1 hour ago, SwedishEntity said:

Out of pure curiosity: is Todd Boehly safe? I mean not all of the money spent is actually his.

Could Clearlake or whatever they're called somehow decide to tell him to f**k off from your club?

Boehly is behaving like someone who is not only desperate to save his reputation, but also his job.

This again plays into his mindset I mentioned again previously he will be absolutely getting pressure from the other investors as to why their asset which was a winning trophy machine and sponsors dream is now a mid table sack of sh*te team!!

The group will have no hesitation is binning him!!

1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Boehly telling the players they should feel embarrassed lol pot calling kettle black. 

I think Boehly went into the dressing room to deflect that the fans started having a go at him and push the blame onto the players and make the story about them and not him.

36 minutes ago, El regreso said:

This again plays into his mindset I mentioned again previously he will be absolutely getting pressure from the other investors as to why their asset which was a winning trophy machine and sponsors dream is now a mid table sack of sh*te team!!

The group will have no hesitation is binning him!!

He put some of his money in - so not sure if he is sackable 

26 minutes ago, bluehaze said:

I think Boehly went into the dressing room to deflect that the fans started having a go at him and push the blame onto the players and make the story about them and not him.

Maybe we get to see Boehly in the starting line up versus Madrid? I guess it’s not allowed?

4 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

He put some of his money in - so not sure if he is sackable 

Clearlake can remove him. 

2 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

He put some of his money in - so not sure if he is sackable 

I’m not sure what the exact terms are, but what I’m fairly certain of is:

- it has to become profitable

-they’ve used quite a lot of debt-financing, and they’ve done so in their other ventures too (per the private equity model/ aka the scourge of humanity)

- they’ve frontloaded an awful lot of their planned investment in a pretty reckless manner. 
 

- Chelsea’s fortunes are very much at the mercy of the economic cycle, much more so than was ever the case under Roman (who a) had much deeper pockets, b) was less leveraged, c) didn’t care about profits). Roman could survive 2008, but a nasty recession would almost certainly spell the end of this reign. 

17 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

He put some of his money in - so not sure if he is sackable 

No sackable but he can be replaced with someone who actually knows football if the other investors decide he’s burning their money.

22 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Also Potter, for his first three games, which were all wins.

Since then, we've been dreadful - relegation candidate form for sure :

It is clear now that it was not due to the new manager bounce but the structure left by Tuchel. He remains the only instance when a manager was sacked not because of disastrous results or losing the support of the players but because the owners were following some deluded vision of how to run the club.

Edited April 17, 20233 yr by Nick05

1 hour ago, Nick05 said:

It is clear now that it was not due to the new manager bounce but the structure left by Tuchel. He remains the only instance when a manager was sacked not because of disastrous results or losing the support of the players but because the owners were following some deluded vision of how to run the club.

Of our 10 wins in the PL this season 3 were under Tuchel and 2 directly after Potter took over. Even if you attribute Potters two wins to his brilliant strategy without those wins under Tuchel we'd be only 3 points off Everton and Nottingham Forest. Utter madness.

3 hours ago, Dean said:

I’m not sure what the exact terms are, but what I’m fairly certain of is:

- it has to become profitable

-they’ve used quite a lot of debt-financing, and they’ve done so in their other ventures too (per the private equity model/ aka the scourge of humanity)

- they’ve frontloaded an awful lot of their planned investment in a pretty reckless manner. 
 

- Chelsea’s fortunes are very much at the mercy of the economic cycle, much more so than was ever the case under Roman (who a) had much deeper pockets, b) was less leveraged, c) didn’t care about profits). Roman could survive 2008, but a nasty recession would almost certainly spell the end of this reign. 

And yet Roman’s reign was unable to withstand the geopolitical crisis, not having been able to attend our games for seasons and finally being forced to give Chelsea up by the UK government. All rich owners are going to be susceptible to economics or politics, imagine that Europe were to turn their attention towards the human rights record of the oil states, City, Newcastle, etc would suffer. 

…..which is exactly what should happen RMH. If Qataris or Saudis buy Man U, serious questions should be asked. 

2 hours ago, RMH said:

And yet Roman’s reign was unable to withstand the geopolitical crisis, not having been able to attend our games for seasons and finally being forced to give Chelsea up by the UK government. All rich owners are going to be susceptible to economics or politics, imagine that Europe were to turn their attention towards the human rights record of the oil states, City, Newcastle, etc would suffer. 

Oh, for sure. different sort of risk, but yeah all terribly fragile. Don’t get me started on city, Newcastle, PSG, corrupt governing bodies, winter world cups, the Faustian pact we ALL made (@WhiteWall I think mentioned it once) if we’re honest with ourselves, etc, etc.

 

I’ve intimated elsewhere that I think this all needs to stop. Someone with balls needs to step up and make some rules. Basically you have dictatorships being rewarded for….well, being dictatorships. The citizenry of these places doesn’t get a say in how any of their money is spent. It’s deeply effed up and unfair even before you get to human rights etc. anyway… I said “don’t get me started” so I’d better check myself here. 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/22066463/todd-boehly-chelsea-flops-explosive-dressing-room-rant/

4 hours ago, Nick05 said:

It is clear now that it was not due to the new manager bounce but the structure left by Tuchel. He remains the only instance when a manager was sacked not because of disastrous results or losing the support of the players but because the owners were following some deluded vision of how to run the club.

