Chelsea owners and board

[east lower]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

A CPO is an organisation that represents a whole range of points of view. Some might favour a move to a new location as long as it is reasonable. Some might require a quid pro quo (such as a swap in land rights). For them, the aim is not the Bridge per se, as it is the continuation of the club. The Bridge is just one part of that. For others, the Bridge is a spiritual home and would not condone any move away. I think Clearlake are intelligent people. They know the value of the site both to Chelsea fans and in financial terms. They would be crazy to mothball Stamford Bridge in perpetuity and possibly lose the club's history and status in England and Europe. That could mean starting at level nine of the pyramid and destroying our European record. They would drive away large numbers of fans, which, in the end, is the club's lifeblood. No, they will seek to negotiate something mutually acceptable to all parties, including CPO.

That would be logical. 

Thus far though, Clearlake's actions have shown at best apathy to our fans and at worse disregard in my view. 

Currently and with only their actions to go on, I feel they are capable of almost anything. They are that cocksure of their opinions that other entities stances, positions and views would be broadly ignored. Law might be the only thing that stops them.

Not the view of well intentioned fan groups. 

I never underestimate the power of money and it's influences on all tiers of the British 'establishment'. Combined with the cultural nature of very high powered American businessmen and it must be remembered that money buys you a seat at the top level of political influence there and here also to a degree, and that's one of the reasons why I maintain a position of the best option for our club being a complete change of ownership and preferably not American. The latter not only for our benefit but for the future of top level English Football.

The change of ownership being a matter of time, not if.

Edited September 12 by east lower

[ROTG]

2 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

To @ROTG regarding the CPO...

thanks Bob

I didn't realise you are an expert in CPO matters.

[CarefreeMuratcan]

1 hour ago, east lower said:

What Clearlake think they can do and what they actually can do, might be two very different things?

Who knows, it could (probably not) turn into an AFC Wimbledon/MK Dons scenario.

Now, that would give the pundit's, the media and the PGMOL an issue. Namely, which version of Chelsea do you hate on the most. 🤔

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

A CPO is an organisation that represents a whole range of points of view. Some might favour a move to a new location as long as it is reasonable. Some might require a quid pro quo (such as a swap in land rights). For them, the aim is not the Bridge per se, as it is the continuation of the club. The Bridge is just one part of that. For others, the Bridge is a spiritual home and would not condone any move away. I think Clearlake are intelligent people. They know the value of the site both to Chelsea fans and in financial terms. They would be crazy to mothball Stamford Bridge in perpetuity and possibly lose the club's history and status in England and Europe. That could mean starting at level nine of the pyramid and destroying our European record. They would drive away large numbers of fans, which, in the end, is the club's lifeblood. No, they will seek to negotiate something mutually acceptable to all parties, including CPO.

I don't have any CPO shares and other than this forum I'm not part of any fan clubs or in a wider network of match going Chelsea fans, but I'm curious to hear from those who are, is there a part of the fanbase who would be serious about starting a phoenix club AFC Wimbledon style (AFC Chelsea?) if the owners forced us to move away?

[ROTG]

2 minutes ago, CarefreeMuratcan said:

I don't have any CPO shares and other than this forum I'm not part of any fan clubs or in a wider network of match going Chelsea fans, but I'm curious to hear from those who are, is there a part of the fanbase who would be serious about starting a phoenix club AFC Wimbledon style (AFC Chelsea?) if the owners forced us to move away?

the move would be a mile SB to EC, therefore it completely different to what happened at Wimbledon

[Sciatika]

I am sure some would, but I expect it to be about as successful as FC United in Manchester—we would not have a usable ground. The CPO does not own the ground; they own the pitch, and the club owns the land around the pitch. It would be unusable.

MY OPINION -  When push comes to shove, I imagine that a move to EC would be acceptable to the majority of CPO members because it is nearby. CPO has an ageing demographic. As @ROTG says, it is not far away. I suspect that the Bridge would be sold for money to pay for the new stadium, the new stadium would become a shared venue, and the club would keep the Stoll buildings as administrative headquarters in Chelsea along with things like the club museum, etc. CPO's future role would be problematic.

Edited September 12 by Sciatika

[Miguelito07]

8 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

 

MY OPINION -  When push comes to shove, I imagine that a move to EC would be acceptable to the majority of CPO members because it is nearby. CPO has an ageing demographic. As @ROTG says, it is not far away. I suspect that the Bridge would be sold for money to pay for the new stadium, the new stadium would become a shared venue, and the club would keep the Stoll buildings as administrative headquarters in Chelsea along with things like the club museum, etc. CPO's future role would be problematic.

