelsea pushed him out for a loan move. The evidence we do have is that Tuchel vocally wanted him to stay the previous season.

He may have been training with the youth team because he wasn't willing to sign a long term contract or that he was pushing for a permanent move. This seems more likely.

When leaving Boehly effectively told him Tuchel won't be staying and was still hoping he would stay (along with many Chelsea fans and those inside the club).

Factually, he had an extension option in his contact exercised during the summer. This is the polar opposite of being pushed out of the club.

The evidence is that Chelsea wanted to keep him, extended his contract and Gilmour pushed to leave.

How he attracts such haters is truly beyond me.

[Chewing Taffies]

8 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Not accurate, there's no evidence that I can see that Chelsea pushed him out for a loan move.

Tuchel said: "We had high hopes and he played for us in the first half-a-year when I was at Chelsea, played some important matches for us and looked for a new challenge that did not go so well for him with Norwich.

"We expected more, he expected more so it was like, without pointing a finger, but it is difficult also for him and for us to not succeed, to not play at Norwich, to be relegated and then suddenly be a central midfielder for Chelsea and competing for top four and for every title.

"There's a huge step in between so we were looking. The ideal solution would have been maybe that he goes again on loan as the concurrence is huge for us in central midfield and we felt like he is not the age where he can live again with five or seven or eight matches during a whole season to fulfil his own potential so ideally it would have been another loan. Billy did not want to go on loan, it was a no-go for him so in the end we agreed to a sale."

https://www.football.london/chelsea-fc/news/tuchel-billy-gilmour-transfer-chelsea-24921840

 

Certainly no hate from me. I think he is a great player. I am just pointing out that you are wrong.

[Loominous]

8 hours ago, Satoshi said:

He has already made two sub appearances and I think I will be fairly accurate with my prediction of 10-15 appearances this season (made before he moved).

Just for clarity he came on in the 93rd minute and 89th minute in both of his sub appearances. Saying he made two sub appearances while true kind of hides the detail.

8 hours ago, Satoshi said:

And it's.without doubt he's miles ahead of Kante and Jorginho were at the same age, decent shout he was ahead of Modric too.

Football careers don't have to follow a linear path. Some players excel later in their careers, some blossom early and decline, some follow a linear progression and others follow different paths. What conclusions can be drawn from being ahead statistically of select players at the same age with regards to his career? 

1 hour ago, Satoshi said:

Factually, he had an extension option in his contact exercised during the summer. This is the polar opposite of being pushed out of the club. The evidence is that Chelsea wanted to keep him, extended his contract and Gilmour pushed to leave.

The motivation for the extension could have been to protect an asset (At least in part). I don't think that's an unfair conclusion to draw given we have the benefit of knowing how it all played out after the extension although I think they would have also been happy for him to stay another two years so probably a bit of both in my view.

1 hour ago, Satoshi said:

How he attracts such haters is truly beyond me.

I don't personally hate BG and fair play to him for pushing to play and I agree that Chelsea would have been happy to keep him on the books but probably prefer to send him on loan again and that his Brighton career needs time.

It's not surprising that BG hasn't walked into the Brighton team so I'll only start forming conclusions after the World cup but probably in the second half of this season.

[Satoshi]

1 hour ago, Chewing Taffies said:

Tuchel said: "We had high hopes and he played for us in the first half-a-year when I was at Chelsea, played some important matches for us and looked for a new challenge that did not go so well for him with Norwich.

"We expected more, he expected more so it was like, without pointing a finger, but it is difficult also for him and for us to not succeed, to not play at Norwich, to be relegated and then suddenly be a central midfielder for Chelsea and competing for top four and for every title.

"There's a huge step in between so we were looking. The ideal solution would have been maybe that he goes again on loan as the concurrence is huge for us in central midfield and we felt like he is not the age where he can live again with five or seven or eight matches during a whole season to fulfil his own potential so ideally it would have been another loan. Billy did not want to go on loan, it was a no-go for him so in the end we agreed to a sale."

https://www.football.london/chelsea-fc/news/tuchel-billy-gilmour-transfer-chelsea-24921840

 

Certainly no hate from me. I think he is a great player. I am just pointing out that you are wrong.

