Transfer Talk Topic

[boratsbrother]

30 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Good s you have answered my first question - a positive step.
Can you answer Q2 &3 please.

 

Not a smart move if they were looking for top four this season.  But it was a smart move if they were looking for a long-term better team.

I have no idea what points total they might have expected from this team. I'd guess they were/are prepared to take a step back to go forward. That's what clubs did back in the day and were even prepared to take relegation on the chin to rebuild from scratch.

Back to CL level?

Again, purely guessing, but I imagine they'll be looking to be back in the top four by 25/26 at the latest.  Things will become distinctly more difficult to seriously  progress if we're not back in the top four by then.  

Having said that. Things will become  a bit easier for all clubs once Pep and Klopp finally bugger off out of here. Regardless of finances, those two clubs have a big advantage over everyother club with them in charge.

 

Sir!

Do I get a C for my work or detention next week?🤪

 

Edited January 21 by boratsbrother

[My Blood Is Blue]

20 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

My problem with this is I can't see how you can merge 30% returns with 5 year + Business plans.

 

[Just to add I suspect RA had a much earlier  idea of what was about to evolve than anyone else in football.  Plus the work visa issues and increased anti-Russian pressure in UK may also have had an influence on him.  Anyway we seem to have been effectively non-board managed since the CL 2021 trophy.  Contrast that with 2012 after which we bought 75% of the top talent in the world.]

Compare RA with similar timing in 2003  He bought some big players (Maka, Crespo), left Ranieri in charge, made a few mistakes (Veron) and the team went from 67 points to 79.  Yet in the previous year we had just added one player (Dalla Bona) and failed to extend contracts (eg Zola).  RA did much more of the same in 2004 having hired Kenyon (and copied his buy list from Man U).
Seems a similar challenge.  And it is not as though Clearlake and TB have not done this kind of thing many times before.

Losing Marina was probably inevitable, losing Cech inexcusable given that the Cech intermediary role with TT would have been crucial.  Losing TT seems a mistake but I suspect as a manager TT found staying even less appealing and leaving even easier than the players.

 

Yeah, that’s a good point, although football is quite different now compared to back when RA took over, definitely from the business side of things.

Completely agree RE Cech. I understand some people had to go, but I think they changed far too much, too quick and I count Cech as part of that. He was a great link from board to the playing side of things IMO.

[Dwmh]

2 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

I have no idea what points total they might have expected from this team. I'd guess they were/are prepared to take a step back to go forward. That's what clubs did back in the day and were even prepared to take relegation on the chin to rebuild from scratch.

So the collapse was deliberate.  A valid opinion since you make it openly, though I don't agree.

Don't think any club took relegation on the chin deliberately even if they talked that way afterwards.  Certainly pre PL it was a lot easier to get back but in those days most money came from crowds not TV so Chelsea (or Man U) revenue in old Div 2 was a lot bigger than say QPR or Burnley revenue in the top division.  That isn't true anymore, and FFP in various forms limits the ability for deep pockets to override TV money unless they call the PL's bluff.

14 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Again, purely guessing, but I imagine they'll be looking to be back in the top four by 25/26 at the latest.  Things will become distinctly more difficult to seriously  progress if we're not back in the top four by then.  

4 years is a long time for Clearlake.
My money is on Clearlake not being here in 2026.

When the goal is 30% pa, every year sideways can be considered a 30% miss.
When the fees are based on fund profits every year sideways can be seen as 0% fees. 
If you are going to get out, getting out a year earlier makes the target 30% lower.
 

[Mark Kelly]

44 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

My problem with this is I can't see how you can merge 30% returns with 5 year + Business plans. 

 

We've discussed this before, they made a legally binding ten year agreement not to sell the club with HMGOV. 

They have a ten year business plan. 

The way they've behaved so far I don't think they'd make any money or add value in that time frame to be honest. 

[boratsbrother]

Where does this 30% target come from? They would have looked at the club's balance sheets under Roman and see that kind of return  was not going to be possible for years to come. Big money will be made when  the new stadium is built, but not before then! 

