18 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

At the end of the day, this is the difference between owned by a wealthy individual as a personal plaything, versus being owned by a hedge fund for its enrichment. Clearlake's goal is to increase the on-paper value of the club in the next ten years, whether that results in footballing success is merely a correlation. Clubs don't get wealthy by winning trophies, they get wealthy (as in, book-value rich) by acquiring playing assets and increasing their value. Footballing success is only one of the ways that can happen.

The most relevant example is Arsenal post-2004, where the club essentially became a profit machine for its shareholders at the expense of football considerations. It is plain to see that the club is being restructured to increase its book value with footballing success being just a tangential consideration.

No club spends as much as we have, and this quickly, for success on the pitch being an afterthought. 

16 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

No club spends as much as we have, and this quickly, for success on the pitch being an afterthought. 

They do if the only thing that matters is increasing the book value of the club.

It's not that success on the pitch is an afterthought, it's that it isn't the primary consideration. I used the Arsenal example specifically because they redefined success from winning trophies to achieving top-4, being profitable and having a stable of saleable assets.

Edited June 30, 20233 yr by SydneyChelsea

59 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

At the end of the day, this is the difference between owned by a wealthy individual as a personal plaything, versus being owned by a hedge fund for its enrichment. Clearlake's goal is to increase the on-paper value of the club in the next ten years, whether that results in footballing success is merely a correlation. Clubs don't get wealthy by winning trophies, they get wealthy (as in, book-value rich) by acquiring playing assets and increasing their value. Footballing success is only one of the ways that can happen.

The most relevant example is Arsenal post-2004, where the club essentially became a profit machine for its shareholders at the expense of football considerations. It is plain to see that the club is being restructured to increase its book value with footballing success being just a tangential consideration.

Yeah that is how I see it as well.

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

They do if the only thing that matters is increasing the book value of the club.

It's not that success on the pitch is an afterthought, it's that it isn't the primary consideration. I used the Arsenal example specifically because they redefined success from winning trophies to achieving top-4, being profitable and having a stable of saleable assets.

You're going to have to back that up with an example. The only teams that have spent as much as us are Roman's Chelsea, PSG and Man City. While increasing the value of the club is important I highly doubt that is the only reason their investing into the club, they clearly want Chelsea to be a title-winning machine.

4 hours ago, Bob stark said:

We will be fine, I think we will get Caicedo and

Jackson/Borja

Sterling/Murdyk - Nkunku/Chuku - Madueke/Cho 

Enzo - Caicedo/Conor

Chilwell/cucu- Colwill/badi - Fofana/chalo - James/gusto

Kepa/bet

Will be more than enough to get at least top 6. The big question will be that CF position. 

 

If we rock up with that squad/XI in August we'll be in a battle for Top 10 again.

Poor goalkeeper, poor strikers, poor wingers (relative to our competitors), no depth in midfield and attack and will generally be screwed when Enzo goes down injured/burns out from having to play every minute of every game.

Still not convinced we sign Caicedo btw. Brighton will play hard-ball and won't accept the fee over half a decade like we like to do.

2 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

They do if the only thing that matters is increasing the book value of the club.

It's not that success on the pitch is an afterthought, it's that it isn't the primary consideration. I used the Arsenal example specifically because they redefined success from winning trophies to achieving top-4, being profitable and having a stable of saleable assets.

Look, I don't think anyone can argue that is definitely not the case - but it's waaaaay too soon to tell. Coming to this conclusion after 1 manic year of ownership with a boatload of changes is nonsensical. At this point, I'm happy with most of what I've heard and seen - even the risks that never panned out. So we should simply wait and see if the club can actually match the ambition they've claimed.

8 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

If we rock up with that squad/XI in August we'll be in a battle for Top 10 again.

Poor goalkeeper, poor strikers, poor wingers (relative to our competitors), no depth in midfield and attack and will generally be screwed when Enzo goes down injured/burns out from having to play every minute of every game.

Still not convinced we sign Caicedo btw. Brighton will play hard-ball and won't accept the fee over half a decade like we like to do.

Nah, even with last year team, if we had good pre season we probably would have been at least top 6. 

With Pochettino in charge, I don't need to be worried about physical problem. Pochettino is known to be quite crazy in term of his physical preparation. 

We will get a midfielder, I don't know who. I think it will be Caicedo. 

There is no europe there won't be any burnout. 

If we can get a st n good gk, I think we are at least a top 4 team. 

 

4 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

At the end of the day, this is the difference between owned by a wealthy individual as a personal plaything, versus being owned by a hedge fund for its enrichment. Clearlake's goal is to increase the on-paper value of the club in the next ten years, whether that results in footballing success is merely a correlation. Clubs don't get wealthy by winning trophies, they get wealthy (as in, book-value rich) by acquiring playing assets and increasing their value. Footballing success is only one of the ways that can happen.

The most relevant example is Arsenal post-2004, where the club essentially became a profit machine for its shareholders at the expense of football considerations. It is plain to see that the club is being restructured to increase its book value with footballing success being just a tangential consideration.

