Chelsea owners and board

[xceleryx]

50 minutes ago, KingThistle said:

I think that is potato potarto.

• They brought in some of those high earners to begin with. They got rid of some and continue to pay others.
• Their willingness to overspend, waste and tie down dubious "talent" to 7, 8 and 9yr deals while not addressing glaringly obvious gaps in the squad - on the face of it - not great.
• Desire to secure the best young talent while ignoring the academy and demonstrating there may be no route for homegrown youth. 
• Yeah, when you spend so much and buy so many, some mud will stick - a fair point. 
• With so many players on the books many of whom are on those 7, 8 and 9yr deals and with no meaningful sponsorship, no remuneration for recent CL qualification, and no domestic success then this wasn't astute, it was enforced. It has also removed our only bargaining chip for elite talent.
• Self reporting book irregularities will hit us with either a large fine, a transfer ban or both. I admire the moral standpoint.

I'm not saying I'm right, you're wrong - I don't think that there is a right and wrong - we just view this differently.

Not going to argue the wider viewpoint, simply highlighted that some positive aspects have occurred. Whether they've made good follow up decisions or use of resources could certainly be argued. 

[KingThistle]

7 minutes ago, RDCW said:

I'll tell you what the problem is Max - too bombastic, too aggressive, logically flawed and way too many posts on the same subject.

Crikey, you don't have to read them if those are your opinions on Max's posts. Any ALL posts in a specific thread are on the same subject, aren't they?

[RDCW]

3 minutes ago, KingThistle said:

Crikey, you don't have to read them if those are your opinions on Max's posts. Any ALL posts in a specific thread are on the same subject, aren't they?

If you don't understand, I'm afraid I can't help you.

[My Blood Is Blue]

34 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

That's your call Sam, but you are the moderator here and I am trying to understand exactly what the problem is. Honestly, if you were to just tell me that I post too much on a particular subject, there's too much constant negativity etc. then I would understand and try to tone it down. I have been given feedback in the past and tried to take it on board.

I feel I am contributing a lot to the debate on this forum but if I have a general feeling of not being welcome, then why would I continue to contribute? On the other hand, if you tell me more specifically what the issues are, then I feel it would help us all get along better together.

You may not feel that's your responsibility but I am just trying to understand where you're coming from. As far as I know, you run this forum and you set the rules. You can kick me off if you like and I have no problem with that. So I am trying to be respectful of how you want the forum to be - but I literally don't understand which posts you specifically don't like and why.

To me we are having a vibrant and healthy discussion on these issues. I don't see much name calling, I don't see much disrespect. I see us learning to be more tolerant of each other's views.

But if you call out posts that then you will not go back and name, it just leaves me feeling confused about what exactly those posts were, if they ever existed, or if you are just expressing more general feelings as I stated at the start of this post.

Maybe this conversation would be better had privately Sam - but I want to say I respect your views and appreciate everything you have done to create this forum for all of us.

I have nothing personal against you, but I also have to hold my boundaries - because last time some people were calling for me to get kicked off the platform (which was to be honest quite hurtful given all that I feel I contribute, but apparently that was okay...) and if we don't communicate I worry we get into a situation again where I just don't feel welcome, don't exactly understand why, and prefer to spend my time elsewhere.

I'm also okay with that but as I said, I would prefer to try and understand where you are coming from and anyway - no pressure on explaining that in this moment. I also didn't mean to air this laundry publicly but maybe it's good for everyone to help understand how we can learn to better communicate together 💙

I will message you directly Max, always happy to discuss anything you've mentioned in your post, but let's discuss privately so as not to bog down this topic.

I understand it says Admin under my name and that comes with various other responsibilities on here (unfortunately), but first and foremost I am someone who posts on this forum and joins in the discussion. Just because I don't agree with someone's posts, it doesn't make them wrong, it's just my opinion. My post this morning wasn't me trying to 'police' the forum, it was just me posting my opinion.

[RDCW]

9 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

I will message you directly Max, always happy to discuss anything you've mentioned in your post, but let's discuss privately so as not to bog down this topic.

I understand it says Admin under my name and that comes with various other responsibilities on here (unfortunately), but first and foremost I am someone who posts on this forum and joins in the discussion. Just because I don't agree with someone's posts, it doesn't make them wrong, it's just my opinion. My post this morning wasn't me trying to 'police' the forum, it was just me posting my opinion.

