Chelsea owners and board

[ROTG]

All it proves is blue chip sponsors are not interested in projects. 

[Ham]

My reading of this is that we are about to announce someone else as front of shirt sponsor otherwise we'd perhaps leave IA where they are on the page in case we needed to renew with them. 

 

Edited July 4 by Ham

[thevelourfog]

On 03/07/2024 at 18:15, Bison said:

'If' doing a lot heavy lifting in that sentence. 

The one thing I thought these guys would be good at above all else is commercial deals for the club but they are in fact worse than the previous regime. 

Should really be pretty simple to agree a deal with a sponsor paying X amount without CL football and Y amount with it . This makes me wonder if we're still absolutely miles away from finding a sponsor and are doing a bit of padding with the press.

16 hours ago, xceleryx said:

In fairness it's probably not as easy as it may seem trying to find a sponsor. 

In fairness, my job isn't easy ... but I'm still expected to do it. And many of the factors that make it hard (like not being as attractive a prospect as we have been in the recent past) are the direct consequences of the ownership's actions. There isn't any "in fairness" here, the ownership has really clearly fucked this up. Again.

[ROTG]

4 hours ago, Ham said:

My reading of this is that we are about to announce someone else as front of shirt sponsor otherwise we'd perhaps leave IA where they are on the page in case we needed to renew with them. 

 

Will it be a blue chip or just another what do they do sponsor?

the club has become an auction house of selling to the highest bidder regardless. 

[Mark Kelly]

12 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Will it be a blue chip or just another what do they do sponsor?

the club has become an auction house of selling to the highest bidder regardless. 

Yeah 

Bring back the halcyon days of Yokohama Tyres

Now that was a sponsor with real cachet. 

[Ham]

37 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Will it be a blue chip or just another what do they do sponsor?

the club has become an auction house of selling to the highest bidder regardless. 

Our sponsorship last season was amongst the very best, bar United and Arsenal and the latter have a stadium and shirt connection, hence the better FOS deal.  

I don't care what's on the shirt, within reason, as long as it pays well.  

[Bison]

49 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Yeah 

Bring back the halcyon days of Yokohama Tyres

Now that was a sponsor with real cachet. 

 

"The Japanese tyre firm Yokohama Rubber is to become Chelsea’s new shirt sponsor in a deal believed to be worth £200m, making it the second most lucrative in Premier League history. The agreement, effective from next season, is second only to the £53m a year that Chevrolet pays Manchester United and is more than double the club’s previous contract with Samsung."

Halcyon days indeed. 

That was a 40m per year deal in 2015. Nearly a decade later and Clearlake can't get anything across the line that exceeds that amount. Pretty embarrassing, no? 

[Mark Kelly]

8 minutes ago, Bison said:

 

"The Japanese tyre firm Yokohama Rubber is to become Chelsea’s new shirt sponsor in a deal believed to be worth £200m, making it the second most lucrative in Premier League history. The agreement, effective from next season, is second only to the £53m a year that Chevrolet pays Manchester United and is more than double the club’s previous contract with Samsung."

Halcyon days indeed. 

That was a 40m per year deal in 2015. Nearly a decade later and Clearlake can't get anything across the line that exceeds that amount. Pretty embarrassing, no? 

So the club hasn't just become an auction house selling to the highest bidder after all then? 

We always were, evidently. 

[Bison]

46 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

So the club hasn't just become an auction house selling to the highest bidder after all then? 

We always were, evidently. 

Eh? Yokohama Tyres is a huge brand that paid top dollar. About as good as it gets. They're not some made up nonsense like Infinite Athlete that goes back to August 2023. 

[Mark Kelly]

9 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Seeing as you do not take personal messages

I dont know who you are and really dont care and kindly ask you to remove the above message as personal attacks on a public forum I take seriously.

Respectfully 

ROTG

Deleted. 

With respect, please stop posting reactionary cobblers and getting annoyed when people react  it's a 24/7 diatribe of old Chelsea good new Chelsea bad with no rhyme or reason behind it and it gets very old very quick. 

[Bison]

A sporting director fronting up and taking questions from the media. Imagine that. 

[Mark Kelly]

17 minutes ago, Bison said:

A sporting director fronting up and taking questions from the media. Imagine that. 

Isn't that what Boehly did when he was temporarily Sporting Director? 

And was roundly ridiculed for it. 

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. 

[chiswickblue]

4 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Isn't that what Boehly did when he was temporarily Sporting Director? 

And was roundly ridiculed for it. 

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. 

I don't think this qualifies as damned if they do, damned if they don't. The issue then was that Boehly was not qualified to be a Sporting Director. It doesn't help that most British people don't seem to be able to stand an American talking about Soccer, but that's a different issue!

I would love the club to allow someone senior to speak about general club matters, rather than expecting the head coach to do so. This would have helped a lot during the Roman years, most obviously when Tuchel was asked about things that were obviously way above his pay grade. I'd much rather see a Sporting Director or CEO talk about general club matters, and then leave the coach to talk about tactics, fitness, upcoming opponents, etc. Would make press conferences actually worth watching.

