I take it that is Oli Watkins Aston Villa, there is a report that he has had a bust up with the manager Gerrard.
Touching on Zaha and these reports that Chelsea are interested.Every transfer window there is always clubs links with Zaha. As with Wilf being in the last 12 months of his contract these rumours are going to grow. Zaha has stated he wants to test himself at the highest level and play Champion Leaque football, I don’t have a problem with that ambition is a good thing but would the grass be greener on the other side specially at Chelsea.
At Palace Wilf’s name is one of the first on the team sheet week in week out, I cannot see that happening at Chelsea. Manager of Tuchel calibre likes playing rotation and with the players that Chelsea are signing how many games is Zaha going to play and how much bench warming is he going to do this season for Chelsea compared to staying at Palace. Connor Gallagher and Lofus-Cheek are other examples I cannot see these two like Wilf if he did sign playing week in week out and I think out of these two at Chelsea Lofus Cheek will get preference over Gallagher.
Wilf pitch temperament is questionable, the one thing in my eyes that lets Wilf down. We see this week in week out players surround him as soon as he gets the ball he is picked on, because clubs know that he is a threat they can wind him up ( Watford in past prime example) instead of letting his football do the talking he has to get into spats on the pitch instantly his football is affected if he did go to Chelsea and get to play Champion Leaque, European referees are quick dishing out red cards unless Zaha’s attitude changes dramatically are Chelsea going to take the risk.

South London & Proud
Sometimes I really wonder if family are really worth it.
Because it doesn’t matter how time and affection you give
It’s never enough

I'd love Watkins, but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that Villa would let us have him either on loan, or for a fee shy of 60m

My initial thoughts about CG was that he was desperate to make an impact at Chelsea this year, and because of that he’d not be interested in coming back to Palace on loan again.

Now, after only making it on to the pitch in the 99th minute, which is a shame for the lad, I wonder if he will be wondering how he makes the World Cup team with those sort of appearances.

I do think he may leave on loan, but to another club, and not Palace. Am I right in thinking if we loan him again, it has to be with a view to signing him permanently? If that is the case, I can see him choosing a more straight forward loan somewhere else, with a view to having another crack at playing for Chelsea next season.

On a side note, I think this rule of having to go for a loan/buy in a second year loan deal is wrong. If a player has developed well at a loan club, and the parent club want to extend that development experience for the players welfare, then why put such an obstacle in the way? Perhaps, anything over two seasons should have such rules come into play. But one season is rarely long enough.

I’m pretty sure there is nothing stopping us for a loan only again this year. This would be a separate transfer not in conjunction with the first. Perhaps if it was two year continuous loan it may be different but nothing I’ve heard of .

I think that rule applies to full season long loans and the season has already started so wouldnt apply in this case . Having said that i personally would love it if we signed him permanently.

I must admit, I’ve never seen the rule in writing, it’s only what I’ve picked up from posters on this site.

If we can offer a straight forward loan, I can see CG choosing us over anyone else. He knows have valued he was, and he knows he will play in a system that suits him.