Chelsea owners and board

[NoblyBobly]

On 04/03/2024 at 22:42, xceleryx said:

When the average height of the side is 178cm's it probably doesn't matter how organised on set pieces one is. 

That aside, there's obviously a lot more Poch can do on field to get more out of this group. Albeit, I do appreciate how he's continued to keep the moral within the group pretty steady despite the up's and down's of the season. I do think this goes a bit under the radar, particularly if you look at how things were in similar circumstances last season under Pots and Lamps.

To the first paragraph, it’s true we are not a big side, but I’m incredulous on set pieces , how many times we will put one of tiny munchkins up against one of their jolly green giants. 
 

The second paragraph, I tend to agree that moral has been ok ( give or a Mrs De Silva or two) . But I’d much rather have a moany winning bunch than some happy clappy losers. 

[Lump Of Celery]

2 hours ago, Bison said:

All going well then. 

 

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

Does anyone know if this is good / bad / leading to point deductions etc? 

I'm trying to figure it out, but may have got it all wrong -

About £80m of the BlueCo loss is probably for the purchase of Strasbourg (£65m) and their transfers (£15m net)

That takes the figure to £570m for Chelsea related expenditure, I would assume somewhere in the region of £500-550m of that is for player transfers. Call it £525 and taken over an average 6 year contract (most were 5-8 year) amortisation of £87.5m per year. So going forward to meet Premier League Spending Rules of £105m losses over a 3 year period we need to generate £52.5m in players sales profit each year, before we spend any more. Or we find that money from increased revenue.

Those figures are only up to June 30th 2023, so don't take into account sales and profits we made this summer, reduction in wage bill etc. Also doesn't take into account this summers expenditure, not having a sponsor for months etc.

The £90m losses are actually down from the last 2 years of the Roman Empire where we lost £156 2021 & £121m 2022*, so things actually appear to be moving in a positive direction financially.

*The more I looked into this, the more confusing it became. Surely we would already be charged because of those figures, but haven't been so far so. Maybe because extra allowances were made for COVID, maybe because some expenditure on academies and womens teams is allowed. But on the face of it we are better off financially than we were before.

[patThenevin]

5 hours ago, Lump Of Celery said:

 

I'm trying to figure it out, but may have got it all wrong -

About £80m of the BlueCo loss is probably for the purchase of Strasbourg (£65m) and their transfers (£15m net)

That takes the figure to £570m for Chelsea related expenditure, I would assume somewhere in the region of £500-550m of that is for player transfers. Call it £525 and taken over an average 6 year contract (most were 5-8 year) amortisation of £87.5m per year. So going forward to meet Premier League Spending Rules of £105m losses over a 3 year period we need to generate £52.5m in players sales profit each year, before we spend any more. Or we find that money from increased revenue.

Those figures are only up to June 30th 2023, so don't take into account sales and profits we made this summer, reduction in wage bill etc. Also doesn't take into account this summers expenditure, not having a sponsor for months etc.

The £90m losses are actually down from the last 2 years of the Roman Empire where we lost £156 2021 & £121m 2022*, so things actually appear to be moving in a positive direction financially.

*The more I looked into this, the more confusing it became. Surely we would already be charged because of those figures, but haven't been so far so. Maybe because extra allowances were made for COVID, maybe because some expenditure on academies and womens teams is allowed. But on the face of it we are better off financially than we were before.

And now we are starting to see more sharply how the profligacy of Todd and his band of inept recruitment clowns have taken a club that has had a huge surplus in regards of transfer spend and sprayed it away. The losses Vs Roman, global pandemic disruption didn't help as did the Boris clown Johnson govt using the club as a diversionary tactic, so wouldn't hold too much stall on that.... particularly given the never never buy no pay later these feckwits yanks have used to purchase their parade of sh!te.

The angle of having to sell £50m+ worth of players every year before we can buy (yet more underwhelming youth 'talent') shows starkly the mid table mediocrity we'll be paying for in the stands....with even higher pricing to watch this abject and arrogant yank clownary.

 

Medium term Poch is the very least of our issues

 

What an f'ing mess.

[patThenevin]

On 04/03/2024 at 22:42, xceleryx said:

When the average height of the side is 178cm's it probably doesn't matter how organised on set pieces one is. 

That aside, there's obviously a lot more Poch can do on field to get more out of this group. Albeit, I do appreciate how he's continued to keep the moral within the group pretty steady despite the up's and down's of the season. I do think this goes a bit under the radar, particularly if you look at how things were in similar circumstances last season under Pots and Lamps.

