More talk on Sky sports that Boehly was very impressed by Michael Edwards and is willing to wait for him, which is why he will remain director of football in January.

Edwards was also said to be impressed both with our owners and the project we are looking to build and is interested in the "CEO of football" role put forward to him once his year off with his family is complete.

11 hours ago, axman2526 said:

More talk on Sky sports that Boehly was very impressed by Michael Edwards and is willing to wait for him, which is why he will remain director of football in January.

Edwards was also said to be impressed both with our owners and the project we are looking to build and is interested in the "CEO of football" role put forward to him once his year off with his family is complete.

I suppose if there are others coming in now, Todd can afford to wait another 6 months. Makes sense to wait for the guy you want. 

This isn't necessarily an issue at Boehly as he only recently took over during the summer window. However, it's a bit crazy that we let someone like Casemiro go to Utd when we were hampered in midfield. Given the issues with Kante's fitness over the last couple seasons, I would have thought that being on it and strengthening in midfield would have been an issue early in the window. The same with Eriksen when we could have used someone of his vision and creativity in midfield. We would have surely had an advantage over Utd in that regard, so it's a shame to see we were not more proactive. 

I'm glad that they are building a 'recruitment team'. Despite all the good things Roman did for us I think one of his shortcomings was leaving recruitment to either himself or the manager (which ended up changing every couple of years) so there was no plan or strategy. Emenalo's stint was the closest thing we had to a transfer strategy, but it didn't end well with him not getting along with the manager at the time and many fans not liking him.

21 hours ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

I'm glad that they are building a 'recruitment team'. Despite all the good things Roman did for us I think one of his shortcomings was leaving recruitment to either himself or the manager (which ended up changing every couple of years) so there was no plan or strategy. Emenalo's stint was the closest thing we had to a transfer strategy, but it didn't end well with him not getting along with the manager at the time and many fans not liking him.

I find it amusing that much of the media and social media are implying Boehly's "vision" is somehow revolutionary. It's the same system we have had in place since 2005 when we originally started with a similar team of Frank Arnesen, Peter Kenyon and Piet De Visser. 

There is little evidence that Roman left recruitment to himself, given he hired the likes of Arnesen, Emenalo, De Visser etc and was repeatedly criticised for outsourcing advice to 'super-agents' like Pini Zahavi. In fact, the times that Roman did intervene were times he overruled the board's long-term policies with disastrous consequences - Shevchenko and Torres, for example.

There is even less evidence that Roman left recruitment to his managers. Many fans criticised Roman for decades for not giving managers ultimate latitude in the transfer market. After growing up on an EPL diet of Ferguson, Robson and Wenger, where the manager was supreme decision-maker, Abramovich's adoption of a committee-model seemed ludicrous. Roman's refusal to leave recruitment solely to his managers was also a big factor in the departures of several managers from Mourinho to Ancelotti to Conte.

Ironically, the one manager that wanted minimal involvement in backroom dealings was the last of the Roman era - Thomas Tuchel. He also ended up being one of the most involved. I guess Roman finally got his man too late.

Boehly's model is no different. It is the same committee-based model that will use scouting data to suggest short. medium and long-term targets. It has its benefits (can identify bargain buys) and has its downsides (the long-term vision can conflict with the current manager's vision). Let's not pretend it's a new way of doing things that will lead to new results.

Edited October 27, 20223 yr by SydneyChelsea

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

I find it amusing that much of the media and social media are implying Boehly's "vision" is somehow revolutionary. It's the same system we have had in place since 2005 when we originally started with a similar team of Frank Arnesen, Peter Kenyon and Piet De Visser. 

There is little evidence that Roman left recruitment to himself, given he hired the likes of Arnesen, Emenalo, De Visser etc and was repeatedly criticised for outsourcing advice to 'super-agents' like Pini Zahavi. In fact, the times that Roman did intervene were times he overruled the board's long-term policies with disastrous consequences - Shevchenko and Torres, for example.

There is even less evidence that Roman left recruitment to his managers. Many fans criticised Roman for decades for not giving managers ultimate latitude in the transfer market. After growing up on an EPL diet of Ferguson, Robson and Wenger, where the manager was supreme decision-maker, Abramovich's adoption of a committee-model seemed ludicrous. Roman's refusal to leave recruitment solely to his managers was also a big factor in the departures of several managers from Mourinho to Ancelotti to Conte.