I hadn't seen these quotes from Tuchel before (he was sacked soon afterwards). So I'll admit maybe Tuchel did want to send him out on loan.

So surely you will be willing to admit you got it wrong saying he was forced out? Quite the opposite, the article makes clear Chelsea wanted to keep him and loan him (something I speculated on at the time). They also factually extended his contract, again the opposite of forcing him out.

If there is no hate, why did you post he was forced out when the evidence contradicts this? If a simple mistake then fair enough.

18 minutes ago, Loominous said:

Just for clarity he came on in the 93rd minute and 89th minute in both of his sub appearances. Saying he made two sub appearances while true kind of hides the detail.

Football careers don't have to follow a linear path. Some players excel later in their careers, some blossom early and decline, some follow a linear progression and others follow different paths. What conclusions can be drawn from being ahead statistically of select players at the same age with regards to his career? 

The motivation for the extension could have been to protect an asset (At least in part). I don't think that's an unfair conclusion to draw given we have the benefit of knowing how it all played out after the extension although I think they would have also been happy for him to stay another two years so probably a bit of both in my view.

I don't personally hate BG and fair play to him for pushing to play and I agree that Chelsea would have been happy to keep him on the books but probably prefer to send him on loan again and that his Brighton career needs time.

It's not surprising that BG hasn't walked into the Brighton team so I'll only start forming conclusions after the World cup but probably in the second half of this season.

It's still two sub appearances, they didn't have to bring him on (or put him on the bench) but they did. 

What conclusion can be drawn? I think, first of all, it highlights how far he came and how quickly. It's important not to be too concerned if he isn't playing 90 minutes every week. Plenty of world class players were doing far less at the same age. Those are the two conclusions I would draw. And of course, anyone dominating games in central midfield as teenagers against the likes of Liverpool are clearly very talented players. Talent doesn't guarantee success, but when mixed with professionalism and a bit of luck you have a fantastic chance. The posters who thought Gilmour would have to drop down to the Championship or Rangers were obviously wrong, and I'm not at all surprised they were proven wrong. 

Gilmour defied Tuchel who wanted to keep him instead of loaning him to Norwich, probably soured the relationship a bit as Tuchel is notoriously p***kly.

He then forced his way out permanently rather than on loan (another likely good move) and wasn't dissuaded when the owner effectively told him that Tuchel was getting the bullet imminently. 

Your final paragraph is accurate, very few EPL signings walk into the first team immediately - especially when signed on deadline day. Pervis Estupinan is a highly regarded 24 year old experienced Ecuadorian international who joined two weeks before Gilmour, he has looked good when playing but he's hardly starting every game. And that's before you look at the big clubs like Man City and Liverpool who take half seasons to fully bed in the likes of Robertson, Fabinho, Thiago or Alvarez.

The only posters who are shocked Gilmour hasn't immediately walked into the first team of a high flying EPL team are the ones who betray the fact they know absolutely nothing about elite football. Which does tie in with their posts earlier in the thread. 

[Chewing Taffies]

3 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

I hadn't seen these quotes from Tuchel before (he was sacked soon afterwards). So I'll admit maybe Tuchel did want to send him out on loan.

At least you have finally admitted you are wrong. Gilmour was told he had to go out on loan. He was then dropped from the first team squad and then he was sold for a small fee. If you don't see this as being pushed out the door then fair enough.

[Loominous]

54 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

The only posters who are shocked Gilmour hasn't immediately walked into the first team of a high flying EPL team are the ones who betray the fact they know absolutely nothing about elite football. Which does tie in with their posts earlier in the thread. 

I agree with your general point that it's not a disaster for Billy Gilmour the way his career is unfolding presently and I think most fair minded people share that view. I think the way you argue that point is unnecessary and if anything works against the overall point to be honest.  

