Chelsea owners and board

[east lower]

9 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

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. 

See my post below, they appointed people who made a mid-table PL club, but made money. 

The owner's are quoted as saying that's the model they're trying to follow. 

You want to be the best,  appoint the best. That's been the way in top level football for donkeys years, with the occasional breakthrough, and they don't last long because if you get an exceptional talent emerge, the best gobble them up. 

We gobbled up Maresca and we've no real idea how that's going to end up. We're playing a game of chance already but sitting in the lower percentiles of success or not. Others play the same game but they're playing at the higher end of that percentile scale. The latter comes with a higher price, but that old adage of buy cheap, buy twice/thrice couldn’t be more appropriate. 

Even when they've have thrown large transfer money at individuals, say £60m+ we are still waiting to see if they did it right. Fernandez will never fit, Mudryk??, Fofana ??, Caicedo - bedt of the lot but that's a low bar to judge him against. 

Edited September 7 by east lower

[east lower]

24 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

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. 

What I dislike is what they've done, how they've done it and what it's turning us into.

They got the same level of patience and optimism as every other owner of our football club did/has. Actions speak louder than words and all that. 

The Glaziers spent plenty of money, just like Clearlake have done, and please don't think it's for any different reason than the Glaziers did - Namely personal gain.

There's no guarantees, but there are higher likelihoods of success. But they're even ballsing those ones up, as well.

I understand that you're not UK based, so you are probably going to have to take my word on this but you go into the ground and listen to the STH's, the pubs after games - the majority have turned. 

But I do agree, you can't please all the people all the time.  There were people that used to moan about Roman, wonder how they're feeling now?

Edited September 7 by east lower

[xceleryx]

4 minutes ago, east lower said:

See my post below, they appointed people who made a mid-table PL club, but made money. 

The owner's are quoted as saying that's the model they're trying to follow. 

You want to be the best,  appoint the best. That's been the way in top level football for donkeys years, with the occasional breakthrough, and they don't last long because if you get an exceptional talent emerge, the best gobble them up. 

We gobbled up Maresca and we've no real idea how that's going to end up. We're playing a game of chance already but sitting in the lower percentiles of success or not. Others play the same game but they're playing at the higher end of that percentile scale.

Yet, other good clubs also appoint people who've made their names at lower tier clubs- or haven't even had prior experience. So, what gives exactly? I can't help but feel there's two very different measuring sticks being used.

"You want to be the best, appoint the best", is such a stale and narrow way of looking and approaching the situation though. Yeah, great in theory but in most cases also entirely impractical in the real world unless you're already dominating at the pinnacle. 

We could've spent just as much as we have done on established talent to try and compete now. You know,  big names, on big wages. There's no certainty such an approach ends up any more successful either, then in another 12, 24 or 36 months you're back to square one trying to dig oneself out of a self made hole of high under-performing high earners (Man Utd being a good current example). 

Not going to say we've not gone backwards in some regard, we have. But we also look a lot more promising in certain areas, where should natural progression continue leave us in a strong position to make a couple of key signings that really lift us to another level. And heck, if it doesn't work, we're at least not entirely in the shitter should a pivot be made. 

[xceleryx]

6 minutes ago, east lower said:

What I dislike is what they've done, how they've done it and what it's turning us into.

They got the same level of patience and optimism as every other owner of our football club did/has. Actions speak louder than words and all that. 

The Glaziers spent plenty of money, just like Clearlake have done, and please don't think it's for any different reason than the Glaziers did - Namely personal gain.

There's no guarantees, but there are higher likelihoods of success. But they're even ballsing those ones up, as well.

I understand that you're not UK based, so you are probably going to have to take my word on this but you go into the ground and listen to the STH's, the pubs after games - the majority have turned. 

But I do agree, you can't please all the people all the time.  There were people that used to moan about Roman, wonder how they're feeling now?

That's part in part how football has simply become, Chelsea aren't the only team impacted by these sorts of ownership groups either. 

