Chelsea owners and board

[Dwmh]

2 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

So? He didn’t know that Todd ‘n ‘ Eggy would fuck it all up like they have. As others have said, it’ll take a long time before we’re “back”. I think AT LEAST 5/10 years. 

Worse.  it will be 5 to 10 years before anyone could turn us around and upwards.
There is no guarantee at all that anyone will try to do that let alone that they will succeed.
And no guarantee that there won't be a closed ESL or equiv with its doors shut by then.

[xceleryx]

22 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

So? He didn’t know that Todd ‘n ‘ Eggy would fuck it all up like they have. As others have said, it’ll take a long time before we’re “back”. I think AT LEAST 5/10 years. 

So the point is that the club wasn't sold blindly by Roman. He would've had all interested parties pitch their ideas and plans, including Boehly and those attached. Clearlake's pitch, vision, plan, or whatever you wish to call it, won.

He would've known the risked attached which were proposed in the plan put to him, yet still personally chose to sell to them. Ultimately having the opinion that they were the best option to takeover from him.  Whether things have gone exactly to plan or not is somewhat irrelevant. Clearlake could've tried to replicate what Roman initially did when he arrived and seen it flop, no approach is foolproof.

If folks want to shit can the current ownership that's their prerogative, just do so keeping in mind that it's also criticising the choices made by Roman to select them as the next owners of the club. 

[Dwmh]

11 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

So the point is that the club wasn't sold blindly by Roman. He would've had all interested parties pitch their ideas and plans, including Boehly and those attached. Clearlake's pitch, vision, plan, or whatever you wish to call it, won.

No - that is what the press releases say.  Ask not what they say but why they say them.
I don't think you understand just what US policy towards Russia and the world in general has always been.  
US companies get the spoils of war.

13 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

If folks want to shit can the current ownership that's their prerogative, just do so keeping in mind that it's also criticising the choices made by Roman to select them as the next owners of the club. 

So naive if you think he made choices.
You'll be telling me next that the Clearlakes have got the wage bill down to under £100m a year.

[My Blood Is Blue]

18 hours ago, Dwmh said:

No - that is what the press releases say.  Ask not what they say but why they say them.
I don't think you understand just what US policy towards Russia and the world in general has always been.  
US companies get the spoils of war.

So naive if you think he made choices.
You'll be telling me next that the Clearlakes have got the wage bill down to under £100m a year.

Completely agree. It’s pretty obvious when you look at the speed the sale had to go through at. If Roman had a choice, he wouldn’t have sold and definitely wouldn’t have sold so quick. He ‘sold’ because he had no other choice.

[Dwmh]

41 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Completely agree. It’s pretty obvious when you look at the speed the sale had to go through at. If Roman had a choice, he wouldn’t have sold and definitely wouldn’t have sold so quick. He ‘sold’ because he had no other choice.

Yes though on speed I'm pretty sure he saw it coming.  All his yachts were in safe harbours, it is just he couldn't do much to move a football club or his London Home.

[thevelourfog]

Utterly bizarre to frame anything about Abramovich's sale of the club as his choice. When you have to revise history recent enough for everyone to remember to sustain a current narrative, that isn't a narrative you should be sticking to 

[Dwmh]

13 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

Utterly bizarre to frame anything about Abramovich's sale of the club as his choice. When you have to revise history recent enough for everyone to remember to sustain a current narrative, that isn't a narrative you should be sticking to 

RA genuinely wants what was said in the PR release.

Hazard genuinely cost RM £140m

Clearlake can't exit for 10 years

Wages are down to below £100m

And that is just pages 28-32 of the newspaper.  You should also read and believe pages 1-27.

 

[Bison]

 

[Backbiter]

16 minutes ago, Bison said:

 

What's Simon Phillips' first language? Based on this sentence it's not English:

Quote

Real Betis director of football Ramón Planes is almost expected to join Chelsea ‘if Pochettino remains’ as manager.

 

[Bison]

The first full year of Boehly-Clearlake ownership:

 

[Mark Kelly]

23 minutes ago, Bison said:

The first full year of Boehly-Clearlake ownership:

 

Any normal company would look at this, look at how much they'd invested and start swinging the axe. 

They'll probably extend the frauds contract. 

[Dwmh]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

Any normal company would look at this, look at how much they'd invested and start swinging the axe. 

They will.  But that is not necessarily good news.

[Mark Kelly]

1 hour ago, Dwmh said:

They will.  But that is not necessarily good news.

I'm telling you with as much certainty I possess that if we sacked Poch and employed Cooper who's just been sacked by Forest we'd be a better side immediately. 

[Chelsea_Matt]

On 15/12/2023 at 13:43, xceleryx said:

So the point is that the club wasn't sold blindly by Roman. He would've had all interested parties pitch their ideas and plans, including Boehly and those attached. Clearlake's pitch, vision, plan, or whatever you wish to call it, won.

He would've known the risked attached which were proposed in the plan put to him, yet still personally chose to sell to them. Ultimately having the opinion that they were the best option to takeover from him.  Whether things have gone exactly to plan or not is somewhat irrelevant. Clearlake could've tried to replicate what Roman initially did when he arrived and seen it flop, no approach is foolproof.

