Chelsea owners and board

[xceleryx]

1 hour ago, east lower said:

Not seen this posted on here so here you are. If you can't manage within the rules, the just change them to provide more scope, simple really:

https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/1754887064405827718?s=20

I believe they're trying to change things to align with what UEFA use and their squad cost ratio stuff based on turnover.  

Keep in mind that clubs that play in Europe already have to comply with these rules, it would just mean the increased ability to spend beyond the £105m over three windows as it stands now within the PL. 

[thevelourfog]

2 hours ago, east lower said:

Not seen this posted on here so here you are. If you can't manage within the rules, the just change them to provide more scope, simple really:

https://x.com/SkySportsNews/status/1754887064405827718?s=20

I listen to this and just think ... what is the point of these rules? So many unintended consequences that run contrary to the alleged spirit of them. If you genuinely care about sustainability (rather than engineering who can and cannot rise to the top), then the focus should be more on rules where owners can pump money in without leveraging debt or later calling debts in. 

The Malang Sarr thing, my reading is that we was given permission to travel to sort medical and contract stuff with Le Havre ... But then couldn't agree with us on the terms of his termination. Le Havre are understandably very angry, but directing that at us because they probably maintain an interest in Sarr. I can't see why we'd have been doing much talking to Le Havre at all. It's down to Sarr on what he wants more, playing time at Le Havre or Chelsea money, I attach no judgement to either decision. But it looks like he wanted both, and all of this is on him. And I'll take any opportunity to slate these owners!

[Dwmh]

37 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

I listen to this and just think ... what is the point of these rules? So many unintended consequences that run contrary to the alleged spirit of them. If you genuinely care about sustainability (rather than engineering who can and cannot rise to the top), then the focus should be more on rules where owners can pump money in without leveraging debt or later calling debts in. 

hahaha - excellent point - but who cares about sustainability - you are 100% right it is about engineering who can rise to the top.

Well FFP was about maintaining the status quo for those leading clubs in Europe, to make sure another Chelsea or City couldn't break in and threaten RM, BM, Barca profits and dominance of the market for young players.
FFP was pro-big club.

Profit and Sustainability with a £105m cap actually does the opposite, and puts a cap of £105 on losses.  That is a much higher cap for smaller clubs than for big clubs.  If you wanted rules that gve scope for smaller clubs to get bigger in a reasonable time frame this id is deal.
So P&S is actually pro-Small clubs in the Prem.

Revised P&S replaces a profit cap with Player costs as a % of revenues  (70-85% seems to be range discussed).  That means a club with revenues of  £600m can spend 3 times as much on players as most PL clubs who are on revenues of £200m or less.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/566666/premier-league-clubs-by-revenue/

So P&S Revised is very much a return to maintaining the Status Quo and favouring the big clubs.

Thanks to @east lower for the link.  I wasn't really aware of the above but Kaveh Solhekol lays it all out clearly in that 5 mins chat.  He is new to me - very impressive for Sky Sports.  And I see he was banned last year from the Man U pressers because he published a report that "contained fake news" / "was not pre-checked with Man U PR" (story varies but I bet I can guess).  So another plus mark for Kaveh.

[east lower]

3 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

I listen to this and just think ... what is the point of these rules? So many unintended consequences that run contrary to the alleged spirit of them. If you genuinely care about sustainability (rather than engineering who can and cannot rise to the top), then the focus should be more on rules where owners can pump money in without leveraging debt or later calling debts in. 

The Malang Sarr thing, my reading is that we was given permission to travel to sort medical and contract stuff with Le Havre ... But then couldn't agree with us on the terms of his termination. Le Havre are understandably very angry, but directing that at us because they probably maintain an interest in Sarr. I can't see why we'd have been doing much talking to Le Havre at all. It's down to Sarr on what he wants more, playing time at Le Havre or Chelsea money, I attach no judgement to either decision. But it looks like he wanted both, and all of this is on him. And I'll take any opportunity to slate these owners!

Gerrymandering the system is how I think I’d sum it up.

On the Sarr failed transfer, it reads very much that all deals were done. Chelsea changed their minds and allegedly didn’t communicate this. 

Worse things happen at sea, but it’s not the behaviour of reputable people in my world.

