July 1, 20233 yr 2 hours ago, JM7 said: All these changes has at least been refreshing. We’d become stale under Roman and stopped pushing. Bohley has at least changed up the strategy and freshened things up. I don't think we stopped pushing at all under Abramovich. A lot of the signings didn't work out, but signing Ziyech, Havertz, Pulisic, Werner, Chilwell, Silva and bringing Mount, James, Chalobah, Tomori and Abraham through the ranks was clearly a plan to create the next generation of Chelsea that will compete with the best again.
July 1, 20233 yr 21 hours ago, The Rising Sun said: You better back up the " they clearly want Chelsea to be a title winning machine" claim ! 😛 Not really. The owners have already stated it publicly both recently and when they bought the club that they want success.
July 1, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Frankie8Lampard said: Not really. The owners have already stated it publicly both recently and when they bought the club that they want success. I’m surprised anyone takes any stock whatsoever in bullsh*t public statements from either club hierarchy or players. Tell the punters what they want to hear. Be quite refreshing if someone bucked the trend with good old fashioned honesty “ Couldn’t give a sh*t about winning trophies. Only here for the dough”
July 1, 20233 yr 21 hours ago, Scott Harris said: I don't think we stopped pushing at all under Abramovich. A lot of the signings didn't work out, but signing Ziyech, Havertz, Pulisic, Werner, Chilwell, Silva and bringing Mount, James, Chalobah, Tomori and Abraham through the ranks was clearly a plan to create the next generation of Chelsea that will compete with the best again. Well said. Love how the moment things start looking optimistic again, people are more than willing to swallow the new owners' PR bullsh*t. I'm sick of reading how much of an apparent shambles we were since 2003. Abramovich, for all his flaws, never slagged off Hutchinson and Bates the way the new mob seem want to do at every opportunity. Edited July 1, 20233 yr by SydneyChelsea
July 1, 20233 yr 2 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said: Well said. Love how the moment things start looking optimistic again, people are more than willing to swallow the new owners' PR bullsh*t. I'm sick of reading how much of an apparent shambles we were since 2003. Abramovich, for all his flaws, never slagged off Hutchinson and Bates the way the new mob seem want to do at every opportunity. Where they (or anyone) saying that? It's clear it's the latter year of the Roman regime that's under scrutinity. Should they keep quiet giving what has happened so far under their reign? Probably, but equally infuriating is this sudden narrative we were a well oiled machine while we got ourselves banned from the market and were breaking transfer records on Lukaku and Kepa.
July 2, 20233 yr Every thread I read on this forum has one theme.. ohh he didn’t have a good season but Pochettino can improve him.. ohh he is young but Pochettino is great at working with young players and will help him realise his potential.. I am sorry but if we our strategy is so reliant on a manager improving and turning around every single player we are in for a shock.. Pochettino is a good manager but we need more help with in form players like Nkunku.. Caicedo will be critical.. but we do need atleast one more senior attacker for the right flank and one more senior midfielder to compete with Enzo and Caicedo..that is why I think a Kova or a Kante was necessary for this squad more than a mount or a Kova..
July 2, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Jangz said: Every thread I read on this forum has one theme.. ohh he didn’t have a good season but Pochettino can improve him.. ohh he is young but Pochettino is great at working with young players and will help him realise his potential.. I am sorry but if we our strategy is so reliant on a manager improving and turning around every single player we are in for a shock.. Pochettino is a good manager but we need more help with in form players like Nkunku.. Caicedo will be critical.. but we do need atleast one more senior attacker for the right flank and one more senior midfielder to compete with Enzo and Caicedo..that is why I think a Kova or a Kante was necessary for this squad more than a mount or a Kova.. There is a lack of RW in world football presently, Utd spent over £150m in the last 2 windows on RWs in Sancho & Antony and still don’t have a perfect RW. Madrid have been using Valverde a DM, and Rodrigo a “10” on their RW for the last 3 seasons because there is just no quality option in the market. Even Pep spent the majority of last season playing Bernardo Silva as his RW when ideally you want him in the middle of the park. There is a reason why they are desperate to keep hold of Mahrez even though he wants the Saudi move. Saka is probably the best RW on the planet and his locked down by Arsenal for the indefinite future. The only other decent option on the market is an injured Olise at Palace, scrapping the barrel Tete at Shaktar and Chukwueze at Villarreal. Szoboszlai who has just signed Liverpool would have been perfect as he is equally good as an AM, and a RW. For some reason we just never bothered. This keep Kante narrative is hilarious; he was never fit. It’s a bit pointless extending one of our highest earners if he spends the majority of the season out injured.
