Chelsea owners and board

[Holymoly]

47 minutes ago, MickyDroy said:

Clearlake doesn't seem that bothered by losing the pr-war and are well aware that they are the majority owner and no one can force them to sell.

Even if they were open to selling how in the hell do you value their shares? They will have some duty of care towards their clients that would involve NOT losing billions over the course of a couple of years.

[MickyDroy]

5 minutes ago, Holymoly said:

Even if they were open to selling how in the hell do you value their shares? They will have some duty of care towards their clients that would involve NOT losing billions over the course of a couple of years.

Yeah I don't think there is any chance they sell unless Boehly & Co comes in with an offer that gives them a substansial profit on their initial investment. Apparently 56% or so of the money Clearlake has invested are their clients money and they will be out to protect them as well as themselves.

On the other hand I can't really see Boehly and his team selling either. Todd was after a Premier League team for many, many years and I just don't see him selling now that he's got part ownership of one.

I have no idea how this gets resolved. But an ongoing civil war at board level is obviously not going to be sustainable for the club either for a whole host of reasons. Terrible situation all around really.

[boratsbrother]

30 minutes ago, MickyDroy said:

 

I have no idea how this gets resolved. But an ongoing civil war at board level is obviously not going to be sustainable for the club either for a whole host of reasons. Terrible situation all around really.

Every other top club is able to just concentrate on their team playing well. Even a badly run club like Everton will soon be moving into a wonderful new stadium.  Meanwhile,  one way or another we are always in turmoil with zero stability.  Such a handicap expecting a circus like ours to compete with stable, well run clubs.

[KingThistle]

2 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

I’m quite bored of reading (not just from you, but from quite a few on here) that if I don’t slate everything related to Clearlake, don’t criticise every decision they’ve made and continue to make and blame them for all negatives to do with the club, it means I am fully supportive of them, agree with everything they do and am excusing them from anything.

It's a good discussion in here - very obvious divided on opinion - but I can't see these comments which asks you/others to totally cast away the ownership entirely and that you should stand with those like Max and me? I may have missed them, and if I'm one of these contributors, apologies.

[Mark Kelly]

Simon Phillips now reporting Eghbali is open to selling his shares. 

[Sciatika]

Not everything the current owners have done has been wrong, and who is responsible for any decision is never straightforward. I worry that the current regime values change for their own sake, especially in transfers. I wonder if they confuse activity with achievement. But I find it impossible to work out who is responsible. I suspect they may turn out to be two cheeks of the same rear end - that the power is actually in the hands of the functionaries such as the DoFs, and the owners simply go along with it because their knowledge of the game is so limited. If that's the case, then they need to carefully monitor spending with enforced budgets and so on because, in the football business, companies can go down very easily.

[My Blood Is Blue]

22 minutes ago, KingThistle said:

It's a good discussion in here - very obvious divided on opinion - but I can't see these comments which asks you/others to totally cast away the ownership entirely and that you should stand with those like Max and me? I may have missed them, and if I'm one of these contributors, apologies.

I won't go back and dig any out, but we've had many posts over recent weeks with the sentiment that I mentioned, which for me prevents the good healthy debate we're used to on here.

Everyone who posts on here has a unique viewpoint and I enjoy reading what everyone thinks, I just think the ownership currently has somehow caused a real divide and it feels like you have to pick a side, either pro Clearlake or anti Clearlake, however, I feel a lot of people are actually more in the middle, or I know I am. I haven't really warmed to the owners, I don't believe everything they've done is right and I definitely think it's been extreme and hard to watch at times, but I do also understand what I believe they are trying to do and what they're expecting from it. It may not work, but I'm willing to have a little patience and see if it works out. I don't think this makes me pro or anti the owners, it's just my opinion.

Not that it's worth anything, but I personally wouldn't force them out for now, I think it's too early to see the end results of what they're trying to do. I think we could have far worse owners and I also think probably better owners, they're just harder to find!

[KingThistle]

1 hour ago, Holymoly said:

Even if they were open to selling how in the hell do you value their shares? They will have some duty of care towards their clients that would involve NOT losing billions over the course of a couple of years.

I think this is the reason why we won't or can't be sold to someone external to the current ownership - we're just not worth the initial outlay plus the 2.5yr spends which is what they'd be asking for as a minimum.

As a collective, the club has been allowed to depreciate really quickly so we're not "worth" what may be required to tempt the owners to sell. The brand isn't currently front of shirt sponsorable (if that's a word) and forgive me but I am not delirious with having a new global tyre partner. I'm not sure that we're also any longer attractive to the worlds best players - not that we couldn't pay for them, but I have a feeling the elite wouldn't come. We're not really competitive domestically, we're a long way from being a CL club again and I'm not overly confident we can beat Bournemouth this weekend. Tough times under the Americans ownership; this infighting and unrest coupled to an unclear path back to being competitve makes it - for me - too much of a stretch to not be completely anti-Clearlake.

