Chelsea owners and board

[thevelourfog]

I'm genuinely surprised Boehly is viewed any more favourably than Clearlake. Not sure why anyone thinks the outcome would be any different with either of them as the sole or majority shareholder, they operate in the exact same way. 

Would Boehly even have the money (or liquidity) to buy a 62% stake and continue to cover costs? I don't know, but feels a non-starter to me.

Depressingly, I am one of the posters who said this would take 2 or 3 years, max. Only rumblings, but it isn't good news for us.

[My Blood Is Blue]

9 minutes ago, east lower said:

Could you add ‘None of Them’ as an option? That’s where I’d be at.

I considered it, but I don’t think it’s a genuine option at this point and that debate has been had on here over and over for the last few months, so I think we know where votes would end up.

[My Blood Is Blue]

9 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

I'm genuinely surprised Boehly is viewed any more favourably than Clearlake. Not sure why anyone thinks the outcome would be any different with either of them as the sole or majority shareholder, they operate in the exact same way. 

Would Boehly even have the money (or liquidity) to buy a 62% stake and continue to cover costs? I don't know, but feels a non-starter to me.

Depressingly, I am one of the posters who said this would take 2 or 3 years, max. Only rumblings, but it isn't good news for us.

The reason I’m Team Todd is because he as an individual at least seems to have an understanding and experience of sports and the running of sports teams, admittedly the wrong kind of sports and I do believe he has a bit more passion for the on field stuff than Eghbali.

I’m not backing Todd because I believe he’s the owner we need, but I definitely don’t want the club to be wholly owned by an investment firm and so it’s the lesser of two evils to an extent.

[east lower]

21 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

I considered it, but I don’t think it’s a genuine option at this point and that debate has been had on here over and over for the last few months, so I think we know where votes would end up.

Understand the argument, but seems to me to be a case of do your want a kick in the nuts or a kick up the backside set of options, as opposed to do you want to be kicked or not? 👍
 

 

[Bison]

None of this tension would exist if they simply hired a sporting director who could have delivered a better project.

The failure to appoint a credible sporting director has led directly to the sporting failure we see now which has clearly impacted relationships, sponsors etc.

The fact Eghbali has aligned himself so closely with Winstanley and Stewart is a disaster for the club. The gross mismanagement of funds is simply unforgivable. 

[My Blood Is Blue]

7 minutes ago, east lower said:

Understand the argument, but seems to me to be a case of do your want a kick in the nuts or a kick up the backside set of options, as opposed to do you want to be kicked or not? 👍
 

 

May be so, but I think the poll you want is a different poll to the one we have at the moment. I’ve put the current one up in reaction to the news that our owners are (maybe) considering trying to buy each other out, so the poll is to see who people would prefer to ‘win’ in that situation.

The poll you’re talking about, I believe, is more to do with whether we want any of this lot in charge or not? That currently doesn’t feel like it’s an option, so I think that’s a different discussion and vote. I would imagine 99% of the votes in that would be for ‘someone else’. The risk there is, we’ve no idea who ‘someone else’ may even be… could end up being Mike Ashley!

[My Blood Is Blue]

6 minutes ago, Bison said:

None of this tension would exist if they simply hired a sporting director who could have delivered a better project.

The failure to appoint a credible sporting director has led directly to the sporting failure we see now which has clearly impacted relationships, sponsors etc.

The fact Eghbali has aligned himself so closely with Winstanley and Stewart is a disaster for the club. The gross mismanagement of funds is simply unforgivable. 

Yeah, I think you’re probably right. The two sporting directors are probably quite good at what they do and were good in previous roles, but from what we’ve seen I’m not convinced they’re good enough to not be reporting into somebody else within the club that knows what they’re doing!

The best person in a role does not always make that person the right person to lead others.

[thevelourfog]

48 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

The reason I’m Team Todd is because he as an individual at least seems to have an understanding and experience of sports and the running of sports teams, admittedly the wrong kind of sports and I do believe he has a bit more passion for the on field stuff than Eghbali.