[Dwmh]

22 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

We've discussed this before, they made a legally binding ten year agreement not to sell the club with HMGOV. 

They have a ten year business plan. 

1.  If they have a 10 year business play then they expect to make a 1.3^10 -1   = 1279% profit on their investment.
While a partial sale or partne buy in (Ratcliffe/INEOS) might help, the impossibilty of CFC being a 10 year Clearlake invesment is clear.

2.  This is the first time anyone has said the agreement was WITH  HMGov.  As far as I know it is not clear who the agreement is with.  Moreover who on earth would want to hold them to such an agreement?

I did this line before "Dear Frank, great bid you put together, but Fxxx the Americans, NO.  Love to Christine and your kids, Roman".
But we could do the "Dear American Friends, thankyou very much for persuading the NSA not to release those photographs.  Of course we won't to see our American cousins maximise the booty from the war on Russia and quite agree a sale to Stripping Assets co of NY would be beneficial to Sport.  Yours faithfully, Sir Reginald Cholmondeley-Smythe, Minister for the Home Office."

 

22 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

The way they've behaved so far I don't think they'd make any money or add value in that time frame to be honest. 

Agreed.  But they might make their money back if they cashed out for a 50% haircut and reinvested in something completely different.
 

 

 

 

I should have pointed out before that if the idea was hot trading young players then they should have bought 2 or 3 small French clubs for $100m each.  Better still a Scandanavian club because getting work permits for young S Americans and Africans seems to be a key requirement, and (I may be wrong) Scandanavia seems easiest.
 

Edited January 21 by Dwmh

[Bones]

44 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

So the collapse was deliberate.  A valid opinion since you make it openly, though I don't agree.

Don't think any club took relegation on the chin deliberately even if they talked that way afterwards.  Certainly pre PL it was a lot easier to get back but in those days most money came from crowds not TV so Chelsea (or Man U) revenue in old Div 2 was a lot bigger than say QPR or Burnley revenue in the top division.  That isn't true anymore, and FFP in various forms limits the ability for deep pockets to override TV money unless they call the PL's bluff.

4 years is a long time for Clearlake.
My money is on Clearlake not being here in 2026.

When the goal is 30% pa, every year sideways can be considered a 30% miss.
When the fees are based on fund profits every year sideways can be seen as 0% fees. 
If you are going to get out, getting out a year earlier makes the target 30% lower.
 

I wonder what their end game might have been. I mean what would have had (or still should happen :)) so that they are making 30% a year! Winning the CL, EPL and selling all home grown players for pure profit? 🙂

ofcourse I am hyperbolising, but you get the idea

[Dwmh]

2 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Where does this 30% target come from? They would have looked at the club's balance sheets under Roman and see that kind of return  was not going to be possible for years to come. Big money will be made when  the new stadium is built, but not before then! 

you need to do some research into Clearlake and the kind of returns they have made in the past.  They hae made that kind of money and so that is the expectation of existing and new investors.

Of course it means humungous fees if they make a profit, zilch if they don't so best ditch the losers quick.


I don't think Clearlake acts as highly geared Private Equity, they certainly don't behave as one.  But if they do then that is another can of worms.

 

3 minutes ago, Bones said:

I wonder what their end game might have been. I mean what would have had (or still should happen :)) so that they are making 30% a year! Winning the CL, EPL and selling all home grown players for pure profit? 🙂

ofcourse I am hyperbolising, but you get the idea

IMO I imagine top 4 for a few years, ESL and the club is made.  I presume that is where the commercial interest is.  Eg Liverpool and City.
Newcastle and City are obviously PR vehicles for their owners.  

[Still feel sure that ESL will happen and it will be huge for those in and disastrous for those out (including the players and especially the fans).  I still think it is right, I don't think this version of the club gets in.]

  And TB may have a few MoneyBall fantasies of his own.