I know that he is not coming back, but I do sometimes wonder what RA the Chelsea fan is thinking when seeing how we have fallen.

2 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

Not everything the current owners have done has been wrong

It's not meant as argumentative, but if not everything and every decision has been wrong, which are the right ones?

[xceleryx]

21 minutes ago, KingThistle said:

It's not meant as argumentative, but if not everything and every decision has been wrong, which are the right ones?

• Clearing out a host of inconsistent high earners.
• Willingness to spend
• Desire to secure the best young talent.
• Some good players have actually been signed.
• The whole wage restructure.
• Self reporting book irregularities from previous ownership, opposed to trying to sweep it under the rug.

There's a few off the top of the dome.

[Sciatika]

19 minutes ago, KingThistle said:

It's not meant as argumentative, but if not everything and every decision has been wrong, which are the right ones?

I think some of the purchases have been very good. Obviously, I can point at Palmer and Gusto. I also think Madueke, Jackson and Lavia. I am still not quite sure about Caicedo. I am not personally offended by some things they have said or that they seem more open-minded than some of the fanbase about what is acceptable and what is not. I also accept that some things must be under financial control, especially since the club finds maintaining sponsorship at CL levels challenging while not qualifying for CL. I think things dropping the coach subsidies was very short-sighted. I think the focus on the new stadium was initially very good before they got bogged down. The acquisition of the Stoll site was a good move for the business. Splitting the assets to generate capital just used a loophole in the rules. 

[KingThistle]

23 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

• Clearing out a host of inconsistent high earners.
• Willingness to spend
• Desire to secure the best young talent.
• Some good players have actually been signed.
• The whole wage restructure.
• Self reporting book irregularities from previous ownership, opposed to trying to sweep it under the rug.

There's a few off the top of the dome.

I think that is potato potarto.

• They brought in some of those high earners to begin with. They got rid of some and continue to pay others.
• Their willingness to overspend, waste and tie down dubious "talent" to 7, 8 and 9yr deals while not addressing glaringly obvious gaps in the squad - on the face of it - not great.
• Desire to secure the best young talent while ignoring the academy and demonstrating there may be no route for homegrown youth. 
• Yeah, when you spend so much and buy so many, some mud will stick - a fair point. 
• With so many players on the books many of whom are on those 7, 8 and 9yr deals and with no meaningful sponsorship, no remuneration for recent CL qualification, and no domestic success then this wasn't astute, it was enforced. It has also removed our only bargaining chip for elite talent.
• Self reporting book irregularities will hit us with either a large fine, a transfer ban or both. I admire the moral standpoint.

I'm not saying I'm right, you're wrong - I don't think that there is a right and wrong - we just view this differently.

Edited September 11 by KingThistle

[KingThistle]

19 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

I think some of the purchases have been very good. Obviously, I can point at Palmer and Gusto. I also think Madueke, Jackson and Lavia. I am still not quite sure about Caicedo. I am not personally offended by some things they have said or that they seem more open-minded than some of the fanbase about what is acceptable and what is not. I also accept that some things must be under financial control, especially since the club finds maintaining sponsorship at CL levels challenging while not qualifying for CL. I think things dropping the coach subsidies was very short-sighted. I think the focus on the new stadium was initially very good before they got bogged down. The acquisition of the Stoll site was a good move for the business. Splitting the assets to generate capital just used a loophole in the rules. 

All fair points, I'm not arguing against you - I'm genuinely interested. Thanks for taking the time 🙂

[Max Fowler]

21 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

• Clearing out a host of inconsistent high earners.
• Willingness to spend
• Desire to secure the best young talent.
• Some good players have actually been signed.
• The whole wage restructure.
• Self reporting book irregularities from previous ownership, opposed to trying to sweep it under the rug.

There's a few off the top of the dome.

We can get rid of "willingness to spend" as they were contractually obliged to do so. Also the sixth point is essentially good bookkeeping.

So you basically argue that it's been a good thing clearing out the previous team and replacing them with the current crop.

Even though all evidence suggests the current team is a significant backwards step on what we had before.

[Max Fowler]

21 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

I think some of the purchases have been very good. Obviously, I can point at Palmer and Gusto. I also think Madueke, Jackson and Lavia. I am still not quite sure about Caicedo. I am not personally offended by some things they have said or that they seem more open-minded than some of the fanbase about what is acceptable and what is not. I also accept that some things must be under financial control, especially since the club finds maintaining sponsorship at CL levels challenging while not qualifying for CL. I think things dropping the coach subsidies was very short-sighted. I think the focus on the new stadium was initially very good before they got bogged down. The acquisition of the Stoll site was a good move for the business. Splitting the assets to generate capital just used a loophole in the rules. 

