Chelsea owners and board

[east lower]

Meanwhile another long standing member (18 years service) of the first team staff has resigned:

 

[Ham]

36 minutes ago, east lower said:

Meanwhile another long standing member (18 years service) of the first team staff has resigned:

 

In order to move his family to Thailand. No suggestion of anything amiss here.  

[east lower]

Just now, Ham said:

In order to move his family to Thailand. No suggestion of anything amiss here.  

Depends entirely how you read it. Praises Tuchel, says nothing about current people.

Sometimes it’s what’s not said that speaks volumes.

[Michael Tucker]

27 minutes ago, east lower said:

Depends entirely how you read it.

Or, how you want to read it!

[east lower]

6 hours ago, Michael Tucker said:

Or, how you want to read it!

Or what the weight of numbers doing exactly the same thing suggests!

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck………..chances are that it’s one.

[Michael Tucker]

1 hour ago, east lower said:

Or what the weight of numbers doing exactly the same thing suggests!

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck………..chances are that it’s one.

Sorry? You've lost me.

[east lower]

2 minutes ago, Michael Tucker said:

Sorry? You've lost me.

If one person leaves an organisation, could be any reason. But when lots leave in a shortish period of time, chances are it’s an organisational problem that causing the departure's.

[Sleeping Dave]

8 minutes ago, east lower said:

If one person leaves an organisation, could be any reason. But when lots leave in a shortish period of time, chances are it’s an organisational problem that causing the departure's.

There is definitely something going on. The sheer number of long standing staff members who leave suggest that something is not right. 

 

[east lower]

Just now, Sleeping Dave said:

There is definitely something going on. The sheer number of long standing staff members who leave suggest that something is not right. 

 

I’d guess at they can see that this clear-out of staff that were appointed by the former regime isn’t going to stop until anyone with any influence on the playing staff (senior and junior) is gone. 

Go on your terms, not there’s - On this one, and after 18 years at the club I hope he managed to negotiate a payday as well. 

[paulw66]

As a first team fitness coach, perhaps has a lot to answer for! 

[martin1905]

I'm just a train driver so have never been involved in how a business or organisation is run but I'd suspect when a big consortium take over a multi billion pound business it's pretty normal to replace most or all of the staff, either by hiring and firing or natural wastage.

We are entering our third season under the new owners so it's not like this all happend over night and it would be interesting to see what happened at other clubs, who were taken over, how many of the old staff remained and for how long.

Would also  be interesting to see what the turn over of staff was like, in a three season period, under Roman. I suspect if this fella had left under Romans stewardship no one would be talking about it.

 

[martin1905]

For all the moaning about the money being spent on young players and not the first team squad, I think the two are completely different things. I don't think you can say if we didn't buy all those young players we could have spent it on the first team.

There are cleary two different budgets and one of them is used to buy young players to either make a profit by flipping them or getting ahead of the game and signing the best young talent in the world before they cost three times as much as we paid.

It's easy to pick out a group of players Ugochukwu, Dastro, Washington, Santos for example and predict we will never make money on them but I don't see it like that. I think the only way you can look at it is by putting all the young players we have  signed that haven't immediately gone into the first team squad together and see what happens. 

Obviously we will lose on some, gain on others but in the current world of FFP and PSR, it's all about the yearly book value rather than an individual players cost so when you sign 20 odd young players for relative peanuts, in terms of yearly book value, even if you make minimum profit on them in a year or twos time it all helps with FFP. 

What we did, when we tried a similar approach under Roman, is irrelevant. It's a different world. Never in a million year's would we have seen what happened with Maatsen and Kellyman under Roman but things have changed and it's very easy to type your thoughts on an Internet forum but there is a fair chance these multi billionaire businessmen do have a bit more of an idea than we do, certainly when it comes to being financially stable, creating new revenue streams and turning a profit, especially in today's football world where we, as an average fan, really don't know the ins and outs of the clubs FFP situation. 

We were supposed to be getting royally shafted by breaching PSR and how could we not after all the money we have spent? It's all gone very quiet on that front and if we haven't breached after the last couple of years then this formula  works and maybe they do know what they are doing, after all?