The other thing is that big football clubs come up for grabs only rarely.  They might hope to prompt a big rich owner into say adding another £2bn for a 50% stake.  These are the reasons I don't think they ever considered losing the top 4 place that they had.

And historically US firms have made fortune from the spoils of American wars, they are ready to take risks on that.

[boratsbrother]

18 minutes ago, Bones said:

I wonder what their end game might have been. I mean what would have had (or still should happen :)) so that they are making 30% a year! Winning the CL, EPL and selling all home grown players for pure profit? 🙂

ofcourse I am hyperbolising, but you get the idea

30% return each years looks wildly optimistic!

Look at Utd - One one of the top 3 biggest clubs in the world with a massive worldwide fanbase and turnover we're unlikely to ever match, yet they still make losses.

[Dwmh]

14 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

30% return each years looks wildly optimistic!

Look at Utd - One one of the top 3 biggest clubs in the world with a massive worldwide fanbase and turnover we're unlikely to ever match, yet they still make losses.

It may well be Man u investors have a different concept.  I haven't followed them.
INEOS has bought in to United.  INEOS has a long tradition of buying into stable businesses using a large amount of debt, but using the cash flow from the companies to pay down the debt.  This is Private Equity Funding.  (The Hanson Trust model for those that remember the 80s).
That implies:  cost control; stability and low risk approach (or the banks debt holders will demand a huge interest rate and kill the project; a strong reputation in stable projects (debt again).

Not sure if Ratcliffe has a sports ego, he did buy Sky Cycling or whatever the teamwas called.  But lets assume an approach consistent to how he made his billions.   Then can expect from Man U enough investment to keep a top 4 place and CL earnings.  But no attempt to challenge City.  And no Mbappe purchases.

[ROTG]

5 hours ago, Dwmh said:

But perhaps the club has been pushed towards it, perhaps because of the outsized role of the scouting team.

 

Not sure there been any scouting, only a list of targets from the sporting directors previous clubs. Hence the level of player purchased. 

[xceleryx]

3 hours ago, ROTG said:

Not sure there been any scouting, only a list of targets from the sporting directors previous clubs. Hence the level of player purchased. 

Besides the massive exaggeration you like to milk from this narrative, it's wild to think people aren't allowed to utilise their prior knowledge of players inherited from periods spent at other clubs - some of which are known for producing good young players. 

[ROTG]

1 hour ago, xceleryx said:

Besides the massive exaggeration you like to milk from this narrative, it's wild to think people aren't allowed to utilise their prior knowledge of players inherited from periods spent at other clubs - some of which are known for producing good young players. 

correct one should use previous knowledge, however to build and entire squad from your previous employers players or targets is absolute madness, especially when you consider the level of their previous employers and they type of player their previous club recruits.

For the record how many ex Brighton / Southampton / Monaco players are currently selected for the starting 11 in the current top 4 PL team?

[Chelsea_Matt]

38 minutes ago, ROTG said:

correct one should use previous knowledge, however to build and entire squad from your previous employers players or targets is absolute madness, especially when you consider the level of their previous employers and they type of player their previous club recruits.

For the record how many ex Brighton / Southampton / Monaco players are currently selected for the starting 11 in the current top 4 PL team?

Definitely a whiff of it, for sure, Cucurella and Caicedo alone have so far imo been a complete waste of £180,000,000. As for Potter, no more to be said. 

[ROTG]

39 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Definitely a whiff of it, for sure, Cucurella and Caicedo alone have so far imo been a complete waste of £180,000,000. As for Potter, no more to be said. 

Diassi & Badiashile - Stewart Monaco 

Latvia & Palmer - Shields Man Chity & Southampton

Madueke - Vivell 

D Forfana - Winstanley

Jackson - Bournemouth FC 

Enzo / Mudryk - Todd & Eggy's ego's

 and some on here gave McLachlan a lot of clogg 

It not our money so who care :0) 

[paulw66]

Christ, this thread has been derailed 

 

Any transfer news? 

