Chelsea owners and board

[Sleeping Dave]

I’d make a strong case we’re comfortably the worst run club in Europe - certainly in any of the top five leagues. 

Is there in any aspect of running this club the ownership has done good? This is a serious question by the way. If anyone has some examples please share them, right now all I have is a long list of mistakes and wrong decisions in these areas. 

Player buys/sells

View on academy

Communication

Manager(s)

Financials

Commercial deals

Vision of the club

I’m also finding it incredibly hard to like anyone at the top - they seem to be a rather tasteless bunch of bankers and deal makers who treat the club and its fans as some American franchise gig. They have no respect to the clubs history, nor do they seem to care about the club, the fans or the wider community it operates in. 

I really don’t think this will end well for us. 

[Ham]

3 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

From what I understand, it means we have avoid breaching the PSR limit by selling the two hotels and car parks at Stamford Bridge to a sister company for £76.5m. It means for 22/23 we lost £89.9m, which is under the limit and so we won’t HAVE to sell anyone by 30th June.

My understanding was that the PL were separately assessing whether the sale was at fair market value and I don't recall that being resolved.

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

Two reputable independent property valuers with extensive experience assessed the properties' value. I think the EPL would have trouble questioning those values. Matt Law spoke about it in a recent LiB pod.

They might have valued them at a figure based upon bricks and mortar but have they factored in the small matter of the entire site being demolished in the next few years? 

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

1 minute ago, Ham said:

My understanding was that the PL were separately assessing whether the sale was at fair market value and I don't recall that being resolved.

Oh, I see, yes, I forgot that was happening against this as well. It's hard to keep up with the various cases and charges the PL are involved with at the moment. 

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, Ham said:

My understanding was that the PL were separately assessing whether the sale was at fair market value and I don't recall that being resolved.

They might have valued them at a figure based upon bricks and mortar but have they factored in the small matter of the entire site being demolished in the next few years? 

 

 I would expect that they can't factor in what "may" happen only what has happened .  We may move away instead of re-developing for instance . 

[Ham]

7 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

 I would expect that they can't factor in what "may" happen only what has happened .  We may move away instead of re-developing for instance . 

If we move away, those hotels are 100% coming down.

If we develop, those hotels are 100% coming down. 

 

[paulw66]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

Two reputable independent property valuers with extensive experience assessed the properties' value. I think the EPL would have trouble questioning those values. Matt Law spoke about it in a recent LiB pod.

Real estate in one of the most affluent areas of the country........I think the values are fair, from what limited knowledge I have. A couple of mates of mine work in property development, and they seem to think the value is / was never the problem, it's just whether the loophole would get through the system

25 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

I’d make a strong case we’re comfortably the worst run club in Europe - certainly in any of the top five leagues. 

 

I would also argue that you (and all of us) don't scrutinize other clubs to the same degree as we do our own.

Off the top of my head, how you would currently feel if you were an Everton fan? 

I still think in perhaps 2 years time, when most of this squad is coming into its prime, there may be a very different feeling towards the transfer activity of the last 12 months. But right now, that is purely nothing more than supposition 

[Mark Kelly]

5 minutes ago, Ham said:

If we move away, those hotels are 100% coming down.

If we develop, those hotels are 100% coming down. 

 

Then ... we are 100% screwed ! 

[paulw66]

4 hours ago, xceleryx said:

And would this subsequently mean that signing players to new deals is likely to be better done in the next financial period, as those costs will be placed there and not in the current period impacting our PSR situation? 

If so, this could also possibly explain a delay in Gallaghers contract situation? 

 

3 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Yeah, I think so. Someone on here mentioned that as a possibility yesterday (sorry, can’t remember who). It does seem to be a potential reason for why nothing has been signed and also why neither side has said anything or seemingly been feeding things to the media. Let’s hope so, anyway.

I expect the club were / are  waiting to find out if the sale of the hotels etc was / is rubber stamped before anything else.