Ironically, the one manager that wanted minimal involvement in backroom dealings was the last of the Roman era - Thomas Tuchel. He also ended up being one of the most involved. I guess Roman finally got his man too late.

Boehly's model is no different. It is the same committee-based model that will use scouting data to suggest short. medium and long-term targets. It has its benefits (can identify bargain buys) and has its downsides (the long-term vision can conflict with the current manager's vision). Let's not pretend it's a new way of doing things that will lead to new results.

I don't think anybody is claiming it to be revolutionary, as it is a style many top clubs use these days. But it is nice to see us acting with a bit of vision and structure, which is something I don't think we have done consistently since at least 2010 or 11.

I love Roman and the impact he had on our club, but the last few years of his ownership seemed directionless and we were just bobbing along without ever really competing for the title. Yes we won the Champions League recently but we have not had a substantial title challenge since the year we won it, and have ended up well behind the champions every season since. I think a factor in that is because of our own lack of planning, and the fact that City and to an extent Liverpool have been so successful adapting and implementing a long term vision. 

I actually think Roman was ruthless with his spending from 03-07, and that spending was good both in the short and long term, as it established the spine of the team that won the Premier League regularly, and challenged for (and eventually won the champions league). But if we look at Roman's initial tenure, from 2003-2012 we won the Premier League 3 times, won the Champions League in 2012, as well as finishing runners up in 2008, and getting to the semis on 4 other occasions, we also won the FA Cup 3 times, and the League Cup twice. Compare that to the second half of Roman's ownership from 2013-2022 and we won the league twice, won the champions league once, and only got to the semi final on one other occasion, and have won the FA cup and League Cup once, and won the Europa League twice. It was nice to win the Europa League but we were the best team in the competition on both occasions so anything less than winning it would have been a failure. But it is clear to see that in the second half of Romans tenure, the success and challenging for success mainly in the Premier League and Champions league has been nowhere near as frequent as it was in the first half of his ownership. and I think again part of the reason is because the spending wasn't as ruthless as it was initially and the lack of vision around the club.

I don't think the managers you mentioned wanted full control. They were all backed initially apart from Carlo really who's signings were Ross Turnbull and Daniel Sturridge on a free, and Yuri Zhirkov. I think the issue with these managers is they wanted the club to be going after a certain player, only to be given complete crap instead. Mourinho wanted Stones, a player who wanted to join Chelsea and handed in a transfer request, but the club weren't willing to pay up and we got Papy Djilobodji instead. Conte wanted Alex Sandro, Oxlade-Chaimberlain and Lukaku and again was given crap alternatives. I actually think Lukaku would have been a success for Chelsea had we signed him under Conte but that's a discussion for another day. 

The window we signed KDB and Courtois from Genk, and Lukaku from Anderlecht was a window where we acted with the medium-long term in mind, however that was all stopped when Mourinho came in and got Costa and Fabregas, and chose to bring back 34 year old Drogba rather than giving 19 year old Lukaku those minutes. Of those 3 I think it's fair enough to say that only Courtois had a decent Chelsea career which is disappointing considering the hype around all 3 at the time, and that De Bruyne has gone on to become the best midfielder in the world in my opinion.

There was also the window of 2020 where at the time it looked like we spent money wisely and on good players with high potential, and it looked like the manager was actually being backed with players he wanted. But of that group, Timo isn't here anymore, Ziyech seemingly on his way out and can't get a game, Havertz inconsistent but I think there is a decent player in there, Mendy started off strongly but out of form and favour for now, and then there is Silva who has been a great signing but at 36 and on a free transfer I would argue it was relatively low risk, and if it didn't work out it wouldn't have been the end of the world. And then there's Chilwell who for me has been mostly consistent and has been a good player for us since we signed him. 

Apart from those 2 windows it does to me feel like the club have been mostly directionless for the second half of Roman's ownership, he has still spent the money but it has been mostly on players who quite frankly were never good enough to play for Chelsea. Players such as Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Rahman, Morata, Cuadrado, Barkley, Batshuayi just to name a few. The money was always there, but for me it wasn't spent anywhere near as effectively as it should've been and that is a massive reason why we have been nowhere near the premier league title since 2017. Compare that with City, who yes have the money but spend it so well and rarely make a bad signing these days. If we had spent as wisely as they had then maybe we would've put up more of a challenge against them in the league over the last few years

For me it's a massive positive the strategy Boehly & Co look to have adopted. If everyone is on the same page regarding transfer targets, and types of player that we want to pursue, then we will be in a much better position in the next few years and hopefully we can start to challenge at the top again. 