I concur, actions do speak louder than words. At the same time, it's not quite as black and white as that either. I'm sure you'd be content with going backwards for 2-3 years if it meant such a transitional period ended with us being a perennial challenger yet again. Then again, maybe that wouldn't fly with you either, idk? 

Yeah, look I can't speak from a match going/UK based perspective. What I can do is read the thoughts and opinions those in such a privileged position share on places like this, and there's certainly a split. 

Roman wasn't all that and a bag of potato chips either at times, like most owners in reality. While I'd still prefer to have him here, and just having that sort of single owner model, money has changed the game and landscape massively over the last 20 years or so that's unlikely to be seen again at a club of our statue. 

End of the day I liked and disliked things under Roman, just as I do under the current lot, as I did under Bates and most likely whoever goes on to potentially own the club in the future. 

[east lower]

21 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

Yet, other good clubs also appoint people who've made their names at lower tier clubs- or haven't even had prior experience. So, what gives exactly? I can't help but feel there's two very different measuring sticks being used.

"You want to be the best, appoint the best", is such a stale and narrow way of looking and approaching the situation though. Yeah, great in theory but in most cases also entirely impractical in the real world unless you're already dominating at the pinnacle. 

We could've spent just as much as we have done on established talent to try and compete now. You know,  big names, on big wages. There's no certainty such an approach ends up any more successful either, then in another 12, 24 or 36 months you're back to square one trying to dig oneself out of a self made hole of high under-performing high earners (Man Utd being a good current example). 

Not going to say we've not gone backwards in some regard, we have. But we also look a lot more promising in certain areas, where should natural progression continue leave us in a strong position to make a couple of key signings that really lift us to another level. And heck, if it doesn't work, we're at least not entirely in the shitter should a pivot be made. 

First paragraph - Success on the pitch is the measure. You might have the foresight and luck with a Xabi Alonso type appointment,  but even that coincided with a Munich downgrade or in their terms a crisis. No difference in how I measure our success, it's on the pitch. Get that right and if you're a decent businessman/woman the rest can follow I.e. sustainability and profit.

Second paragraph  - There's a whole headhunting industry out there, that will tell you differently.

Third paragraph - Tell that to Man City, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich (for the last 20 years, except last season). 

Last paragraph  - Far less space would be used saying what they've got right as opposed to what they've got wrong. If we don't change soon then ruination will be a closer reality. 

Edit: Just seen your last post. I can cope with a 'forming, norming & storming' process, as long as you see actual progress. We're back beyond of where we were when they took over and every season start again. They have been an unmitigated disaster. Where we might agree is that the single-owner club being successful might be a rarity now, but if you look at Man City and scratch below the surface that's what they are. It's also true that they used a model of getting the best and supporting them with with what they wanted and needed. In my opinion Arsenal may be on their way there, I hope not but it's looking a distinct possibility. 

 

 

Edited September 7 by east lower

[RDCW]

2 hours 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. 

Boehly is already in bed with Hansjorg Wyss and Mark Walter. He wouldn't find it particularly difficult to put together a new consortium. I would prefer a sports focused consortium to an entity like Clearlake, which is purely interested in driving investor profit. Running a sports business is entirely different from an investment fund; the risk of asset stripping is far greater with the latter.

[ROTG]

2 hours ago, east lower said:

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.

The biggest concern for me is what would be sold in any deal?

BlueCo or the subsidiary Chelsea FC

Thank heavens for CPO shares

[Blue Moon]

Perhaps CPO should buy the club 

[Bison]

3 hours 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. 

Firstly, someone with prior experience in the role.

The club initially pursued Michael Edwards, but he declined for personal reasons, which is fair enough and obviously not the fault of the ownership group. However, what is their fault is shifting from pursuing a credible candidate with big-club experience to over-promoting two individuals from a much lower level.

You simply cannot entrust the future of a club the size of Chelsea to people like that. After all the money spent, no one can look at the state of our squad and the manager we have and seriously claim that good work has been done. And now it turns out the ownership are fighting amongst themselves.

[east lower]

5 minutes ago, ROTG said:

The biggest concern for me is what would be sold in any deal?