I’m not backing Todd because I believe he’s the owner we need, but I definitely don’t want the club to be wholly owned by an investment firm and so it’s the lesser of two evils to an extent.

Makes sense. It's a "whoever wins, we lose" scenario for me because I see Boehly as little more than a one-man investment firm whose one-time sense of wonder at owning a football club seems, understandably tbf, long gone.

[east lower]

22 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

May be so, but I think the poll you want is a different poll to the one we have at the moment. I’ve put the current one up in reaction to the news that our owners are (maybe) considering trying to buy each other out, so the poll is to see who people would prefer to ‘win’ in that situation.

The poll you’re talking about, I believe, is more to do with whether we want any of this lot in charge or not? That currently doesn’t feel like it’s an option, so I think that’s a different discussion and vote. I would imagine 99% of the votes in that would be for ‘someone else’. The risk there is, we’ve no idea who ‘someone else’ may even be… could end up being Mike Ashley!

The latter hasn’t got that sort of money. 

There’ll be (and it will occur) very limited options with Russian and probably Chinese faced ownership being non-starters.

So, it will be another American set of investors or Emerati money, the latter being the more likely. There are some very wealthy Turks and Indian’s, but this far they’ve not ventured into top tier football investing, certainly in Britain.

 

 

[xceleryx]

43 minutes ago, Bison said:

None of this tension would exist if they simply hired a sporting director who could have delivered a better project.

The failure to appoint a credible sporting director has led directly to the sporting failure we see now which has clearly impacted relationships, sponsors etc.

The fact Eghbali has aligned himself so closely with Winstanley and Stewart is a disaster for the club. The gross mismanagement of funds is simply unforgivable. 

What constitutes (to you) as a "credible sporting director?"

Looking within the Premier League there's arguably only two or three names that fit into that bracket - Monchi (Villa), Begiristain (Man City), and maybe at a stretch you can also throw Edu (Arsenal) in there for the rebuilding job he's done.

The rest are all so so, with many having had some failed stints elsewhere or come from lesser background/roles. 

[xceleryx]

11 minutes ago, east lower said:

The latter hasn’t got that sort of money. 

There’ll be (and it will occur) very limited options with Russian and probably Chinese faced ownership being non-starters.

So, it will be another American set of investors or Emerati money, the latter being the more likely. There are some very wealthy Turks and Indian’s, but this far they’ve not ventured into top tier football investing, certainly in Britain.

And if we end up with worse investors/ownership? A genuine possibility that could occur. 

[Rob B]

3 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

What constitutes (to you) as a "credible sporting director?"

Looking within the Premier League there's arguably only two or three names that fit into that bracket - Monchi (Villa), Begiristain (Man City), and maybe at a stretch you can also throw Edu (Arsenal) in there for the rebuilding job he's done.

The rest are all so so, with many having had some failed stints elsewhere or come from lesser background/roles. 

Whilst I agree with your general point that the PL isn’t littered with stars, I think you’d have to include Dan Ashworth (done well with England, Brighton and Newcastle) and Michael Edwards (Liverpool) 

For what it’s worth though, I think our SD’s are probably reasonably competent, but my belief is they are working under the guidance they have been given.

For example, if they were given a brief this summer that said “go and spend £200m with the aim of improving the first XI and nothing else” I’m pretty certain they wouldn’t have signed Wiley, Anselmino, Guiu, Veiga etc. 

They’re employees at the end of the day…

[east lower]

1 minute ago, xceleryx said:

And if we end up with worse investors/ownership? A genuine possibility that could occur. 

Cause this lot have been such a raging success!

But, the real chance of some people in that will rid us of the f**kwittery that has been displayed and installed to date. A four window transfer policy, ok and how’s that working out. 

 

 

 

[east lower]

23 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

What constitutes (to you) as a "credible sporting director?"

Looking within the Premier League there's arguably only two or three names that fit into that bracket - Monchi (Villa), Begiristain (Man City), and maybe at a stretch you can also throw Edu (Arsenal) in there for the rebuilding job he's done.