Edited October 28, 20223 yr by drjonesy1994

9 hours ago, drjonesy1994 said:

I don't think anybody is claiming it to be revolutionary, as it is a style many top clubs use these days. But it is nice to see us acting with a bit of vision and structure, which is something I don't think we have done consistently since at least 2010 or 11.

I love Roman and the impact he had on our club, but the last few years of his ownership seemed directionless and we were just bobbing along without ever really competing for the title. Yes we won the Champions League recently but we have not had a substantial title challenge since the year we won it, and have ended up well behind the champions every season since. I think a factor in that is because of our own lack of planning, and the fact that City and to an extent Liverpool have been so successful adapting and implementing a long term vision. 

I actually think Roman was ruthless with his spending from 03-07, and that spending was good both in the short and long term, as it established the spine of the team that won the Premier League regularly, and challenged for (and eventually won the champions league). But if we look at Roman's initial tenure, from 2003-2012 we won the Premier League 3 times, won the Champions League in 2012, as well as finishing runners up in 2008, and getting to the semis on 4 other occasions, we also won the FA Cup 3 times, and the League Cup twice. Compare that to the second half of Roman's ownership from 2013-2022 and we won the league twice, won the champions league once, and only got to the semi final on one other occasion, and have won the FA cup and League Cup once, and won the Europa League twice. It was nice to win the Europa League but we were the best team in the competition on both occasions so anything less than winning it would have been a failure. But it is clear to see that in the second half of Romans tenure, the success and challenging for success mainly in the Premier League and Champions league has been nowhere near as frequent as it was in the first half of his ownership. and I think again part of the reason is because the spending wasn't as ruthless as it was initially and the lack of vision around the club.

I don't think the managers you mentioned wanted full control. They were all backed initially apart from Carlo really who's signings were Ross Turnbull and Daniel Sturridge on a free, and Yuri Zhirkov. I think the issue with these managers is they wanted the club to be going after a certain player, only to be given complete crap instead. Mourinho wanted Stones, a player who wanted to join Chelsea and handed in a transfer request, but the club weren't willing to pay up and we got Papy Djilobodji instead. Conte wanted Alex Sandro, Oxlade-Chaimberlain and Lukaku and again was given crap alternatives. I actually think Lukaku would have been a success for Chelsea had we signed him under Conte but that's a discussion for another day. 

The window we signed KDB and Courtois from Genk, and Lukaku from Anderlecht was a window where we acted with the medium-long term in mind, however that was all stopped when Mourinho came in and got Costa and Fabregas, and chose to bring back 34 year old Drogba rather than giving 19 year old Lukaku those minutes. Of those 3 I think it's fair enough to say that only Courtois had a decent Chelsea career which is disappointing considering the hype around all 3 at the time, and that De Bruyne has gone on to become the best midfielder in the world in my opinion.

There was also the window of 2020 where at the time it looked like we spent money wisely and on good players with high potential, and it looked like the manager was actually being backed with players he wanted. But of that group, Timo isn't here anymore, Ziyech seemingly on his way out and can't get a game, Havertz inconsistent but I think there is a decent player in there, Mendy started off strongly but out of form and favour for now, and then there is Silva who has been a great signing but at 36 and on a free transfer I would argue it was relatively low risk, and if it didn't work out it wouldn't have been the end of the world. And then there's Chilwell who for me has been mostly consistent and has been a good player for us since we signed him. 

Apart from those 2 windows it does to me feel like the club have been mostly directionless for the second half of Roman's ownership, he has still spent the money but it has been mostly on players who quite frankly were never good enough to play for Chelsea. Players such as Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Rahman, Morata, Cuadrado, Barkley, Batshuayi just to name a few. The money was always there, but for me it wasn't spent anywhere near as effectively as it should've been and that is a massive reason why we have been nowhere near the premier league title since 2017. Compare that with City, who yes have the money but spend it so well and rarely make a bad signing these days. If we had spent as wisely as they had then maybe we would've put up more of a challenge against them in the league over the last few years

For me it's a massive positive the strategy Boehly & Co look to have adopted. If everyone is on the same page regarding transfer targets, and types of player that we want to pursue, then we will be in a much better position in the next few years and hopefully we can start to challenge at the top again. 

