Chelsea owners and board

[Bison]

9 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

We're through the looking glass if we start congratulating the owners on holding out for a deal they've made it impossible for us to get.

Quoting this for emphasis. 

[Bison]

Cole Palmer will keep getting a pay rise until his demands can't be met and he will be sold. 

Meanwhile the likes of Mudryk will be here until 2032 because nobody else will pay him his current salary. 

[Gurj SS]

I haven't been on here for a couple of months, ended up in hospital with pancreatitis and what started off as 3 days ended up as 3 months. In between pain and recovery I've managed to stay up to date with our club's decisions over the transfer window as much as possible, I've got to say the decision making regarding Chalobah and Gallagher has been nothing short of disgraceful; it's almost as if anyone/anything connected to Roman's time must and will go, regardless of if it has a positive or negative impact. I've no doubt if James wasn't a club captain he would also have been shown the door.

It seems like nobody at the club understands football, they seem to think the goalkeeper position is like any other outfiield position and having 5 goalkeepers is a normal thing.

I like the Jorgesen and Neto signings, the rest of them we'll have to wait and see because there's no clear indication that they're an upgrade in any way. What worries me is we're going into another season with so many players who are at the age where they need to be playing as much as possible to reach their full potential, and our defence is nowhere near the quality we need it to be; that's another position which seems to have everyone at the club confused, our current set of centrebacks are just not good enough yet they decide to sell the only one who looked decent.

At the moment it seems like our club is being used as a PR stunt of some sort, almost as if those who have invested in us will become more famous and get more personal wealth, then when the time is right the consortium will cut the club loose; surely none of them are this bad at business decisions and must be doing all this for a hidden agenda of some sort. At the moment Jorgesen, James, Gusto, Chilly, Cucu, Caicedo, Enzo, Palmer, and Sterling, are the only players who I can look at and think if we were playing CL football that we wouldn't need to think about upgrading them; I'm not saying the rest aren't good enough but that there would be question marks over if they can step up to make us serious contenders to be able to fight for all silverware at the same time, the owners are yet to give us the one thing we needed from them on day one, stability.

[Ham]

1 minute ago, Gurj SS said:

I haven't been on here for a couple of months, ended up in hospital with pancreatitis and what started off as 3 days ended up as 3 months. In between pain and recovery I've managed to stay up to date with our club's decisions over the transfer window as much as possible, I've got to say the decision making regarding Chalobah and Gallagher has been nothing short of disgraceful; it's almost as if anyone/anything connected to Roman's time must and will go, regardless of if it has a positive or negative impact. I've no doubt if James wasn't a club captain he would also have been shown the door.

It seems like nobody at the club understands football, they seem to think the goalkeeper position is like any other outfiield position and having 5 goalkeepers is a normal thing.

I like the Jorgesen and Neto signings, the rest of them we'll have to wait and see because there's no clear indication that they're an upgrade in any way. What worries me is we're going into another season with so many players who are at the age where they need to be playing as much as possible to reach their full potential, and our defence is nowhere near the quality we need it to be; that's another position which seems to have everyone at the club confused, our current set of centrebacks are just not good enough yet they decide to sell the only one who looked decent.

At the moment it seems like our club is being used as a PR stunt of some sort, almost as if those who have invested in us will become more famous and get more personal wealth, then when the time is right the consortium will cut the club loose; surely none of them are this bad at business decisions and must be doing all this for a hidden agenda of some sort. At the moment Jorgesen, James, Gusto, Chilly, Cucu, Caicedo, Enzo, Palmer, and Sterling, are the only players who I can look at and think if we were playing CL football that we wouldn't need to think about upgrading them; I'm not saying the rest aren't good enough but that there would be question marks over if they can step up to make us serious contenders to be able to fight for all silverware at the same time, the owners are yet to give us the one thing we needed from them on day one, stability.

Great to have you back.  Hope you're feeling much better.

[VA96]

PL chief executive Richard Masters on the Chelsea investigation: "Obviously what we're talking about is something historic; it's complicated where we have the club talking to us about things that happened under previous ownership. All I can say is that the investigation and discussions are reaching a conclusion, but until that happens, I can't say what's going to happen next."

 

[chara]

@Gurj SS,,sorry to hear of your health issues but glad to have you back ,

[RDCW]

2 hours ago, Gurj SS said:

I haven't been on here for a couple of months, ended up in hospital with pancreatitis and what started off as 3 days ended up as 3 months. In between pain and recovery I've managed to stay up to date with our club's decisions over the transfer window as much as possible, I've got to say the decision making regarding Chalobah and Gallagher has been nothing short of disgraceful; it's almost as if anyone/anything connected to Roman's time must and will go, regardless of if it has a positive or negative impact. I've no doubt if James wasn't a club captain he would also have been shown the door.

It seems like nobody at the club understands football, they seem to think the goalkeeper position is like any other outfiield position and having 5 goalkeepers is a normal thing.