[Satoshi]

1 hour ago, Chewing Taffies said:

At least you have finally admitted you are wrong. Gilmour was told he had to go out on loan. He was then dropped from the first team squad and then he was sold for a small fee. If you don't see this as being pushed out the door then fair enough.

Forced out the door by extending his contract? When the manager wanted him to stay a Chelsea player and the owner even indirectly told him said manager was about to be punted and that he stay?

Ah okay then strange world you live in.

If my work even wants to force me out, I will know because they have just extended my contract.

 

[Chewing Taffies]

14 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

Forced out the door by extending his contract? When the manager wanted him to stay a Chelsea player and the owner even indirectly told him said manager was about to be punted and that he stay?

Ah okay then strange world you live in.

If my work even wants to force me out, I will know because they have just extended my contract.

 

Dropped to the development squad, told to go out on loan and then sold for a few quid. Yeh, Chelsea were really desperate to keep him!

[Satoshi]

6 minutes ago, Chewing Taffies said:

Dropped to the development squad, told to go out on loan and then sold for a few quid. Yeh, Chelsea were really desperate to keep him!

You have changed your tune from him being forced out, finally!

But yes, the manager vocalised in the media he wanted to keep him a Chelsea player, it emerged later the owner told him that Tuchel would be back (and he should stay). The Chelsea fans are mostly disappointed he was let go. Oh and they factually extended his contract in the summer.

So being forced out? Totally wrong I'm afriad.

Correct call to row back from it 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Satoshi

[Chewing Taffies]

38 minutes ago, Satoshi said:

You have changed your tune from him being forced out, finally!

But yes, the manager vocalised in the media he wanted to keep him a Chelsea player, it emerged later the owner told him that Tuchel would be back (and he should stay). The Chelsea fans are mostly disappointed he was let go. Oh and they factually extended his contract in the summer.

So being forced out? Totally wrong I'm afriad.

Correct call to row back from it 

The manager vocalised (quotes posted earlier) that Gilmour was not in his plans for the forthcoming season, expected more from him, tried to punt him on loan and sold him for pennies. 

The fact that you didn't even know Tuchel tried to loan Gilmour out again tells me that you don't know much about this subject.

Forced out 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Chewing Taffies

[The Moonster]

I certainly hope he gets a game soon and this eye bleeding chat can end. 

[Satoshi]

40 minutes ago, Chewing Taffies said:

The manager vocalised (quotes posted earlier) that Gilmour was not in his plans for the forthcoming season, expected more from him, tried to punt him on loan and sold him for pennies. 

The fact that you didn't even know Tuchel tried to loan Gilmour out again tells me that you don't know much about this subject.

Forced out 

Did you know his contract was extended in the summer?

Why on earth would that happen if he was being forced out?

Do you know what forced out means?

Some hole you have dug yourself here. And you even tried to row back in your last post only to abandon it here.

I hadn't seen the Tuchel quotes about the loan before, admitting you didn't know or were wrong about something - you should give it a try! Current context looks ideal.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Satoshi

[Chewing Taffies]

Just now, Satoshi said:

I hadn't seen the Tuchel quotes about the loan before, admitting you didn't or were wrong about something - you should give it a try! 

If it ever happens, I will let you know chump 

[Number seven]

Gilmour back to Rangers?

[Theroadlesstravelled]

How is he ahead of Modric? Cause he’s played a few Barclays games at the same age?

Harry Winks was also ahead of Modric in that case. I know who I’d rather have playing for me.

[craigkillie]

How is he ahead of Modric? Cause he’s played a few Barclays games at the same age?
Harry Winks was also ahead of Modric in that case. I know who I’d rather have playing for me.

Was it not you who posted a video of Modric putting in a mediocre performance at Wembley in 2007 as though it was at all relevant?

[gannonball]

10 hours ago, Number seven said:

Gilmour back to Rangers?

I think just killing him would be a bit harsh.