Really good post, excellent reading. I had never thought about it that before. It does feel like the second half of romans era, we stopped buying elite players and settled for either risks that didn’t pay off or lower quality players. The quest for being self sufficient wasn’t followed up a sound recruitment model. 

On 27/10/2022 at 18:57, SydneyChelsea said:

I find it amusing that much of the media and social media are implying Boehly's "vision" is somehow revolutionary. It's the same system we have had in place since 2005 when we originally started with a similar team of Frank Arnesen, Peter Kenyon and Piet De Visser. 

There is little evidence that Roman left recruitment to himself, given he hired the likes of Arnesen, Emenalo, De Visser etc and was repeatedly criticised for outsourcing advice to 'super-agents' like Pini Zahavi. In fact, the times that Roman did intervene were times he overruled the board's long-term policies with disastrous consequences - Shevchenko and Torres, for example.

There is even less evidence that Roman left recruitment to his managers. Many fans criticised Roman for decades for not giving managers ultimate latitude in the transfer market. After growing up on an EPL diet of Ferguson, Robson and Wenger, where the manager was supreme decision-maker, Abramovich's adoption of a committee-model seemed ludicrous. Roman's refusal to leave recruitment solely to his managers was also a big factor in the departures of several managers from Mourinho to Ancelotti to Conte.

Ironically, the one manager that wanted minimal involvement in backroom dealings was the last of the Roman era - Thomas Tuchel. He also ended up being one of the most involved. I guess Roman finally got his man too late.

Boehly's model is no different. It is the same committee-based model that will use scouting data to suggest short. medium and long-term targets. It has its benefits (can identify bargain buys) and has its downsides (the long-term vision can conflict with the current manager's vision). Let's not pretend it's a new way of doing things that will lead to new results.

I don't think anyone is saying that what Todd is building is revolutionary, as drjonesy said it is just nice to see some sort of vision for the club. Roman definitely had structure and vision when he first bought us, but I don't think we can act like it was perfect in the second half of his ownership. The last good bit of transfer business we have done was the season we signed Costa and Fabregas, since then it has gone downhill with flop after flop after flop. Emenalo for whatever reason was never replaced when he left. Then you have the second hiring of Mourinho for short term success which completely went against the players we had at the time like De Bruyne etc (who has ironically gone on to become one of the best players in the world). The club hasn't had much of a structure, direction or identity in the last few years other than to qualify for the champions league and I'm just glad we are at least trying to build something again.

19 hours ago, JM7 said:

Really good post, excellent reading. I had never thought about it that before. It does feel like the second half of romans era, we stopped buying elite players and settled for either risks that didn’t pay off or lower quality players. The quest for being self sufficient wasn’t followed up a sound recruitment model. 

It's a great post. Really enjoyed reading that.

I think it's also important to not overlook the implementation of FFP had on our transfer spending habits, especially in the 2nd half of Roman's tenure. He could go all in during the first half of his ownership tenure in a way he couldn't in the back half without violating those rules.

I'm actually encouraged by what Todd and co are doing by laying the foundations of a stable and functional football department structure through football operations, recruitment, scouting, data analytics etc. At least they appear to have a long-term plan and vision rather than just meandering along season by season.

Edited October 29, 20223 yr by Jezz

On 28/10/2022 at 08:49, drjonesy1994 said:

I don't think anybody is claiming it to be revolutionary, as it is a style many top clubs use these days. But it is nice to see us acting with a bit of vision and structure, which is something I don't think we have done consistently since at least 2010 or 11.

I love Roman and the impact he had on our club, but the last few years of his ownership seemed directionless and we were just bobbing along without ever really competing for the title. Yes we won the Champions League recently but we have not had a substantial title challenge since the year we won it, and have ended up well behind the champions every season since. I think a factor in that is because of our own lack of planning, and the fact that City and to an extent Liverpool have been so successful adapting and implementing a long term vision. 