[thevelourfog]

https://www.reddit.com/r/chelseafc/comments/1arc8m9/sam_wallace_chelsea_make_offer_for_brightons_head/?share_id=NgrPdlmdQnfe7QSHL9t51&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=3

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, thevelourfog said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/chelseafc/comments/1arc8m9/sam_wallace_chelsea_make_offer_for_brightons_head/?share_id=NgrPdlmdQnfe7QSHL9t51&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=3

On the face of it the first impression is "horror" but in business it's so common to recruit people from the places you used to work as you know them and they you and you know you can work well together so it is what it is I suppose.

I expect all these clowns playing Football Manager in real life are much of a muchness all chasing the same players from an ever diminishing pool of talent.

[Bison]

20 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/chelseafc/comments/1arc8m9/sam_wallace_chelsea_make_offer_for_brightons_head/?share_id=NgrPdlmdQnfe7QSHL9t51&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=3

The last one was such a success! 

[Chelsea_Matt]

26 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

On the face of it the first impression is "horror" but in business it's so common to recruit people from the places you used to work as you know them and they you and you know you can work well together so it is what it is I suppose.

I expect all these clowns playing Football Manager in real life are much of a muchness all chasing the same players from an ever diminishing pool of talent.

How many times and how many tens of millions before these two morons get it? Brighton are NOT the model to follow!

[Dwmh]

31 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

How many times and how many tens of millions before these two morons get it? Brighton are NOT the model to follow!

Well I'd have said Brighton and Strasbourg are great models to follow.  You can do exactly the same as has been done with Chelsea and save your self almost £2billion upfront investment at the same time.

Starting with a 74 point team and promising more success was where they went wrong.

[Chelsea_Matt]

2 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Well I'd have said Brighton and Strasbourg are great models to follow.  You can do exactly the same as has been done with Chelsea and save your self almost £2billion upfront investment at the same time.

Starting with a 74 point team and promising more success was where they went wrong.

Except we’re Chelsea. Not Brighton. And look where they are anyway! 

[Dwmh]

25 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Except we’re Chelsea. Not Brighton. And look where they are anyway! 

Oh yes - they came to quite the wrong club for the apparent plan.

[boratsbrother]

1 hour ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Except we’re Chelsea. Not Brighton. And look where they are anyway! 

Lets give some credit when and where it's due.

Brighton have been a very well  run from top to bottom. Built from a modest little club with no stadium of their own to where they are now, producing quality players who are able to  play lovely football.  

[Dwmh]

30 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Lets give some credit when and where it's due.

Brighton have been a very well  run from top to bottom. Built from a modest little club with no stadium of their own to where they are now, producing quality players who are able to  play lovely football.  

I recall a city joke from the 1980s when Americans were trying to get a toehold in London Banking

      How do you buy a small Merchant Bank?
       Buy a Big Merchant Bank and wait.

 

[Chelsea_Matt]

47 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Lets give some credit when and where it's due.

Brighton have been a very well  run from top to bottom. Built from a modest little club with no stadium of their own to where they are now, producing quality players who are able to  play lovely football.  

Great. Well done Brighton. I don’t care though with regards to Chelsea. Apples and oranges imo. 

[Max Fowler]

9 minutes ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Great. Well done Brighton. I don’t care though with regards to Chelsea. Apples and oranges imo. 

Yeah we should be getting the best in class sporting team - just like we did nabbing Peter Kenyon from United back in the day. We are not getting the "best in class" - we are getting the best at turning young players into profits - and is there really any doubt that that is the reason we are getting the Brighton team as opposed to coughing up for a sporting director from an elite club?

[thevelourfog]

4 hours ago, boratsbrother said:

Lets give some credit when and where it's due.

Brighton have been a very well  run from top to bottom. Built from a modest little club with no stadium of their own to where they are now, producing quality players who are able to  play lovely football.  

Not that this is a reason to not credit them, but worth noting none of this has been as organic as it looks from the outside. The club owes about £70m to its owner. 

Loads they do well, of course. And I have no issue with an owner pumping money in.

[Max Fowler]

Which club who operates like Brighton has ever dominated leagues? Answer - none. They have served as feeder clubs and profit cows. We are being modelled after Brighton and Leipzig.