100% agree. In addition - if it meant that the team would still play at SB whilst a new stadium was built at EC and not play at Wembley for x amount of years would also sway  the CPO.

BUT, I still cant see EC being an option. The current developers are adamant that no stadium will be built there.

[Blue Moon]

13 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

... CPO has an ageing demographic. ...

How very dare you - what a monstrous allegation. I'll have you know we're merely time-tested

[paulw66]

On 10/09/2024 at 19:29, ROTG said:

Not fan of the CPO?

what?

[Max Fowler]

7 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Our history with signing "big players" as a whole is pretty bloody woeful.

We've signed some good players, that then performed and became great players here, but those that were already great when signing have by large expensively flopped. 

To say Palmer has been the only successful young player is also inaccurate. Gusto clearly stands out as another, we're seeing Madueke improve and being more impactful of late, and Jackson continues to showcase improvement. I'd group all of those as "successes" thus far.

Then there's a couple others that could well slot into here like Lavia (should fitness prevail), Santos (based on his form out on loan), and then Paez and Estevao if they carry on at the rate their going.

I disagree with your analysis. I could easily say Enzo and Mudryk have flopped on big money, but actually I don't care about the transfer fee. I care that we have the right balance in the squad.

And I am not looking for us to sign Mbappe and Haaland, I want us to sign some players over 24 on decent wages, who have experience in the biggest leagues and ideally biggest clubs.

I.e. What every other successful club in history has done.

Palmer has been the only "real success" as I said I like Gusto as well but he's not been outstanding for a while. Madueke and Jackson are incredibly inconsistent.

It's not that I don't like aspects of them, or even think they were half decent signings, but to have a squad carried by these guys means we'll get nowhere fast in this league.

They should be learning from more experienced players around them.

[xceleryx]

10 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I disagree with your analysis. I could easily say Enzo and Mudryk have flopped on big money, but actually I don't care about the transfer fee. I care that we have the right balance in the squad.

And I am not looking for us to sign Mbappe and Haaland, I want us to sign some players over 24 on decent wages, who have experience in the biggest leagues and ideally biggest clubs.

I.e. What every other successful club in history has done.

Palmer has been the only "real success" as I said I like Gusto as well but he's not been outstanding for a while. Madueke and Jackson are incredibly inconsistent.

It's not that I don't like aspects of them, or even think they were half decent signings, but to have a squad carried by these guys means we'll get nowhere fast in this league.

They should be learning from more experienced players around them.

I'm struggling to grasp the exact point of this post?

Nowhere has Enzo or Mudryk been mentioned.

You've taken the term "big players" then applied an arbitrary set of self created perimeters to constitute what one is.

Gusto has been a strong performer for us, not sure how he cannot be deemed a success already. Jackson and Madueke have had their inconsistencies, yes, but they've also continued to improve and if that remains the case they'll fall into that successful bracket. I'd say it's a touch disingenuous suggesting Palmer is the only success thus far, but that's your view. Not sure others would agree. 

We also went no where, especially on the domestic front, for years with a team littered with high earning experienced players. I'm guessing that doesn't count though, right?

[boratsbrother]

53 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

 

BUT, I still cant see EC being an option. The current developers are adamant that no stadium will be built there.

By all accounts the planning is well advanced now with housing due to be built there. No way will all that be scrapped and started again just to accommodate a football stadium a stadium  which future  residents certainly wouldn't  want built close to their homes.

There is no other space large enough, so the only choice is to redevelop the Bridge. A top class 50,000 stadium should be the size. 

[Max Fowler]

15 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

I'm struggling to grasp the exact point of this post?

Nowhere has Enzo or Mudryk been mentioned.

You've taken the term "big players" then applied an arbitrary set of self created perimeters to constitute what one is.

Gusto has been a strong performer for us, not sure how he cannot be deemed a success already. Jackson and Madueke have had their inconsistencies, yes, but they've also continued to improve and if that remains the case they'll fall into that successful bracket. I'd say it's a touch disingenuous suggesting Palmer is the only success thus far, but that's your view. Not sure others would agree. 

We also went no where, especially on the domestic front, for years with a team littered with high earning experienced players. I'm guessing that doesn't count though, right?