I actually think Roman was ruthless with his spending from 03-07, and that spending was good both in the short and long term, as it established the spine of the team that won the Premier League regularly, and challenged for (and eventually won the champions league). But if we look at Roman's initial tenure, from 2003-2012 we won the Premier League 3 times, won the Champions League in 2012, as well as finishing runners up in 2008, and getting to the semis on 4 other occasions, we also won the FA Cup 3 times, and the League Cup twice. Compare that to the second half of Roman's ownership from 2013-2022 and we won the league twice, won the champions league once, and only got to the semi final on one other occasion, and have won the FA cup and League Cup once, and won the Europa League twice. It was nice to win the Europa League but we were the best team in the competition on both occasions so anything less than winning it would have been a failure. But it is clear to see that in the second half of Romans tenure, the success and challenging for success mainly in the Premier League and Champions league has been nowhere near as frequent as it was in the first half of his ownership. and I think again part of the reason is because the spending wasn't as ruthless as it was initially and the lack of vision around the club.

I don't think the managers you mentioned wanted full control. They were all backed initially apart from Carlo really who's signings were Ross Turnbull and Daniel Sturridge on a free, and Yuri Zhirkov. I think the issue with these managers is they wanted the club to be going after a certain player, only to be given complete crap instead. Mourinho wanted Stones, a player who wanted to join Chelsea and handed in a transfer request, but the club weren't willing to pay up and we got Papy Djilobodji instead. Conte wanted Alex Sandro, Oxlade-Chaimberlain and Lukaku and again was given crap alternatives. I actually think Lukaku would have been a success for Chelsea had we signed him under Conte but that's a discussion for another day. 

The window we signed KDB and Courtois from Genk, and Lukaku from Anderlecht was a window where we acted with the medium-long term in mind, however that was all stopped when Mourinho came in and got Costa and Fabregas, and chose to bring back 34 year old Drogba rather than giving 19 year old Lukaku those minutes. Of those 3 I think it's fair enough to say that only Courtois had a decent Chelsea career which is disappointing considering the hype around all 3 at the time, and that De Bruyne has gone on to become the best midfielder in the world in my opinion.

There was also the window of 2020 where at the time it looked like we spent money wisely and on good players with high potential, and it looked like the manager was actually being backed with players he wanted. But of that group, Timo isn't here anymore, Ziyech seemingly on his way out and can't get a game, Havertz inconsistent but I think there is a decent player in there, Mendy started off strongly but out of form and favour for now, and then there is Silva who has been a great signing but at 36 and on a free transfer I would argue it was relatively low risk, and if it didn't work out it wouldn't have been the end of the world. And then there's Chilwell who for me has been mostly consistent and has been a good player for us since we signed him. 

Apart from those 2 windows it does to me feel like the club have been mostly directionless for the second half of Roman's ownership, he has still spent the money but it has been mostly on players who quite frankly were never good enough to play for Chelsea. Players such as Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Rahman, Morata, Cuadrado, Barkley, Batshuayi just to name a few. The money was always there, but for me it wasn't spent anywhere near as effectively as it should've been and that is a massive reason why we have been nowhere near the premier league title since 2017. Compare that with City, who yes have the money but spend it so well and rarely make a bad signing these days. If we had spent as wisely as they had then maybe we would've put up more of a challenge against them in the league over the last few years

For me it's a massive positive the strategy Boehly & Co look to have adopted. If everyone is on the same page regarding transfer targets, and types of player that we want to pursue, then we will be in a much better position in the next few years and hopefully we can start to challenge at the top again. 

Really good read, only problem is Boehly seems to be even more aimless in our transfer decisions. The first thing he should've done was get a top director of football, yet he only decides to go for one in October (Christoph Freund) after we already blew 250m on players. That director of football then proceeded to reject us anyway. Not to mention he most likely worked with Tuchel on the summer window yet sacks him after 6 games. It's hard to believe there's a long term vision in mind given Boehly's actions. 

 

Given his success with the Dodgers it could still turn out well for us but so far things haven't been good. 

@abramovichhow many seasons in your 19years did qe miss out on a CL place? 2, 3 maybe?

The new owners are sure steering us to new depths...

3 hours ago, axman2526 said:

@abramovichhow many seasons in your 19years did qe miss out on a CL place? 2, 3 maybe?

The new owners are sure steering us to new depths...

We may all have to buckle up, Axman. We’ve been bought by private equity bros who don’t know what they’re doing, with too much debt  at the peak of the cycle. Wouldn’t surprise me if they’re forced sellers within 18-24 months. You may remember me as an optimist!