I like the Jorgesen and Neto signings, the rest of them we'll have to wait and see because there's no clear indication that they're an upgrade in any way. What worries me is we're going into another season with so many players who are at the age where they need to be playing as much as possible to reach their full potential, and our defence is nowhere near the quality we need it to be; that's another position which seems to have everyone at the club confused, our current set of centrebacks are just not good enough yet they decide to sell the only one who looked decent.

At the moment it seems like our club is being used as a PR stunt of some sort, almost as if those who have invested in us will become more famous and get more personal wealth, then when the time is right the consortium will cut the club loose; surely none of them are this bad at business decisions and must be doing all this for a hidden agenda of some sort. At the moment Jorgesen, James, Gusto, Chilly, Cucu, Caicedo, Enzo, Palmer, and Sterling, are the only players who I can look at and think if we were playing CL football that we wouldn't need to think about upgrading them; I'm not saying the rest aren't good enough but that there would be question marks over if they can step up to make us serious contenders to be able to fight for all silverware at the same time, the owners are yet to give us the one thing we needed from them on day one, stability.

I hope you're on the road to recovery! Very painful.

[paulw66]

12 hours ago, Gurj SS said:

I haven't been on here for a couple of months, ended up in hospital with pancreatitis and what started off as 3 days ended up as 3 months.

Always puts stuff into perspective when we get angry at all things football.

Wishing you well and welcome back

[paulw66]

13 hours ago, Bison said:

Cole Palmer will keep getting a pay rise until his demands can't be met and he will be sold. 

Meanwhile the likes of Mudryk will be here until 2032 because nobody else will pay him his current salary. 

The most exciting player we have had since Hazard, and you turn him signing a contract extension into a negative. 

 

[Mark Kelly]

9 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

The most exciting player we have had since Hazard, and you turn him signing a contract extension into a negative. 

 

Incited to do so by an absolute dimwit nobody on Twitter no less.  

[Thiago97]

23 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

The most exciting player we have had since Hazard, and you turn him signing a contract extension into a negative. 

 

It’s not really a negative cos he does have a point in the bigger picture. It’s been one season and he is already in a multi year deal, it’s an unnecessary rise and extension now. 
If he struggles for form this season, I guarantee you there will be posters on here saying he is dialling in now he has massive money and new contract.

We could have done this mid season , if his form continued to be of a high standard, or next summer after two seasons of high performance.

Any drop off from Palmer this season and questions will be asked. Palmer drop off replaced by someone like Madueke displaying similar form to Palmer for this season, we then have Madueke looking for parity after one great season.  It’s a slightly extreme example, but it just highlights why it’s a bizarre decision to bump Palmer pay up after one great season when already in a multi year contract. If the multi year contracts are there to protect the asset, we don’t need to change that 1 year in. Surely that is somewhat counter intuitive. 

Edited August 14 by Thiago97

[Sleeping Dave]

4 hours ago, paulw66 said:

The most exciting player we have had since Hazard, and you turn him signing a contract extension into a negative. 

 

It’s not Palmer signing an extension that is brought up as a negative. It’s the strategy with long-term deals. Bison and Panja are both correct. This strategy sucks.

It made a little bit of sense when you could amortise the transfer fee over the length of the contract. Now you can only do so for five years anyway so the strategy doesn’t make sense any longer. This is not MBL. This is football and such long-term deals aren’t signed by anyone else for a reason. Massive risk for the club with very, very limited upside. 

[paulw66]

30 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

It’s not Palmer signing an extension that is brought up as a negative.

but that's the news story.

the benefit, in this example, is the value of the asset is protected.

makes more sense than handing a 26 year old a 5 or 6 year deal. 

[Gurj SS]

Regarding the Palmer pay rise slash extention. I don't mind giving players a pay rise when it's justified, however it does make these long term contracts useless; let's say someone like Madueke has a great season does it mean he gets a pay rise? Or if he has a multiple bad seasons does he just sit on his long term contract? We could end up with quite a few Bogarde situations if things  don't go our way with players who know they have it better here than elsewhere.

P.S: Thank you all for the well wishes, slowly getting there as each day goes by.

Edited August 14 by Gurj SS

[JaneB]

31 minutes ago, Gurj SS said:

Regarding the Palmer pay rise slash extention. I don't mind giving players a pay rise when it's justified, however it does make these long term contracts useless; let's say someone like Madueke has a great season does it mean he gets a pay rise? Or if he has a multiple bad seasons does he just sit on his long term contract? We could end up with quite a few Bogarde situations if things  don't go our way with players who know they have it better here than elsewhere.

P.S: Thank you all for the well wishes, slowly getting there as each day goes by.

Sorry to hear about your illness.

I had noticed that you hadn't been on here for a while and was hoping you would come back one day, so welcome back 🙂 

[thevelourfog]

On 14/08/2024 at 09:12, paulw66 said:

The most exciting player we have had since Hazard, and you turn him signing a contract extension into a negative. 

