Chelsea owners and board

[ROTG]

9 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

Sky saying we've accepted a €10m fine from UEFA for financial irregularities that the new regime found when sorting out the books when buying from Roman. The new owners brought what they'd found to UEFA under their own steam but watch it get spun out of all control over the next few days to show the club in the worst possible light. 

Peanuts fine in the big picture of how UEFA run things and how the chosen few seem to get away with anything

Not being in any of the UEFA cups might have been a blessing in disguise, I am sure they would had given the club a different penalty if the club was playing in Europe

BTW - what happened to Bob Singleton?

[chara]

? BTW...was wondering that myself.......

[Sleeping Dave]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12350189/Chelsea-hit-8-5m-fine-UEFA-breaking-Financial-Fair-Play-rules-submitting-incomplete-financial-information-previous-owner-Roman-Abramovich.html
 

Juat putting this here - anyone seen it? Surprised this has not been made out bigger… 

[My Blood Is Blue]

@ROTG @chara I’ve reached out to him to check all is ok, as I noticed his absence as well.  

[Michael Tucker]

37 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

@ROTG @chara I’ve reached out to him to check all is ok, as I noticed his absence as well.  

I did the same. Haven't heard back from him yet.

[xceleryx]

19 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12350189/Chelsea-hit-8-5m-fine-UEFA-breaking-Financial-Fair-Play-rules-submitting-incomplete-financial-information-previous-owner-Roman-Abramovich.html
 

Juat putting this here - anyone seen it? Surprised this has not been made out bigger… 

Been discussed a page or so back. I don't think it's been made out to be a big deal because current ownership are the ones who alerted UEFA about it and looked to proactively sort it out. Not as sellable as a story when the drama of it all gets basically taken out of it. 

[Bones]

I think were going to be in trouble if we dont starting seeing positive cash flows soon.

Its not like the new owners can afford any losses it seems.

[My Blood Is Blue]

The ramblings of a suffering Chelsea fan, I apologise in advance if it makes little sense, but I just need to get it written down and out there because this is all really quite crap at the moment. It's at times like this I wish I just didn't love football as much as I do.

 

From my perspective, the current owners have significantly gutted a previously thriving club, dismantling every integral component – the head coach, the playing and backroom staff, and everything in between. They've replaced them all with subpar alternatives, erasing nearly everything that defined Chelsea Football Club in the process. Honestly, it feels like the only unchanging aspect is us, the fans.

I could perhaps tolerate the poor results and performances to some extent if we retained our identity. But presently, we're devoid of any identity. There's hardly anything connecting us to the recent successful era of our club, let alone any time before that. They've managed to achieve this destruction in less than 18 months. It resembles a business takeover rather than the acquisition of a football club. While I understand to some degree that this is just a business venture for the owners, they can't treat an English football club like a giant corporate entity and expect positive results. English football clubs carry an immense amount of history, passion, and love, making such a mindset untenable. If it were as simple as purchasing a brand new squad of players for success, many more would have achieved it by now. Ultimately, these owners don't see success as trophies, cup runs and brilliant performances, they see it as balance sheets and ROI... what they somehow haven't realised, is that in this sport, those two things go hand in hand a lot more than they probably realise.

I believe the fans will turn after one more disappointing home result, and after that, I'm unsure of our path forward. It's going to turn incredibly toxic, and this won't be comparable to the protests by Manchester United fans against the Glazers, who still had a team vying for European qualification most seasons and a reasonably capable side on the field. Our discontent will unfold against the backdrop of 18 months of dismal football, dreadful performances and results.

It's a strange and sad time to be a Chelsea Football Club supporter. I cherish Chelsea, but at the moment, I'm uncertain of its identity. It no longer feels like the Chelsea I know, but rather like a poorly managed business exploiting the club's name under the ownership of Clearlake.

We were so lucky to have had Roman Abramovich; he was extraordinary and contributed immensely to the club out of sheer passion. Thanks to him, through all the change and ultimately huge success, Chelsea always still felt like the same club we all fell in love with at a young age.

I currently feel as though I'm grieving for the club I've supported and loved my entire life. I'm at a loss for where to go from here.

[Max Fowler]

33 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

The ramblings of a suffering Chelsea fan, I apologise in advance if it makes little sense, but I just need to get it written down and out there because this is all really quite crap at the moment. It's at times like this I wish I just didn't love football as much as I do.