 

Edited July 25 by martin1905

[martin1905]

Also, it's not like we haven't spent on the first team squad. For all the negativity below are two potentially starting 11's going into next season....

Sanchez

 

James Fofana Colwill Cucurella 

 

Gallagher Caicedo Dewsbury-Hall 

 

Palmer Nkunku Sterling

 

Petr

 

Gusto Disasi Badiashille Chilwell

 

Enzo Lavia Chukwuemeka 

 

Madueke Jackosn Mudryk

 

That is some serious depth, with a lot of interchangeable parts. Lots of versatility in that squad, good depth and some serious quality.

Our squad,  especially our first 11, I would put up against anyone in the league outside of City and Arsenal, although I'd argue we have better depth than Arsenal. Would I swap our first 11 for Liverpool's, Tottenham's, Villa's, United's? Absolutely no chance.

[martin1905]

Just to add that first starting 11 is fairly young, with plenty of room to grow and improve as a collective, it's certainly not a team full of kids.

It's actually a team of mostly full internationals with an average age of 25.

Edited July 25 by martin1905

[RDCW]

1 minute ago, martin1905 said:

Just to add that first starting 11 is fairly young, with plenty of room to grow and improve as a collective, it's certainly not a team full of kids.

It's actually a team of mostly full internationals with an average age of 25.

I think that is a very good squad. If Maresco is in any way competent and progressive then top 4 should be an absolute breeze.

[Sleeping Dave]

59 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

For all the moaning about the money being spent on young players and not the first team squad, I think the two are completely different things. I don't think you can say if we didn't buy all those young players we could have spent it on the first team.

There are cleary two different budgets and one of them is used to buy young players to either make a profit by flipping them or getting ahead of the game and signing the best young talent in the world before they cost three times as much as we paid.

It's easy to pick out a group of players Ugochukwu, Dastro, Washington, Santos for example and predict we will never make money on them but I don't see it like that. I think the only way you can look at it is by putting all the young players we have  signed that haven't immediately gone into the first team squad together and see what happens. 

Obviously we will lose on some, gain on others but in the current world of FFP and PSR, it's all about the yearly book value rather than an individual players cost so when you sign 20 odd young players for relative peanuts, in terms of yearly book value, even if you make minimum profit on them in a year or twos time it all helps with FFP. 

What we did, when we tried a similar approach under Roman, is irrelevant. It's a different world. Never in a million year's would we have seen what happened with Maatsen and Kellyman under Roman but things have changed and it's very easy to type your thoughts on an Internet forum but there is a fair chance these multi billionaire businessmen do have a bit more of an idea than we do, certainly when it comes to being financially stable, creating new revenue streams and turning a profit, especially in today's football world where we, as an average fan, really don't know the ins and outs of the clubs FFP situation. 

We were supposed to be getting royally shafted by breaching PSR and how could we not after all the money we have spent? It's all gone very quiet on that front and if we haven't breached after the last couple of years then this formula  works and maybe they do know what they are doing, after all?

 

There is a lot of jumping through hoops here. Profit is still the same today, regardless of how you balance the books with different accounting principles. Buying a player for £20m, paying him £60k/week over a 7 year deal will produce a total cost of roughly £42m over the course of his contract. 

Sure, some of the cost will be offset by loaning him out and the other club covering some of his wages. But this player will need to be sold for a lot of cash in order for us to even break even on him. This requires us to have a plan, give him minutes and good loans where he has a chance to succeed. This is a must in order for his value to go up. 

This is a tall order, and if you multiply this scenario x20 then all of a sudden you realise how well these players will have to do for us to turn a profit, never minf breaking even. 

There are also some rumours that Guiu is paid an astonishing £100k/week. This would make him one of the highest paid players in the squad. How true this is I don't know, but I wouldn't put it past these clows to be perfectly honest. 

Edited July 25 by Sleeping Dave

[martin1905]

6 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

There is a lot of jumping through hoops here. Profit is still the same today, regardless of how you balance the books with different accounting principles. Buying a player for £20m, paying him £60k/week over a 7 year deal will produce a total cost of roughly £42m over the course of his contract. 

