When you’re venturing into new waters as a Premier League club, you need to be certain that the route you’re taking is the correct route. However, the Chelsea board have fallen far off doing such this, and their latest move is quite questionable.
When the Chelsea board chose Frank Lampard as the man to take Chelsea forward, you would have thought they’d be looking to invest in the move for the long-term. With Chelsea looking to invest in a manager who will bring through the youth players, and Lampard’s success in doing as such at Derby County, the match looks to be heavenly.
However, Chelsea have done exactly the opposite of long-term by reportedly handing the 41-year-old a three-year contract. The deal is sure to ramp up the pressure on Lampard who will struggle to make an impact in such a short time.
The three-year contract from Chelsea’s hierarchy is showing a lack of faith in Lampard. If the Englishman fails in his first season in the job, he will be under immediate pressure the following season with just two years left on his contract. As well as the pressure, Lampard is joining a club where the squad requires an overhaul, yet are stuck with a transfer ban for the next two windows.
As well as a squad overhaul many of the youth players are afforded next to no first-team chances. Given the lack of first-team action for youth players, Lampard needs time to allow the youth players to get used to the Premier League. That could mean one season of struggle at Stamford Bride, and with Roman Abramovich’s tendency to pull the trigger on managers sooner rather than later, there’s no guarantee that Lampard will be afforded that sort of time at the club.
A very good example to prove this point is Unai Emery and Arsenal. The North London club hired Emery on a three-year contract, and after failing in his first season, the Spaniard has been put under immense pressure to succeed in his second season. And this is despite the obvious lack of depth and quality in the squad.
If Chelsea want to show support for Lampard and his vision of using youth moving forward, then they should use the example set by Daniel Levy and Tottenham Hotspur. In May of 2018, Spurs handed Mauricio Pochettino a five-year contract extension despite not winning a single trophy since he joined the club. And after no signings in the following two transfer windows, Tottenham’s long-term faith in Pochettino paid off as he led the club to their first-ever Champions League final.
If the reports surrounding a three-year deal are true, then Chelsea aren’t helping their new manager. Three years is not a long enough contract to see Chelsea reach the level they need to be at while using implementing youth into the first-team.
