Chelsea owners and board

[thevelourfog]

3 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

This is being made a lot harder than it needs to be. It’s clear as day that the ownership wants to get rid of both Chalobah and Gallagher. Poch openly mocked that by making Gallagher absolute first choice for us while playing Chalobah the second has was back from his injury. 

It’s equally clear that this was a direct challenge to the ownership who wants both gone. Of course you can always say “oh but we don’t know”. Sure, do we know anything really? What we can do is read the signs, make our own interpretations and see what transpires. By doing that you can’t reach any other conclusion. 

Yeah, much easier to draw conclusions when we don't consider that there's loads we don't know.

It is really bloody obvious we want to sell Chalobah. What we don't know is what he wants. That's what I said.

[thevelourfog]

32 minutes ago, east lower said:

And here’s a thing that puzzles me a little, they’ll take Broja on tour) who’ll end up in the Championship, the move after the one from Chelsea) but won’t take Chalobah?

But isn't this exactly why we shouldn't really be paying any attention to stories that go straight from "Chalobah isn't going on tour" to "Chalobah is being FORCED OUT!!!". We know (or can be confident in the deduction) the club wants to sell both and would happily accept offers. So it follows that being taken on the tour or not taken on the tour isn't at all related to the club trying to sell players, and there are other considerations at play.

I have no idea why not being allowed to play in meaningless friendlies would be the thing that finally got Chalobah to leave. He's got a long term, well paid deal here. He's not giving that up because someone else is playing 30 minutes against Wrexham in mid-July.

[east lower]

14 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

But isn't this exactly why we shouldn't really be paying any attention to stories that go straight from "Chalobah isn't going on tour" to "Chalobah is being FORCED OUT!!!". We know (or can be confident in the deduction) the club wants to sell both and would happily accept offers. So it follows that being taken on the tour or not taken on the tour isn't at all related to the club trying to sell players, and there are other considerations at play.

I have no idea why not being allowed to play in meaningless friendlies would be the thing that finally got Chalobah to leave. He's got a long term, well paid deal here. He's not giving that up because someone else is playing 30 minutes against Wrexham in mid-July.

Yes, know all of that - but at a human level who'd you take-  a proven performer who for all intents and purposes has had to go through a 'proving' process at least twice or someone who's not proven themselves once yet. The selling of him doesn't sit straight with me, when there are lesser players who'll stay because even money has that's because who did the procurement. 

Those that want to, as it suits their narrative will say balancing the books yada, yada. Wouldn't have to balance the books if the same people had bought one good centre half rather than two-halves of one by buying both Badiashile and Disasi (half a decent centre back in each of them).

£105 million on Fernandez!! Makes Jack Grealish look good value!!

[ChelseaJambo]

29 minutes ago, east lower said:

Yes, know all of that - but at a human level who'd you take-  a proven performer who for all intents and purposes has had to go through a 'proving' process at least twice or someone who's not proven themselves once yet. The selling of him doesn't sit straight with me, when there are lesser players who'll stay because even money has that's because who did the procurement. 

Those that want to, as it suits their narrative will say balancing the books yada, yada. Wouldn't have to balance the books if the same people had bought one good centre half rather than two-halves of one by buying both Badiashile and Disasi (half a decent centre back in each of them).

£105 million on Fernandez!! Makes Jack Grealish look good value!!

 

I wouldn't see the benefit of taking a proven performer on a jaunt to the states to play some 'glamour ties'. So faced with that scenario I'd take the person who hasn't proven themselves to see if they can.

 

Edited July 23 by ChelseaJambo

[thevelourfog]

37 minutes ago, east lower said:

Yes, know all of that - but at a human level who'd you take-  a proven performer who for all intents and purposes has had to go through a 'proving' process at least twice or someone who's not proven themselves once yet. The selling of him doesn't sit straight with me, when there are lesser players who'll stay because even money has that's because who did the procurement. 

Those that want to, as it suits their narrative will say balancing the books yada, yada. Wouldn't have to balance the books if the same people had bought one good centre half rather than two-halves of one by buying both Badiashile and Disasi (half a decent centre back in each of them).

£105 million on Fernandez!! Makes Jack Grealish look good value!!

Completely agreed on all of that. It's staggering that neither Disasi or Badiashile seem any better (and that's a generous phrasing) than what we already had, and that's even considering that I think what we already had sadly wasn't/isn't good enough.

I'm not at all dubious of the idea the club is so poorly run we're having to sell home grown players. I'm just dubious of the narrative adopted around this particular issue.

