Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 2 minutes ago, Ham said: It's debatable whether a fully available and fully fit squad is good enough to compete for the EPL this season or next or whether top 4 should be our target. That's not debatable, Ham. Literally noone in world football thinks our squad is good enough to compete for the EPL this season (or wait... does Paul Merson still after Wolves?) Some think we are good enough for the CL places, but the majority think that we will only be good enough for the top 6 or 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 minute ago, Max Fowler said: It was close to competing with Man City and Liverpool. In fact we only fell off towards the end under Tuchel. Sure we needed new players and new investment, and I wouldn't have even been opposed to some of our current new players coming in, but to destroy it and start from scratch was suicide. The players you mentioned who wanted to leave could have been convinced to stay had we had a project which had valued experienced players, but we always wanted to cash in. No it wasn’t. We weren’t close to Man City and Liverpool over 38 league games So who would you have kept from that squad? How do you know they would have stayed? It’s your opinion they would, but you don’t know that they would have done. My opinion is that for Rudiger and Kovacic especially, they could sense the upheaval at the club and how that could impact performances on the pitch and knew at the age they were, it was the best time for them to move on and keep competing for trophies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 2 hours ago, Max Fowler said: I agree with that, but they are more optimistic about the setup than they have been over recent years at the height of Glazer protests. Of course they have a long way to go. I thought the Qataris bid originally when Clearlake won after RA? No - that was back in 2012, and it was a rumour. Might I suggest you do a little research before making such claims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 Any successful club in history has been successful by making incremental change. A few seasons ago, Real Madrid were seen as having a massively ageing squad going nowhere. But they still competed for major trophies as they slowly rebuilt. Now they have a much younger and competitive squad even as they have kept old heads around. Justifying ripping the entire band-aid off and starting from scratch is IMHO was so clearly (for the majority of football fans) completely unnecessary for Chelsea yet many on here seem to excuse the owners decision and rewrite history. Yes, we were in transition. That didn't mean we needed to throw out the baby with the bathwater 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 5 minutes ago, Blue Moon said: No - that was back in 2012, and it was a rumour. Might I suggest you do a little research before making such claims? Alright, I think I am misremembering - it was the Saudis! Saudi Media Group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 9 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: That's not debatable, Ham. Literally noone in world football thinks our squad is good enough to compete for the EPL this season (or wait... does Paul Merson still after Wolves?) Some think we are good enough for the CL places, but the majority think that we will only be good enough for the top 6 or 8. You're confusing your opinion with fact again. We don't know what this squad is capable of. That is a fact. 5 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: Any successful club in history has been successful by making incremental change. A few seasons ago, Real Madrid were seen as having a massively ageing squad going nowhere. But they still competed for major trophies as they slowly rebuilt. Now they have a much younger and competitive squad even as they have kept old heads around. Justifying ripping the entire band-aid off and starting from scratch is IMHO was so clearly (for the majority of football fans) completely unnecessary for Chelsea yet many on here seem to excuse the owners decision and rewrite history. Yes, we were in transition. That didn't mean we needed to throw out the baby with the bathwater Real Madrid didn't get sanctioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 6 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: Any successful club in history has been successful by making incremental change. A few seasons ago, Real Madrid were seen as having a massively ageing squad going nowhere. But they still competed for major trophies as they slowly rebuilt. Now they have a much younger and competitive squad even as they have kept old heads around. Justifying ripping the entire band-aid off and starting from scratch is IMHO was so clearly (for the majority of football fans) completely unnecessary for Chelsea yet many on here seem to excuse the owners decision and rewrite history. Yes, we were in transition. That didn't mean we needed to throw out the baby with the bathwater We’re Real Madrid also frozen as a business by the government and unable to discuss renewing contracts with players or begin working on transfers for the following season? The position we were in after the new owners came in was unique in so many ways, so to compare to other situations isn’t really fair. If they hadn’t cut the wage bill down in the way that they have, then I’m not sure we would have been a sustainable business/club for very long. Don’t forget Roman wrote off £1.5b in loans to the club when he sold, which suggests he was propping up the club by himself in many way, something the new owners weren’t prepared to do. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 8 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said: No it wasn’t. We weren’t close to Man City and Liverpool over 38 league games So who would you have kept from that squad? How do you know they would have stayed? It’s your opinion they would, but you don’t know that they would have done. My opinion is that for Rudiger and Kovacic especially, they could sense the upheaval at the club and how that could impact performances on the pitch and knew at the age they were, it was the best time for them to move on and keep competing for trophies. What’s the point in naming the players I would want to have kept if you are just gonna say well, they didn’t want to stay anyway? We’ve reached this conversational dead end before on this forum. There’s clearly a difference of opinion that cannot be bridged here. I believe I have a common sense opinion which is that we had a squad with many good players that was in transition and needed refreshing. We should’ve kept the best players from that squad and refreshed it season on season 3 to 5 new additions as well as investment in youth. If you think we need to rip the entire Band-Aid off, there’s really not much point in having this conversation. Because we’re never going to agree on that. But again, we agree on the fact that we were in transition and the squad needed refreshing. It just seems absolutely common sense to me that you don’t transition functionally by moving as quickly as we did. And so it is played out, we have been completely dysfunctional. You disagree, Sam. That’s absolutely fine. 🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 1 minute ago, My Blood Is Blue said: We’re Real Madrid also frozen as a business by the government and unable to discuss renewing contracts with players or begin working on transfers for the following season? The position we were in after the new owners came in was unique in so many ways, so to compare to other situations isn’t really fair. If they hadn’t cut the wage bill down in the way that they have, then I’m not sure we would have been a sustainable business/club for very long. Don’t forget Roman wrote off £1.5b in loans to the club when he sold, which suggests he was propping up the club by himself in many way, something the new owners weren’t prepared to do. Well, that returns to the conversation about the owners, Sam. I would’ve rather we were taken over by the Saudis, who would’ve bankrolled the club like Roman did. The fact that Clearlake have turned us into something different represents limitations with them as owners. I understand we are where we are, but as I’ve said repeatedly, I would rather we were owned by an oil state who would be prepared to compete at the top of the league at all costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 9 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: Any successful club in history has been successful by making incremental change. A few seasons ago, Real Madrid were seen as having a massively ageing squad going nowhere. But they still competed for major trophies as they slowly rebuilt. Now they have a much younger and competitive squad even as they have kept old heads around. Justifying ripping the entire band-aid off and starting from scratch is IMHO was so clearly (for the majority of football fans) completely unnecessary for Chelsea yet many on here seem to excuse the owners decision and rewrite history. Yes, we were in transition. That didn't mean we needed to throw out the baby with the bathwater Just because something has worked in the past, doesn't mean it will always work - or that an alternative approach will not bear fruit if given enough time. Trying out new practices is risky, but it can bring huge dividends. Fair play to them for giving it a bash - this season will be interesting. Some businesses are so dysfunctional that the only solution is to clear out and restart. I have worked with several, and seen varying degrees of success and failure. But both approaches can work provided the circumstances are right. 4 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: Alright, I think I am misremembering - it was the Saudis! Saudi Media Group. Very different kettle of fish. Actually, most likely punters took an interest - that is what punters do. They gamble. We fans are gambling on our club - if not, then we are either masochists or deluded. Many of us are - have been - with the club for the long run, and we've seen much of this before. How about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulw66 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 7 minutes ago, Ham said: Real Madrid didn't get sanctioned. and they play in a 3 team league (or 2.5 team) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 6 minutes ago, Ham said: You're confusing your opinion with fact again. We don't know what this squad is capable of. That is a fact. No, I agree Ham. I’m just saying the majority of opinions at Chelsea and in world football is that we are nowhere near competing for the Premier League this season. Those are opinions. It’s my understanding that the vast, vast majority of people feel this way. Of course they are just opinions and you have your opinion. And I respect your optimism. I’m just trying to point out how much of an outsider opinion you have when you think that we are anywhere near competing for the league this season. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong and I can still respect that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 2 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: Well, that returns to the conversation about the owners, Sam. I would’ve rather we were taken over by the Saudis, who would’ve bankrolled the club like Roman did. The fact that Clearlake have turned us into something different represents limitations with them as owners. I understand we are where we are, but as I’ve said repeatedly, I would rather we were owned by an oil state who would be prepared to compete at the top of the league at all costs. Then I fear you may not be as well accompanied as you might think. Personally, I prefer the owned-by-fans option practised in Germany - and that seems to work fairly well, wouldn't you say? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 2 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: What’s the point in naming the players I would want to have kept if you are just gonna say well, they didn’t want to stay anyway? We’ve reached this conversational dead end before on this forum. There’s clearly a difference of opinion that cannot be bridged here. I believe I have a common sense opinion which is that we had a squad with many good players that was in transition and needed refreshing. We should’ve kept the best players from that squad and refreshed it season on season 3 to 5 new additions as well as investment in youth. If you think we need to rip the entire Band-Aid off, there’s really not much point in having this conversation. Because we’re never going to agree on that. But again, we agree on the fact that we were in transition and the squad needed refreshing. It just seems absolutely common sense to me that you don’t transition functionally by moving as quickly as we did. And so it is played out, we have been completely dysfunctional. You disagree, Sam. That’s absolutely fine. 🙂 The point in you naming those players is because you’ve said how strong that squad was, so I’m interested to know who you thought was good enough, compared to the opinions I gave on the players. I haven’t said we needed to rip the band aid off, but I do think the squad we had wasn’t good enough and needed changing. Would I have done it over a longer time than the new owners? Yes, probably, but the circumstances they came into were not normal. I also think you’re jumping the gun. I think it’s too early for us to judge this squad and coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 1 minute ago, Blue Moon said: Just because something has worked in the past, doesn't mean it will always work - or that an alternative approach will not bear fruit if given enough time. Trying out new practices is risky, but it can bring huge dividends. Fair play to them for giving it a bash - this season will be interesting. Some businesses are so dysfunctional that the only solution is to clear out and restart. I have worked with several, and seen varying degrees of success and failure. But both approaches can work provided the circumstances are right. Very different kettle of fish. Actually, most likely punters took an interest - that is what punters do. They gamble. We fans are gambling on our club - if not, then we are either masochists or deluded. Many of us are - have been - with the club for the long run, and we've seen much of this before. How about you? Why are you making things personal? It’s none of your business how long I’ve been following the club. Focus on the football. Yes, some businesses are so dysfunctional that they need ripping up and starting from scratch. Our business was not one of them. Even though we had waned slightly, we were one of the most well-run clubs in the league, one of the strongest brands and footballing identities. That has imho irrevocably been damaged in a completely unnecessary way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 7 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: Well, that returns to the conversation about the owners, Sam. I would’ve rather we were taken over by the Saudis, who would’ve bankrolled the club like Roman did. The fact that Clearlake have turned us into something different represents limitations with them as owners. I understand we are where we are, but as I’ve said repeatedly, I would rather we were owned by an oil state who would be prepared to compete at the top of the league at all costs. But none of them wanted to buy the club. If we’re picking dream owners, then I’d like to inherit billions of pounds and then buy the club and put in place what I believe to be the right people in the right place. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 Just now, My Blood Is Blue said: But none of them wanted to buy the club. If we’re picking dream owners, then I’d like to inherit billions of pounds and then buy them. They were interested - the Saudi Media Group put a bid together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 3 minutes ago, Blue Moon said: Then I fear you may not be as well accompanied as you might think. Personally, I prefer the owned-by-fans option practised in Germany - and that seems to work fairly well, wouldn't you say? I'd be okay with that but if we are competing against oil states I'd be okay with us being bankrolled by one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 (edited) 10 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said: The point in you naming those players is because you’ve said how strong that squad was, so I’m interested to know who you thought was good enough, compared to the opinions I gave on the players. I haven’t said we needed to rip the band aid off, but I do think the squad we had wasn’t good enough and needed changing. Would I have done it over a longer time than the new owners? Yes, probably, but the circumstances they came into were not normal. I also think you’re jumping the gun. I think it’s too early for us to judge this squad and coach. 