The rest are all so so, with many having had some failed stints elsewhere or come from lesser background/roles. 

You’re right, the owners have made a massive mistake appointing who they did.

Edited September 7 by east lower

[thevelourfog]

46 minutes ago, east lower said:

The latter hasn’t got that sort of money. 

There’ll be (and it will occur) very limited options with Russian and probably Chinese faced ownership being non-starters.

So, it will be another American set of investors or Emerati money, the latter being the more likely. There are some very wealthy Turks and Indian’s, but this far they’ve not ventured into top tier football investing, certainly in Britain.

 

 

This is a really important point. I'd agree Clearlake would sell in a heartbeat with the right offer, even just a break-even(ish) one. But Boehly would have to get into bed with someone else for the money and American investment is most likely, so it really makes no difference. 

[east lower]

13 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

This is a really important point. I'd agree Clearlake would sell in a heartbeat with the right offer, even just a break-even(ish) one. But Boehly would have to get into bed with someone else for the money and American investment is most likely, so it really makes no difference. 

New owners for me, in the hope that they understand for financial success they need to put the football first and then use business acumen to make their money from what can follow success on the pitch. And that’s where this current lot have got it completely wrong.

But, assuming it is a one or another scenario,  doesn’t Boehly have history of excellent relationships with people in the Emerati?

[ROTG]

1 hour ago, Rob B said:

Whilst I agree with your general point that the PL isn’t littered with stars, I think you’d have to include Dan Ashworth (done well with England, Brighton and Newcastle) and Michael Edwards (Liverpool) 

For what it’s worth though, I think our SD’s are probably reasonably competent, but my belief is they are working under the guidance they have been given.

For example, if they were given a brief this summer that said “go and spend £200m with the aim of improving the first XI and nothing else” I’m pretty certain they wouldn’t have signed Wiley, Anselmino, Guiu, Veiga etc. 

They’re employees at the end of the day…

You are right they are employees who believe there own hype. However its obvious their previous employers target lists ran out during the 2023 transfer window, and now it down to good old fashioned data analysis and scouting, which is proving to be a tough ask.

Maybe the penny has dropped at the board level, that that the treatment of players over the summer brought unnecessary publicity to a company like Clearlake, along with realising the SD have put there eggs in one basket, in building a team is loaded with players associated with Joe Shields

Oh yes and 8 goalkeeper - How do you explain that?

[ROTG]

30 minutes ago, east lower said:

New owners for me, in the hope that they understand for financial success they need to put the football first and then use business acumen to make their money from what can follow success on the pitch. And that’s where this current lot have got it completely wrong.

But, assuming it is a one or another scenario,  doesn’t Boehly have history of excellent relationships with people in the Emerati?

Doubt anything will happen until next May and is dependent on the team hitting the magical 74-76 pts.

Unless the tactical genius make a complete pig ear of it and another interim needs to be recruited

trying to remember how many American owners Liverpool went through before they got it right 

[Lump Of Celery]

1 hour ago, Rob B said:

Whilst I agree with your general point that the PL isn’t littered with stars, I think you’d have to include Dan Ashworth (done well with England, Brighton and Newcastle) and Michael Edwards (Liverpool) 

For what it’s worth though, I think our SD’s are probably reasonably competent, but my belief is they are working under the guidance they have been given.

For example, if they were given a brief this summer that said “go and spend £200m with the aim of improving the first XI and nothing else” I’m pretty certain they wouldn’t have signed Wiley, Anselmino, Guiu, Veiga etc. 

They’re employees at the end of the day…

I was about to post this, particularly the bold bit. I also think they have realised it's best to toe the party line when some players are put to them for accounting reasons eg having to sell Gallagher and doing swaps for Felix and Kellyman. They will have seen what happens to anyone that shows dissent, like Tuchel, Poch, Neil Bath, and probably want to keep the jobs they were hired to do

[east lower]

6 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Doubt anything will happen until next May and is dependent on the team hitting the magical 74-76 pts.