BlueCo or the subsidiary Chelsea FC

Thank heavens for CPO shares

A real concern, that's true. 

They've already been seen to be shuffling the company silver from one drawer to another, the devil will be in the detail which would have to declared at a point within a sale process. 

In a parallel universe where these types of investors have morals and and a sense of 'We made a pig's ear of that, so we'll stand the loss ' then ignore wouldn’t matter. But meanwhile in the real world, I can't see them realising what they said and have paid-out for it now. 

However, I don't think they have the ability to get us back to a successful football club again and will ruin us eventually anyway.  So better it happens sooner, rather than later.

[CarefreeMuratcan]

I vote Todd. It's the other lot that are the problem. 

[McCreadie]

I don’t see any way that TB will end up buying Clearlake out. They have publically said they are not interested in selling and hold 2/3 of the shares.

[Bison]

Now it's Boehly's turn to brief the journos. 

[Bigpokey24]

2 hours ago, CarefreeMuratcan said:

I vote Todd. It's the other lot that are the problem. 

i am in your corner as well 

[boratsbrother]

1 hour ago, McCreadie said:

I don’t see any way that TB will end up buying Clearlake out. They have publically said they are not interested in selling and hold 2/3 of the shares.

Money talks and talks every loudly to those at Clearlake! If TB can put together a consortium which offers money back or better, then that lot will take it and run faster than they can say god bless America.

[thevelourfog]

7 hours 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 a point you haven't seemed to consider ... We are almost guaranteed to have worse owners next precisely because of what this ownership have done to the club. They've damaged the footballing operation, they've damaged the commercial operation, they've damaged the brand, and they've started moving around assets that used to be one whole. The buyer's market will not be the same sort of people who wanted to buy Abramovich's Chelsea. 

[Sabrina F.]

It would be interesting to know how Boehly plans to raise funds. I think the most likely is through Mark Walter and Guggenheim, they've navigated a messy takeover from McCourt with the Dodgers, so at least when they set their sights on something, they're not easily scared.

However, if Boehly wanted his vision in 2022, he wouldn't be a minority owner with a PE firm that doesn't quite align with, let's say, the Dodgers model, and clearly Guggenheim wasn't invested in Chelsea, maybe because they're more risk averse than a PE like Clearlake. After all, we all know football doesn't have a classically functional business model, that you lose money more than you win money, that the long term media landscape isn't exactly promising even with the sport's global appeal and TV rights peaking, that regulations are mostly a load of accounting BS, some of them not even compatible with real world laws and so on.

So, is he briefing to truly buy out Clearlake, in that case, he needs Guggenheim to buy in (I doubt Saudi or Arab money would interested, new money prefers clean slate clubs).

Or is he briefing to send signals to unhappy Clearlake investors, to provoke change or oust some decision makers. After all, it is his personal investment as well.

I think it's clear no one in the finance side of the club (that means anyone involved with shares, or investors) is happy behind the scenes and that these past two years have been a disaster (and the next one doesn't look too good because we've changed some of the few things that were starting to work by May 2024), that can no longer be denied and we can no longer pretend this is a process, a 10 year plan etc etc. This wasn't supposed to go this bad, and we know why it's gone wrong, everyone in football knows.

Interesting 8 to 12 months ahead. CL football & sponsorships are what makes us afloat (and worth keeping even in a comatose state for Clearlake investors) or sink The Project for good. 

If I'm interested in buying Chelsea and I think the club is failing, I'd probably wait it out as the club fails furthermore (after all, most industry people believe our window was horrific) and buy it on the cheap.

[Max Fowler]

I don’t want to rub it in, but there are certain fans and certain posters on here who have been effectively arguing, “this was all part of the new owners’ plan” this whole time, any time things shit seemed to be hitting the fan. 

I therefore can’t help feeling a bit of smugness at this news, or was this all part of Todd and Clearlake’s grand master project too? Y3 Q1: The Great Falling Out

[Mark Kelly]

54 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I don’t want to rub it in, but there are certain fans and certain posters on here who have been effectively arguing, “this was all part of the new owners’ plan” this whole time, any time things shit seemed to be hitting the fan. 