[boratsbrother]

2 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

Which club who operates like Brighton has ever dominated leagues? Answer - none. They have served as feeder clubs and profit cows. We are being modelled after Brighton and Leipzig.

I didn't say I want us to be run like Brighton have been, just giving them credit for turning the club around.

[Max Fowler]

5 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

I didn't say I want us to be run like Brighton have been, just giving them credit for turning the club around.

Wasn't aimed at you. I actually love Brighton and want us to grab at least De Zerbi and Estupinan from them.

[Dwmh]

3 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

Not that this is a reason to not credit them, but worth noting none of this has been as organic as it looks from the outside. The club owes about £70m to its owner. 

Loads they do well, of course. And I have no issue with an owner pumping money in.

I doubt it does now.  Trossard Bisouma and Cucurella were sold over a year ago, and typically deals are done half up front half a year later so a lot of that £70m (which was leant to replace bank debt) will have been covered by now.  + compensation for er Potter.
Then Brighton sold MacCallister, Sanchez and Caicedo summer 2023, so a chunk of that will have been paid already.

He could well have started taking cash out now.  And Brighton's ability to fund new purchases must be enormous right now.
 

2 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

Which club who operates like Brighton has ever dominated leagues? Answer - none. They have served as feeder clubs and profit cows. We are being modelled after Brighton and Leipzig.

15/16.  OK one year.

[Sciatika]

I don't think Leicester was like Brighton at all. I thought most of Leicester's key players in the 15/16 season were between 25 and 30 (i.e. in their prime). Also, they had a spine that had been with Leicester for some years, including Schmeichel (5), Morgan(4), Drinkwater (3), and Vardy(4). The main changes they made for the start of their "special" season were bringing in Huth in defence and Kante and Mahrez in midfield. Kante and Mahrez were 25 and Huth over 30. They were very experienced for the most part. 

[thevelourfog]

12 hours ago, Dwmh said:

I doubt it does now.  Trossard Bisouma and Cucurella were sold over a year ago, and typically deals are done half up front half a year later so a lot of that £70m (which was leant to replace bank debt) will have been covered by now.  + compensation for er Potter.
Then Brighton sold MacCallister, Sanchez and Caicedo summer 2023, so a chunk of that will have been paid already.

He could well have started taking cash out now.  And Brighton's ability to fund new purchases must be enormous right now.

I think I was wrong on the £70m, or misread something previously because the debt is actually reported to be much more significant than that. It was reportedly just shy of £500m in 2022, with Brighton having made a loss of about £250m in the 3 years previous. I personally doubt that has been repaid by their recent sales, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. My point was more that Brighton have benefitted from huge investment from a wealthy benefactor. He seems to have the club's interests at heart so I see no reason anyone should object to it, but Brighton are not quite the organic growth, wholesome little-club-come-good story they are sometimes sold as*. If we won the Euromillions, they won the pools.

*I have a few Palace and Southampton supporting mates who are always very keen to point this out when talking football, much more a source of annoyance to them than me!

Edited February 16 by thevelourfog

[jasonb]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

I don't think Leicester was like Brighton at all. I thought most of Leicester's key players in the 15/16 season were between 25 and 30 (i.e. in their prime). Also, they had a spine that had been with Leicester for some years, including Schmeichel (5), Morgan(4), Drinkwater (3), and Vardy(4). The main changes they made for the start of their "special" season were bringing in Huth in defence and Kante and Mahrez in midfield. Kante and Mahrez were 25 and Huth over 30. They were very experienced for the most part. 

Its a funny game, Leicester won the league by 10 points yet without Shinji Okazaki's goals on paper they come second to Arsenal on goal difference. Coming mainly from the bench he  scored three times to obtain the victory and one for a draw.  A £7m buy from Stuttgart.

He only seemed to come on when Vardy and Mahrez could not break down the opposition.

 

[Dwmh]

1 hour ago, thevelourfog said:

I think I was wrong on the £70m, or misread something previously because the debt is actually reported to be much more significant than that. It was reportedly just shy of £500m in 2022, with Brighton having made a loss of about £250m in the 3 years previous. I personally doubt that has been repaid by their recent sales, but I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Interesting.  But it does seem the club is still generating players more than good enough for the Prem.

[Max Fowler]

This Brighton lot are not going anywhere...