22 minutes ago, Dean said:

We may all have to buckle up, Axman. We’ve been bought by private equity bros who don’t know what they’re doing, with too much debt  at the peak of the cycle. Wouldn’t surprise me if they’re forced sellers within 18-24 months. You may remember me as an optimist!

Hey @Deanwelcome back mate, long time.

Yeah sadly we never will find out who was right about TT and what Roman would have put up with.

All I have ever know is Chelsea men running Chelsea. Bates and Harding, Roman (who became Chelsea very quickly). 

Part of the reasons I am cracking jokes in the Potter thread is cause it is better to laugh than cry. Having this lot own our club hurts.

What they did to TT just showed how out of touch with the fans they are imo. I was not a big TT supporter but I knew he developed a real bond with the fans for sticking by us. 

Rival fans have had a long long wait but they’re now really revelling in our demise.

Its irritating how they are able to make so much of the likes of Brighton thrashing us as some giant killing whilst simultaneously laughing at how we’re now sh*t and no longer a big club.

I wonder how long it took before Forest and Villa were not considered big scalps to take and nobody cared if they lost a game.

36 minutes ago, Snedger said:

Rival fans have had a long long wait but they’re now really revelling in our demise.

Its irritating how they are able to make so much of the likes of Brighton thrashing us as some giant killing whilst simultaneously laughing at how we’re now sh*t and no longer a big club.

I wonder how long it took before Forest and Villa were not considered big scalps to take and nobody cared if they lost a game.

Good question. 

We can but hope these owners don't run is in to oblivion in the next 9 and a half years before hopefully someone decent buys us.

To think we had Nick Candy and Sir Martin, actual Chelsea fans, who wanted to buy us and this is where we ended up. That Raine Group in the back pocket of Clear Boehly Lake me thinks.

24 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Good question. 

We can but hope these owners don't run is in to oblivion in the next 9 and a half years before hopefully someone decent buys us.

To think we had Nick Candy and Sir Martin, actual Chelsea fans, who wanted to buy us and this is where we ended up. That Raine Group in the back pocket of Clear Boehly Lake me thinks.

To be fair a lot of these billionaire 'fans' don't actually mean what they say. Look at Mel Morris at Derby, claimed to be a fan when he bought the club then destroyed the club's finances through fraudulent bookeeping then tried to walk off with the stadium

18 minutes ago, Drogba1 said:

To be fair a lot of these billionaire 'fans' don't actually mean what they say. Look at Mel Morris at Derby, claimed to be a fan when he bought the club then destroyed the club's finances through fraudulent bookeeping then tried to walk off with the stadium

True. Guess we will never know of those guys. Maybe they would have been better, maybe not.

We should have fought harder to keep Roman. We let the same government dictate what happened to our club that has had 3 PMs in and month and are running the country in to the ground, and they told US how to run our club. And we let them!

Edited October 30, 20223 yr by axman2526

7 hours ago, axman2526 said:

@abramovichhow many seasons in your 19years did qe miss out on a CL place? 2, 3 maybe?

The new owners are sure steering us to new depths...

Missed out twice in the 2015/16 season and 2017/18 season.

Also technically missed out in the 2011/12 season but qualified by winning the CL.

The thing is, what we are experiencing and going through is the leftovers from Roman's reign. I don't blame Boehly for the on pitch issues.

The previous board did not do enough to keep us competitive in the league, which has led to two league titles in 12 seasons. 

Look at the previous five seasons. We have been at least 19/20 points off top spot ever since we last won the league title.

How does that happen?! Apart from poor ownership. For as good as Roman did, and I appreciate him a lot, he didn't keep us competitive and challenging since Conte.

For me, the results we are seeing now on field are on the previous ownership for not staying competitive and buying second best players rather than the best ones possible. 

It is quite complicated for me the attempt to copy Utd with the class of 92 to stay within FFP has not worked we only got a couple of players at first team quality. 

Every time we are mentioned with a player the fee goes up £20m.

When Mourinho arrived he bought in five players from the Portuguese league in his first season. 

Under FFP without the revenue you cannot afford to buy expensive players or make mistakes.

We have also got worse at finding relatively unknown decent talent. 

 

 

3 hours ago, enigma said:

The thing is, what we are experiencing and going through is the leftovers from Roman's reign. I don't blame Boehly for the on pitch issues.

The previous board did not do enough to keep us competitive in the league, which has led to two league titles in 12 seasons. 