To be fair, Sam, you could never be accused of anything other than the lightest of touches on here, sometimes under extreme provocation!

[My Blood Is Blue]

1 minute ago, RDCW said:

To be fair, Sam, you could never be accused of anything other than the lightest of touches on here, sometimes under extreme provocation!

Maybe that's the problem, maybe I need to be a bit more ruthless!

[xceleryx]

1 hour ago, Max Fowler said:

We can get rid of "willingness to spend" as they were contractually obliged to do so. Also the sixth point is essentially good bookkeeping.

So you basically argue that it's been a good thing clearing out the previous team and replacing them with the current crop.

Even though all evidence suggests the current team is a significant backwards step on what we had before.

Max, as usual, you've taken comments and then added your own little flavour flav to it in an attempt to be right.

Nowhere, and by all means correct me if I'm wrong here (hint, I'm not), but I said nothing about the current team being better than what we had before. Heck, didn't even say that all the signing we've made have been good. 

[Max Fowler]

1 minute ago, xceleryx said:

Max, as usual, you've taken comments and then added your own little flavour flav to it in an attempt to be right.

Nowhere, and by all means correct me if I'm wrong here (hint, I'm not), but I said nothing about the current team being better than what we had before. Heck, didn't even say that all the signing we've made have been good. 

I mean I am just trying to follow through your logic, Celery. If you think it was good to get rid of our high earners, focus on buying young players, and restructure our wages, then essentially you are saying it's better that we have a young team on lower salaries, which is what we are left with today.

And I would say that is precisely where we are going wrong - until we have experienced players on higher salaries, we're not going anywhere. 

[boratsbrother]

9 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

until we have experienced players on higher salaries, we're not going anywhere. 

Sterling. Koulibally. AUB. Lukaku.

Experienced and cost a bloody fortune on wages and every one of them was a waste of wages!

 

 

[Max Fowler]

1 minute ago, boratsbrother said:

Sterling. Koulibally. AUB. Lukaku.

Experienced and cost a bloody fortune on wages and every one of them was a waste of wages!

Lukaku is an edge case - noone could have predicted what happened there. The others were stupidly signed for Tuchel who was then sacked. I think all of them could have done a great job for Tuchel - certainly Sterling, who benefits from strict tactical instruction ala Guardiola and struggles when he is given the freedom to be creative ala Pochettino.

[Mark Kelly]

18 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I mean I am just trying to follow through your logic, Celery. If you think it was good to get rid of our high earners, focus on buying young players, and restructure our wages, then essentially you are saying it's better that we have a young team on lower salaries, which is what we are left with today.

And I would say that is precisely where we are going wrong - until we have experienced players on higher salaries, we're not going anywhere. 

Max 

It doesn't have to be "Good" it just has to be what the people who paid 2.5billion quid to buy the club wanted to do. 

You can complain all you like, they don't care. 

[xceleryx]

13 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I mean I am just trying to follow through your logic, Celery. If you think it was good to get rid of our high earners, focus on buying young players, and restructure our wages, then essentially you are saying it's better that we have a young team on lower salaries, which is what we are left with today.

And I would say that is precisely where we are going wrong - until we have experienced players on higher salaries, we're not going anywhere. 

Again, not what's being said. 

[RDCW]

1 hour ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Maybe that's the problem, maybe I need to be a bit more ruthless!

You're doing fine! 

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Max Fowler said:

I mean I am just trying to follow through your logic, Celery. If you think it was good to get rid of our high earners, focus on buying young players, and restructure our wages, then essentially you are saying it's better that we have a young team on lower salaries, which is what we are left with today.

And I would say that is precisely where we are going wrong - until we have experienced players on higher salaries, we're not going anywhere. 

I think the "lower salaries" tag is misleading because I understand that these are HEAVILY incentivised and so for all we know, those who perform are on silly money. 

We managed to convince a number of top players, coveted by other top clubs, to join us with the wage structure in place.  They must have been satisfied with what they were being offered. 

[KingThistle]

I know it's become mildly tetchy in places, but this is such a good thread and conversation.

[Max Fowler]

8 minutes ago, Ham said:

I think the "lower salaries" tag is misleading because I understand that these are HEAVILY incentivised and so for all we know, those who perform are on silly money. 

We managed to convince a number of top players, coveted by other top clubs, to join us with the wage structure in place.  They must have been satisfied with what they were being offered. 

