25 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

That's not over half the team, that's half of a starting eleven. One of them being injured and two of them I question even being good enough at all (Sanchez and Disasi) The squad as a whole is massively inexperienced. 

Subs: Bergstrom, Petrovic, Cucurella, Maatsen, Ugochukwu, Madueke, Mudryk, Palmer, Washington.

This is our bench against Forest.

Probably around 250m which is likely worth more than Brightons starting 11.

Edited September 4, 20232 yr by Sheva

22 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

That's not over half the team, that's half of a starting eleven.

7 minutes ago, Gonoir Beniashile said:

Why are you so confused? Just naming a few players doesn't equal a team. Do subs not count? how about those that didn't play that week? You expect the players you mentioned to play every single game this season? One of them is injured, so clearly that is impossible.

I don't know why so many fans are trying to look for ways to say our squad isn't inexperienced. It clearly is. You'll struggle to find a more inexperienced team in the league.

Edited September 4, 20232 yr by Scott Harris

3 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Well that is very sobering reading , and explains a lot about our ownership " model"

Thanks for posting it, I hope others read it .

I think one of the most important points is that even if these kids do actually blossom, who will we be selling to. Firstly we are not the only ones doing this, so we are banking on the fact that we are better at it than our peers, even though we seem to be paying more. This will inevitably reduce the market somewhat and will divide clubs into creators and buyers.

Who then do we really think the buyers are. Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barcelona (Really?) Bayern, Inter (doubt it) AC (Doubt it), Juve (defnitely not)

So if we take someone like Ugo for instance. If he smashes it and Boehly wants to cash in, who is going to but. Everyone has already got their main DM's and in 1-2 years their players will still be young like ours. Even if you could sell Ugo, how are we going to shift 4 right midfielders when the big players already have theirs or are capable of going back to the emerging markets and buying their own kids then. Where is the market to sell all of these talents should they reach their potential. There is a limited market as very few can match the money we have paid now, let alone what we want to sell at.

24 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

I think one of the most important points is that even if these kids do actually blossom, who will we be selling to. Firstly we are not the only ones doing this, so we are banking on the fact that we are better at it than our peers, even though we seem to be paying more. This will inevitably reduce the market somewhat and will divide clubs into creators and buyers.

Who then do we really think the buyers are. Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barcelona (Really?) Bayern, Inter (doubt it) AC (Doubt it), Juve (defnitely not)

So if we take someone like Ugo for instance. If he smashes it and Boehly wants to cash in, who is going to but. Everyone has already got their main DM's and in 1-2 years their players will still be young like ours. Even if you could sell Ugo, how are we going to shift 4 right midfielders when the big players already have theirs or are capable of going back to the emerging markets and buying their own kids then. Where is the market to sell all of these talents should they reach their potential. There is a limited market as very few can match the money we have paid now, let alone what we want to sell at.

Unless the market totally collapses there will always likely be teams looking to invest in new players. Most likely more clubs will be bought out by rich owners over time as they look to have a stake in the top leagues. Look at the money that has gone into teams like Bournemouth for example.

That being said I agree with you. I don't see us making massive profits on most of these young prospects. If they are successful then we will want to integrate them into the first team. If they are unsuccessful then they are on more favorable wages for prospective buyers but not sure why they would pay over the odds. Maybe in those circumstances the club breaks even or makes a small profit, especially once loan fees are considered. But if some of the higher profile signings don't work out, e.g. Mudryk, we could make sizable losses which could lead to problems with FFP.

 

3 hours ago, enigma said:

The thing that gets me is so many of our fans were loving Boehly for being able to get rid of our deadwood like Kova, Azpi (although he was still admired for his longevity with us) Jorgi, Mount, Havertz, Ziyech etc because they were deemed not good enough. Now they do that and bring in players that the fans were mostly in favour of, Boehly gets criticised for not knowing what he's doing and ruining the club. It's so interesting to hear the opinions change like the British weather. One minute Boehly is a genius (positive memes of him) and then because we start the season not well, he is the worst thing to happen to Chelsea and Roman all of a sudden is a saint and never did anything wrong at the club. ]

Boehly, Egbahli and Co have come in at probably the most competitive that the league has ever been. If Roman had come in now as a new owner at Chelsea, I truly believe he would struggle just the same. Roman came in when the only other competition to Chelsea were Arsenal and Utd. We had the fortune of Mourinho being the right manager at the right time, and the players brought in were quality and the likes of Terry and Lampard already at the club who had genuine world class potential and ability. It is a different time now and so many clubs are improving with new investment, along with better managers, improved tactics etc. 