[Sciatika]

Maybe it is the wrong thread, but apparently, Casey Stoney is on the list as a possible target to replace Emma Hayes. However, she has only been at San Diego Wave for a couple of years, so it might be too soon for her. Also, she has less experience despite having a period as player-manager of Chelsea for 6 months in 2009. Other candidates include Elísabeth Gunarsdóttir of Kristianstands DFF and Laura Harvey of Seattle Reign. The recruitment process is being led by Winstanley and Stewart.

Edited January 22 by Sciatika

[Bison]

2 hours ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Definitely a whiff of it, for sure, Cucurella and Caicedo alone have so far imo been a complete waste of £180,000,000. As for Potter, no more to be said. 

This Caicedo hate is so bizarre. I can only assume the majority of our fans don't watch games but just spreadsheets instead. 

[Rob B]

10 hours ago, Dwmh said:

1.  If they have a 10 year business play then they expect to make a 1.3^10 -1   = 1279% profit on their investment.
While a partial sale or partne buy in (Ratcliffe/INEOS) might help, the impossibilty of CFC being a 10 year Clearlake invesment is clear.

You keep going down a rabbit hole on this 30% annual profit thing and talking as though it’s fact.

I’m not sure your maths is correct, but regardless, no one, and I repeat no one, buys a £4-5 billion pound business and expects to make a 1279% profit within 10 years.   I think that’s like £60 billion or something crazy.  And that’s before you dig into any contractual agreements to spend X or re-develop the stadium etc. 

No -  my guess (and it is only a guess) is that Clearlake want to diversify their portfolio so there is less volatility.  And what is an easier industry than a premier league football club based in London over a 10 year period!   And whilst they have spectacularly ballsed up some of the Sporting decisions, if there’s one thing that Private Equity and the likes of Egbali, Boehly and Feliciano etc do know, it’s how to make money. 

I suspect their business plan has more like a 200-300% mark up and they eventually plan to get out when we are worth £10 - £12 billion.   Incredible profits, even for PE. 

[ROTG]

53 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Any transfer news? 

Probably has to be out goings for cash before cash incoming, unless the recalls are deemed incomings 

[martin1905]

23 hours ago, Thiago97 said:

Well no, clearly not. I would like to think we have debated enough over the years, for you to know I would not post that cos of a free kick.

He is a rare type of  number 9 right now and people need to watch him over 90 mins to realise this. He is strong as an ox, has a lovely languid touch, wins a high percentage of aerial duals. He creates carnage for defenders going up against him. Comfortable dropping deep or wider in the play to allow space for players to run in behind. 
The only striker around who has a similar level of impact for his club has been Kane at spurs. That’s not to say the likes of Salah , Haaland etc etc are not betting players with better numbers. Clearly they are. However, in terms of impact across all areas off the pitch, the confidence and leadership  having him in the team that flows through to his teammates . The only striker I can think of in recent times that has this aura is Kane. Toney at Chelsea can have Drogba level impact. 
People need to ignore all the back story that surrounds him and watch him. 
 

Edit - This was a response to Paulw66 for which I forgot to quote

We don't often agree but I'm 100% with you on Toney.

He's a player I was completely against,  probably said similar things to ROTG about him but after taking the time to properly watch him I soon realised he's freak. He has everything in terms of ability and mental attributes. He is a far, far better footballer than people give him credit for. He is a complete centre forward and those wanting Osimhen ahead of him want their heads tested.

I would go as far as saying that anyone that doesn't want him quite clearly hasn't watched him play. I apologise if that sounds patronising but I can't believe anyone here wouldn't want him if they had watched as much of him as I have.

If we don't sign Ivan Toney we really will regret it. Whatever club he goes to, he will have a huge impact. He would win Arsenal the league. He's that good.

[Thiago97]

5 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

We don't often agree but I'm 100% with you on Toney.