Imagine being handsomely paid to oversee this oversight

Winstanely and ego clown Laurence (plus his zoolander handler) need fecking kicking out of the club.

Everyday there's yet more examples of how the club resembles corporate clown America 

[chara]

Latest undercover clip of the Chelsea Boards recent offering regarding the new way forward.

Obtained from a source deep within the Club at great personal risk......

IMG_0 (1).mov

Edited March 10 by chara

[asvaberg]

Anyone from this forum in any way involved in this letter?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68618210

Edited March 20 by asvaberg

[patThenevin]

Good on them

Let's face it we are classed as consumers not fans by the yanks. Why would we think that a financier class, from an increasingly sick nation that treats the average Joe like sh!t would treat us fans with anything other than pocket emptying scorn.

Could make a point about geopolitics and Joe Biden but that's best off somewhere else.....

[Sciatika]

The letter is here:

Chelsea-Supporterss-Trust-8.3.24-PACK-V2-1.pdf (chelseasupporterstrust.com)

It makes some reasonable points. 

Edited March 20 by Sciatika

[Max Fowler]

What the letter points to is the widely held perception among our fans, not shared by many of the most vocal voices on here, that the owners plan is the biggest problem at our club, their failure to communicate a huge one too. This is an important step - not blaming it all on Poch or self soothing by repeating that the plan just needs time.

This is called being held accountable by the people who matter most - our fans.

[Ham]

14 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

What the letter points to is the widely held perception among our fans, not shared by many of the most vocal voices on here, that the owners plan is the biggest problem at our club, their failure to communicate a huge one too. This is an important step - not blaming it all on Poch or self soothing by repeating that the plan just needs time.

This is called being held accountable by the people who matter most - our fans.

Welcome back Max.  Where have you been?

On this subject, Roman never felt the need to update us on anything.  Remember the Battersea CPO buy-up? Fans weren't always happy with everything he did.

Despite the mass disillusionment, I'm on record in saying that I still believe in this process. The team are starting to play better together even though we've been without crucial squad players.

A couple of tweaks and we're competing again. Mark my words.

[east lower]

3 hours ago, Sciatika said:

The letter is here:

Chelsea-Supporterss-Trust-8.3.24-PACK-V2-1.pdf (chelseasupporterstrust.com)

It makes some reasonable points. 

Well, the newspapers are having a field-day with the letter and it's contents. 

All across a number of the major papers back pages with Sky Sports News running a commentary with two journos on it.

[east lower]

6 hours ago, asvaberg said:

Anyone from this forum in any way involved in this letter?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/68618210

I know a couple of the characters that formed the group but only from attending matches and chatting- reasonable chaps they seem to be.

[xceleryx]

24 minutes ago, Ham said:

Welcome back Max.  Where have you been?

On this subject, Roman never felt the need to update us on anything.  Remember the Battersea CPO buy-up? Fans weren't always happy with everything he did.

Despite the mass disillusionment, I'm on record in saying that I still believe in this process. The team are starting to play better together even though we've been without crucial squad players.

A couple of tweaks and we're competing again. Mark my words.

This is what irks me the most about all of this stuff with new ownership. It's not as if Roman was out here giving us a run down of everything going on within the club, or even with future endeavours that were being considered. 

Not going to absolve current ownership of responsibility, as I do think they have dropped the ball when it comes to proving us with direct and clear communication about the direction being taken, but there's certainly a degree of double standard(ism) that's being applied.

[east lower]

34 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

This is what irks me the most about all of this stuff with new ownership. It's not as if Roman was out here giving us a run down of everything going on within the club, or even with future endeavours that were being considered. 

Not going to absolve current ownership of responsibility, as I do think they have dropped the ball when it comes to proving us with direct and clear communication about the direction being taken, but there's certainly a degree of double standard(ism) that's being applied.

I think most people knew what Roman's goals were. He wanted to win trophies and was relentlessly determined to do so. Whilst doing this, very successfully he also rarely put ticket prices up, supported a large number of fan based initiatives, subsidised travel for away fans, provided financial support for large numbers of community projects, established one of the best training facilities in the world and made our youth and ladies teams hugely successful.  He was also hugely active in bringing back former players jnto the club and supporting them financially if they required it. He didn't need to do much public talking, the results of his actions spoke more than adequately - certainly for a majority. 