I therefore can’t help feeling a bit of smugness at this news, or was this all part of Todd and Clearlake’s grand master project too? Y3 Q1: The Great Falling Out

Sorry Max , I thought "smug" was your default setting . 

[RDCW]

25 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Sorry Max , I thought "smug" was your default setting . 

Nah! Henny Penny is the default setting 😅

[Max Fowler]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

Sorry Max , I thought "smug" was your default setting . 

I’ll take the nickname smug genius if you take deluded legend, mk 😜

[Leo]

Wow, who'd have thought it. Too many cooks spoil the broth. No wonder it's been a mess and it shows on the pitch. 

[xceleryx]

15 hours ago, Bison said:

Firstly, someone with prior experience in the role.

The club initially pursued Michael Edwards, but he declined for personal reasons, which is fair enough and obviously not the fault of the ownership group. However, what is their fault is shifting from pursuing a credible candidate with big-club experience to over-promoting two individuals from a much lower level.

You simply cannot entrust the future of a club the size of Chelsea to people like that. After all the money spent, no one can look at the state of our squad and the manager we have and seriously claim that good work has been done. And now it turns out the ownership are fighting amongst themselves.

Prior experience is fair, but what constitutes as prior experience exactly? I mean, Stewart was SD at RB Salzburg for a year, so technically has experience. As you then go on to mention a credible candidate with "big-club" experience. So, is that the market? A SD who has managed at a so called big-club? 

This is where I see the disconnect, as if the above is the sort of perimeters required then we'd be looking at an exceptionally shallow pool of candidates. While not entirely impossible, I would say it's head in the clouds stuff thinking we'd be able to prize away a proven SD from another big/elite club. 

When you gander at the Sporting Directors around the league few really have the sort of background you're asking for. Edu had no prior experience before getting the job at Arsenal. Monchi cut his teeth in the role at Sevilla on the back of no prior experience, had a fairly failed stint at Roma, returned to Sevilla and then landed at Villa. Johan Lange holds the role at Tottenham after joining from Villa, but his background prior was mainly in a management capacity. Brighton replaced Winstanley with David Weir, who again had a background primarily in management until becoming their Technical Assistant prior to promotion. Liverpool have Richard Hughes who had been a Technical Director at Bournemouth for 10 years. Even someone like Dan Ashworth, who is now at Man Utd, started out as an Academy manager before taking up a Sporting Director role at WBA. Eventually landing with the English NT and then Brighton and his brief spell at Newcastle. 

Hell, even Txiki Begiristain landed his Sporting role at Barcelona on the back of zero experience, before moving across to Man City. 

The point is that the experience being asked of isn't necessarily a prerequisite, with other big/bigger clubs comfortable hiring these sorts of people for such a role. Other than hiring two individuals for a co-op of the role itself, we've not really done anything drastically different to what a lot of other clubs do. 

Performing in the role is another thing and can certainly be questioned, but that's probably a different discussion. 

Edited September 8 by xceleryx

[Floyd25]

21 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Roman wasn't all that and a bag of potato chips either at times, like most owners in reality. While I'd still prefer to have him here, and just having that sort of single owner model, money has changed the game and landscape massively over the last 20 years or so that's unlikely to be seen again at a club of our statue. 

End of the day I liked and disliked things under Roman, just as I do under the current lot, as I did under Bates and most likely whoever goes on to potentially own the club in the future. 

He was the greatest owner we could’ve wished for at the time, he changed the face of this club and gave us success that we’d all thought was a pipe dream. Whoever replaced him was always going to be fighting an uphill battle. I don’t see anything particularly likeable about the current ownership though, so far it’s been nothing but a failure hasn’t it? The fallout between them was always going to happen with the way things have been going. 

Edited September 8 by Floyd25

[Michael Tucker]

4 minutes ago, Floyd25 said:

He was the greatest owner we could’ve wished for at the time, he changed the face of this club and gave us success that we’d all thought was a pipe dream. 

This. In Roman we trust(ed).