July 2, 20233 yr 8 hours ago, ducavis said: There is a lack of RW in world football presently, Utd spent over £150m in the last 2 windows on RWs in Sancho & Antony and still don’t have a perfect RW. Madrid have been using Valverde a DM, and Rodrigo a “10” on their RW for the last 3 seasons because there is just no quality option in the market. Even Pep spent the majority of last season playing Bernardo Silva as his RW when ideally you want him in the middle of the park. There is a reason why they are desperate to keep hold of Mahrez even though he wants the Saudi move. Saka is probably the best RW on the planet and his locked down by Arsenal for the indefinite future. The only other decent option on the market is an injured Olise at Palace, scrapping the barrel Tete at Shaktar and Chukwueze at Villarreal. Szoboszlai who has just signed Liverpool would have been perfect as he is equally good as an AM, and a RW. For some reason we just never bothered. This keep Kante narrative is hilarious; he was never fit. It’s a bit pointless extending one of our highest earners if he spends the majority of the season out injured. I hope you do realise that major point in my post is around all our eggs in the Pochettino basket and the need for some experience.. as for Kante I have seen bigger turnarounds than Kanté overcoming his injury problems..but my post want about Kante.. like I said one of Kante or kova would have been nice and now we need to bring in a senior midfielder who has been there.. as for a RF I agree with you on dearth oh quality there but that is why we pay scouts and not you and me.. also not yet on the Saka hype train..
July 4, 20233 yr It is pretty interesting to see how Strasbourg does next season. Vieira as new head coach and probably many of the youngsters we have just bought feature for them.
July 4, 20233 yr The problem with him, was he was used to working with real men, not spoilt kids that never eally grew up. Totally different mind set.
July 4, 20233 yr 10 hours ago, Ajbod said: The problem with him, was he was used to working with real men, not spoilt kids that never eally grew up. Totally different mind set. You clearly haven't done your research about the state of the Spurs squad he inherited 🤣🤣
July 4, 20233 yr On 01/07/2023 at 16:05, Fruit Bat said: I’m surprised anyone takes any stock whatsoever in bullsh*t public statements from either club hierarchy or players. Tell the punters what they want to hear. Be quite refreshing if someone bucked the trend with good old fashioned honesty “ Couldn’t give a sh*t about winning trophies. Only here for the dough” Well, it's more proof than the people who constantly say that the owners are just here for the money. You can't tell me a group of people investing 600mil are just doing it for money and then say that their public statements are lies when you have no proof to back up your claim. Edited July 4, 20233 yr by Frankie8Lampard
July 4, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, Frankie8Lampard said: Well, it's more proof than the people who constantly say that the owners are just here for the money. You can't tell me a group of people investing 600mil are just doing it for money and then say that their public statements are lies when you have no proof to back up your claim. It doesn't really matter what is said in public, this is the reality of being owned by a hedge fund. Clearlake have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their investors; ultimately, this means doing whatever is necessary to increase the market value of the club. Footballing success is one way of achieving this, but it is not the only nor the most lucrative way of doing so. The dominant paradigm in American investment is "blitzscaling" - the idea of disrupting markets by rapid expansion that outpaces existing regulation (in football, think FFP and amortisation rules). The focus will be increasing the asset value of the club by increasing commercial influence, trading high-value player assets, and acquiring other assets using the multi-club model. There will be "necessary' controversial decisions, such as the inevitable move from Stamford Bridge and development of a new stadium, whether the CPO like it or not. If footballing success comes with the changes that is merely the icing on the cake. Manchester United remain one of the most valuable clubs in the world despite their lack of success in the last decade. Theirs is the model that every single American hedge fund will want to follow. I don't think anyone disagreeing fully appreciates what being subject to investor whim actually means for the club.
July 4, 20233 yr 12 hours ago, Ajbod said: The problem with him, was he was used to working with real men, not spoilt kids that never eally grew up. Totally different mind set. Nope, quite the opposite. Rugby players are privately educated, generally from extremely privileged backgrounds and even poorer kids have everything handed to them in the school system as a result of the sport. Rugby exists in an elitist bubble that even makes cricket blush. Enoka's own difficult upbringing would have still sounded like paradise to many of the players in our squad. His methods and message may have come off as patronising to players who actually endured much worse in their childhoods than his usual cohort.