[Bob Singleton]

5 hours ago, ROTG said:

You are right Bob there a myriad of possible reasons why he didn’t go on the pre season tour. 
However given that Winstanley and Stewart have tried to move him on twice before, logic would lean towards them hoping third time lucky.  
 

One thing is for sure the yes man coach has no say in the squad. 

The signings of Dewsbury-Hall and Veiga might suggest otherwise.

Whilst I would agree with anyone who said that Pochettino had little to no input in signings, sales or loans, I think Maresca does have the ear of those above. That doesn't mean he'll get everyone he wants, and there will be many signings that the club make with the future in mind (be it with or without Maresca), as any club ought to do. 

People can't complain that managers like Conte were over-indulged and then complain that Maresca might not have all the players he wants. From where I'm sitting, at the moment the club have made some long-term signings AND signed players the new coach can fit into his system and use immediately.  All of them might work out. Some might work out. None might work out... but I would disagree with your submission that the new coach has no say.

[east lower]

1 hour ago, ChelseaJambo said:

 

I wouldn't see the benefit of taking a proven performer on a jaunt to the states to play some 'glamour ties'. So faced with that scenario I'd take the person who hasn't proven themselves to see if they can.

 

I was being generous of heart when say he hasn’t proved himself yet - he won’t, because he’s limited in the extreme and should have been sold at least 7 months ago. All the loan to our near neighbours did, was lessen his value further.

[east lower]

59 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

Completely agreed on all of that. It's staggering that neither Disasi or Badiashile seem any better (and that's a generous phrasing) than what we already had, and that's even considering that I think what we already had sadly wasn't/isn't good enough.

I'm not at all dubious of the idea the club is so poorly run we're having to sell home grown players. I'm just dubious of the narrative adopted around this particular issue.

Some of the stuff being put up elsewhere, tugs at the heartstrings a bit - You’ve got a player who seems to very much wants to be here, but it looks very much that the powers to be don’t want him to be here - then you have some who are here but I’m not sure REALLY want to be.

I’m pretty thick skinned and cynical with it as regards players and their loyalties - but I don’t forget how Chalobah reacted in the game where he scored his first goal. A solid citizen, never a superstar but you need those solid lads in amongst a group. 
 

A team full of Chalobah’s won’t win you the league, but will stand you in good stead through thick and thin - a team full of flaky ***** will get you right up you know where creek when the going gets tough and I think we might just be losing our identity as a club under this ownership.

[Mark Kelly]

He may not be the greatest player the world has ever seen (otherwise he'd be at Liverpool natch) but I do like Trevoh. 

I hope he stays an earns his place back. 

 

[Bison]

3 hours ago, chara said:

No agenda,,just a genuine question.... on what grounds do you present the above conclusion ?

Not picking a fight just really interested to read justification,,,, I really don't know if you are right or wrong and I don't have the in-depth sources of information over here.

The squad is badly constructed, meritocracy simply does not exist, the people making decisions are incompetent and completely out of their depth. We have never seen this level of self-sabotage before.

[Sleeping Dave]

3 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

Yeah, much easier to draw conclusions when we don't consider that there's loads we don't know.

It is really bloody obvious we want to sell Chalobah. What we don't know is what he wants. That's what I said.

But we do, he has been offered for a few windows now and all the reports are clear - he wants to stay and fight for his place in the squad. 

I think that if the club proceeds in selling both Chalobah and Gallagher this window we will see a massive blowback from a large portion of our fans. Rightly so I might add. 

[chara]

Difficult subject with Trev.. his limitations and plus attributes well documented here...in different circumstances not a hill to die on...I would not be too long term bothered if he went nor upset if he stayed,,, better for his future to leave now at 25 (?)  than basically remain a good squad player until too late to establish himself elsewhere. 

A good pure football decision all round but unfortunately we seem to be getting the impression that is not the reasoning behind the case,

Rather he stayed than other more or less par players but we live under a strange ruling group,

[Chelsea_Matt]

25 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

But we do, he has been offered for a few windows now and all the reports are clear - he wants to stay and fight for his place in the squad. 

I think that if the club proceeds in selling both Chalobah and Gallagher this window we will see a massive blowback from a large portion of our fans. Rightly so I might add. 

I love Trev and Conor to bits. Damn good players and proper Chels imo. I could *just* about tolerate selling Trev but not Conor or both.

In the interests of fairness though, with Conor’s deal running down, we don’t know if he’s been offered a deal or what money he wants or even if he wants to stay. 

