Chelsea’s idiosyncratic loan system has always divided opinion; for its size, its global scale and its perception of young footballers as little more than financial assets. Yet, everybody once recognised its shrewdness in helping the west London club circumvent Financial Fair Play laws, something that has affected their freedom to spend in the transfer market far more than divisional rivals Arsenal and Manchester United.

The theory behind it is simple enough; Chelsea sign young players whose values are almost guaranteed to rise, farm them out across Europe to ensure they do, and then cash in for more than their original investment. The profit then creates a net spend surplus, which allows Chelsea greater room for manoeuvre when recruiting for the first-team without having to fear UEFA’s wrath. It’s football’s equivalent of hedge funds, albeit in the process taking advantage of the naïve ambitions of young footballers who dream of playing for one of the Premier League’s biggest clubs.

Moral correctness aside, however, the first significant returns from Chelsea’s loan operation were hard to argue with - over £35million made on Kevin De Bruyne and Romelu Lukaku, at that time two Belgian youngsters who may or may not have gone on to come good on their much-heralded potential, after making just 24 appearances combined for the first-team. Instead, De Bruyne and Lukaku gained their value on loan West Brom and Everton, and Werder Bremen respectively.

WATCH THE LATEST 442OONS VIDEO BELOW...

The prophecy was that becoming the norm for Chelsea; that level of profit being turned around on most of their youngsters despite hardly kicking a ball, simply by signing the right ones, sending them out on loan to the right clubs such as Vitesse Arnhem - nowadays, Chelsea’s official feeder team - and selling them at the right time.

Yet, fast forward to present day and the tide is turning. Not only have Lukaku and De Bruyne gone on to establish themselves as the amongst best players in the Premier League - in fact, the Blues could reportedly spend as much as £100million to bring the former back to Stamford Bridge this summer - but the surplus-driving sales of those levels have been few and far between, whilst those frustrated with the many blockades to the Chelsea first-team are beginning to leave of their own accord.

Take the last six members of Chelsea’s farming out brigade who were sold after several stints out on loan; Mohamed Salah, Stipe Perica, Bertrand Traore, Nathan Ake, Christian Atsu and Patrick Bamford. On paper, Chelsea bought all six for just shy of £21million and sold them for just shy of £57million - essentially, a £36million profit. But almost exactly two thirds of that was generated from the sale of Ake alone - when his £20million move to Bournemouth is taken out of the equation, Chelsea’s profit stands at just £16million from five players.

Any profit is profit, a businessman would say. But how much of that £16million is actual profit remains a contentious subject; in total, those five players spent a combined 19.5 years on the books at Chelsea - one can only assume, therefore, a significant chunk of that £16million was eaten up in wages, agent fees, signing-on bonuses and the general costs that accompany footballers in this day and age - employing coaches to train them, the support staff to look after them, buying residencies to house them and so on.

The actual cost of those additions unfortunately remains unknown, but if we estimate at £1million per footballer, Chelsea’s profit drops down to just £11million. Once again, profit is profit - but for the work involved and time consumed, not to mention careers potentially ruined for players like Bamford who have struggled to live up to their potential, £11million just doesn’t seem worth it - especially when the transfer market’s ever-escalating inflation is taken into the equation. In real terms the selling fees probably weren’t worth much more - if at all - than what Chelsea paid in the first place.

At the same time, deals offsetting that modest sum like Ake’s departure to Bournemouth have been much rarer than many would assume - in fact, that’s the biggest profit Chelsea have made on a single farmed out player since their loan system got off the ground, and one of just four occasions - alongside Lukaku, De Bruyne and Ryan Bertrand - in which the overall profit has exceeded the £10million mark.

Of course, the more acceptable byproduct of Chelsea’s loan system is the idea that every now and then, a true top-class entity will shine through, impressing enough on loan to force his way into the first-team. But from the countless players involved to date, only one has managed to establish himself at his parent club - goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois, who benefitted from Petr Cech being the wrong side of 30 when he began to make waves at Atletico Madrid.

In the process, the Blues have wasted De Bruyne, one of the top creative midfielders in world football who Man City forked out £33million more than Chelsea sold him for, Bertrand, an England international who could also end up at City this summer, Ake, a fantastically versatile young defender whose career will surely reach bigger heights than Bournemouth, and Lukaku, a 24-year-old striker with 85 Premier League goals under his belt already. In fact, if Chelsea buy back Lukaku for £100million this summer, they’ll wipe out practically all profits their loan system has made.

There’s also the suddenly vast collection of youngsters who might not make Chelsea any profit at all, having struggled to develop to the levels expected amid a raft of loan spells; Kenneth Omerou is now 23 years of age and spent last season out on loan at Alanyaspor, Lucas Piazon, signed for nearly £6million, is 23 as well and endured an unspectacular season at Fulham last time out, £5.2million acquisition Tomas Kalas also spent last term at Craven Cottage and will be 25 before the end of 2017/18, Matej Delac, albeit signed for free, has just come to the end of his 10^th loan spell courtesy of Belgian outfit Royal Excel Mouscron - his Blues contract is now due to expire in twelve months.

But perhaps the real sign of the system failing is that Chelsea no longer seem to be calling the shots in the same way. Whilst they clearly felt Everton and Wolfsburg offered fair prices for Lukaku and De Bruyne respectively - once again, who couldn’t be guaranteed to reach the top of the game at the time - it now feels as if disgruntled youngsters are forcing their own moves.

"It was time. Considering my age and for my development, it was time for me to leave the club. I could have stayed at Chelsea and played a few minutes in every game, fighting every day for a spot, knowing that I'll never get a spot, I trained at the club, I did everything. Two seasons ago, I challenged the starters but we all know what happened last year.

"I was there during pre-season and then I was sent out on loan. So this year, I did not want to re-live the same scenario. It was time for me to find a stable club where I could play first-team football, where I could be one of the key players in the team."

Bertrand Traore on why he left Chelsea for Lyon

Bertrand Traore has revealed he joined Lyon because he didn’t want to spend another season out on loan and although Dominic Solanke was never actually farmed out in the same way he’s decided to join Liverpool of his own accord in a compensation deal because of limited first-team opportunities. All of a sudden, Chelsea’s treatment of young players and first-team tunnel vision is beginning to catch up with them. Whilst that may not have been much of a problem five years ago, the quality of young player at Stamford Bridge is now significantly greater.

These days, Financial Fair Play is no longer as stringent as it once was. The punishments are less severe, the oversight is less vigilant, allowances are far more common. Which makes you wonder what the point of Chelsea’s loan system now truly is. £11million-£16million profit spit over five young players? The occasional £20million return at the cost of sacrificing a future top-class footballer? Hoarding youngsters to keep them out of reach of divisional rivals? Or simply to crush the dreams of young footballers who won't get genuine opportunities at Stamford Bridge?

Whilst Chelsea’s farming out operation once had a clear aim and purpose, the negatives are now starting to outweigh the positives. The numbers are struggling to add up and Chelsea are wasting more talent than they're producing. In footballing and financial terms, the system is failing.