[Ham]

What do we think of this? Saving a paltry £10m a year by letting 250 people go.  Richest main "in" Britain who pays no taxes.  

He seems to be immune from criticism in the media, unlike TB who has been slaughtered personally on behalf of the entire ownership group.  

 

 

[chara]

@Ham....250 staff let go at once sounds like lunacy...plus what sort of functions are they doing in the "organisation",,,I understand that there will always be many unheralded important jobs but it's seems a huge number of , presumably, inflated uneccassary positions in any organisation?

On the other hand it's manure and I really don't give a rats a***!🐀🐀🐀🦨

@chiswickblue..good point about TB being sneered at because he is an American talking about "our" game. Something overlooked.

[thevelourfog]

4 hours ago, Ham said:

What do we think of this? Saving a paltry £10m a year by letting 250 people go.  Richest main "in" Britain who pays no taxes.  

He seems to be immune from criticism in the media, unlike TB who has been slaughtered personally on behalf of the entire ownership group.  

He's been slated on the tabloid back pages loads of times tbf.

[Mark Kelly]

8 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

He's been slated on the tabloid back pages loads of times tbf.

Rightly so, he's a cheapskate, wanted to buy Chelsea for £2b and got knocked back, then tried the same trick with United before finally stumping up for a minority stake and he's forever in the papers which I expect is what he really wanted all along. 

[Chelsea_Matt]

23 hours ago, Ham said:

What do we think of this? Saving a paltry £10m a year by letting 250 people go.  Richest main "in" Britain who pays no taxes.  

He seems to be immune from criticism in the media, unlike TB who has been slaughtered personally on behalf of the entire ownership group.  

 

 

Or the way Roman has been vilified - look how many jobs he created and how he helped the community during the pandy. 🇨🇳 🦠 🩶✌️

[Chelsea_Matt]

One last point - remember how certain clubs tried to help themselves to public (our) money to pay staff on furlough? Roman didn’t do that. If we had,  I think the government would have done what they always wanted and finally managed to do in 2022. 

If memory serves - and please do correct me - we didn’t do that, and neither did we let anyone go. 

Roman made mistakes as everyone does but for me he’s the best owner ever - still miss him and imo there’ll never be anyone close to being as amazing as our Russian mad lad. 🙌🏻🩷🩶 💯 

[ROTG]

On 05/07/2024 at 17:55, chara said:

@Ham....250 staff let go at once sounds like lunacy...plus what sort of functions are they doing in the "organisation",,,I understand that there will always be many unheralded important jobs but it's seems a huge number of , presumably, inflated uneccassary positions in any organisation?

On the other hand it's manure and I really don't give a rats a***!🐀🐀🐀🦨

@chiswickblue..good point about TB being sneered at because he is an American talking about "our" game. Something overlooked.

Getting rid of hangers on is no different to what uncle ken did when he got his hands on Chelsea.

As for employees, with Chelsea being owned by an American company, one would suspect all recruited employees e.g. the new medical team etc. to the club are on contracts rather than PAYE, making them easier to remove.

[east lower]

44 minutes ago, ROTG said:

As for employees, with Chelsea being owned by an American company, one would suspect all recruited employees e.g. the new medical team etc. to the club are on contracts rather than PAYE, making them easier to remove.

The Man Utd/Ratcliffe scenario may well be getting shot of fringe part time people. Assistant Scouts in Belarus or roles of that sort of thing.  Not that it matters much to me.

Employment law and Inland Revenue rules e.g. IR35 and other ‘rules’ would prevent Contract use. Otherwise all the players would choose contracts for the efficiencies that contract work would offer. Players are ‘employees’ subject to PAYE conditions.

[east lower]

18 hours ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Or the way Roman has been vilified - look how many jobs he created and how he helped the community during the pandy. 🇨🇳 🦠 🩶✌️

And the UK are still paying hundreds of millions to Russia for literally shipping gas (in massive ships) to us. 

But, the same set of UK political people won’t let a civil aircraft fly over Russian airspace because of the fees that would need to be paid. Hypocrisy at its very finest.

Going to Brisbane later in the year via Shanghai and Singapore and the London to Shanghai (and return) flight is up to two hours longer because of that ‘rule’.

 

[ROTG]

20 minutes ago, east lower said:

The Man Utd/Ratcliffe scenario may well be getting shot of fringe part time people. Assistant Scouts in Belarus or roles of that sort of thing.  Not that it matters much to me.

Employment law and Inland Revenue rules e.g. IR35 and other ‘rules’ would prevent Contract use. Otherwise all the players would choose contracts for the efficiencies that contract work would offer. Players are ‘employees’ subject to PAYE conditions.

I probably miss worded my previous statement, yes they have to pay contributions to the IR, however they are contracted to Chelsea and not a permanent employee  of Chelsea. 

[My Blood Is Blue]

I smell politics talk on the horizon, hold your tongue (or finger) please everyone. 🙂

[Chelsea_Matt]

1 hour ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

I smell politics talk on the horizon, hold your tongue (or finger) please everyone. 🙂

😇👀✌️🤣💯