Unless the tactical genius make a complete pig ear of it and another interim needs to be recruited

trying to remember how many American owners Liverpool went through before they got it right 

Hicks & Gillette only if I recall correctly? But watch this space over the next 18 month’s with them. They’ve extended the ground and are spending, let’s say frugally. 
 

Im not saying anything much will happen soon, but I’d say there might be some movement in the next 12 months, especially so if things don’t go down the route of CL qualification. What might save the owners from a commercial disaster this season is the Club World Cup revenues.

Edited September 7 by east lower

[xceleryx]

33 minutes ago, Rob B said:

Whilst I agree with your general point that the PL isn’t littered with stars, I think you’d have to include Dan Ashworth (done well with England, Brighton and Newcastle) and Michael Edwards (Liverpool) 

For what it’s worth though, I think our SD’s are probably reasonably competent, but my belief is they are working under the guidance they have been given.

For example, if they were given a brief this summer that said “go and spend £200m with the aim of improving the first XI and nothing else” I’m pretty certain they wouldn’t have signed Wiley, Anselmino, Guiu, Veiga etc. 

They’re employees at the end of the day…

Isn't Richard Hughes now at Liverpool?

But yeah, there's maybe a few other you could throw into the mix who've done well elsewhere, but the point was to more highlight that the majority of clubs appoint individuals who've come from lower league or lesser clubs with varied degrees of success.

[xceleryx]

1 hour ago, east lower said:

Cause this lot have been such a raging success!

But, the real chance of some people in that will rid us of the f**kwittery that has been displayed and installed to date. A four window transfer policy, ok and how’s that working out. 

Still haven't answered my question. 

Are you prepared for the genuine possibility that we end up with worse people in charge of the club? It's all well and good to shit on what we have now, rightly or wrongly is subjective and each their own, but we could also genuinely have it worse. I feel like this gets lost amongst the displeasure the current lot have generated. 

[xceleryx]

1 hour ago, east lower said:

You’re right, the owners have made a massive mistake appointing who they did.

You mean people that did well elsewhere, which is likely one of the criteria any potential replacement/s are likely to also have.

Not going to defend our Sporting Directors as if they've brilliant, but the idea that we just "hire someone competent" is such a quasi solution to kinda make when in reality few reputable top tier replacements are out there, much less viable, and aren't some bonafide guarantee. 

[east lower]

1 minute ago, xceleryx said:

Still haven't answered my question. 

Are you prepared for the genuine possibility that we end up with worse people in charge of the club? It's all well and good to shit on what we have now, rightly or wrongly is subjective and each their own, but we could also genuinely have it worse. I feel like this gets lost amongst the displeasure the current lot have generated. 

And without getting into a stand-off you haven't considered, or certainly stated the flip-side to your coin.

And to be fair I have, read through my posts - my position is very clear. 

We're well on the way to ruin with the current owners,  already using other assets to finance their mistakes/gross mismanagement. 

The reward outweighs the risk in terms of a change of ownership. 

They've appointed mediocrity and guess what? That's what we've become.

[xceleryx]

Just now, east lower said:

And without getting into a stand-off you haven't considered, or certainly stated the flip-side to your coin.

And to be fair I have, read through my posts - my position is very clear. 

We're well on the way to ruin with the current owners,  already using other assets to finance their mistakes/gross mismanagement. 

The reward outweighs the risk in terms of a change of ownership. 

They've appointed mediocrity and guess what? That's what we've become.

Yeah, you dislike virtually anything and everything about current ownership, the people they've hired, and those we sign.

It could be better, not going to disagree. It could also be A LOT worse. The reality for me lands somewhere in the middle.

I'd rather the current lot for example over The Glazers. 

Appointing "quality" doesn't provide any greater guarantees either, as we've seen in the past. Complaints and displeasure continue to be made. They'll never a true happiness and approval across everything no matter who owns us, who's our manager, who we sign, or who our sporting people are.