I am not sure I can name one "top player" we have signed Ham...

[KingThistle]

4 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I am not sure I can name one "top player" we have signed Ham...

Yes, I agree here but I could name you a couple we missed out on because of the wage structure. Which might not have been quite an issue had we been in the CL or challenging more competently domestically or even been a stable ship from the outside looking in.

Edited September 11 by KingThistle

[KingThistle]

If at all possible, please could someone link me an article which they have already read which details what has instigated the reported rift in the boardroom? I don't know enough, I don't read much highbrow material. 

Anyone got anything which they have read which looks to be fair and accurate? I'd like to know and learn more.

[My Blood Is Blue]

6 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I am not sure I can name one "top player" we have signed Ham...

3 minutes ago, KingThistle said:

Yes, I agree here but I could name you a couple we missed out on because of the wage structure. Which might not have been quite an issue had we been in the CL or challenging more competently domestically or even been a stable ship from the outside looking in.

When was the last time we signed a top player? Also depends what we mean by a top player I guess.

Lukaku? That didn’t work out very well?

Cole Palmer is, but wasn’t when we signed him.

Kante possibly, although not sure he was a top player as such.

Thiago Silva potentially, but it definitely wasn’t considered that at the time.

Does it go back to Hazard? 

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

2 minutes ago, KingThistle said:

If at all possible, please could someone link me an article which they have already read which details what has instigated the reported rift in the boardroom? I don't know enough, I don't read much highbrow material. 

Anyone got anything which they have read which looks to be fair and accurate? I'd like to know and learn more.

I’ve not read much myself because it’s all either PR from either camp or its people guessing. We’ve no real idea what’s happening amongst them all at the moment, which is why I’m not getting too wound up either way. It may all come out in the wash eventually, although I doubt it.

[KingThistle]

6 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

When was the last time we signed a top player? Also depends what we mean by a top player I guess.

Lukaku? That didn’t work out very well?

Cole Palmer is, but wasn’t when we signed him.

Kante possibly, although not sure he was a top player as such.

Thiago Silva potentially, but it definitely wasn’t considered that at the time.

Does it go back to Hazard? 

 

I think you are answering a different question that which was asked. I agree with you assessment - when did we last sign a top player?  A bloody long time ago! 

The original post asserted that we had signed a number of top players - even players coveted by other clubs - and I'm not sure that happened, personally. But of course, the bold quote above is very true and I think that there is subjective nuance from fan to fan, club to club in answer to that.

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

2 minutes ago, KingThistle said:

I think you are answering a different question that which was asked. I agree with you assessment - when did we last sign a top player?  A bloody long time ago! 

The original post asserted that we had signed a number of top players - even players coveted by other clubs - and I'm not sure that happened, personally. But of course, the bold quote above is very true and I think that there is subjective nuance from fan to fan, club to club in answer to that.

 

No I know, I was just interested in them trying to work it out.

It all depends what we class as a top players though. You could argue Caicedo was, because he was coveted by other big teams, but I think that would be a stretch. Felix maybe, because of the wages he was on already, but again it’s a stretch. 

In terms of current players, I believe we’ve made some pretty good signings.

[thevelourfog]

17 hours ago, Bison said:

Boehly is winning the briefing wars because everything coming out of his side makes sense. Basically calling out Eghbali and his minions for the complete mismanagement of the squad. 

Tbh, the briefing between them unnerves me because I think this is what both parties actually get out of owning Chelsea. An ego trip. Winning a briefing war, it seems to me, would be as much a cause for celebration as actually running a football club well.

Is there an irony in our club being much more a plaything, a metaphorical penis to swing about, under an investment consortium than it ever was under a single billionaire?

[ROTG]

19 hours ago, Ham said:

CPO would 100% support a move to EC with similar protections.  

 

Really. 

I thought the whole point of the CPO was to keep football at SB. 
 

If they build a multi purpose arena. Why would they need a CPO, surely being a multipurpose arena it would be self generating of income, and not reliant on once a week football revenue. 

[Max Fowler]

5 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

No I know, I was just interested in them trying to work it out.

It all depends what we class as a top players though. You could argue Caicedo was, because he was coveted by other big teams, but I think that would be a stretch. Felix maybe, because of the wages he was on already, but again it’s a stretch. 

In terms of current players, I believe we’ve made some pretty good signings.

Lukaku and Sterling