He's a player I was completely against,  probably said similar things to ROTG about him but after taking the time to properly watch him I soon realised he's freak. He has everything in terms of ability and mental attributes. He is a far, far better footballer than people give him credit for. He is a complete centre forward and those wanting Osimhen ahead of him want their heads tested.

I would go as far as saying that anyone that doesn't want him quite clearly hasn't watched him play. I apologise if that sounds patronising but I can't believe anyone here wouldn't want him if they had watched as much of him as I have.

If we don't sign Ivan Toney we really will regret it. Whatever club he goes to, he will have a huge impact. He would win Arsenal the league. He's that good.

I'm pleased someone else is clearly watching him! I think he is a bit of a freak right now. To be out of the game 8 months, drop straight into the team, complete 90mins with ease, score and be the talismanic MOTM on your first game back....well that is freakish really.

I think too many are judging him on his personality and off the pitch issues that have come up. He is extremely self confident, probably arrogant. That is exactly what this club needs right now. Someone who is going to come up and shake the situation up with his presence , leadership and general aura around the club and on the team. We are so soft right now, and here you have a guy who plays in a position we need and would be interested in joining, improves the team and add some much needed experience, strength, height, fight and all around savvy nous to the team.

I only have one doubt on him. Brentford play everything through him. If not everything goes through him at Chelsea, does he have the same impact ? I think he can, and I think his teammates and manager will soon realise that everything positive ends up going through him.

We have a gift horse looking us right in the mouth here. That's not to say we should make it happen at all costs, but we should be trying to make this happen.

 

[Dwmh]

41 minutes ago, Rob B said:

You keep going down a rabbit hole on this 30% annual profit thing and talking as though it’s fact.

I’m not sure your maths is correct, but regardless, no one, and I repeat no one, buys a £4-5 billion pound business and expects to make a 1279% profit within 10 years.   I think that’s like £60 billion or something crazy.  And that’s before you dig into any contractual agreements to spend X or re-develop the stadium etc. 

No -  my guess (and it is only a guess) is that Clearlake want to diversify their portfolio so there is less volatility.  And what is an easier industry than a premier league football club based in London over a 10 year period!   And whilst they have spectacularly ballsed up some of the Sporting decisions, if there’s one thing that Private Equity and the likes of Egbali, Boehly and Feliciano etc do know, it’s how to make money. 

I suspect their business plan has more like a 200-300% mark up and they eventually plan to get out when we are worth £10 - £12 billion.   Incredible profits, even for PE. 

ergo the timescale is 3 years not 10 years 
btw I'm not sure they are investing much more than the initial £2bn

[paulw66]

50 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

 

If we don't sign Ivan Toney we really will regret it. Whatever club he goes to, he will have a huge impact. He would win Arsenal the league. He's that good.

That's a huge leap. History is littered with examples of big fishes in small ponds, moving to a big pond and struggling to have the same / any impact.

At nearly 28, and an estimated price tag of what 80m (?), for me that represents a huge risk. 

There is no 100% guarantee with any player you buy, let alone one with a fairly modest history, so far,  and questionable personality. I'd rather keep our powder dry and use the money towards Oshimen in the summer. In the interim, a loan for Benzema or Mitrovic would do me. 

[martin1905]

16 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

That's a huge leap. History is littered with examples of big fishes in small ponds, moving to a big pond and struggling to have the same / any impact.

Not that big a leap in my opinion, looking at exactly where Arsenal are, what they need and what he would bring to them, he could very well be the difference. 

16 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

At nearly 28, and an estimated price tag of what 80m (?), for me that represents a huge risk. 

In his prime, with premier league experience and even at £80m, in today's market that's not an outrageous fee.

Certainly not when compared to.......

16 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

There is no 100% guarantee with any player you buy, let alone one with a fairly modest history, so far,  and questionable personality. I'd rather keep our powder dry and use the money towards Oshimen in the summer. In the interim, a loan for Benzema or Mitrovic would do me. 

Victor Osimhen who plays in a  pub league and has had one good season, for probably twice the price. Bizarre.