United is another good example. 

That CR7 signing is imo one of the worst signing I have ever seen in term football pov but in term of financial pov, it was brilliant. 

 

Is today the last day of the fire sale to avoid FFP repercussions? I wonder who else will go today.

I guess RLC and Ziyech are the most likely. Then I expect they'd love to shift Pulisic, Aubameyang, Gallagher, Ampadu and Lukaku too. Fat chance of shifting Kukaku though!!

28 minutes ago, Snedger said:

Is today the last day of the fire sale to avoid FFP repercussions? I wonder who else will go today.

I guess RLC and Ziyech are the most likely. Then I expect they'd love to shift Pulisic, Aubameyang, Gallagher, Ampadu and Lukaku too. Fat chance of shifting Kukaku though!!

Ruben is already in Milan

8 hours ago, Bob stark said:

We will be fine, I think we will get Caicedo and

Jackson/Borja

Sterling/Murdyk - Nkunku/Chuku - Madueke/Cho 

Enzo - Caicedo/Conor

Chilwell/cucu- Colwill/badi - Fofana/chalo - James/gusto

Kepa/bet

Will be more than enough to get at least top 6. The big question will be that CF position. 

 

We absolutely can not have Bettinelli as back up. From what I've seen, read and heard he's worse than any keeper we've played (briefly or otherwise) in the modern era, even Turnbull.

2 hours ago, Snedger said:

Is today the last day of the fire sale to avoid FFP repercussions? I wonder who else will go today.

I guess RLC and Ziyech are the most likely. Then I expect they'd love to shift Pulisic, Aubameyang, Gallagher, Ampadu and Lukaku too. Fat chance of shifting Kukaku though!!

Maatsen has gone very quiet. Pure profit and Burnley were very interested in keeping him.

2 hours ago, Argo said:

We absolutely can not have Bettinelli as back up. From what I've seen, read and heard he's worse than any keeper we've played (briefly or otherwise) in the modern era, even Turnbull.

I second Argos motion, Bettinelli for number 1!

A clearout of epic proportions is truly underway.  Much like the incoming players last year, I think this many leaving at once will create instability and a tough season.  But, it is the right thing to do.  The sanctions decimated the club and this is all part of a multi-year rebuild - never a dull moment with CFC!

14 minutes ago, PhilH930 said:

A clearout of epic proportions is truly underway.  Much like the incoming players last year, I think this many leaving at once will create instability and a tough season.  But, it is the right thing to do.  The sanctions decimated the club and this is all part of a multi-year rebuild - never a dull moment with CFC!

We'll need a smaller changing room at Cobham too.

26 minutes ago, Valerie said:

We'll need a smaller changing room at Cobham too.

Probably sold Cobham also.  Be training in a local park, changing outdoors behind an oak tree. 

7 hours ago, axman2526 said:

I second Argos motion, Bettinelli for number 1!

All joking aside. If we do sign another goalkeeper to compete with Kepa for number 1, do we keep Slonina with the squad as number 3, or do we continue the tradition of a comedy keeper as third choice and send Slonina out on loan?

Just now, forbzy said:

All joking aside. If we do sign another goalkeeper to compete with Kepa for number 1, do we keep Slonina with the squad as number 3, or do we continue the tradition of a comedy keeper as third choice and send Slonina out on loan?

All joking aside if we do not sign another keeper, and we rate Slonina as highly as several say we do, then I want him as number 1 and Kepa as number 2.

As Donnaruma showed if you are that good, you see old enough, and he was 16 and Milans number one. Gaga is ancient in comparison!

Kepa opening match day against Szoboszlai is a bad idea. 

On a lighter note, the new signage really looks the part from this angle, feels like it’s been there forever, how did nobody think of it before.

13 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

All joking aside if we do not sign another keeper, and we rate Slonina as highly as several say we do, then I want him as number 1 and Kepa as number 2.

As Donnaruma showed if you are that good, you see old enough, and he was 16 and Milans number one. Gaga is ancient in comparison!

De Gea? Contract expired.

10 minutes ago, forbzy said:

All joking aside. If we do sign another goalkeeper to compete with Kepa for number 1, do we keep Slonina with the squad as number 3, or do we continue the tradition of a comedy keeper as third choice and send Slonina out on loan?

No, young keepers need game time.

Not got a problem with Bettinelli as a number 3, given the small likelihood of ever needing him in any game of note their character and positive effect on squad morale is factored in even more for a #3 and (like Carson at City) Betts does appear to have a positive impact on the squad on that score.

14 hours ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

You're going to have to back that up with an example. The only teams that have spent as much as us are Roman's Chelsea, PSG and Man City. While increasing the value of the club is important I highly doubt that is the only reason their investing into the club, they clearly want Chelsea to be a title-winning machine.

You better back up the " they clearly want Chelsea to be a title winning machine" claim ! 😛

27 minutes ago, Zeta said:

De Gea? Contract expired.

Big wages I would imagine.

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.