ROTG Posted May 24, 2023 Share Posted May 24, 2023 5 minutes ago, thevelourfog said: I personally hope Jurasek is coming in because Clearlake aren't impressed with what Boehly and Eghbali have done and want more control. I second this Jurasek is one of Clearlake big guns, which IMO will bode well for the club and may put to bed some of the pipe dreams of the club's model for a while, allowing the primary asset to be the focus of getting back to its rightful position in PL and European football hierarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kelly Posted May 24, 2023 Share Posted May 24, 2023 1 hour ago, ROTG said: I second this f getting back to its rightful position in PL and European football hierarchy. I thought that's what we'd done this season. I'll get my coat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted May 24, 2023 Share Posted May 24, 2023 A sensible decision. Embarrassing for the underperforming clowns though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kelly Posted May 24, 2023 Share Posted May 24, 2023 11 minutes ago, Ham said: A sensible decision. Embarrassing for the underperforming clowns though. They should let the ladies have one of their own 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Singleton Posted June 8, 2023 Share Posted June 8, 2023 A message from the owners...https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/article/a-message-to-our-fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted June 8, 2023 Author Share Posted June 8, 2023 2 hours ago, Bob Singleton said: A message from the owners...https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/article/a-message-to-our-fans Pitch perfect statement except for: "The atmosphere at the Bridge when we played Dortmund will live long in our memories and serves as an important reminder of where we want to be." That game should live long in no Chelsea fan's memories. We were desperate for anything to shout about after a dreadful run. And it's not at all where we want to be - but other than that it was a great statement. Not too many stupid buzzwords and shows some good transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Posted June 15, 2023 Share Posted June 15, 2023 Ha! I thought these jokers were meant to be great business people? Guess I'm not buying my son a shirt any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kelly Posted June 15, 2023 Share Posted June 15, 2023 20 minutes ago, Bison said: Ha! I thought these jokers were meant to be great business people? Guess I'm not buying my son a shirt any time soon. Saw this earlier, apparently the new shirt sponsor they had lined up pulled out at the last minute so they had to sort this on the quick. I expect that's why we now suddenly have a new financial director. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguelito07 Posted June 15, 2023 Share Posted June 15, 2023 3 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said: I expect that's why we now suddenly have a new financial director. Because the other guy didnt get the deal done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kelly Posted June 15, 2023 Share Posted June 15, 2023 3 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said: Because the other guy didnt get the deal done? Yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguelito07 Posted June 15, 2023 Share Posted June 15, 2023 2 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said: Yeah ah ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Singleton Posted June 15, 2023 Share Posted June 15, 2023 25 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said: Saw this earlier, apparently the new shirt sponsor they had lined up pulled out at the last minute so they had to sort this on the quick. I expect that's why we now suddenly have a new financial director. I think we have a new financial/commercial director because Glick stood down/was sacked/ left by mutual consent (not sure which applies as nothing was officially announced other than he'd been replaced) because of the way he handled the Damian Willoughby case brought up by Catalina Kim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted June 16, 2023 Share Posted June 16, 2023 14 hours ago, Bison said: Ha! I thought these jokers were meant to be great business people? Guess I'm not buying my son a shirt any time soon. I think kid's versions of the kits can't have the sponsor on them. Might be I've misunderstood and that's just youth players rather than retail. Really doesn't speak well of this ownership. Rubbish at the thing we're supposed to be able to take for granted they'd be good at. And a really dubious move ethically. The ban doesn't kick in for a few years to allow existing deals to end, not to squeeze a few final pennies out if it. 13 hours ago, Bob Singleton said: I think we have a new financial/commercial director because Glick stood down/was sacked/ left by mutual consent (not sure which applies as nothing was officially announced other than he'd been replaced) because of the way he handled the Damian Willoughby case brought up by Catalina Kim I kinda hope it was nothing to do with that, given how shoddily he handled that situation has been public knowledge for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulw66 Posted June 16, 2023 Share Posted June 16, 2023 (edited) 14 hours ago, Bison said: Ha! I thought these jokers were meant to be great business people? Guess I'm not buying my son a shirt any time soon. The money (from a club viewpoint) isn't really made in quantum of shirts sold, it is the amount the company are prepared to pay to have their name shown to millions of people on the players' shirts when they take the field. By all accounts it's a one year deal in the hope that we will be in Europe the following season and in a stronger position to negotiate. Edited June 16, 2023 by paulw66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kelly Posted June 16, 2023 Share Posted June 16, 2023 7 minutes ago, thevelourfog said: Really doesn't speak well of this ownership. Rubbish at the thing we're supposed to be able to take for granted they'd be good at. And a really dubious move ethically. The ban doesn't kick in for a few years to allow existing deals to end, not to squeeze a few final pennies out if it. . I do agree with this viewpoint however , in mitigation I did read that they were desperate having been let down right