3 - 5 additions to the squad below and we would have been in a very good place ---- Goalkeepers: Edouard Mendy - keep Kepa Arrizabalaga - Sell Marcus Bettinelli - meh Defenders: Cesar Azpilicueta - keep at least 1 more season as we did Reece James - keep Ben Chilwell - keep Thiago Silva - keep Marcos Alonso - keep - if not possible then Emerson Trevoh Chalobah - keep Malang Sarr - sell Emerson Palmieri - see Alonso Baba Rahman - sell Midfielders: N'Golo Kante - keep Jorginho - keep Mateo Kovacic - keep Ruben Loftus-Cheek - keep Mason Mount - keep Ross Barkley - sell Billy Gilmour - sell Ethan Ampadu - meh Forwards: Romelu Lukaku - sell Timo Werner - sell Kai Havertz - keep Christian Pulisic - sell Hakim Ziyech - sell Callum Hudson-Odoi - sell Armando Broja - keep Michy Batshuayi - sell Edited September 10 by Max Fowler 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Blood Is Blue Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 minute ago, Max Fowler said: ---- Goalkeepers: Edouard Mendy - keep Kepa Arrizabalaga - Sell Marcus Bettinelli - meh Defenders: Cesar Azpilicueta - keep at least 1 more season as we did Reece James - keep Ben Chilwell - keep Thiago Silva - keep Marcos Alonso - keep - if not possible then Emerson Trevoh Chalobah - keep Malang Sarr - sell Emerson Palmieri - see Alonso Baba Rahman - sell Midfielders: N'Golo Kante - keep Jorginho - keep Mateo Kovacic - keep Ruben Loftus-Cheek - keep Mason Mount - keep Ross Barkley - sell Billy Gilmour - sell Ethan Ampadu - meh Forwards: Romelu Lukaku - sell Timo Werner - sell Kai Havertz - keep Christian Pulisic - sell Hakim Ziyech - sell Callum Hudson-Odoi - sell Armando Broja - keep Michy Batshuayi - sell Interesting. Still selling 11, which is a lot. I’d obviously disagree with quite a few of those decisions, especially Kova, Kante and Jorginho, I don’t think we could justify keeping all 3 on the salaries they’d have been on, given the injury record of Kante. I’d have kept Kovacic, probably Jorginho if he’d agreed a pay cut and moved Kante on. Anyway, let’s leave it there and agree to disagree on various things. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 17 minutes ago, Max Fowler said: Well, that returns to the conversation about the owners, Sam. I would’ve rather we were taken over by the Saudis, who would’ve bankrolled the club like Roman did. The fact that Clearlake have turned us into something different represents limitations with them as owners. I understand we are where we are, but as I’ve said repeatedly, I would rather we were owned by an oil state who would be prepared to compete at the top of the league at all costs. PSR dictates that Oil States can't invest any more than Clearlake unless they go down the City route of cooking the books. Look where that got them (hopefully🙏🏻). Clearlake have hardly skimped, regardless of whether we agree on the success of the squad build. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 3 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said: Interesting. Still selling 11, which is a lot. I’d obviously disagree with quite a few of those decisions, especially Kova, Kante and Jorginho, I don’t think we could justify keeping all 3 on the salaries they’d have been on, given the injury record of Kante. I’d have kept Kovacic, probably Jorginho if he’d agreed a pay cut and moved Kante on. Anyway, let’s leave it there and agree to disagree on various things. Tuchel agreed we were in transition. We all agreed we were in transition. You don't transition by setting off a nuclear bomb and then having to deal with the radioactive fallout for years to come. But yes... agree to disagree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fowler Posted September 10 Author Share Posted September 10 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Ham said: PSR dictates that Oil States can't invest any more than Clearlake unless they go down the City route of cooking the books. Look where that got them (hopefully🙏🏻). Clearlake have hardly skimped, regardless of whether we agree on the success of the squad build. We were not that affected by PSR because our revenue was still so high, unlike clubs like Newcastle who now find it difficult to grow. We could have invested much more of the money Clearlake spent (I know you don't like the 1 billion number...) in more experienced players, the Saudis could have bankrolled the wage bill. Frankly I think Clearlake easily could have too but they are obsessed with a model that just doesn't work in British football, certainly not on the pitch anyway. Edited September 10 by Max Fowler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Kelly Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 hour ago, Max Fowler said: Alright Mark, I hope one day you will hold the owners to account like you did Pochettino 🙂 Mate, don't think I'm entirely behind them yet, it's simply that in a rebuild from the bottom up where everyone was replaced it's simply too early to properly judge them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingThistle Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, paulw66 said: Take it a step further and look at the team that started the CL final.... Def: Silva, Rudiger, Azpi, James, Alonso - old, out of contract, old, made of glass, slow Kante, Jorginho - both old, one made of glass, one slow Att - Werner, Havertz and Mount......poor, inconsistent and in Mount, looks likely to have been a great sale. Revisionism - none of those one-word "player summaries" were accurate at the time we won the CL. Def: Silva, Rudiger, Azpi, James, Alonso - (S) worldie with more years in him who we miss even now, (R) contract handled appallingly but it was Madrid who came calling and noone turns down the Spaniards, (Az) dutiful and dilligent but past his sell by date, (J) worldie in the making and at the time not crippled by recurring injuries, (Al) reliable but agree he was slow. Kante, Jorginho - (K) at the time he was the only truly world class player we had, (J) made the midfield tick and criminally underrated Att - Werner, Havertz, and Mount - (W) raw and debut PL season, (H) time and time again played out of position but oozed class and we can see just how good he is, (M) nothing wrong with his ability but we subsequently see how bad his attitude is/was. Even if there were failings across some of those players, collectively that was some team. You'd be daft to not want that XI over the one we'll field Saturday night. Edited September 10 by KingThistle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now