 

From my perspective, the current owners have significantly gutted a previously thriving club, dismantling every integral component – the head coach, the playing and backroom staff, and everything in between. They've replaced them all with subpar alternatives, erasing nearly everything that defined Chelsea Football Club in the process. Honestly, it feels like the only unchanging aspect is us, the fans.

I could perhaps tolerate the poor results and performances to some extent if we retained our identity. But presently, we're devoid of any identity. There's hardly anything connecting us to the recent successful era of our club, let alone any time before that. They've managed to achieve this destruction in less than 18 months. It resembles a business takeover rather than the acquisition of a football club. While I understand to some degree that this is just a business venture for the owners, they can't treat an English football club like a giant corporate entity and expect positive results. English football clubs carry an immense amount of history, passion, and love, making such a mindset untenable. If it were as simple as purchasing a brand new squad of players for success, many more would have achieved it by now. Ultimately, these owners don't see success as trophies, cup runs and brilliant performances, they see it as balance sheets and ROI... what they somehow haven't realised, is that in this sport, those two things go hand in hand a lot more than they probably realise.

I believe the fans will turn after one more disappointing home result, and after that, I'm unsure of our path forward. It's going to turn incredibly toxic, and this won't be comparable to the protests by Manchester United fans against the Glazers, who still had a team vying for European qualification most seasons and a reasonably capable side on the field. Our discontent will unfold against the backdrop of 18 months of dismal football, dreadful performances and results.

It's a strange and sad time to be a Chelsea Football Club supporter. I cherish Chelsea, but at the moment, I'm uncertain of its identity. It no longer feels like the Chelsea I know, but rather like a poorly managed business exploiting the club's name under the ownership of Clearlake.

We were so lucky to have had Roman Abramovich; he was extraordinary and contributed immensely to the club out of sheer passion. Thanks to him, through all the change and ultimately huge success, Chelsea always still felt like the same club we all fell in love with at a young age.

I currently feel as though I'm grieving for the club I've supported and loved my entire life. I'm at a loss for where to go from here.

The only saving grace is for me we remain an incredibly attractive club to own. If the Saudis f'ed up Newcastle and were forced out, they might struggle to get similar investment of that scale. I still feel Chelsea the brand is in a really strong position if the owners were to leave and we could get the right investors. Not gonna lie, I wouldn't say no to the Qataris right now.

[Dwmh]

Why did we lose RA ? is what we have to ask ourselves.

[Mark Kelly]

7 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Why did we lose RA ? is what we have to ask ourselves.

Corruption is why. 

[Dwmh]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Corruption is why. 

Lot deeper than that I think, bit of course corruption is part of most things 

[Mark Kelly]

19 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Lot deeper than that I think, bit of course corruption is part of most things 

Deep down after all the layers are stripped off its corruption at the core whether financial or political. 

[chara]

1 hour ago, Dwmh said:

Why did we lose RA ? is what we have to ask ourselves.

Strangely framed question.....I know (I think!) you didn't mean it literally as we didn't lose RA...RA lost Chelsea because of HMG....then the questions start.

The sanctions didn't really make sense in that the Club suffered terribly,,,,more so than RA personally I would think and it was a classic "Look what we did to play our part" knee jerk reaction in the "Do Something..Anything" response genre.

As far as I can see RA did his best to leave with as many safeguards in place as he could manage.

I'm not sure what Todd and Co could have done given the unique situation they took over...in a perfect world TT kept the squad on an even keel and improved it as time went on but even the most fervent TT supporter must have been able to see he was in a bad place for whatever reason and the squad had issues it seems.

GP coming in was expected given the Messiah type media coverage and although it was a disaster it was on the surface a good appointment.

The "experienced" squad that betrayed the Club and Fans was moved on, something called for by the majority of fans if one checks back.

The Todd & Co sneering at is also a knee jerk reaction,,,they appointed "football" people to do the "football" stuff  ((that the appts may not be good ones is another issue)and The Poch starting from scratch had a difficult task from day one...just looking at the bench on Sunday was mute proof of just how hard it is at the minute to make any progress given the paucity of options...we can all pass comment on selections but we can play at the manager/coach game...Poch has to play the hand he has.

I am not defending bad decisions so much as trying to get some perspective on how difficult things are all round.

The Fan emotional thing I totally accept and feel the same ache but even long term 20 + year veteran fans have only known success...t'was not always so.

I have no answers only questions and hopes but it would be well for everyone to remember the catalyst was HMG....

Apologies for such a long post,,seems a lot of us care enough to try and make some sense with longer posts!