 

This is a bizarre reply. It isn't turning anything into a negative, it's demonstrating why the idea that long contracts protect the club any more than the standard length is a clear fallacy, a triumph of theory over practice. 

It seems to stick when someone is labelled as negative on here. I think because that labelling is easier than engaging with what is being said. 

[paulw66]

5 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

This is a bizarre reply. It isn't turning anything into a negative, it's demonstrating why the idea that long contracts protect the club any more than the standard length is a clear fallacy, a triumph of theory over practice. 

 

Why is that then? What if Palmer had turned down the contract, he'd still be tied here for a long time and you're not looking over your shoulder thinking he'll walk for nothing in 24 months (or whatever it is)

[thevelourfog]

On 12/08/2024 at 14:07, thevelourfog said:

...

Beaten to it, but the idea that it provides security is a nice theory that, imo, ignores reality. It's generally pretty easy to extend a player's contract when they're doing well, and generally easy for a player to force their way out years early if that's what they want. All a long deal does is tie you into a liability for longer than you know it's profitable to have it. I can't buy that securing low wages long term is a reason, either. If a player thinks their market value wage has increased, they'll agitate for it.  We've been successful enough to only see it from the purchasing side in recent decades, but that can quickly change.

In reality, no club really holds any more cards with a 7 year deal than they do a 5 year one. As with everything we're doing, it'd be fine in moderation but instead we're tying ourselves into these deals for literally every signing.

From the Pedro Neto thread the other day. If we're looking at this from a narrow business perspective, it really demonstrates huge flaws in the Clearlake approach. We haven't even managed to wring one year of low wages out of a successful signing before feeling a need to up them, and rumours we'll be doing the same for Jackson. When will Gusto follow? 

All deserved for individual players, and no problem with it on that basis. But it is clear, good players will command consumerate wages no matter how much longer is on their deal, and bad players will cling to their career high wage.

It's brilliant to have Palmer here, but let's be honest, he had 6 or 7 years left on his deal anyway and literally none of us were worried about him leaving on a free so another year or two on top makes no actual difference to us as fans.

[Mark Kelly]

5 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

From the Pedro Neto thread the other day. If we're looking at this from a narrow business perspective, it really demonstrates huge flaws in the Clearlake approach. We haven't even managed to wring one year of low wages out of a successful signing before feeling a need to up them, and rumours we'll be doing the same for Jackson. When will Gusto follow? 

All deserved for individual players, and no problem with it on that basis. But it is clear, good players will command consumerate wages no matter how much longer is on their deal, and bad players will cling to their career high wage.

It's brilliant to have Palmer here, but let's be honest, he had 6 or 7 years left on his deal anyway and literally none of us were worried about him leaving on a free so another year or two on top makes no actual difference to us as fans.

I think whilst I understand where you're coming from its worth noting that an increase from £80K to £120K is still a world away from the reported £250K plus Sterling is "earning" ( I saw £325K online the other day too) 

[My Blood Is Blue]

Nice to see you back @Gurj SS, hope your recovery is and continues to go well.

[paulw66]

11 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think whilst I understand where you're coming from its worth noting that an increase from £80K to £120K is still a world away from the reported £250K plus Sterling is "earning" ( I saw £325K online the other day too) 

There was an article I read the other day saying when Roman left, the average wage was 200k a week. This is now down to 60k.

Most of the players (after the initial summer) are on long, incentive based contracts, with a lower base all the time we're not in the CL

[thevelourfog]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think whilst I understand where you're coming from its worth noting that an increase from £80K to £120K is still a world away from the reported £250K plus Sterling is "earning" ( I saw £325K online the other day too) 

Quite. But again, and I know you get this but it does seem worth reiterating the point, this is a comparison between two individual players. It is an analysis of trees rather than the woods. And the, idk, let's call it £150k a week we're still "saving" on market-rate wages for a Palmer are being spent how many times over on players who contribute next to nothing, and who we are going to find it incredibly hard to shift?

Signing players on low wages and increasing them as they perform, great idea. Signing, idk, 30-40 players on 6-8 year deals for the highest wages they as individuals are likely to ever earn ... Nope.

Edited August 15 by thevelourfog

[chara]

I'm still trying to show how Sport here has a different fan/owner/club  dynamic than in the real Football World and how that may/probably influences Todd and Co..

Here in Denver the Broncos are well followed and a solid NFL club..pay attention here now;

FOUNDED 1960 !!!!!!!,My first game at SB was OCTOBER 1961,,,,think about that,

All of us here are in the footsteps of The Faithful since when? 

How can there be any comparision ? Reflected in the "franchise" mind set just for a start.

And they say "We Ain't Got No "istory"..... sigh 

 

[Bison]

Ouch. 

[paulw66]

13 minutes ago, Bison said:

Ouch. 

Does anyone watch French football?

I wouldn't watch a Ligue 1 game, whoever is playing.