Look at the previous five seasons. We have been at least 19/20 points off top spot ever since we last won the league title.

How does that happen?! Apart from poor ownership. For as good as Roman did, and I appreciate him a lot, he didn't keep us competitive and challenging since Conte.

For me, the results we are seeing now on field are on the previous ownership for not staying competitive and buying second best players rather than the best ones possible. 

He & Tuchel have made the situation worse though. You look at the 5 signings they made this summer and bar Fofana, it’s a head scratcher. Overpaid for Cucurella, Sterling looks bang average & we are stuck with him for the next 5yrs with his contract unmovable, Aubameyang’s legs have been long gone, we are stuck with ageing Koulibaly who is injured again for the next season, and the Zakaria loan needs to be terminated as it’s pointless. Oh and all his signings, and contract renewals are on massively inflated wages with no exception. 

45 minutes ago, strider6004 said:

It is quite complicated for me the attempt to copy Utd with the class of 92 to stay within FFP has not worked we only got a couple of players at first team quality. 

Every time we are mentioned with a player the fee goes up £20m.

When Mourinho arrived he bought in five players from the Portuguese league in his first season. 

Under FFP without the revenue you cannot afford to buy expensive players or make mistakes.

We have also got worse at finding relatively unknown decent talent. 

 

 

Well we see to have made nothing but mistakes this time.

For me the question is, if they wanted TT gone why spend a fortune on "his" signings? Why not just sack him in June, get their man and sign players from the new guy's wishlist? It doesn't look like they give a crap about spending a few more million, they could have easily bought out Potter's contract in the summer and have him assemble the squad he wanted and prepare the team in the preseason. The more I think about it, the more it feels like they never had a plan to begin with.

Another thing. For all the faults of the previous regime, and there were a few, I always felt that Roman genuinely wanted to adapt to to the British culture and society, wanted to continue the tradition of the old club but with new faces and new legends. He almost got there in the end, with Cobham youngsters finally becoming a part of the first team and the legends of his era (JT, Lamps, Cech, Ash)  coming back to work within the club in a coaching or directorial capacity. But alas, it wasn't meant to be.

I don't know much about Boehly and even less about his partners that own the club now but it seems that they took a different approach. Instead of adapting they decided to do things their own way, attempting to run the club like they would a US sports franchise. Now that may be the way to go and only time will tell, but somehow I just don't feel the same about the club. Todd and Co certainly showed a lot of ambition and are clearly willing to spend big but it almost feels like there's no thought behind most of these moves. I also have this problem with this evrything's for sale approach. I spent years in NYC and always felt odd about the nature of US sports where teams trade players all the time and it felt like there's very few players who have genuine connection to the team/city they're playing for, since they can be moved  anytime anywhere. This new ownership team kind of reminds me of that. Or maybe I'm just being too harsh.

 

35 minutes ago, abramovich said:

For me the question is, if they wanted TT gone why spend a fortune on "his" signings? Why not just sack him in June, get their man and sign players from the new guy's wishlist? It doesn't look like they give a crap about spending a few more million, they could have easily bought out Potter's contract in the summer and have him assemble the squad he wanted and prepare the team in the preseason. The more I think about it, the more it feels like they never had a plan to begin with.

Another thing. For all the faults of the previous regime, and there were a few, I always felt that Roman genuinely wanted to adapt to to the British culture and society, wanted to continue the tradition of the old club but with new faces and new legends. He almost got there in the end, with Cobham youngsters finally becoming a part of the first team and the legends of his era (JT, Lamps, Cech, Ash)  coming back to work within the club in a coaching or directorial capacity. But alas, it wasn't meant to be.

I don't know much about Boehly and even less about his partners that own the club now but it seems that they took a different approach. Instead of adapting they decided to do things their own way, attempting to run the club like they would a US sports franchise. Now that may be the way to go and only time will tell, but somehow I just don't feel the same about the club. Todd and Co certainly showed a lot of ambition and are clearly willing to spend big but it almost feels like there's no thought behind most of these moves. I also have this problem with this evrything's for sale approach. I spent years in NYC and always felt odd about the nature of US sports where teams trade players all the time and it felt like there's very few players who have genuine connection to the team/city they're playing for, since they can be moved  anytime anywhere. This new ownership team kind of reminds me of that. Or maybe I'm just being too harsh.

 

Has to be a breakdown with Boehly or a breakdown with the players.