As I’ve said before it’s easy to blame “the club” - and I’ve been very critical of them, but it isn’t necessarily their “fault” if a popular player leaves. 💯🫡💀👀

[ChelseaJambo]

2 hours ago, east lower said:

I was being generous of heart when say he hasn’t proved himself yet - he won’t, because he’s limited in the extreme and should have been sold at least 7 months ago. All the loan to our near neighbours did, was lessen his value further.

 

Still not really clear on why that would make it worth taking a proven player on a jaunt though? What do they and the club get out of doing so?

[chara]

9 minutes ago, ChelseaJambo said:

 

Still not really clear on why that would make it worth taking a proven player on a jaunt though? What do they and the club get out of doing so?

See my comments about attending a tour game over here....there are goodness knows how many real dyed in the wool long term Chelsea fans out here who want to see established and "name"players in the flesh rather than on TV and are being/will be fobbed off I suspect with watching sides in Chelsea shirts rather than sides with the realistic members  of the first team we will see come the season.

Not surprising seeing how the High Ups appear to view the fans.

[xceleryx]

12 hours ago, east lower said:

What’s Broja going to do? Metamorphosise into Haaland! Show potential buyers how awful a footballer he is, to diminish his value even more than he’s done already! I’d be doing all I could do to get him fit and stay off the pitch in any game. 

I've made it known I don't rate Broja either, but it's not hard to identify why Broja was selected for tour and Chalobah wasn't - positional depth.

We've got sufficient options at CB, which is where Chalobah largely plays. While we're short of strikers to take, more so with Jackson currently out injured for a few weeks. 

[east lower]

9 hours ago, ChelseaJambo said:

 

Still not really clear on why that would make it worth taking a proven player on a jaunt though? What do they and the club get out of doing so?

What’s the point in taking someone who doesn’t have the ability to contribute in any meaningful way, apart from as a strategic static obstacle. His attitude was one of the reasons Southampton sent him back off loan, how’s that going to improve as evidence suggests it hasn’t. 

1 hour ago, xceleryx said:

I've made it known I don't rate Broja either, but it's not hard to identify why Broja was selected for tour and Chalobah wasn't - positional depth.

We've got sufficient options at CB, which is where Chalobah largely plays. While we're short of strikers to take, more so with Jackson currently out injured for a few weeks. 

See above, to follow your rationale better to take DD Fofana than him (Broja) but they’ve left him at home too.

It’s pretty obvious why they’ve done it. Others may be comfortable with it, I’m not - I come from a mindset that you treat people with the respect they have earned and Chalobah deserves more.

Edited July 24 by east lower

[Sleeping Dave]

32 minutes ago, east lower said:

What’s the point in taking someone who doesn’t have the ability to contribute in any meaningful way, apart from as a strategic static obstacle. His attitude was one of the reasons Southampton sent him back off loan, how’s that going to improve as evidence suggests it hasn’t. 

See above, to follow your rationale better to take DD Fofana than him (Broja) but they’ve left him at home too.

It’s pretty obvious why they’ve done it. Others may be comfortable with it, I’m not - I come from a mindset that you treat people with the respect they have earned and Chalobah deserves more.

This ownership is killing us as a club. The fans recognise it and there is now fans who are furious. 

You can spot it a mile away, they don’t care one bit about club culture and loyalty. Fill the squad with the other end of the spectra and you’ll see where that gets you. They’ll find out soon enough. 

With any luck they’ll get bored soon and go back to building American franchises. Treating an English club that’s existed 120 years under the same name and ground as some plastic franchise that’s changed name, city and ground 20+ times won’t cut it here. They lack the basic understanding of football in England and what it means to the fans. Plus they have no class whatsoever. 

[ChelseaJambo]

10 hours ago, chara said:

See my comments about attending a tour game over here....there are goodness knows how many real dyed in the wool long term Chelsea fans out here who want to see established and "name"players in the flesh rather than on TV and are being/will be fobbed off I suspect with watching sides in Chelsea shirts rather than sides with the realistic members  of the first team we will see come the season.

Not surprising seeing how the High Ups appear to view the fans.

 

They're kickabouts; anyone getting upset about not seeing Trevoh Chalobah or others shuffle about at half pace for 30 mins isn't something the club should be worrying about. It's not reflective of how the club view the fans imo. The purpose is monetisation via commercial deals in the states, pretending it's anything else (as below too) is disingenuous imo.

I'm the harshest critic of the current sham of directors and owners, but the tour of the States is ridiculous reflection of where the game is headed.