The current owners have done next to nothing in comparison, save investing other peoples money (the majority of the money, being other peoples money).  At the moment for me, they sit in the Conference compared to Roman's Champions League of ownership. Their mismanagement of the club thus far should absolutely dictate that they communicate their plans going forward including matters that will effect fans. Why should I help to pay for their f**k-ups? And if they do want fans to do that, tell us why and tell us how they're going to correct the course, using our money to assist.

Edited March 20 by east lower

[xceleryx]

1 minute ago, east lower said:

I think most people knew what Roman's goals were. He wanted to win trophies and was relentlessly determined to do so. Whilst doing this, very successfully he also rarely put ticket prices up, supported a large number of fan based initiatives, subsidised travel for away fans, provided financial support for large numbers of community projects, established one of the best training facilities in the world snd made our youth and ladies teams hugely successful.  He didn't need to do much public talking, the results of his actions spoke more than adequately - certainly fir a majority. 

The current owners have done next to nothing in comparison, save investing other peoples money (the majority of the money, being other peoples money).  At the moment for me, they sit in the Conference compared to Roman's Champions League of ownership. Their mismanagement of the club thus far should absolutely dictate that they communicate their plans going forward including matters that will effect fans. Why should I help to pay for their f**k-ups? And if they do want fans to do that, tell us why and tell us how they're going to correct the course, using our money to assist.

Don't disagree. However, he's also the exception and not the rule to some degree. The way he operated was more of a throwback of old, opposed to the more business minded approach the sport now has. You wouldn't be able to run a club in the manner he did, particularly initially, with the way football is now. I think that's where some of the disconnect lies. Many expecting things to just remain as they were under Roman when that just wasn't going to be likely if we were looking to progress the club in a business capacity.

I'm not a match goer but the reality is that those that are, such as yourself, have also been fortunate that ticket prices and like haven't gone up until now. Everything else in life has increased in cost in recent years, including other sports, football was never going to be exempt from this. Even if my personal belief is keeping it affordable for the common man and supporter who are the life blood of clubs, the increase in cost was going to come eventually - just as it's hit other areas of the sport and life. 

As I said before, I'm not fond of the lack of communication the current ownership has provided or agree with the approach they've taken with everything that's gone on. I think had they come out and addressed their desires from the beginning and laid out a clear plan there'd be more understanding and leniency provided. Bringing it back to the original point raised though, it's not as if Roman conveyed everything he did either.

[Floyd25]

3 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Bringing it back to the original point raised though, it's not as if Roman conveyed everything he did either.

Very true, but he didn’t really need to did he? As long as things were going well on the pitch we had very little reason to question him or want him to be more open with us and we were consistently successful. These new owners have come along, ripped every thing up and started again to no success so far and they’ve even bought themselves a second club, I think it’s understandable that people would want more open dialogue. 

[Floyd25]

4 hours ago, Ham said:

The team are starting to play better together even though we've been without crucial squad players.

A couple of tweaks and we're competing again. Mark my words.

There are definitely some positive signs and we have done well in the cup competitions, we have some talented young players that are only going to get better. Having said that, we’ve also massively overpaid for some players who don’t look like they’re up to much and we’re left with the uncertainty of points deductions in the summer, none of us know for sure what’s going to happen there. 

[xceleryx]

1 hour ago, Floyd25 said:

Very true, but he didn’t really need to did he? As long as things were going well on the pitch we had very little reason to question him or want him to be more open with us and we were consistently successful. These new owners have come along, ripped every thing up and started again to no success so far and they’ve even bought themselves a second club, I think it’s understandable that people would want more open dialogue. 

No doubt coming on board, spending more than anyone else, and then turning that into immediate success allowed for substantial grace in other areas. To then have continued success allowed for greater leniency for years to come afterwards. Roman could've pretty much done anything and the kick back would've been pretty timid for the most part. Again though, football was different and Roman was a different sort of owner to that which we largely see now. 

Current ownership's more aggressive approach ruffled feathers. I think had we remained more competitive fewer complaints would be had, however because we've struggled on the pitch as much as we have and it's pretty unfamiliar territory for fans who've only followed the club within the last 25-30 years and thus harder to swallow. Those who've followed longer will have experience the club toiling in the lower leagues and what have you. To perspective is somewhat key. Shit could be worse. Heck, we could've been left without a club at all. 