I'm struggling to grasp the point of your post! You draw an arbitrary boundary around supposed big players who have supposedly flopped, when there are plenty of experienced players who we have spent a significant amount of money on who have been excellent for us over the years.

I am using the term "real success" - as in, a standout performer. I agree, Gusto has been a good signing but he's not done enough to set the whole league alight. He was brilliant at first but has settled into becoming a decent signing rather than anything spectacular.

No, it doesn't count. Because we won trophy after trophy and in nearly every season competed near the top of the league. And since Clearlake took over we have been a disaster and competed near the middle of the table. So, we may have faded somewhat under RA, but there is just no comparison to the chaos we have seen under Clearlake. The chaos that you continue to justify as being necessary for no apparent reason by revising history and arguing that all of this self-destruction was necessary.

IMHO 🙂

[Max Fowler]

 

 

Edited September 12 by Max Fowler

[KingThistle]

1 hour ago, Max Fowler said:

 

 

If true - I can't help but agree with Boehly as the treatment of Sterling and a few others stinks. Definitely earned the right of respect throughout his career before and during his contract with us so not sure what warrented him being fibbed to and then shown the door quite so bluntly. And he being one of our better players and leader/mentors too. We are a funny bunch.

[Ham]

3 hours ago, boratsbrother said:

By all accounts the planning is well advanced now with housing due to be built there. No way will all that be scrapped and started again just to accommodate a football stadium a stadium  which future  residents certainly wouldn't  want built close to their homes.

There is no other space large enough, so the only choice is to redevelop the Bridge. A top class 50,000 stadium should be the size. 

They haven't actually submitted any planning applications yet. 

All that's available are some random and generic renderings.  

Threatening to submit the application could easily be a poker move to see how serious Chelsea are.

There are rumours that with the council demand for 50% of the housing to be affordable, Delancey don't see value in the development which will take up to 20 years to complete with escalating costs.  

The fact that talks have taken place between Delancey, TfL and Chelsea ( and successfully talks by all accounts) tells me that there's a deal to be struck.  

Apparently the plans drawn up by the club include a multi use entertainment venue at Lillie Road Depot end and a stadium to the south of the site.  

I'm convinced that this is a goer.  

[chara]

4 hours ago, Blue Moon said:

How very dare you - what a monstrous allegation. I'll have you know we're merely time-tested

And... Borota tested, Kalou tested, Torres tested, Werner tested .... as a small example!🤠

 

 

[Blue Moon]

40 minutes ago, chara said:

And... Borota tested, Kalou tested, Torres tested, Werner tested .... as a small example!🤠

Patience tested, matey!

[boratsbrother]

6 hours ago, Sciatika said:

CPO has an ageing demographic. 

But the best wine comes out of old bottles.

[Bert19]

3 hours ago, KingThistle said:

If true - I can't help but agree with Boehly as the treatment of Sterling and a few others stinks. Definitely earned the right of respect throughout his career before and during his contract with us so not sure what warrented him being fibbed to and then shown the door quite so bluntly. And he being one of our better players and leader/mentors too. We are a funny bunch.

I agree with a lot of your post, but i'd love to see some evidence of the bolded bit.  Sterling has been actually good for about half a dozen games at Chelsea.  The rest of the time he's done almost nothing to suggest he's one of our better players. 

He should have been one of our best players, but he really hasn't been. 

[KingThistle]

1 hour ago, Bert19 said:

I agree with a lot of your post, but i'd love to see some evidence of the bolded bit.  Sterling has been actually good for about half a dozen games at Chelsea.  The rest of the time he's done almost nothing to suggest he's one of our better players. 

He should have been one of our best players, but he really hasn't been. 

A goal every 4 games - majority of those games either subbed on or off. Joint top scorer in first season (top outright for G/A), third top scorer last season (third also for combined G/A). Goals towards the end of last season against Forest and Bournemouth where we nicked vital wins to finish as high as we did. 

200G/A total over league career. 80 England caps with 21 goals. Now played for 4 of the biggest teams in the country.

Been a knob in the past, turned it round. Criticised heavily time and time again (unfairly for some of it IMO), still chunked out impressive stats. Was he wasteful, did he run down blind alleys and not pass when he should? Yes he did and I threw my slipper at the tele more than once. Did he hit the heights he did at City? No, I'm not daft enough to try and suggest so. Was he one of our better players the last 2 years as I suggest? Absolutely he was, prove me wrong.

