Chelsea have lost the cream of their homegrown crop in the last five years

Chelsea have wasted little time making a name for themselves as the chief eyebrow-raisers when it comes to the transfer market in the first 19 months of the Todd Boehly era.

Be it breaking the British transfer record twice in as many windows, signing a whopping 27 new players, splashing £945million, or selling three key midfielders to direct rivals - Chelsea have well and truly ripped up the rule book in the last 12 months when it comes to the transfer market.

But it is not so much who is walking through the door to rapturous fanfares, as much as who has been sold with seemingly little consideration that is the most intriguing piece of the Chelsea enigma.

The Blues' academy has become one of the most fruitful in the country, producing the likes of Mason Mount, Tammy Abraham, Ruben Loftus-Cheek, Fikayo Tomori and Marc Guehi, who would have little issue getting into most Premier League teams, but were seemingly deemed expendable at Chelsea.

So why, with Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Manchester City all flaunting the impressive riches of their exceptional youth set ups by building squads around their brightest gems, have so many Chelsea academy starlets been let go?

Well the logical first response would be to suggest that the players are simply not good enough, which would be entirely understandable if true. But a simple look at the list of starlets to be cut loose would perhaps debunk that idea.

In the Blues' most recent match Carney Chukwuemeka assumed the now vacant role as a No 10; there are very few outside the Chukwuemeka household that might suggest he should start over a fit and fighting Mount.

Equally, since Abraham departed in 2021, Chelsea have spent £192.5million on strikers. While Nicolas Jackson and Christopher Nkunku have arrived only recently, the combined £107.5m spent on Romelu Lukaku and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang yielded just 18 goals over two seasons. Abraham, in comparison, has netted 36 at Roma.

Guehi is of increasing interest to Arsenal, Tomori has lifted the Serie A title at AC Milan, Lewis Hall has drawn the eye - and pocket - of Newcastle as they look to show Europe's biggest names that they mean business in the Champions League this term. These are all players that strengthen Chelsea, and their departures have left them far weaker for it, so it is not a case of quality.

Ultimately, as is becoming increasingly prevalent in football, it is a purely financial decision.

Transfer fees may be being spread across seven or eight-year deals to reduce the annual cost on the balance sheet thanks to a neat amortisation trick, but that does not completely negate the financial impact of more than 20 transfer deals. And there are of course also the all-too familiar shadows of Financial Fair Play regulations lurking in the periphery.

Instead, Chelsea are being forced into maximising their income, and the best way to do that is by selling academy products. While a player signed from elsewhere might fetch a higher price, the sale of a star who has come through the academy represents pure profit, which goes straight into the books on their departure.

This summer, for example, the sales of Mount and Loftus-Cheek have handed the Blues £73m to spend, with Hall's departure next season earning them a further £28m at the end of his loan to Newcastle.

In total, in the last five years, Chelsea have made £165.7m in pure profit from the sale of Mount (£60m), Loftus-Cheek (£13m), Billy Gilmour (£9m), Abraham (£34m), Tomori (£25m), Guehi (£18m) and Ola Aina (£8.7m), with Hall adding another £28m next summer. With such massive outlays as the £173m splashed on Moises Caicedo and Romeo Lavia, it is a well-needed and timely shot in the arm for the Blues.

But such an economic boost is always likely to have its consequences. Mail Sport understands concerns are starting to be voiced about the exodus of homegrown talent from the club, with the departure of Mount in particular viewed with skepticism.

'Plenty of people here not happy at Mason being allowed to leave. He was the shining light used for the kids. That's why we want Conor (Gallagher) to stay too,' a source revealed to Mail Sport.

Mail Sport also understands that academy staff pushed for Gallagher to stay and let their feelings about the sale of Mount known. The decision to let Hall go too has been met with further dissatisfaction, adding to the view that another 'one of our own' has been shown the door.

As well as discontent within their ranks, the Chelsea academy also suffers another potential knock-on effect. Well-placed sources indicated that the academy is looking a less appealing prospect, with players being signed at just a couple of years older than those at the top of the set up already.

What incentive is there for players in the academy, knowing that when they reach the top and are finally on the verge of breaking into the first-team, they’re up against players the club have spent £15m plus on?

Normally, clubs are keen to cultivate and hold on to the brightest talents from their academies, particularly the bigger clubs, given registration rules for European competitions.

For example, in the Champions League - where Chelsea will hope to be competing once again within at least the next two seasons - teams are allowed to submit a list of 25 players, eight of whom must be homegrown. It is a similar quote in the Premier League, too.

Four of these are allowed to be trained in the same league as the club for three years between the age of 15 and 21, while a further four must spend the same period of time at the club in question.

With the likes of Mount and Co leaving this summer, Chelsea would face a struggle to name the required homegrown players for a Champions League squad this season, but given their absence from European competitions for 2023-24, this is not a pressing concern.

Chukwuemeka, therefore, would qualify as a player homegrown at the club, filling a very important quota slot if Chelsea qualify for the Champions League at the end of next season, with Angelo, Gabriel Slonina (club) and Romeo Lavia (league) also set to qualify for homegrown status by the same point.

In turn, this cycle will free up more space for foreign-trained stars and the cycle will continue, with Chelsea bringing in wonderkids young enough to qualify for homegrown status, potentially at the continued expense of their own youth products. So in a sense, there is method to the madness.

But with academy products now moving higher up the list of those willing to be moved on in order to facilitate more and more activity in the transfer market, what does that mean for the likes of Reece James?

The England right back has just been named Mauricio Pochettino's new captain, but does that outweigh the breathing space he could hand the club financially down the line?

It is a short-sighted plan, selling on a finite resource such as academy graduates, and it is one that is sure to eventually catch up with the Blues. What has been an undeniably profitable well of talent for both club and country, could now be at risk of drying up with the club shooting themselves in the foot with the current modus operandi.