While I'm not a fan of everything the current lot have done, I think any ownership group that took over post Roman was always going to find it challenging to appease the entire fan base anyway. Who knows, maybe in a few years time we'll look back on this period and it'll be seen as nothing more than the early stages of transition into a better place. Maybe it doesn't pan out at all. That's half the struggle with this whole situation because a lot of what's been done is with a view for being better down the line and not necessarily in the present. 

[Sciatika]

8 hours ago, east lower said:

I know a couple of the characters that formed the group but only from attending matches and chatting- reasonable chaps they seem to be.

I have often wondered, in an idle sort of way, how many people the CST represents. They talk about their "mandate", but to have a mandate would require that they represent a significant proportion of members or STHs. If that were the case, I would expect them to publicise it widely. Yet, I can't find any indication of their membership numbers or types on their website, so I never know whether to take their opinions seriously.

[east lower]

12 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

I have often wondered, in an idle sort of way, how many people the CST represents. They talk about their "mandate", but to have a mandate would require that they represent a significant proportion of members or STHs. If that were the case, I would expect them to publicise it widely. Yet, I can't find any indication of their membership numbers or types on their website, so I never know whether to take their opinions seriously.

Last time I looked there were about, perhaps 8 or so 'Officers'. But like most clubs supporter's groups they'll claim to represent the fan bases but in reality they represent their group's views and those that they gather from discussions and meetings. 

And they get a seat at tables. There was a show on TNT Sport where it was a question and answer session with Cundy, Andy Jacobs and another character. Audience was full of supporter's group faces. There's generally a few self-serving people. A few that always get front row and centre at away games for no reason than that's their prime choice and they are connected via these groups. 

[Chelsea_Matt]

8 hours ago, east lower said:

I think most people knew what Roman's goals were. He wanted to win trophies and was relentlessly determined to do so. Whilst doing this, very successfully he also rarely put ticket prices up, supported a large number of fan based initiatives, subsidised travel for away fans, provided financial support for large numbers of community projects, established one of the best training facilities in the world and made our youth and ladies teams hugely successful.  He was also hugely active in bringing back former players jnto the club and supporting them financially if they required it. He didn't need to do much public talking, the results of his actions spoke more than adequately - certainly for a majority. 

The current owners have done next to nothing in comparison, save investing other peoples money (the majority of the money, being other peoples money).  At the moment for me, they sit in the Conference compared to Roman's Champions League of ownership. Their mismanagement of the club thus far should absolutely dictate that they communicate their plans going forward including matters that will effect fans. Why should I help to pay for their f**k-ups? And if they do want fans to do that, tell us why and tell us how they're going to correct the course, using our money to assist.

I wouldn’t trust Todd ‘n’ Eggy to judge a pie contest let alone run one of the world’s biggest football clubs.

[Max Fowler]

And a photo of the gaslighting response from our CEO Chris Jurasek

 

 

[Max Fowler]

9 hours ago, xceleryx said:

This is what irks me the most about all of this stuff with new ownership. It's not as if Roman was out here giving us a run down of everything going on within the club, or even with future endeavours that were being considered. 

Not going to absolve current ownership of responsibility, as I do think they have dropped the ball when it comes to proving us with direct and clear communication about the direction being taken, but there's certainly a degree of double standard(ism) that's being applied.

The simple fact of the matter is it would help a great deal right now. The Chelsea Supporters Trust didn't say change the plan. They pointed to the simple reality of perception among the fanbase and how much communication on the project would help.

Yes, there is a double-standard, but that's the reality of the situation. Our fans feel so disconnected from the project that giving us even a tiny bit of communication on where we are heading would help a great deal - do we really have a 10 year plan desperate to win titles again? Or are we happy with being a cash cow with our young players? Will we ever buy experienced players? Etc. Etc.

You can say that few owners commmunicate these things but ours have undertaken one of the most radical overhauls of any owners in history and seem to be running a model that simply hasn't been tried before at the top of elite level football.

Supporters have been told to grow up, stop being so entitled. But again - perception is reality.

 

 

Edited March 21 by Max Fowler

[Ham]

7 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

And a photo of the gaslighting response from our CEO Chris Jurasek

 

 

No gaslighting.  Just cold, hard financial reality.

We need to increase revenue, in the absence of a 60k stadium. 

 

[Max Fowler]

3 minutes ago, Ham said:

No gaslighting.  Just cold, hard financial reality.

We need to increase revenue, in the absence of a 60k stadium. 

 

The cold hard reality being dished out by the man who called our fans "customers".

Underneath is the response from CST btw