At the time of each transfer happening (including fee) and not with hindsight I have only been happy with one transfer and that's Nkunku. Majority of the transfers for me have had huge question marks over them, personally I would have preferred Ward Prowse who I think was a bargain and Maddison.

The board did do superbly with the sale of Havertz and Mount.

1 hour ago, WhiteWall said:

I think one of the most important points is that even if these kids do actually blossom, who will we be selling to. Firstly we are not the only ones doing this, so we are banking on the fact that we are better at it than our peers, even though we seem to be paying more. This will inevitably reduce the market somewhat and will divide clubs into creators and buyers.

Who then do we really think the buyers are. Man City, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barcelona (Really?) Bayern, Inter (doubt it) AC (Doubt it), Juve (defnitely not)

So if we take someone like Ugo for instance. If he smashes it and Boehly wants to cash in, who is going to but. Everyone has already got their main DM's and in 1-2 years their players will still be young like ours. Even if you could sell Ugo, how are we going to shift 4 right midfielders when the big players already have theirs or are capable of going back to the emerging markets and buying their own kids then. Where is the market to sell all of these talents should they reach their potential. There is a limited market as very few can match the money we have paid now, let alone what we want to sell at.

True, and if we happen to turn some of them into great talents normally that would benefit the team.

Instead , in order to raise money we will be selling them to other clubs..

As fans it's not what I think most of us really want ?

Just now, The Rising Sun said:

True, and if we happen to turn some of them into great talents normally that would benefit the team.

Instead , in order to raise money we will be selling them to other clubs..

As fans it's not what I think most of us really want ?

Personally I don't think we'll ever qualify for the CL or compete for a trophy under Boehly and I expect Nkunku and Enzo to push to leave in 18 months and we'll sell.

We're not building a club that competes in the long term we're building a feeder club that will consistently have to sell our best players to stay afloat so we can buy more kids.

This transfer strategy has been seen before and it only ends one way it's a much less intelligent much more wasteful version of Arsenals at the end of Wengers time when they kept solely buying kids and the few that became top class like Fabregas, Van Persie and Nasri pushed their way out to join clubs who can compete.

Was anyone in favour of Fofana for 80m? After a season out with a long injury was always going to be an expensive risk.

Cucerlla for 60m when City wouldn't even pay half.

Mudryk for 70m after a few games for Shaktar

They was some risky transfers and that's just 3 out of loads of deals that could go wrong.

1 hour ago, Scott Harris said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Scott Harris said:

Just naming a few players doesn't equal a team. 

Nobody said it did.

You can make anything and everything look bad if you're relentlessly negative for long enough. Fact is over half of our best starting 11 is made up of experienced international players. We also have some top players with international experience in their early twenties. One of the key issues has been the injury to our experienced proven goalscorer, in Nkunku, especially added to all the other injuries. Taking these factors into consideration is essential for a balanced view rather than flying off the handle following a bad result.

Edited September 4, 20232 yr by Gonoir Beniashile

2 minutes ago, Ernie_blue said:

Was anyone in favour of Fofana for 80m? After a season out with a long injury was always going to be an expensive risk.

Cucerlla for 60m when City wouldn't even pay half.

Mudryk for 70m after a few games for Shaktar

They was some risky transfers and that's just 3 out of loads of deals that could go wrong.

But Ernie, you've just said you were happy with the N'kunku transfer but he was out injured for a lot of last season and now he's out injured again. Was that not an expensive gamble too?

12 minutes ago, just said:

But Ernie, you've just said you were happy with the N'kunku transfer but he was out injured for a lot of last season and now he's out injured again. Was that not an expensive gamble too?

Nkunku still managed 36 games, Fofana was out for a whole season with a broken leg and cost 20m more. Wasn't the deal done in December, halfway through last season.

Edited September 4, 20232 yr by Ernie_blue

8 minutes ago, Ernie_blue said:

Nkunku still managed 36 games, Fofana was out for a whole season with a broken leg and cost 20m more.

Fofana made a total of 22 appearances last year. He's 3 years younger than N'kunku, and came with proven EPL experience. But I take your point about his injury record. 

Interesting N'kunku fact, his middle name is Alan.

42 minutes ago, Whats_The_Mata? said:

Personally I don't think we'll ever qualify for the CL or compete for a trophy under Boehly and I expect Nkunku and Enzo to push to leave in 18 months and we'll sell.

We're not building a club that competes in the long term we're building a feeder club that will consistently have to sell our best players to stay afloat so we can buy more kids.

