Chelsea owners and board

[Max Fowler]

 

 

[Ham]

35 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

 

 

Not seeing anything wrong with this.

Are you sharing out of compulsion? 

[Dwmh]

54 minutes ago, Ham said:

Not seeing anything wrong with this.

Are you sharing out of compulsion? 

The only question I have is why they are looking for external investors in a project smaller than a dozen of their other ones.
Why not just pony up themselves.

[Max Fowler]

1 hour ago, Ham said:

Not seeing anything wrong with this.

Are you sharing out of compulsion? 

Not necessarily saying it’s bad, just saw it pop up.

[xceleryx]

13 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Well as Ben Foster explains, no one really knows how criminal the money Pulisic, Loftus-Cheek, Barkley and CHO were on.  But I take your point.  For me the challenge of how to exend the contract of a 20-22 yo who has not yet proved his worth has always been a major cost for the Academy which is frequently ignored.
But imagine now Colwill being offered an 8 year contract?  How much?  
Barkley was just an example of an extremely bad transfer period (which I argue was the year we handed control to Conte).  Pulisic and his batch (Werner, Ziyech, Havertz etc) did at least all play a lot of games for Chelsea (and won some pot) so can be said to have been much more value.

Certainly I have no problem with incentive based contracts per se.  They make sense, and you  could argue that a club should only sign players willing to accept a performance based contract.

But do they solve the problem of 8 year contracts for long term players?  Not really.
Sanchez may well be on an incentive based contract which he will be very happy with this season.  But if Kepa comes back and claims his place what then?  Sanchez will want out pdq.
Is Mudryk on an incentive based contract?  Is that the best way to boost any  confidence issues?

(By contrast they are great for older players and short term contracts - I hope Felix was on an incentive pay deal here, ditto Silva now who plays like he is incentivised to play every minute of every game.)

Btw I had a teacher who played part time for Enfield in 1970s non league (though they got to FAC round 3 and met...   ... Blyth Spartans and lost).
They were on win bonuses even then for those that got selected (plus those who'd been injured while playing) and he gave the impression it made quite a difference.
Incentive based contracts are not new.

We extend the likes of Colwill no differently, whether they're on a standard 5 year deal or the current 7 or 8 year ones we've handed out. The purpose of the long contract is to create better control and protection over our players, as like it not they are assets to all football clubs. On a standard 5 year deal only 3 of those years are truly secured, we've now extended that period. This doesn't mean we can't renegotiate at that usual 3 year point should be it necessary, we'll also have the luxury of additional time up our sleeves should it be needed .Whether those like Pulisic and co played a lot of games for us or not, they were still grossly overpaid based on their input, consistency and place in the side. 

The Kepa and Sanchez example isn't a good one. Should Kepa return next summer he'll be in the final year of his current contract, there's a possibility he may end up shopped around opposed to being left to leave for nothing. If he does stay and see out the final year, then it'll more or less be the same conditions he signed on under originally. 

Everyone is on incentive based deals as far as I'm lead to believe outside of those signed during the first summer window Sterling and co arrived in, all that changes is the sums involved depending on the player. So yes, Mudryk is on an incentive based deal. There's no reason for it to impact his confidence. Not as if paying him a higher guaranteed salary is going to boost confidence. Certainly hasn't worked in the past with others that's for sure.

Never said incentive based contracts were new, they've always been a long standing part of general contracts within football. The difference with what we're doing is that the ratio between guaranteed and non-guaranteed money has shifted.

[ROTG]

2 hours ago, xceleryx said:

.Whether those like Pulisic and co played a lot of games for us or not, they were still grossly overpaid based on their input, consistency and place in the side. 

Please stop these strawman bizarre strawman's

All the players you say were over paid, were all part of successful teams, which won trophies, helped in securing tier 1 sponsorship deals, qualified for CL football, TV monies etc ,etc season after season.. which intern increased the revenue to the club and therefore offset the additional wages. It is simple mathematics.

Lets see how the above mentioned revenue streams pan out over the next couple of seasons?  Not forgetting any of the NKOTB do not make the grade and become a dud, 100k over 8 years is far more expensive than say Pullisic 

[kev61]

1 hour ago, ROTG said:

Please stop these strawman bizarre strawman's

All the players you say were over paid, were all part of successful teams, which won trophies, helped in securing tier 1 sponsorship deals, qualified for CL football, TV monies etc ,etc season after season.. which intern increased the revenue to the club and therefore offset the additional wages. It is simple mathematics.

Lets see how the above mentioned revenue streams pan out over the next couple of seasons?  Not forgetting any of the NKOTB do not make the grade and become a dud, 100k over 8 years is far more expensive than say Pullisic 

Good to see you get emotional old fella.The stasticical clowns will be out in force when things aren't going our way!.