Actually I'd say Tuchel's 6 games, and the successful start of Potter's time in charge were all before the team experienced the Boehly break down. Since then we have been mostly crap.

6 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Clearlake can remove him. 

Perhaps but I'm not sure that the others are any better. Egbali seems to have been right by Boehly's side for most of the key decisions. Wyss has been much quieter so perhaps he would be the best option for now.

New theory as to what it was TT did that angered the owners in to sacking him.

He stopped them coming in to the changing room after games, that being the managers and players space and not one for the owners.

I have to admit, Boehly clearly does seem to care about the clubs results and wants us to succeed, despite his stupid decision making.

 

I'd rather have him than someone like Daniel Levy, who sacked Mourinho right before a cup final, most likely because Mourinho winning Spurs a trophy would have meant a bigger pay off sacking him.

 

Or an owner like the Glazers who saddle the club in 9 figures worth of debt, with zero invesment in the club's training facilities.

 

Or worst of all an owner like Mike Ashley, who just milks the club for profit whilst investing nothing.

11 minutes ago, Drogba1 said:

I have to admit, Boehly clearly does seem to care about the clubs results and wants us to succeed, despite his stupid decision making.

 

I'd rather have him than someone like Daniel Levy, who sacked Mourinho right before a cup final, most likely because Mourinho winning Spurs a trophy would have meant a bigger pay off sacking him.

 

Or an owner like the Glazers who saddle the club in 9 figures worth of debt, with zero invesment in the club's training facilities.

 

Or worst of all an owner like Mike Ashley, who just milks the club for profit whilst investing nothing.

Will see Drogs, Glazers never have had United close to FFP issues.

2 hours ago, Drogba1 said:

I have to admit, Boehly clearly does seem to care about the clubs results and wants us to succeed, despite his stupid decision making.

 

I'd rather have him than someone like Daniel Levy, who sacked Mourinho right before a cup final, most likely because Mourinho winning Spurs a trophy would have meant a bigger pay off sacking him.

 

Or an owner like the Glazers who saddle the club in 9 figures worth of debt, with zero invesment in the club's training facilities.

 

Or worst of all an owner like Mike Ashley, who just milks the club for profit whilst investing nothing.

I agree that Boehly definitely wants to succeed. I think his main issue so far has been trying to make too many changes too quickly, and trusting his own judgement based on football data, rather than letting actual football strategists make the important decisions on his behalf. He has made some major mistakes and they are likely to be costly for him and the rest of the investors. At least in the short term. Hopefully he learns from the mistakes

It's obvious Boehly intend to bring success to Chelsea, or he wouldn't get involved in just about every aspect of managing the club. He already gave the post-match talk to players on the weekend, expect him to give a pre-match talk and possibly sit on the sideline in games to come. Put good intentions aside, he had no idea about football ( not the American game), he probably done his work home from watching Moneyball and playing FM. Best thing he could do from now on is let the football people ( he hired) do the job, back the manager  in the transfer market, and hand off the panic button, basically just chill

Boehly and Co came to the club and didn't have football people in place initially. Now they have brought in a new board, it will help massively. He was doing much of the business himself, such as the negotiations apparently. 

The thing is, we experienced a similar season under Mourinho. We had also won the league the season before which made that season in 15/16 even more strange and unbelievable.

We had so many good players in that side too, so that was even worse than this season for me. We had an elite coach in charge and even he couldn't change it that season. 

There is no doubt that Boehly and Co will learn from this experience. I have no doubt he wants to make us a dominant club again, and I'm sure he would admit he's made mistakes. 

It is very hard to compare previous seasons to this time. First of all the club was unchanged for years. Now it seems every people is new. The squad is so inexperienced. I mean there is talent but Mudryk has never faced Arsenal or Bournemouth, let alone won against them or have settled titles against these opponents. 

We are set years behind from where we were.

 

3 hours ago, evissy said:

It is very hard to compare previous seasons to this time. First of all the club was unchanged for years. Now it seems every people is new. The squad is so inexperienced. I mean there is talent but Mudryk has never faced Arsenal or Bournemouth, let alone won against them or have settled titles against these opponents. 

We are set years behind from where we were.

 

I disagree, Tuchel's success was papering over our terrible recruitment over the past few years. Before the January signings our squad really was awful considering the money we'd spent. 

You know what is frustrating. The decisions that went against us this season. Blatant decisions which have cost us a maximum of 6 points. The west ham game and the Tottenham game.

People can say those are excuses, and I don't deny we've had a poor season, but those extra pts can mean the difference between where we are now and being a few pts off European places. 

It just pisses me off when blatant decisions go against us in games and it costs us potential points. You can point to Brighton against Spurs too. Spurs shouldn't have the points they have, but they've had decisions go for them. 

With Tuchel, we saw the cracks last season even before we were smacked at home by Real Madrid 1-3. Not having Kante this season has been massive.

Having key injuries has affected us. This is why I was forgiving of Potter for a large part of the season because he never had a settled team for months. 

People can blame Todd and our performances, but performances are affected by key injuries too, because it affects tactics negatively. Take Kane out of Spurs and see what happens.

Take Rashford and Casemiro out of man Utd for large parts of the season and see what happens. Take Haaland and Rodri out of City, see what happens. The list goes on