Sure, some of the cost will be offset by loaning him out and the other club covering some of his wages. But this player will need to be sold for a lot of cash in order for us to even break even on him. This requires us to have a plan, give him minutes and good loans where he has a chance to succeed. This is a must in order for his value to go up. 

This is a tall order, and if you multiply this scenario x20 then all of a sudden you realise how well these players will have to do for us to turn a profit, never minf breaking even. 

There are also some rumours that Guiu is paid an astonishing £100k/week. This would make him one of the highest paid players in the squad. How true this is I don't know, but I wouldn't put it past these clows to be perfectly honest. 

I suppose we will find out and soon.

If this strategy doesn't work then we must have breached PSR as we spent an astronomical ount of money in the last two years.

What makes me think  we are OK is that they continue to do it so must be pretty confident in their accounting. Or they are imbeciles, which from a business point of view they are clearly not.

[Mark Kelly]

7 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

There is a lot of jumping through loops here. Profit is still the same today, regardless of how you balance the books with different accounting principles. Buying a player for £20m, paying him £60k/week over a 7 year deal with mean a total cost of roughly £42m. 

Sure, some of the cost will be offset by loaning him out and the other club covering some of his wages. But this player will need to be sold for a lot of cash in order for us to even break even on him. This requires us to have a plan, give him minutes and good loans where he has a chance to succeed. This is a must in order for his value to go up. 

This is a tall order, and if you multiply this scenario x20 then all of a sudden you realise how well these players will have to do for us to turn a profit, never minf breaking even. 

There are also some rumours that Guiu is paid an astonishing £100k/week. This would make him one of the highest paid players in the squad. How true this is I don't know, but I wouldn't put it past these clows to be perfectly honest. 

To be honest Dave I don't think they really care , it's a paper pushing situation the end game being growing "the Brand" and ultimately cashing in when they come to selling the club , if they can make their nut , how they got there will be of no concern to them . 

[Morgs]

On 23/07/2024 at 19:10, east lower said:

 

£105 million on Fernandez!! Makes Jack Grealish look good value!!

Weird one this, but I'd have Jack Grealish at Chelsea all day long. 

Not for 100m, but I'd have him at Chelsea. Makes things happen, gets people excited, has genuine quality and does work hard despite his lazy reputation.  Scores goals, pulls the team out of clutch situations. Has some backbone, great mentality. Fit lad despite the lifestyle, still young. 

Got a touch of the s**thouse about him too, he's the sort of lad who would be a cult hero at Chelsea. I know lots don't like or rate him but I think he's class. Mercurial yes, a bit streaky yes but would be magic at Chelsea. 

Anyone else think this or just me?

Edited July 25 by Morgs

[Mark Kelly]

18 minutes ago, Morgs said:

Weird one this, but I'd have Jack Grealish at Chelsea all day long. 

Not for 100m, but I'd have him at Chelsea. Makes things happen, gets people excited, has genuine quality and does work hard despite his lazy reputation.  Scores goals, pulls the team out of clutch situations. Has some backbone, great mentality. Fit lad despite the lifestyle, still young. 

Got a touch of the s**thouse about him too, he's the sort of lad who would be a cult hero at Chelsea. I know lots don't like or rate him but I think he's class. Mercurial yes, a bit streaky yes but would be magic at Chelsea. 

Anyone else think this or just me?

I'd have him . 

Generally he's a free kick generating machine when he plays for City and previously , not sure that would translate to us given previous experience 

[Bob Singleton]

40 minutes ago, Morgs said:

Weird one this, but I'd have Jack Grealish at Chelsea all day long. 

Not for 100m, but I'd have him at Chelsea. Makes things happen, gets people excited, has genuine quality and does work hard despite his lazy reputation.  Scores goals, pulls the team out of clutch situations. Has some backbone, great mentality. Fit lad despite the lifestyle, still young. 

Got a touch of the s**thouse about him too, he's the sort of lad who would be a cult hero at Chelsea. I know lots don't like or rate him but I think he's class. Mercurial yes, a bit streaky yes but would be magic at Chelsea. 