EDIT: One more thing - de factor leader BTW. Age, experience, international caps, highly regarded by his managers and peers, serial trophy winner. Couldn't be anything other than a leader - especially in our kindergarten of a dressing room.

Edited September 12 by KingThistle

[RDCW]

30 minutes ago, KingThistle said:

A goal every 4 games - majority of those games either subbed on or off. Joint top scorer in first season (top outright for G/A), third top scorer last season (third also for combined G/A). Goals towards the end of last season against Forest and Bournemouth where we nicked vital wins to finish as high as we did. 

200G/A total over league career. 80 England caps with 21 goals. Now played for 4 of the biggest teams in the country.

Been a knob in the past, turned it round. Criticised heavily time and time again (unfairly for some of it IMO), still chunked out impressive stats. Was he wasteful, did he run down blind alleys and not pass when he should? Yes he did and I threw my slipper at the tele more than once. Did he hit the heights he did at City? No, I'm not daft enough to try and suggest so. Was he one of our better players the last 2 years as I suggest? Absolutely he was, prove me wrong.

EDIT: One more thing - de factor leader BTW. Age, experience, international caps, highly regarded by his managers and peers, serial trophy winner. Couldn't be anything other than a leader - especially in our kindergarten of a dressing room.

You were doing fine until you mentioned the slipper, old chap; now the only image I have of you is Grandpa Simpson 😆.

[Max Fowler]

1 hour ago, Bert19 said:

I agree with a lot of your post, but i'd love to see some evidence of the bolded bit.  Sterling has been actually good for about half a dozen games at Chelsea.  The rest of the time he's done almost nothing to suggest he's one of our better players. 

He should have been one of our best players, but he really hasn't been. 

He would have thrived under Tuchel.

The victim of Clearlake’s stupid decision to sack him.

[chara]

4 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

He would have thrived under Tuchel.

The victim of Clearlake’s stupid decision to sack him.

Hmm... would you, as a new coach coming in, with a lot to prove, put your faith in Raheem ?

Taking into account his salary, senior status, game experience and season long contribution not a player to put your trust in,,,

The sad thing is when he was good he was very good but not so much he was bad but did not contribute,,inmo...enough to justify his inclusion and didn't play up to his reputation or what he was brought into Chelsea to do,

 

[boratsbrother]

54 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

He would have thrived under Tuchel.

 

I disagree!

Sterling scored goals at City for two reasons.

They had midfielders who passed teams to death in the final third of the pitch resulting in them eventually opening up defences which have Sterling lots of tap in goals. We had Kova, Kante and Jorginho who could pass around a line of traffic cones in the final third.

Then there was the way City would utilize Sterling's pace and play it early allowing him to skin defenders when one on one. We never played that way and Sterling doesn't have that electric pace anymore either. 

He was always destined to be an average, hugely overpaid signing for us.  Not as bad as Lukaku, Mudryk or Enzo though.  Also,  as average and overpaid as he was, i do hate the way our owners treated him. We sadly have some really cold hearted ***** at Clearlake who have no idea how to treat people decently.😡

 

[Max Fowler]

3 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

I disagree!

Sterling scored goals at City for two reasons.

They had midfielders who passed teams to death in the final third of the pitch resulting in them eventually opening up defences which have Sterling lots of tap in goals. We had Kova, Kante and Jorginho who could pass around a line of traffic cones in the final third.

Then there was the way City would utilize Sterling's pace and play it early allowing him to skin defenders when one on one. We never played that way and Sterling doesn't have that electric pace anymore either. 

He was always destined to be an average, hugely overpaid signing for us.  Not as bad as Lukaku, Mudryk or Enzo though.  Also,  as average and overpaid as he was, i do hate the way our owners treated him. We sadly have some really cold hearted ***** at Clearlake who have no idea how to treat people decently.😡

 

Simply put sterling benefits from playing in a structured system. Guardiola had him playing in a highly structured way. So would’ve Tuchel. Poch was much more about giving players the creative freedom to do what they want.

1 hour ago, chara said:

Hmm... would you, as a new coach coming in, with a lot to prove, put your faith in Raheem ?

Taking into account his salary, senior status, game experience and season long contribution not a player to put your trust in,,,

The sad thing is when he was good he was very good but not so much he was bad but did not contribute,,inmo...enough to justify his inclusion and didn't play up to his reputation or what he was brought into Chelsea to do,

I would trust Sterling more than any other winger we have except Palmer and try to get the best out of him. If we had to replace him, I would replace him with someone better. We have not done that.