Edited September 18, 2023 by chara

[Sciatika]

14 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Why did we lose RA ? is what we have to ask ourselves.

As with all these things, several issues came together simultaneously. At the time, the government sought a distraction from domestic problems. A "win" at the foreign office against Russia would help. The invasion was an opportunity. The government wanted to be seen to be doing something about it with the benefit of promoting it as a defence of Western values. As usual, with the UK, they looked at ways they could undermine the Russian economy. There was little they could do as it was already a shitshow. Failing that, they decided that holders of Gordon Brown's golden visas would be a cheap target as they had done previously over the Skripal incident. RA was simply the highest-profile individual of a couple of hundred targets. His ownership of CFC probably made him more visible. Note: RA's actions in the 1990s had already been overlooked and, presumably, forgiven in the 2000s. The claim was that he could influence Putin. or that his assets could be used in the promotion of the war.

At this point, we should highlight the narcissism of former Tory, now Labour MP Chris Bryant. I will look past the usual expense scandals as those peccadillos appear to be the norm among MPs. What is particularly singular is the effort Bryant puts into being the centre of attention. For instance, he is often called "Captain Y-Fronts"  from photos he published of himself in his underwear. Actually, he appears to enjoy the epithet. Bryant particularly likes standing up in parliament and waiving dossiers to promote his personal virtue. So, for instance, he was quite happy to support the WMD  dossier and even voted 13 times against having a public enquiry into it. He is also not overly bothered about the truth of his claims. For instance, he used parliamentary privilege to lie about Nigel Farage's payments from Russia Today, which have since been shown to be a fabrication. He has still not apologised to the House (or Farage, as far as I know).

He has/had a close friendship with the son of a former KGB agent still resident in Russia (last time I looked). The son owns a newspaper, which probably adds a frisson for Bryant, given his need to be noticed. They frequently lunched together, presumably to catch up and swap tidbits. Anyway, Bryant appeared in the House waving a folder about connections between RA and Putin. He claimed it was a "secret dossier" given to him by someone at the Foreign Office. Presumably, he enjoys dressing up in a cloak and daggers as much as he does in underpants. It's odd because the court that investigated RA's influence on Putin in the Berezovsky case and concluded:

"There was no evidential basis supporting the contention that Mr Abramovich was in a position to manipulate, or otherwise influence, President Putin, or officers in his administration, to exercise their powers in such a way as to enable Mr Abramovich to achieve his own commercial goals."

Presumably, Chris Bryant and the Foreign Office have a lower evidential bar than the UK courts. His speech was followed by sycophantic injections from both sides of the house because it suited their needs.  Oddly, he was made Chair of the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges - singularly inappropriate, given his record. He was knighted in the 2023 New Year's Honours for "political and public service".

[chara]

@Sciatika,,,,Thank you for such a clear analysis and insight on the obvious corruption and political shithousery!

The so called sanctions applied to Chelsea I'm sure were a huge blow to Mr Putin and an equally huge boost to the people and Government of Ukraine.

So...Todd and Co may be a new approach to the game and once things settle perhaps the right way to go forward..as a serious business rather than a plaything, political tool, businessman's poor business acumen trying to relate his successful business model to football or just plain bad management by ego driven owners.

RA it was said pushed a couple of iffy player purchases..I doubt that Todd and Co ever just went by their own judgement to purchase a player...advice isn't always good!

Are we faithful Chelsea followers or on the verge of being revealed as shallow glory hunters ?

True fans everywhere follow their club through thick and thin..that's what the game is about from the terraces....the HMG attack was actually on the people it is supposed to represent...it's a working class..as in real people not a socialstatus... sport .

[Dwmh]

On 18/09/2023 at 19:16, chara said:

Strangely framed question.....I know (I think!) you didn't mean it literally as we didn't lose RA...RA lost Chelsea because of HMG....then the questions start.

The sanctions didn't really make sense in that the Club suffered terribly,,,,more so than RA personally I would think and it was a classic "Look what we did to play our part" knee jerk reaction in the "Do Something..Anything" response genre.

Why did We Lose RA was perhaps an unconscious word order.
I do think it is instructive to think of the victims of a purported attack on Russia turn out to be Chelsea fans.
Just as the victims of the Oil and gas sanctions and the destruction of NS2 turn out to be German industry and households across Europe.  And the victims of Nato's attack on Russian speaking Ukrainians, who chose to stay Russian speaking, turns out to be some half a million Ukrainian soldiers dead (albeit mostly conscripted Russian speaking Ukrainians).