I don't get to see Hearts much these days due to giving up my season ticket, but I sure as heck wasn't up there last week to watch a knockabout Vs Tottenham, and if I were, I'd be know I'd be watching fringe players, new players, a raft of subs and a game played at 50%.

There's been much talk on the Hearts forum over the years about fans Vs supporters. I've now lapsed into the fan space, but as long as clubs are looking after the supporters, they're all good in my book (I appreciate we're (Chelsea) failing in this space too currently). As soon as players are carted around the world to pander to people who have a 'jersey', then the game is up the pole.

1 hour ago, east lower said:

What’s the point in taking someone who doesn’t have the ability to contribute in any meaningful way, apart from as a strategic static obstacle. His attitude was one of the reasons Southampton sent him back off loan, how’s that going to improve as evidence suggests it hasn’t. 

See above, to follow your rationale better to take DD Fofana than him (Broja) but they’ve left him at home too.

My rationale? It was you who introduced it. I think the entire tour is pointless, I wouldn't have any of them there. I was just commenting that I didn't think the logic made any sense. If the purpose is to assess players (it isn't imo, but seemed to be the line you were taking given the comparison) then I wouldn't be taking a guy who I know is decent and professional.

 

1 hour ago, east lower said:

It’s pretty obvious why they’ve done it. Others may be comfortable with it, I’m not - I come from a mindset that you treat people with the respect they have earned and Chalobah deserves more.

 

Edited July 24 by ChelseaJambo

[east lower]

 

30 minutes ago, ChelseaJambo said:

My rationale? 

 

 

That was in reference to @xceleryx post not yours. But I agree that these far-flung tours are not best suited to the teams pre-season preparations. However, they perform the task for marketing and revenue purposes - so are here to stay.

 

[ROTG]

2 hours ago, xceleryx said:

I've made it known I don't rate Broja either, but it's not hard to identify why Broja was selected for tour and Chalobah wasn't - positional depth.

We've got sufficient options at CB, which is where Chalobah largely plays. While we're short of strikers to take, more so with Jackson currently out injured for a few weeks. 

You made it very clear you don’t rate any player promoted from the academy.

where your gonads, turn the ignore button off 

[ROTG]

9 minutes ago, east lower said:

 

That was in reference to @xceleryx post not yours. But I agree that these far-flung tours are not best suited to the teams pre-season preparations. However, they perform the task for marketing and revenue purposes - so are here to stay.

 

Far flung or close to home,  doubt it would make any difference in the team’s performance. The yes man is going to do exactly what dumber and dumber instruct him to do. 
 

suspect that will include team selections 

Edited July 24 by ROTG

[east lower]

1 hour ago, ROTG said:

Far flung or close to home,  doubt it would make any difference in the team’s performance. The yes man is going to do exactly what dumber and dumber instruct him to do. 
 

suspect that will include team selections 

I will reserve judgement on the new coach until I see what he does with the team in real competitions. 

If he learns his best side, that best side performing well and winning 2 games out of every three then he's doing OK. If we see the shoe-horning of certain players into the team and us struggling then I suspect your assertions will have basis.

The signs indicate that the two directors want their own people in positions of influence,  whether they can influence outcomes is the multi-million pound question  Said it before, a healthy business needs people to challenge the status-quo. Not simply to challenge for challenge sake, but if they see anything that they believe is wrong/can be improved on, whatever the consequence of that being improved they are listened to with an open mind.

Edited July 24 by east lower

[xceleryx]

3 hours ago, east lower said:

See above, to follow your rationale better to take DD Fofana than him (Broja) but they’ve left him at home too.

It’s pretty obvious why they’ve done it. Others may be comfortable with it, I’m not - I come from a mindset that you treat people with the respect they have earned and Chalobah deserves more.

Maybe the rationale behind not taking DD Fofana is because there's a move lined up that'll happen over the tour period? Obviously we aren't privy to the finer details behind the scenes that influence some of these choices.

Maybe it's also part of putting Broja back in the shop window, considering he missed the back end of the season with injury and this allows teams to see just where he's at again. 

Either way, we've got more CB options than that at CF, so dropping a defender for a striker isn't that wild of a selection decision. 

[Ham]

16 hours ago, Bison said:

The squad is badly constructed, meritocracy simply does not exist, the people making decisions are incompetent and completely out of their depth. We have never seen this level of self-sabotage before.

What's wrong with the squad? 

4 hours ago, ROTG said:

You made it very clear you don’t rate any player promoted from the academy.

where your gonads, turn the ignore button off 

It's pointless you keep goading him to take you off ignore if he's ignoring you.