If the sale wasn't not approved, then the need for income, and potentially selling  Gallagher is more likely.

Sale approved, dont need to sell him, stick a new contract under his nose. 

[My Blood Is Blue]

22 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

 

I expect the club were / are  waiting to find out if the sale of the hotels etc was / is rubber stamped before anything else.

If the sale wasn't not approved, then the need for income, and potentially selling  Gallagher is more likely.

Sale approved, dont need to sell him, stick a new contract under his nose. 

I hope so.

[Bob Singleton]

I suggested a few months ago that it was possible that the club was waiting until after 1st July to announce a new contract for Gallagher for precisely this reason.

[paulw66]

Sky Sports reporting we don't need to sell players this month.

[Bob Singleton]

40 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Sky Sports reporting we don't need to sell players this month.

While some newspapers, bloggers and other "commentators" have been making wild claims about the club needing to sell £100m worth of players by the end of June (ironically, many of those same people have been claiming we're going to buy x for £100m and y for £100m, too!),  there  have been some wiser heads who have consistently said that the club always believed they'd get through the FA's PSR requirements without difficulty.  I'm therefore not surprised regarding Sky reporting we don't need to sell anyone just now.

On the other hand, UEFA's tougher rules may be problematic... but we have until the end of December (different deadline to FA) to sort that out.

[paulw66]

Just now, Bob Singleton said:

On the other hand, UEFA's tougher rules may be problematic... but we have until the end of December (different deadline to FA) to sort that out.

didn't know that, thanks Bob.

On your other point, the same people saying Villa are going after Gallagher, are saying Villa need to sell Luiz to Arsenal to comply themselves

[Bob Singleton]

Just now, paulw66 said:

didn't know that, thanks Bob.

On your other point, the same people saying Villa are going after Gallagher, are saying Villa need to sell Luiz to Arsenal to comply themselves

Indeed. Said something similar a day or so ago myself.

[CarefreeMuratcan]

52 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Sky Sports reporting we don't need to sell players this month.

Just told my football group "Chelsea haters get fudge" it will be a nice tasty treat

[Mark Kelly]

Anyone got any idea who these rules are supposed to be helping? Do Newcastle feel helped as they need to sell to buy even though they have the funds ? What about Villa , selling Luis to buy Gallagher ? How does that help everyone else? 

The administrators running the game in this country are morons. 

[CarefreeMuratcan]

42 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Anyone got any idea who these rules are supposed to be helping? Do Newcastle feel helped as they need to sell to buy even though they have the funds ? What about Villa , selling Luis to buy Gallagher ? How does that help everyone else? 

The administrators running the game in this country are morons. 

The sooner they bring in the anchor rule the better. Everyone can spend the same regardless of income, but there is an upper limit that is the same for all PL clubs. This way historically big clubs don't have an advantage over historically smaller clubs, but you also don't have City level financial doping, and I presume no more being forced to sell academy products for pure profit.

Edited June 7 by CarefreeMuratcan

[Sciatika]

Bear in mind that they will be replacing PSR at the end of next season, presumably for something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, Sciatika said:

Bear in mind that they will be replacing PSR at the end of next season, presumably for something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

Even the fact that the accounting period ends before the end of the transfer window can only have been decided on by a brain donor. 

 

[Bob Singleton]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

Even the fact that the accounting period ends before the end of the transfer window can only have been decided on by a brain donor. 

 

I may be wrong, but I think the accounting period of 1st July to 30th June has always been the case (in so far as having FFP/PSR in operation), as it falls in with the traditional 'end of one season, start of the next' calendar that's been around for years.

The summer transfer window has always "floated" a bit, but unless you make a hard and fast rule that, say, the season can't start until 1st Sept and then ensure the window closes before the season starts, there will always be this current miss-match of dates.

[RDCW]

2 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

Anyone got any idea who these rules are supposed to be helping? Do Newcastle feel helped as they need to sell to buy even though they have the funds ? What about Villa , selling Luis to buy Gallagher ? How does that help everyone else? 