at the last , it doesn't make it right particularly but one can understand why . and the logo looks as bad as 3 did to my eyes too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thevelourfog Posted June 16, 2023 Share Posted June 16, 2023 2 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said: I do agree with this viewpoint however , in mitigation I did read that they were desperate having been let down right at the last , it doesn't make it right particularly but one can understand why . and the logo looks as bad as 3 did to my eyes too! I can definitely believe they were desperate. I'm pretty open about not being impressed with the ownership so can appreciate that is my starting point. But it was pretty clear last summer 3 were out. They wanted out before then! We've had a year to find a new sponsor, so to be in a position where someone can let us down at short notice still doesn't speak well. Especially because there are plenty of reports that isn't what happened, and it is more the case that we could not get Allianz to agree to a deal that came close to matching 3. The reason being, of course, we have tanked our profile and platform with how we've performed on the pitch. I'm seeing it sold on some places online as a smart deal, which just seems bizarre to me. It is just completely implausible this deal matches the 3 income. We don't have CL exposure to offer and are in a terrible negotiating position, who the f**k would match the previous deal?! It's only a year's income, and is a massive PR own goal even if as individuals we don't care about the ethics of it. Wonder what Coors are up to? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Singleton Posted June 16, 2023 Share Posted June 16, 2023 2 hours ago, thevelourfog said: [SNIP] I'm seeing it sold on some places online as a smart deal, which just seems bizarre to me. It is just completely implausible this deal matches the 3 income. We don't have CL exposure to offer and are in a terrible negotiating position, who the f**k would match the previous deal?! [SNIP] The only (im)plausible thing I can come up with is that, given the upcoming ban on gambling sponsorship, companies like Stake are willing to pay slightly more than the 'market rate' in order to get their name seen by as many as possible whilst they still can. The sponsorship may only last one season in theory... in practice, you'll be seeing fans wearing Chelsea shirts with Stake on the front for years and years to come. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Posted June 16, 2023 Share Posted June 16, 2023 10 hours ago, thevelourfog said: I think kid's versions of the kits can't have the sponsor on them. Might be I've misunderstood and that's just youth players rather than retail. Really doesn't speak well of this ownership. Rubbish at the thing we're supposed to be able to take for granted they'd be good at. And a really dubious move ethically. The ban doesn't kick in for a few years to allow existing deals to end, not to squeeze a few final pennies out if it. I kinda hope it was nothing to do with that, given how shoddily he handled that situation has been public knowledge for months. Yeah I read a little earlier about kids replicas not having any betting sponsors. Their so-called commercial expertise has amounted to nothing. It's one failure after another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kelly Posted June 16, 2023 Share Posted June 16, 2023 7 hours ago, Bob Singleton said: The only (im)plausible thing I can come up with is that, given the upcoming ban on gambling sponsorship, companies like Stake are willing to pay slightly more than the 'market rate' in order to get their name seen by as many as possible whilst they still can. The sponsorship may only last one season in theory... in practice, you'll be seeing fans wearing Chelsea shirts with Stake on the front for years and years to come. I did hear that someone else offered £20m but Stake offered £40m I'm with TVF, how someone who have sold themselves as smart business men can end up with this is beyond me, I'm beginning to think they actually are incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xceleryx Posted June 17, 2023 Share Posted June 17, 2023 What does this mean for The Chelsea Foundation who put a lot of work into spreading gambling awareness and the detriments it can have? I appreciate the circumstances of the sponsorship situation, but surely getting a betting sponsor goes against the work the TCF are doing? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted June 17, 2023 Share Posted June 17, 2023 42 minutes ago, xceleryx said: I appreciate the circumstances of the sponsorship situation, but surely getting a betting sponsor goes against the work the TCF are doing? Redundant Acronym Syndrome (RAS Syndrome) again. 😏 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sciatika Posted June 17, 2023 Share Posted June 17, 2023 (edited) Not sure Boehly's Dodgers want to be supporting "the sisters". The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence That could blow up in his face, given the number of Catholics living in LA who support the club. Edited June 17, 2023 by Sciatika Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulw66 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 Reports saying we have acquired a stake in Strasbourg. Interesting, and seems as though we are looking to replicate the multi-club model of City Group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kelly Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 2 minutes ago, paulw66 said: Reports saying we have acquired a stake in Strasbourg. Interesting, and seems as though we are looking to replicate the multi-club model of City Group. I'm sure this will go down great with the media who will conveniently ignore anything City related and will accuse us of ruining football again just like they're trying to drum up regarding the Saudis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulw66 Posted June 22, 2023 Share Posted June 22, 2023 13 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said: I'm sure this will go down great with the media who will conveniently ignore anything City related and will accuse us of ruining football again just like they're trying to drum up regarding the Saudis You're not wrong, Mark but I bet you're fun at parties! 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now