Anyone else think this or just me?

Never understood the hatred of Grealish by some. I'd have him.

[Sleeping Dave]

58 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

I suppose we will find out and soon.

If this strategy doesn't work then we must have breached PSR as we spent an astronomical ount of money in the last two years.

What makes me think  we are OK is that they continue to do it so must be pretty confident in their accounting. Or they are imbeciles, which from a business point of view they are clearly not.

So far, what saves them is the selling of any decent academy player we produce. So far they have sold off;

Maatsen €44.5m, Hall €33m (plus  small loan fee last summer), Hutchinson €23.5m, Mount €64.2m, Loftus-Cheek €18.5m, Ampadu €8.1m, Hudson-Odoi €3.5m and Gilmour €8.3m. That's roughly €200m right there. 

So we are effectively selling off the academy to finance this strategy. It's a very risky game, as we will tank if it doesn't come off (not to mention lose competitiveness in the first team). 

For good measure and comparison, we bought Lavia and Fofana for €140m. None of them has given us anything meaningful so far. 

58 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

To be honest Dave I don't think they really care , it's a paper pushing situation the end game being growing "the Brand" and ultimately cashing in when they come to selling the club , if they can make their nut , how they got there will be of no concern to them . 

I think you are right Mark. 

53 minutes ago, Morgs said:

Weird one this, but I'd have Jack Grealish at Chelsea all day long. 

Not for 100m, but I'd have him at Chelsea. Makes things happen, gets people excited, has genuine quality and does work hard despite his lazy reputation.  Scores goals, pulls the team out of clutch situations. Has some backbone, great mentality. Fit lad despite the lifestyle, still young. 

Got a touch of the s**thouse about him too, he's the sort of lad who would be a cult hero at Chelsea. I know lots don't like or rate him but I think he's class. Mercurial yes, a bit streaky yes but would be magic at Chelsea. 

Anyone else think this or just me?

I fully agree with this. I'd have Grealish in a heartbeat. He is not some streamlined verison of a modern footballer with no personality and pre-trained media replies. He is somewhat old-school in that regard and a true maverick. I rate him highly and think it speaks volumes about Southgate that he left him at home. He should have travelled. 

Saka had a disastrous Euro. I really don't see his greatness at all. 

[Bob Singleton]

7 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

So far, what saves them is the selling of any decent academy player we produce. So far they have sold off;

Maatsen €44.5m, Hall €33m (plus  small loan fee last summer), Hutchinson €23.5m, Mount €64.2m, Loftus-Cheek €18.5m, Ampadu €8.1m, Hudson-Odoi €3.5m and Gilmour €8.3m. That's roughly €200m right there. 

So we are effectively selling off the academy to finance this strategy. It's a very risky game, as we will tank if it doesn't come off (not to mention lose competitiveness in the first team). 

[SNIP]

If I may be permitted to nit-pick, but while Omari Hutchinson may have joined Chelsea at a young age, he was also released by Chelsea (not once, but twice) also at a youngish age. He spent his formative years (seven of them) at Arsenal before returning to us. We had him for all of a year, where we loaned him, then sold him to Ipswich. I don't count him as part of Chelsea's academy. I see him as part of the "keep or flip" group of players we've bought.

Edited July 25 by Bob Singleton

[thevelourfog]

So long as Gilchrist is worth £200m by next summer, we're all good.

[paulw66]

2 hours ago, Morgs said:

Weird one this, but I'd have Jack Grealish at Chelsea all day long. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

I'd have him . 

Generally he's a free kick generating machine when he plays for City and previously , not sure that would translate to us given previous experience 

 

1 hour ago, Bob Singleton said:

Never understood the hatred of Grealish by some. I'd have him.

14 goals in 125 appearances for one of the best teams of the modern era. That's an awful return.

For context:

Sterling has 19 in 81  (and gets pelters). Mudryk has 7 in 58. Madueke 9 in 46. 

Appreciate it's not all about goals, but his contribution is poor. Turns 29 in September. big time Charlie.

Wouldn't touch him (not that there's any worry on my part it would happen)