[Sciatika]

10 hours ago, Dwmh said:

The only question I have is why they are looking for external investors in a project smaller than a dozen of their other ones.
Why not just pony up themselves.

It seems unlikely to be an asset or a liquidity problem. They might be trying to diversify the sources of investment either to reduce risk or to use their existing funds on investments with a better short-term ROI. There could be all sorts of reasons to do so. If the investment matches the outcomes sought by others, then it's a win-win and the strategy makes sense.

[xceleryx]

2 hours ago, ROTG said:

Please stop these strawman bizarre strawman's

All the players you say were over paid, were all part of successful teams, which won trophies, helped in securing tier 1 sponsorship deals, qualified for CL football, TV monies etc ,etc season after season.. which intern increased the revenue to the club and therefore offset the additional wages. It is simple mathematics.

Lets see how the above mentioned revenue streams pan out over the next couple of seasons?  Not forgetting any of the NKOTB do not make the grade and become a dud, 100k over 8 years is far more expensive than say Pullisic 

Nothing bizarre or strawman about it. 

Just because the team had some success during the years they were here doesn't mean they were significant contributors to it, or represented good value for money. 

TIL that 100x8 is more than 100x5. Who'd have thunk. 🤯

[Dwmh]

4 hours ago, Sciatika said:

It seems unlikely to be an asset or a liquidity problem. They might be trying to diversify the sources of investment either to reduce risk or to use their existing funds on investments with a better short-term ROI. There could be all sorts of reasons to do so. If the investment matches the outcomes sought by others, then it's a win-win and the strategy makes sense.

Not sure diversifying sources of investment reduces risk.
And diverisifying investment risks isn't what venture capital types like Clearlake generally do - they like big bets.
Either they are happy to divest a bit or at least have some co-investors that value Chelsea more than Clearlake now does.

[Max Fowler]

 

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

17 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

 

 

Well sure, all in here hope they will as well.

[kev61]

18 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Not sure diversifying sources of investment reduces risk.

 Then you have no idea what investment means.

The simple answer is a  portfolio of investments spread over many companies has a better chance of succeeding  than an all eggs in a basket strategy.           

[kev61]

On 22/09/2023 at 08:50, Sciatika said:

It seems unlikely to be an asset or a liquidity problem. They might be trying to diversify the sources of investment either to reduce risk or to use their existing funds on investments with a better short-term ROI. There could be all sorts of reasons to do so. If the investment matches the outcomes sought by others, then it's a win-win and the strategy makes sense.

They are realising that they over paid for an investment that will bite them in the arse.

 

[Ham]

2 hours ago, kev61 said:

 Then you have no idea what investment means.

The simple answer is a  portfolio of investments spread over many companies has a better chance of succeeding  than an all eggs in a basket strategy.           

Depends on whether you had all of your eggs in either Apple or Microsoft in the late 70s. 

[Dwmh]

6 hours ago, kev61 said:

 Then you have no idea what investment means.

The simple answer is a  portfolio of investments spread over many companies has a better chance of succeeding  than an all eggs in a basket strategy.           

And you have no idea of investment strategy for a Venture Capital firm which believes it can outperform the market significantly.  
Diversification would limit its return to something much closer to average market returns.
Sure investors in Clearlake should diversify.
But if Clearlake wants to justify the large fees in its industry it has to be seen to take large risks and not water them down.

[Bones]

17 hours ago, Dwmh said:

And you have no idea of investment strategy for a Venture Capital firm which believes it can outperform the market significantly.  
Diversification would limit its return to something much closer to average market returns.
Sure investors in Clearlake should diversify.
But if Clearlake wants to justify the large fees in its industry it has to be seen to take large risks and not water them down.

Yes, also an investment to Chelsea is a diversification in itself as it’s performance does not correlate with other business assets in their portfolio.

[Bones]

On 23/09/2023 at 11:06, kev61 said:

They are realising that they over paid for an investment that will bite them in the arse.

 

It’s possible that they are having second thoughts. Let’s see what they decide to do with the stadium investment. If thats a go that means they are still fully into this project I think.

[Bison]

After a horrible first season, BoeLake realised they should leave the sporting decisions to 'football people' and hired several new sporting directors.

Unfortunately for us these clowns are no better than BoeLake. Vivell deciding to leave after only 7 months in post should have set alarm bells ringing. I would love to read the notes from that exit interview.

[Max Fowler]

Will post this article here as it raises something I hadn't considered: https://archive.ph/l5W75
(Not sure if it's ever been mentioned before tbh)

Boehly could actually be sacked as the Chairman of Chelsea or mutually agree to leave. Presumably Eghbali too.
There are (co-)investors above / around them that won't be happy with how things are going.

That gives us a way out. The investors stay - Boehly and Eghbali leave.

So does their mad and failing footballing vision.

The project fails - we start again with a new owner and much of the same American investment and do things properly.

Possible way out of this horror show?!