If folks want to shit can the current ownership that's their prerogative, just do so keeping in mind that it's also criticising the choices made by Roman to select them as the next owners of the club. 

Disagree. The plans looked good on paper I’m sure. Roman is in no way whatsoever to blame for this clown show. One thing I do know - none of this would be happening if he was in charge. None of it. From the pathological spending to the hiring of Potter. None of it. 

[Dwmh]

15 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I'm telling you with as much certainty I possess that if we sacked Poch and employed Cooper who's just been sacked by Forest we'd be a better side immediately. 

And it might last a month or two (assuming we could get him).  But 2 months in he'd be screaming blue murder at unmotivated players and it would be worse.  Maybe a lot earlier.
I wasn't here - tell me what people expected when Frank stepped in for Potter?  An improvement?

[Mark Kelly]

18 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

And it might last a month or two (assuming we could get him).  But 2 months in he'd be screaming blue murder at unmotivated players and it would be worse.  Maybe a lot earlier.
I wasn't here - tell me what people expected when Frank stepped in for Potter?  An improvement?

I think they expected "Not Potter" and that's what they got. 

However  what we have got is practically and entirely new side after we jettisoned the deadwood. 

We can talk about lack of experience all we like but this is the bloke who, incensed at the Newcastle performance, punished them with a meal out on him. 

They're simply not scared of him and to be honest play like they have contempt for him. 

[thevelourfog]

Makes me so angry that these c**ts were publicly slating the club for how badly run it was within weeks of arriving. Absolutely despise them and really not sure I could contain myself if I ever found myself near one of them.

(I've had a few drinks)

[thevelourfog]

23 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

Makes me so angry that these c**ts were publicly slating the club for how badly run it was within weeks of arriving. Absolutely despise them and really not sure I could contain myself if I ever found myself near one of them.

(I've had a few drinks)

Had more to drink today and have decided I was, if anything, being too kind.

[Max Fowler]

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/dec/27/todd-boehly-chelsea-transfer-failure-premier-league

Edited December 27, 2023 by Max Fowler

[Dwmh]

8 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/dec/27/todd-boehly-chelsea-transfer-failure-premier-league

There is no suggestion of anything new in the Guardian piece - just an extremely late recognition that all is not well at SB/Cobham and a failure to mention that TB has cut back his own influence at start of season.

A hack that is a year behind the times is hinting that he is only 6 months behind.

In other news, Napolean might lose at Waterloo.

IMO they have an indentical vision - they (like players and coaches) all want out - out of the investment and out of taking any responsibility.

[thevelourfog]

23 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

There is no suggestion of anything new in the Guardian piece - just an extremely late recognition that all is not well at SB/Cobham and a failure to mention that TB has cut back his own influence at start of season.

A hack that is a year behind the times is hinting that he is only 6 months behind.

In other news, Napolean might lose at Waterloo.

IMO they have an indentical vision - they (like players and coaches) all want out - out of the investment and out of taking any responsibility.

Tbf, the article makes no claim to actual knowledge. But yes, anyone with a whole brain would have thought a split amongst such a large ownership spread was inevitable at some point when Clearlake took over, and anyone with half of one would have brought forward any future predictions in the last 6 months. These people have made some very, very bad decisions with other people's money and those people will not take that quietly. That is a far bigger problem for us than the dross brought in with much of that money.

[Dwmh]

26 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

These people have made some very, very bad decisions with other people's money and those people will not take that quietly. That is a far bigger problem for us than the dross brought in with much of that money.

Yes.  Clearlake is a fund group with a fantastic record, they can write off one error against the rest of the portfolio pretty easily.  What they can't afford to do is to hang on there or add fresh money to a stale investment.  They will be much better off just dumping the club and selling it for say £750m.  Then put that money into other projects which might make a sky high return.

After which we might be bought by a Vulture fund which specialises in asset stripping with no interest in the club as an ongoing football team.

[McCreadie]

30 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

 .After which we might be bought by a Vulture fund which specialises in asset stripping with no interest in the club as an ongoing football team.

But this where Roman’s 10 year clause could make a difference. I agree with your notion that it would just be a phone call to override it in 99% of scenarios. But if they are trying to sell to a vulture fund, he effectively has the final veto.

[Dwmh]

1 hour ago, McCreadie said:

But this where Roman’s 10 year clause could make a difference. I agree with your notion that it would just be a phone call to override it in 99% of scenarios. But if they are trying to sell to a vulture fund, he effectively has the final veto.

Might do, yes.    Of course you don't have to have a track record as a vulture to behave as one.
Perhaps Clearlake/TB could do most of the asset stripping themselves and leave just the bare bones by which time RA would approve anyone.


 

[McCreadie]

4 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Might do, yes.    Of course you don't have to have a track record as a vulture to behave as one.
Perhaps Clearlake/TB could do most of the asset stripping themselves and leave just the bare bones by which time RA would approve anyone.


 

Thankfully, CPO still protects the biggest asset to some degree.