This transfer strategy has been seen before and it only ends one way it's a much less intelligent much more wasteful version of Arsenals at the end of Wengers time when they kept solely buying kids and the few that became top class like Fabregas, Van Persie and Nasri pushed their way out to join clubs who can compete.

Agreed. And we have supposedly a " World class" academy where we can develop players .

But we buy players from all over the place then send em out on loan to other clubs hoping that THEY will turn them into a talent .

26 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Agreed. And we have supposedly a " World class" academy where we can develop players .

But we buy players from all over the place then send em out on loan to other clubs hoping that THEY will turn them into a talent .

All the more weird they did not buy Brighton. Would have been a gold mine for them. We are a lot more difficult to make money from.

There wasn't much wrong with the club when Todd bought us.

A few things needed attention and that was all.

Instead we saw an almost immediate destruction of everything that made the club work. Then , without any knowledge of the game we see lavish outlays on players, new managers and their backroom staff, .

And it continues.. A gradual transition wasn't on their agenda, years of  stability thrown away within weeks 

 

 

18 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

All the more weird they did not buy Brighton. Would have been a gold mine for them. We are a lot more difficult to make money from.

Depends on what schemes they have to get hold of the ground. I developing really odd vibes about the yanks... Just wonder who they're flushing the money through football for and where it has come from... Reckon we could have a second situation develop as we did when Roman was booted from the club. Strange times and I hope the team finds form... would be a welcome distraction from the board. 

 

Agrees with basically all of this, bar Sanchez being a true 3rd choice at Brighton:

3 windows everyone and his dog has pointed out we need real, goalscoring striker options and a top, or even elite, goalkeeper.

Sanchez is not even PL level in my opinion, he is inferior to Kepa. Jackson being our main man puts huge, unfair pressure on Broja after a very serious injury.

The guys operating our club may know how to make tons of money, and credit to them for that, but when it comes to football they are idiots.

Edited September 4, 20232 yr by axman2526

3 hours ago, Sheva said:

Subs: Bergstrom, Petrovic, Cucurella, Maatsen, Ugochukwu, Madueke, Mudryk, Palmer, Washington.

This is our bench against Forest.

Probably around 250m which is likely worth more than Brightons starting 11.

Brighton's record signing is Pedro ( I think) for just  £34.5 million. 

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

There wasn't much wrong with the club when Todd bought us.

A few things needed attention and that was all.

Instead we saw an almost immediate destruction of everything that made the club work. Then , without any knowledge of the game we see lavish outlays on players, new managers and their backroom staff, .

And it continues.. A gradual transition wasn't on their agenda, years of  stability thrown away within weeks 

 

 

A classic example of new owners rebuilding an entire company in their own style, even if the scale of rebuild wasn't needed. Happens a lot in the corporate world and it often not successful. I think that most of the issues we are seeing right now come from the original disastrous decisions that were made in the first 6 months of their ownership, on top of the previous season year where we spent much of the time unsure whether the club even had a future. I think it will take a few years before we really know whether the strategy of the new owners works. But until then I doubt we are going to see a lot of success on the field, and it remains to be seen how lack of European football will affect things. Beyond the obvious financial rewards there is no doubt that some of the better players will start to get disgruntled if they don't see signs of improvement.

TalkSport will praise our recruitment after a win and then after a defeat they'll go back to calling it scattergun. 

1 minute ago, Sconnie Blue said:

TalkSport will praise our recruitment after a win and then after a defeat they'll go back to calling it scattergun. 

A bit like us fans.

2 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

TalkSport will praise our recruitment after a win and then after a defeat they'll go back to calling it scattergun. 

I read that stuff on here all the time

40 minutes ago, forbzy said:

A classic example of new owners rebuilding an entire company in their own style, even if the scale of rebuild wasn't needed. Happens a lot in the corporate world and it often not successful. I think that most of the issues we are seeing right now come from the original disastrous decisions that were made in the first 6 months of their ownership, on top of the previous season year where we spent much of the time unsure whether the club even had a future. I think it will take a few years before we really know whether the strategy of the new owners works. But until then I doubt we are going to see a lot of success on the field, and it remains to be seen how lack of European football will affect things. Beyond the obvious financial rewards there is no doubt that some of the better players will start to get disgruntled if they don't see signs of improvement.

Absolutely. Players like Enzo and Caicedo I can see agitating for a move if we don't have CL football to offer over the next few seasons.

3 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Absolutely. Players like Enzo and Caicedo I can see agitating for a move if we don't have CL football to offer over the next few seasons.

Yours for £150m each and the replacements are Santos and Casadei.

It's a genius strategy LOL