(Of course we the fans gained several billions of gross spend but the competent Marina team building got lost and replaced with unco-ordinated  player investing so we feel poorer).

11 hours ago, Sciatika said:

As with all these things, several issues came together simultaneously. At the time, the government sought a distraction from domestic problems. A "win" at the foreign office against Russia would help. The invasion was an opportunity. The government wanted to be seen to be doing something about it with the benefit of promoting it as a defence of Western values. As usual, with the UK, they looked at ways they could undermine the Russian economy. There was little they could do as it was already a shitshow. Failing that, they decided that holders of Gordon Brown's golden visas would be a cheap target as they had done previously over the Skripal incident. RA was simply the highest-profile individual of a couple of hundred targets. His ownership of CFC probably made him more visible. Note: RA's actions in the 1990s had already been overlooked and, presumably, forgiven in the 2000s. The claim was that he could influence Putin. or that his assets could be used in the promotion of the war.

At this point, we should highlight the narcissism of former Tory, now Labour MP Chris Bryant. I will look past the usual expense scandals as those peccadillos appear to be the norm among MPs. What is particularly singular is the effort Bryant puts into being the centre of attention. For instance, he is often called "Captain Y-Fronts"  from photos he published of himself in his underwear. Actually, he appears to enjoy the epithet. Bryant particularly likes standing up in parliament and waiving dossiers to promote his personal virtue. So, for instance, he was quite happy to support the WMD  dossier and even voted 13 times against having a public enquiry into it. He is also not overly bothered about the truth of his claims. For instance, he used parliamentary privilege to lie about Nigel Farage's payments from Russia Today, which have since been shown to be a fabrication. He has still not apologised to the House (or Farage, as far as I know).

He has/had a close friendship with the son of a former KGB agent still resident in Russia (last time I looked). The son owns a newspaper, which probably adds a frisson for Bryant, given his need to be noticed. They frequently lunched together, presumably to catch up and swap tidbits. Anyway, Bryant appeared in the House waving a folder about connections between RA and Putin. He claimed it was a "secret dossier" given to him by someone at the Foreign Office. Presumably, he enjoys dressing up in a cloak and daggers as much as he does in underpants. It's odd because the court that investigated RA's influence on Putin in the Berezovsky case and concluded:

"There was no evidential basis supporting the contention that Mr Abramovich was in a position to manipulate, or otherwise influence, President Putin, or officers in his administration, to exercise their powers in such a way as to enable Mr Abramovich to achieve his own commercial goals."

Presumably, Chris Bryant and the Foreign Office have a lower evidential bar than the UK courts. His speech was followed by sycophantic injections from both sides of the house because it suited their needs.  Oddly, he was made Chair of the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges - singularly inappropriate, given his record. He was knighted in the 2023 New Year's Honours for "political and public service".

First Russian Oligarchs.  There have been 2 sorts from shortly after Putin arrived on the scene.  Those happy to work with Putin and not fund politics against him.  And those who either wanted to break him so they could steal more, or at least wanted to stash as much of their money abroad.  Putin laid down the "You can keep your ill gotten gains but no politics" law from the start.
RA is of the first kind, and in fact has been at times supportive of Putin.  The others have generally run to MI6 or CIA or wherever to swap international protection and safe keeping of their monies in US/London banks in return for consistently bad mouthing Putin and funding anti-Putin NGOs.  Charged in Russia but a big anti-Putin media hit in west - that is them.  Eg Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky.
There was no way that RA's western investments could be saved, any more than one of his yacht's could sail into Chelsea Harbour.
Setting CFC up as "a gift to all Ukrainian victims" was a kind of parting joke - he knows full well that the 2014-2022 victims won't benefit at all, and the rest will go the way of nearly all Ukraine aid.
So there is corruption, just as the $2 trillion Afghanistan adventure kicked back a healthy percentage back to Washington.

You are right to point to a lot of specific fake news.  Just as Russia disinformation turned out to be a complete hoax in 2016, the idea of Russian disinformation is just a fractiond is information 
This will explain 2 things for those that care.

You’ve Been LIED To

(people may pm me to discuss further and I'll block or answer in a day or two)

 

[chiswickblue]

This political stuff shouldn't be on a football forum. No need to try and educate people about the rights and wrongs of a war. Everyone knows why RA is no longer the owner of Chelsea FC.

At least now we know that DWMH spent his absence in the bunkers under the Kremlin.

