33 minutes ago, forbzy said:

If I remember correctly he didn't actually put a bid together in the end, despite being rumored to have some interest.

I'd take the Lewis Hamilton and Serena Williams bid at the moment.

3 hours ago, abister1 said:

Does he even still attend matches as he did in early days of his premiership (he does rule roughshod after all)?

Once upon a time I never missed a second of our games , now even if the game is on right in front of me I can't even focus on it. 

Heard he's too busy scouting to attend games.

There's a lot of primary schools in London so he'll be gone a while.

1 hour ago, forbzy said:

If I remember correctly he didn't actually put a bid together in the end, despite being rumored to have some interest.

Could be right to be honest. It would probably been the best route. I think the Saudi bid would have just been more ammo to use against us. Its all been a continuing shambles since the UK government stalled on renewing Romans visa

On 10/12/2023 at 19:51, Diamondgeezer said:

Within 5 years Todd will be selling the club.  Until then let’s hope we can keep playing Prem League football 

If I remember correctly, one of the stipulations of Todd and Co becoming new owners was that they couldn't sell it for another decade.

The terms of the sale are that Chelsea cannot be sold for a decade. I assume to stop it being sold only to buyers who cared not for the purpose of Chelsea as a winning football team but only as an asset that would appreciate in value with very little investment/ success on pitch and could be sold on quickly at a profit. That clause clearly didn't work as we have new owners that despite massive investment do not seem to understand what the purpose of Chelsea FC is.

Perhaps Clearlake & Todd are planning a reverse 'Wrexham' where to outdo and piss off Ryan Reynolds and his sidekick they take a winning EPL franchise and send it to The National League in hopefully 1/2 dozen seasons or less.  Then the Project wouldn't be off track currently but on point !! 

Perhaps the strategy is to dump us via recievership, as things are rapidly heading that way.

7 minutes ago, Ajbod said:

Perhaps the strategy is to dump us via recievership, as things are rapidly heading that way.

We are a country mile away from this scenario. Clearlake can probably afford to spend another billion on the squad if they had to ... it's just the FFP rules that are stopping it.

We all know how much Clearlake have, much much more tham Roman had, but FFP dictates how much you can lose/spend, not how deep your pockets are. We're rapidly selling of the family silver, and the replacements bought will never sell for what they were bought for. Until some real effort is put in on the pitch, in an organised system with time to learn some cohesion. Then we are rapidly spiralling down into the abyss.

Chelsea are close to breaching Profit & Sustainability Rules and may have to sell before they can buy. 

Tottenham would again be interested if Gallagher was available, with Ange Postecoglou’s injury-hit squad in need of reinforcements. 

The 23-year-old is understood to be reluctant to sign a long-term contract of up to 8 years which Chelsea are insisting on.

(Mail)

I'd like to thank the Tory government , Clearlake and Poch cos ive been checking how many more points we need until the magic 40 is reached 

although it probs won't take that many this year . That's a first for me so cheers you wasters .

And don't forget after 10 years the block on paying out dividends to investors is removed

And the block on paying out management fees is also removed.

 

 

The owners bought a club who had just finished in the top 4 , reached both domestic cup finals only losing on penalties, and all during a tumultuous season .

The club was also debt free because Roman had to write off the debt.

What an ideal situation for any owner.

Who knew how quickly they would wreck and destroy the club  they had just bought 

They deserve everything they get for their stupidity!!

My only concern is CFC health.

Edited December 12, 20232 yr by El regreso

We can accuse the owners of being clueless but not of not trying or stripping the club from its assets as what is happening at ManU. They tried the experienced, established players last season and we ended up with the likes of Koulibaly, Aubameyang and Joao Felix. Everybody was annoyed and we were only too happy that they managed to get rid of them this summer. They've tried now to unearth some young gems and we've got at least done so with Palmer. Plus, we've got some players other teams were after, like Enzo and Caicedo. The owners have shed loads to learn, I agree, but we can't say that they are at the same level of the Glazers. This club has gone through sh*t in the last two years, not all on the present owners as the government made sure to hit us hard because the owner happened to be Russian, so how can anyone be surprised that all this is finally catching up? The owners are new to the PL and have made some bad decisions. We also have got some good players in the team, which for reasons unknown to me are not properly functioning (and don't tell me that a midfield of Enzo-Caicedo was not on paper one to dream of). Be aware of what you wish, you might want to change owners but we could end up with the likes of what ManU have.

Edited December 12, 20232 yr by RMH

Christ.

2 minutes ago, dansubrosa said:

Christ.

This was always coming though? We knew since the Enzo transfer that it would probably be the last time we could get 8 year amortization contracts?

12 minutes ago, dansubrosa said:

Christ.

I don't see how that's a ''blow for Chelsea'', we've already signed so many player on those extended contracts. If anything it's a blow for other teams that won't be able to copy the model (whether they'd want to or not is a different discussion).

The media narrative recently has been that we're screwed because we're stuck with these players for a long time, and now the fact that we won't be able to sign more players on long contracts is a blow?

11 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

This was always coming though? We knew since the Enzo transfer that it would probably be the last time we could get 8 year amortization contracts?

And what is the reason for it? Any actual logic behind other than "Chelsea have done it, we must stop it"? If it had been one of the media darlings, Liverpool, Arsenal or ManU, there wouldn't have been any issue at all about it. It's getting to a point with the FA and PL (and UEFA) that I'd actually now welcome a Superleague just to give the two fingers to those haters.

34 minutes ago, dansubrosa said:

Christ.

Since Uefa made the changes they have wanted the top associations to fall in line with their rules.

15 minutes ago, RMH said:

And what is the reason for it? Any actual logic behind other than "Chelsea have done it, we must stop it"? If it had been one of the media darlings, Liverpool, Arsenal or ManU, there wouldn't have been any issue at all about it. It's getting to a point with the FA and PL (and UEFA) that I'd actually now welcome a Superleague just to give the two fingers to those haters.

It was also on the agenda to backdated these rule changes to include this summers window. No word if that was successfully passed or not.

We apparently voted in favor of the contract limit according to Ornstein. 

6 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

We apparently voted in favor of the contract limit according to Ornstein. 

Maybe we are done with those long term deals for very expensive players.

If they tried to back date it, they would be in a world of legal sh*t, it has to be from the poiint of the change being made to the rules.

46 minutes ago, RMH said:

And what is the reason for it? Any actual logic behind other than "Chelsea have done it, we must stop it"? If it had been one of the media darlings, Liverpool, Arsenal or ManU, there wouldn't have been any issue at all about it. It's getting to a point with the FA and PL (and UEFA) that I'd actually now welcome a Superleague just to give the two fingers to those haters.

Well no one else wanted to risk ,8 years contracts anyway, amortization was in common use anyway over the life of the contract. 

Looks like we voted in favour anyway

 

4 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Well no one else wanted to risk ,8 years contracts anyway, amortization was in common use anyway over the life of the contract. 

Looks like we voted in favour anyway

 

So it is not "A blow to Chelsea" after all, is it, Twatt Law? I don't know why people keep believing any news that comes from social media.

6 minutes ago, RMH said:

So it is not "A blow to Chelsea" after all, is it, Twatt Law? I don't know why people keep believing any news that comes from social media.

I think Matt Law has done irreparable damage to his credibility and reputation as a journalist this season. Him and about a hundred others as well LOL