The administrators running the game in this country are morons. 

They continue to make the environment unnecessarily stressful whilst failing to deal with the issues of ownership sustainability. The need to protect clubs from profligate owners is a real one, but the sledgehammer of FFP to crack that particular nut comes from a very different place : the vested interests in the Premier League community's desire to maintain the status quo and keep the old school power axis of Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs in a position of pre-eminence. Everton were part of that group, but have become something of a basket case. They hate wealthy ownership because of the threat to the cosy football aristocracy.

[Ham]

2 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

While some newspapers, bloggers and other "commentators" have been making wild claims about the club needing to sell £100m worth of players by the end of June (ironically, many of those same people have been claiming we're going to buy x for £100m and y for £100m, too!),  there  have been some wiser heads who have consistently said that the club always believed they'd get through the FA's PSR requirements without difficulty.  I'm therefore not surprised regarding Sky reporting we don't need to sell anyone just now.

On the other hand, UEFA's tougher rules may be problematic... but we have until the end of December (different deadline to FA) to sort that out.

If Chelsea were being smart, and in need of selling by 30 June to comply with PSR, they'd probably say something along the lines of "we don't need to sell to comply" to stop other clubs low-balliing us on our players. 

Funny how they specifically said "We don't need to sell this month" as opposed to "this window".  

[Bob Singleton]

1 hour ago, Ham said:

If Chelsea were being smart, and in need of selling by 30 June to comply with PSR, they'd probably say something along the lines of "we don't need to sell to comply" to stop other clubs low-balliing us on our players. 

Funny how they specifically said "We don't need to sell this month" as opposed to "this window".  

That's the point I'm making above.

We don't need to sell this month as we'll be OK regarding the FA's PSR rules for the 3 year accounting period ending 30th June 2024. The next accounting period (2022-2025) starts 1st July and we'll possibly have to sell players we might not want to otherwise sell (Gallagher and Chalobah), depending on how much we spend.

The fact is that we want to at least sell players such as Lukaku, Marr, Kepa, etc., anyway, so we will be selling irrespective of PSR.  There will also be players (1st team squad, on loan and from the development squad) deemed not to have a future at Chelsea who will also likely be sold (Maatsen, Hall, etc). It was always thus.

However, where we are likely to find ourselves in trouble is with UEFA, but the accounting period they use is 1st Jan to 31st Dec so we have a full window to sort things out there.

[Mark Kelly]

13 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

That's the point I'm making above.

We don't need to sell this month as we'll be OK regarding the FA's PSR rules for the 3 year accounting period ending 30th June 2024. The next accounting period (2022-2025) starts 1st July and we'll possibly have to sell players we might not want to otherwise sell (Gallagher and Chalobah), depending on how much we spend.

The fact is that we want to at least sell players such as Lukaku, Marr, Kepa, etc., anyway, so we will be selling irrespective of PSR.  There will also be players (1st team squad, on loan and from the development squad) deemed not to have a future at Chelsea who will also likely be sold (Maatsen, Hall, etc). It was always thus.

However, where we are likely to find ourselves in trouble is with UEFA, but the accounting period they use is 1st Jan to 31st Dec so we have a full window to sort things out there.

And we don't actually have to play in their competition anyway, we can "do a Milan" and demure. 

[Sciatika]

I have just been listening to this year's LiB "Keep, Sell, Loan" podcast. The idea is to go through each squad member and decide who you should keep in the squad, who should be loaned out (if possible) and who should be sold. It's difficult because the outcome has to conform to PL and UEFA squad rules.  You have to have a 25-man squad with 8 homegrown. You do not get to buy players to fill in the holes you create, you just create spaces. Given there are no plans for a wholesale rebuild, I would imagine you would only look to create two or three holes. You also need to consider the club's tactical strategy (i.e. Maresca-style possession football). It throws up some interesting problems. Anyway, you can find it on Youtube or Spotify.