[Max Fowler]

Do the owners even want to return to the top? Or just make money...

https://www.ft.com/content/2ad36a20-5036-4018-aa0f-91c7ecdd286c

 

 

[Ham]

37 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Do the owners even want to return to the top? Or just make money...

https://www.ft.com/content/2ad36a20-5036-4018-aa0f-91c7ecdd286c

 

 

They have spent RECORD AMOUNTS on the squad!

Take a day off Max. 

[ROTG]

1 hour ago, Ham said:

They have spent RECORD AMOUNTS on the squad!

Take a day off Max. 

If you think everything is rose in the garden, that's fine. 

However a paper like the FT don't publish poop willy nilly.  Therefore there must be some truth in what has been written.

Go back to basics. Do you think Enzo is sticking around if we do not qualify for Europe?

[Mark Kelly]

5 hours ago, ROTG said:

If you think everything is rose in the garden, that's fine. 

However a paper like the FT don't publish poop willy nilly.  Therefore there must be some truth in what has been written.

Go back to basics. Do you think Enzo is sticking around if we do not qualify for Europe?

I don't believe he said that, what's most troubling about the article is that since they bought the club , Clearlake have offloaded all the high earners and brought in younger , hungrier players on lower wages and the FT have only just realised.

As for the photo , we all know or have worked with someone who looks like that and at some point we've wanted to push them under a bus . 

[Sciatika]

For those blocked:

Chelsea FC raises $500mn from Ares | Financial Times (archive.ph)

Also, according to Matt Law on the London is Blue Podcast, the management wants to make Chelsea a "100 point team". Long way to go.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Sciatika

[thevelourfog]

8 hours ago, Ham said:

They have spent RECORD AMOUNTS on the squad!

Take a day off Max. 

In initial outlay, maybe. Even then, we don't know how these huge transfer fees are being paid and serviced. 

But isn't the exact point of that transfer fee spending to spend less overall and over time? Like a few others I'm not convinced the theory works out in practice given your signings either perform and demand raises or fail and sit on above market rate wages for years, but I respect the theory.

Another theory I'd expect most here hold true is the people who are the very best at things tend to ask for a receive the highest wages for doing those things (although again, this does not always work out in practice, in football or anything else!). No matter what fees we pay other clubs, drastically reducing what we pay players is going to have a significant impact on the quality of player we attract and hold on to, and inevitably how competitive we are. I really don't see how anyone can argue against that.

It's a quote that fits with the seeming Brighton/RB Leipzig/feeder club model fascination. These clubs perform brilliantly relative to their status/legacy/finances and regularly uncover and profit from players, but they are not competitive. They are not even close to what we were in the latter Abramovich years, a rung down from elite but always in the mix for a trophy, nevermind what we were before then.

 

[Sciatika]

1 minute ago, thevelourfog said:

In initial outlay, maybe. Even then, we don't know how these huge transfer fees are being paid and serviced. 

But isn't the exact point of that transfer fee spending to spend less overall and over time? Like a few others I'm not convinced the theory works out in practice given your signings either perform and demand raises or fail and sit on above market rate wages for years, but I respect the theory.

Another theory I'd expect most here hold true is the people who are the very best at things tend to ask for a receive the highest wages for doing those things (although again, this does not always work out in practice, in football or anything else!). No matter what fees we pay other clubs, drastically reducing what we pay players is going to have a significant impact on the quality of player we attract and hold on to, and inevitably how competitive we are. I really don't see how anyone can argue against that.

It's a quote that fits with the seeming Brighton/RB Leipzig/feeder club model fascination. These clubs perform brilliantly relative to their status/legacy/finances and regularly uncover and profit from players, but they are not competitive. They are not even close to what we were in the latter Abramovich years, a rung down from elite but always in the mix for a trophy, nevermind what we were before then.

 

Not disagreeing in principle, but I think we have been reducing the wages overall, but we have not abandoned paying high wages to the best players. According to Spotrac, Enzo earns £15.4m pa, James £13m, Nkunku £10m. However, we have been reducing the overall wage bill by offloading expensive older players like Ziyech, Kante, Kova, as well as players who give us more in transfer fee income than they do on the field like Havertz and, hopefully, those that give us nothing at all like Lukaku and Sarr. We have been replacing them with younger ones with less experience who accept lower individual terms. If they are successful, I would expect them to agitate for increases, but the overall wage bill has to be kept under control so we may choose to sell instead. TBH, our problem is not going to be successful players.