July 5, 20233 yr 2 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said: It doesn't really matter what is said in public, this is the reality of being owned by a hedge fund. Clearlake have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their investors; ultimately, this means doing whatever is necessary to increase the market value of the club. Footballing success is one way of achieving this, but it is not the only nor the most lucrative way of doing so. The dominant paradigm in American investment is "blitzscaling" - the idea of disrupting markets by rapid expansion that outpaces existing regulation (in football, think FFP and amortisation rules). The focus will be increasing the asset value of the club by increasing commercial influence, trading high-value player assets, and acquiring other assets using the multi-club model. There will be "necessary' controversial decisions, such as the inevitable move from Stamford Bridge and development of a new stadium, whether the CPO like it or not. If footballing success comes with the changes that is merely the icing on the cake. Manchester United remain one of the most valuable clubs in the world despite their lack of success in the last decade. Theirs is the model that every single American hedge fund will want to follow. I don't think anyone disagreeing fully appreciates what being subject to investor whim actually means for the club. How is that so different from how other clubs are run though? A lot of people like to act as if the way Roman ran Chelsea was the norm but it wasn't. Rarely are there owners who are willing to blow money off just to win trophies. Even City owners expect some sort of return which is why there has been a huge commercialization of Man City since they took over (Though some could argue that was to cover their tracks given the investigation going on). Either way, most clubs are run like a business so this isn't brand new.
July 5, 20233 yr 2 hours ago, Frankie8Lampard said: How is that so different from how other clubs are run though? It's not, which is why people are rightly skeptical about the owners' committment to challenging for trophies and are critical when they waste limited funds, since most clubs focus on remaining solvent rather than chasing trophies. Clubs like Newcastle, City and PSG are state-owned entities whose primary goal to increase the reputation and social capital of the club, and importantly, by proxy an entire nation. Winning trophies is the number one way to do that and they have both the intent and resources to spend whatever it takes to achieve that. Commercial and financial considerations are secondary and only necessary because of UEFA/PL FFP restrictions - eg Man City don't need commercial sponsors to fund their transfers, but they must use them because the rules cap the amount their owners can directly spend on footballing expenses. To an extent, we were like this under Abramovich. I don't think it's true that our fans "normalise" the way Abramovich ran the club, given his ownership is but a small part of our history. We know we were lucky, and by the same token some recognise that those lucky days are now over. Abramovich, more often than not, put the club's interests first because the club's interests were tightly aligned with his in the sense that he bought the club to make him look better. Clearlake cannot ever put the club's interest first. They are obligated by law to put the interests of their shareholders first when making investment decisions. For now, our interests and theirs are aligned, but it will not always be so. Abramovich funded spending when there was no prospect of return, whereas Clearlake cannot ever do so. Edited July 5, 20233 yr by SydneyChelsea
July 5, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said: It's not, which is why people are rightly skeptical about the owners' committment to challenging for trophies and are critical when they waste limited funds, since most clubs focus on remaining solvent rather than chasing trophies. Clubs like Newcastle, City and PSG are state-owned entities whose primary goal to increase the reputation and social capital of the club, and importantly, by proxy an entire nation. Winning trophies is the number one way to do that and they have both the intent and resources to spend whatever it takes to achieve that. Commercial and financial considerations are secondary and only necessary because of UEFA/PL FFP restrictions - eg Man City don't need commercial sponsors to fund their transfers, but they must use them because the rules cap the amount their owners can directly spend on footballing expenses. To an extent, we were like this under Abramovich. I don't think it's true that our fans "normalise" the way Abramovich ran the club, given his ownership is but a small part of our history. We know we were lucky, and by the same token some recognise that those lucky days are now over. Abramovich, more often than not, put the club's interests first because the club's interests were tightly aligned with his in the sense that he bought the club to make him look better. Clearlake cannot ever put the club's interest first. They are obligated by law to put the interests of their shareholders first when making investment decisions. For now, our interests and theirs are aligned, but it will not always be so. Abramovich funded spending when there was no prospect of return, whereas Clearlake cannot ever do so. Agree to disagree then. Other than City, PSG and other state-owned teams, most clubs seek to increase the value of their club through success. There's always going to be interests of various stakeholders in ownership, this isn't new in football or business. Clearlake aren't some evil overlords that inventing a new way of owning a club. Edited July 5, 20233 yr by Frankie8Lampard
July 5, 20233 yr 14 minutes ago, Frankie8Lampard said: Clearlake aren't some evil overlords that inventing a new way of owning a club. No, they aren't, but that is the issue. The hedge fund way is a disaster in waiting. Clubs owned by hedge funds don't win things, and they can only profit if football itself changes to accomodate them.
Create an account or sign in to comment