Madueke and Jackson very good? Lavia too? Come on bro, they're talented players but very good is pushing it incredibly far. They've been massively inconsistent since they arrived and Lavia injury prone. I like them all but very good is an enormous stretch.

Caicedo is my guy though.

[Max Fowler]

52 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

I won't go back and dig any out, but we've had many posts over recent weeks with the sentiment that I mentioned, which for me prevents the good healthy debate we're used to on here.

I take your post as well intentioned Sam, but can I kindly suggest you clearly call out posts you don't think are productive as and when they come? Previously you accused me of calling people out and I genuinely didn't know when I did that, but you also wouldn't go back through the posts to let me know which ones you didn't like. That left me with a feeling that you more generally didn't like the tone of my comments, rather than had any specific evidence of posts that went over the line. Not saying you don't have any, but maybe it would just be helpful moving forward. Or if your gripe is just posting too much negativity on one subject, I can also understand. I have a habit of getting in phases of posting a lot on one topic. But I also know your post this time wasn't directly aimed at me, this is just reminding me of that conversation before and anyway it's just an idea. 

[Max Fowler]

3 hours ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Two completely different things. The catalyst, the event that triggered the change at the club and caused the mayhem to begin, was without doubt down to the decision taken by the government to sanction Roman and freeze the running of our club. I don’t see how anyone could disagree that this is the catalyst, the point in time where things changed.

Admitting that does not excuse anything Clearlake did or are doing, that all came later. What it does do is set the scene and context for the early days of their ownership, but the decisions they have made have been entirely theirs and they should be judged on them, however, that should also include the context of the position the club had been in for the months before they came in.

I’m quite bored of reading (not just from you, but from quite a few on here) that if I don’t slate everything related to Clearlake, don’t criticise every decision they’ve made and continue to make and blame them for all negatives to do with the club, it means I am fully supportive of them, agree with everything they do and am excusing them from anything. I can be unhappy and disappointed with decisions they’ve made whilst also understand some of the other decisions they’ve made and try and have some patience to see how certain things unfold. I don’t know why it has to be two camps with extreme views either way, it just stops good discussion around how we want our club to be run and where we’re going etc.

As I mentioned Max, this isn’t aimed solely at you, yours is just the post I’ve quoted.

And I would just simply state here Sam, I don't think you need to slate everything related to Clearlake. I don't slate everything related to Clearlake! I have posted plenty of positive comments about things they have done. To me and like @KingThistle said, debating how much we think they have got right and wrong is part of healthy debate, no?

[Max Fowler]

8 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Kinda ignores the nuance of many of these players also having contract situations that needed addressing, by either selling (as we did in some cases), or extending and handing out big wages to those that'd been inconsistent up to that point.

There's also the fact some of these listed as "sell" weren't really sellable to begin with - Kepa, Sarr, Lukaku, etc because of their contracts at the time.

Hard to really ignored these factors because they played a fairly pivotal part in deciding what we were to do with them. 

It doesn't mate, we made a choice to get rid of all of our previous crop and start from scratch, slashing the wage bill in the process. Yes there are some good elements to that, but broadly the scale of it was completely unnecessary and a financial decision on behalf of the board.

I repeat: until we pay higher wages we will be nowhere near the top of the league. 

[My Blood Is Blue]

7 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I take your post as well intentioned Sam, but can I kindly suggest you clearly call out posts you don't think are productive as and when they come? Previously you accused me of calling people out and I genuinely didn't know when I did that, but you also wouldn't go back through the posts to let me know which ones you didn't like. That left me with a feeling that you more generally didn't like the tone of my comments, rather than had any specific evidence of posts that went over the line. Not saying you don't have any, but maybe it would just be helpful moving forward. Or if your gripe is just posting too much negativity on one subject, I can also understand. I have a habit of getting in phases of posting a lot on one topic. But I also know your post this time wasn't directly aimed at me, this is just reminding me of that conversation before and anyway it's just an idea. 

I don't really want to get into this again to be honest. 

5 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

And I would just simply state here Sam, I don't think you need to slate everything related to Clearlake. I don't slate everything related to Clearlake! I have posted plenty of positive comments about things they have done. To me and like @KingThistle said, debating how much we think they have got right and wrong is part of healthy debate, no?

Yes, absolutely, healthy debate is what this place is all about.

[Max Fowler]

17 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

I don't really want to get into this again to be honest. 

That's your call Sam, but you are the moderator here and I am trying to understand exactly what the problem is. Honestly, if you were to just tell me that I post too much on a particular subject, there's too much constant negativity etc. then I would understand and try to tone it down. I have been given feedback in the past and tried to take it on board.

I feel I am contributing a lot to the debate on this forum but if I have a general feeling of not being welcome, then why would I continue to contribute? On the other hand, if you tell me more specifically what the issues are, then I feel it would help us all get along better together.