[Ham]

37 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Will post this article here as it raises something I hadn't considered: https://archive.ph/l5W75
(Not sure if it's ever been mentioned before tbh)

Boehly could actually be sacked as the Chairman of Chelsea or mutually agree to leave. Presumably Eghbali too.
There are (co-)investors above / around them that won't be happy with how things are going.

That gives us a way out. The investors stay - Boehly and Eghbali leave.

So does their mad and failing footballing vision.

The project fails - we start again with a new owner and much of the same American investment and do things properly.

Possible way out of this horror show?!

Everyone was lauding them both during the transfer window but when players fail to perform, it's the owner's fault.  

Cannot believe how cleanly the players are getting away with it.  

Poor decisions, poor final balls, poor finishing.  Not necessarily by the younger players either.  

Fine margins.  

[Max Fowler]

Just now, Ham said:

Everyone was lauding them both during the transfer window but when players fail to perform, it's the owner's fault.  

Cannot believe how cleanly the players are getting away with it.  

Poor decisions, poor final balls, poor finishing.  Not necessarily by the younger players either.  

Fine margins.  

I suppose the new input here is Ham, will the investors care?

They clearly aren't stupid, and have spent a lot of money already on this club. Maybe, as Samuel suggests, this is actually a make or break season for Todd Boehly and they will get someone else in if we have another poor season.

[Dwmh]

45 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Will post this article here as it raises something I hadn't considered: https://archive.ph/l5W75
(Not sure if it's ever been mentioned before tbh)

Boehly could actually be sacked as the Chairman of Chelsea or mutually agree to leave. Presumably Eghbali too.
There are (co-)investors above / around them that won't be happy with how things are going.

That gives us a way out. The investors stay - Boehly and Eghbali leave.

So does their mad and failing footballing vision.

The project fails - we start again with a new owner and much of the same American investment and do things properly.

Possible way out of this horror show?!

Very interesting piece.
Not sure what it is with Martin Samuel, he seems to be the only journalist out there that can look at football, and specifically look at Chelsea, and write as if his brain is still attached.
Odd that he moved from the Mail, where they do hit the mark on occasion if not often, to the Times which never does - apparently by policy.

Boehly out makes enormous sense.  At least Boehly moved internally within Clearlake and another person taking his place perhaps from the football world or perhaps with different advisers and a different approach.
These things can always be managed to assuage egos.

Target the weak link

[thevelourfog]

1 hour ago, Max Fowler said:

Will post this article here as it raises something I hadn't considered: https://archive.ph/l5W75
(Not sure if it's ever been mentioned before tbh)

Boehly could actually be sacked as the Chairman of Chelsea or mutually agree to leave. Presumably Eghbali too.
There are (co-)investors above / around them that won't be happy with how things are going.

That gives us a way out. The investors stay - Boehly and Eghbali leave.

So does their mad and failing footballing vision.

The project fails - we start again with a new owner and much of the same American investment and do things properly.

Possible way out of this horror show?!

I speculated ages ago, may have been on the old forum, that it wouldn't be anything more than 2 years before parts of the consortium fell out and were briefing against each other. Just a guess based on what I'd seen of them in the their first 6 months rather than any incredible insight, but a guess I'm happy to run with.

49 minutes ago, Ham said:

Everyone was lauding them both during the transfer window but when players fail to perform, it's the owner's fault.  

This just isn't true. Many people were excited by new signings, some because of the players and some I think because they like new signings, but we can't act like their was universal acclaim for them. I thought much of what they did this summer was insane and regularly posted to say as much, and generally had a few comments or reactions suggesting agreement. 

[Max Fowler]

2 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

I speculated ages ago, may have been on the old forum, that it wouldn't be anything more than 2 years before parts of the consortium fell out and were briefing against each other. Just a guess based on what I'd seen of them in the their first 6 months rather than any incredible insight, but a guess I'm happy to run with.

This just isn't true. Many people were excited by new signings, some because of the players and some I think because they like new signings, but we can't act like their was universal acclaim for them. I thought much of what they did this summer was insane and regularly posted to say as much, and generally had a few comments or reactions suggesting agreement. 

In fairness to @Ham, I will put myself firmly in the camp of being massively excited by our summer business, but I was worried the one thing that could cost us would be youth. Fair play if you were more skeptical.

The thing is, it matters what our results have been so far. I thought youth might make it slightly more difficult than necessary to challenge for the top four - I never thought we would be where we are today.

The results matter. Who we have played matters. I hate to bang on about it but you jut can't lose to Forest at home, drop points at Bournemouth and lose to West Ham. It signals a bigger problem that few of us predicted.

Whether that is the manager or players, noone expected to be here 6 games in. And yes, it has only been 6 games, but they were 6 easy games and I see no sign of us doing better in the tougher games. 

Our squad is not ready to compete at this level.