You may not feel that's your responsibility but I am just trying to understand where you're coming from. As far as I know, you run this forum and you set the rules. You can kick me off if you like and I have no problem with that. So I am trying to be respectful of how you want the forum to be - but I literally don't understand which posts you specifically don't like and why.

To me we are having a vibrant and healthy discussion on these issues. I don't see much name calling, I don't see much disrespect. I see us learning to be more tolerant of each other's views.

But if you call out posts that then you will not go back and name, it just leaves me feeling confused about what exactly those posts were, if they ever existed, or if you are just expressing more general feelings as I stated at the start of this post.

Maybe this conversation would be better had privately Sam - but I want to say I respect your views and appreciate everything you have done to create this forum for all of us.

I have nothing personal against you, but I also have to hold my boundaries - because last time some people were calling for me to get kicked off the platform (which was to be honest quite hurtful given all that I feel I contribute, but apparently that was okay...) and if we don't communicate I worry we get into a situation again where I just don't feel welcome, don't exactly understand why, and prefer to spend my time elsewhere.

I'm also okay with that but as I said, I would prefer to try and understand where you are coming from and anyway - no pressure on explaining that in this moment. I also didn't mean to air this laundry publicly but maybe it's good for everyone to help understand how we can learn to better communicate together 💙

Edited September 11 by Max Fowler

[RDCW]

1 minute ago, Max Fowler said:

That's your call Sam, but you are the moderator here and I am trying to understand exactly what the problem is. Honestly, if you were to just tell me that I post too much on a particular subject, there's too much constant negativity etc. then I would understand and try to tone it down. I have been given feedback in the past and tried to take it on board.

I feel I am contributing a lot to the debate on this forum but if I have a general feeling of not being welcome, then why would I continue to contribute? On the other hand, if you tell me more specifically what the issues are, then I feel it would help us all get along better together.

You may not feel that's your responsibility but I am just trying to understand where you're coming from. As far as I know, you run this forum and you set the rules. You can kick me off if you like and I have no problem with that. So I am trying to be respectful of how you want the forum to be - but I literally don't understand which posts you specifically don't like and why.

To me we are having a vibrant and healthy discussion on these issues. I don't see much name calling, I don't see much disrespect. I see us learning to be more tolerant of each other's views.

But if you call out posts that then you will not go back and name, it just leaves me feeling confused about what exactly those posts were, if they ever existed, or if you are just expressing more general feelings as I stated at the start of this post.

Maybe this conversation would be better had privately Sam - but I want to say I respect your views and appreciate everything you have done to create this forum for all of us.

I have nothing personal against you, but I also have to hold my boundaries - because last time some people were calling for me to get kicked off the platform (which was to be honest quite hurtful given all that I feel I contribute, but apparently that was okay...) and if we don't communicate I worry we get into a situation again where I just don't feel welcome, don't exactly understand why, and prefer to spend my time elsewhere.

I'm also okay with that but as I said, I would prefer to try and understand where you are coming from and anyway - no pressure on explaining that in this moment. I also didn't mean to air this laundry publicly but maybe it's good for everyone to help understand how we can learn to better communicate together 💙

I'll tell you what the problem is Max - too bombastic, too aggressive, logically flawed and way too many posts on the same subject.

[Blue Kratos]

Pros and cons for both sides but I can't help but feel that whoever wins we are the ones who lose.

I'm team Chelsea through and through.

Edited September 11 by Blue Kratos

[Max Fowler]

4 minutes ago, RDCW said:

I'll tell you what the problem is Max - too bombastic, too aggressive, logically flawed and way too many posts on the same subject.

I'll accept all of those as valid feedback... except logically flawed 🫡

Edited September 11 by Max Fowler

[Max Fowler]

 

 

[RDCW]

4 minutes ago, Blue Kratos said:

Pros and cons for both sides but I can't help but feel that whoever wins we are the ones who lose.

Or win! I'm determined that my glass is not empty!

[KingThistle]

I think that there are contradictions with Clearlake and their direction and it's that which some see as 'this' and others see as 'that'.

For example, I see that overspending massive amounts on transfer fees while underpaying on salaries is a negative. I believe that those are back-to-front especially at a time when our next success isn't going to be anytime soon (I think we can all agree on that).

I also think that explicitly going for unproven youth "talent" and stockpiling teenage players we will never see play isn't prudent when some older, wiser heads who have been there and done it and are able to lead some of those teenagers would be a better blend for the squad. Being all in and one dimensional is a recipe for disaster and will only prolong the lack of on field success. 

I see that as perpetuating the cycle of mediocrity. If Clearlake want us to be Arsenal of the early 2000's then they're doing a cracking job. 

Edited September 11 by KingThistle