30 minutes ago, evissy said:

I don't understand why the owners are not communicating seasonal targets. Why are they not saying exactly what the expectations are? It would give the manager, players and fans some peace of mind. This would also be something that no other club does. 

Now the expectation is "we are Chelsea, we want to win every game". That sort of vague and with this squad wildly optimistic expectation, is not very useful. 

Why aren't clubs more open about expectations in world of sports? 

Well I assume the players and manager has a seasonal target. Making that public wouldn't  give peace of mind. 

27 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Well I assume the players and manager has a seasonal target. Making that public wouldn't  give peace of mind. 

I don't understand why? Every company has a target annual revenue.

17 minutes ago, evissy said:

I don't understand why? Every company has a target annual revenue.

I totally understand you and you're totally right about every company having a target revenue.

They aren't required to publicise it though and with an ownership such as ours (they basically make money by being opportunistic) which also wants to resort to clever accounting, they need to obfuscate things as it makes their job easier.

15 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Chelsea material

Perspective. Is Chelsea today still Chelsea material?  Most of these players don't know what it is to be Chelsea. 

They are only passing through Chelsea not Chelsea passing through them. They don't get the Chelsea culture and it is as important as any and that's why no matter what they say about Mourinho and what he said to fans as well about Judas and the most titles, I always give him a pass.

Whether we like it or not, he created a team identity that saw us through the best part of two decades no matter who was in charge.

Edited February 7, 20242 yr by abister1
Spell

2 hours ago, evissy said:

I don't understand why? Every company has a target annual revenue.

Sure. As do Chelsea. 

No need for every single journalist and Twitter troll to have that info to beat the team with. 

"The club are currently in 6th and the club stated the target was to be top 4, are you planning to resign or wait to be sacked?

4 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

But if we are fearful of the FFP ramifications of the 10m cost of sacking Poch I can't see how we can sign any senior elite players without some serious manoeuvring going on.

Put another way I would be surprised to see both James and Osimhen on the same pitch wearing blue. Probably include Colwill in that as well.

But the rumoured concern about FFP only runs until June 30th, no? But even with that said, the athletic reported that we did bid for players this window, including Antonio Nusa, so the Poch not being sacked because of FFP seems like it might not be true.

 

8 hours ago, timetowaste said:

I'll probably get laughed at but I still don't think squad wise we're too far off challenging for the league, we're a top manager and 3 possibly 4 signings away from having a very good team, if we were able to field something like the below we should be pushing for minimum top 4 next season and looking to win the league in a couple of years.



Subs: Sanchez, Chilwell, Badiashile, Gusto, Chukwemeka, Lavia, Murdyk, Angelo, D.Fofana
 

4th signing would be a CB but it depends on how Fofana is after the injury.

Ive added in 3 players who I think are realistic transfer targets that would massively improve the team. Of course it's dependant on finances and if we're still able to sell 'the project' but it's not unreasonable to think we'd generate at least £200m from sales if we got rid of Gallagher, Broja, Lukaku, Sterling, Maatsen, Cucurella, Hall, Chalobah.

 

Basically you're saying that our current manager, of whom you have been highly critical, is currently having to make do with a team that is missing your entire preferred defence, plus half your preferred attack ? 

1 hour ago, timetowaste said:

But the rumoured concern about FFP only runs until June 30th, no? But even with that said, the athletic reported that we did bid for players this window, including Antonio Nusa, so the Poch not being sacked because of FFP seems like it might not be true.

 

Might be totally wrong but I heard players under a certain age don’t count towards FFP.  
Don’t know if that’s transfer fees or wages or complete bollocks. Does anyone know if there’s any truth to this?

Could be the reason we’re buying sh*t tons of teenagers.

3 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

Might be totally wrong but I heard players under a certain age don’t count towards FFP.  
Don’t know if that’s transfer fees or wages or complete bollocks. Does anyone know if there’s any truth to this?

Could be the reason we’re buying sh*t tons of teenagers.

That's bollocks. 

22 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

Might be totally wrong but I heard players under a certain age don’t count towards FFP.  
Don’t know if that’s transfer fees or wages or complete bollocks. Does anyone know if there’s any truth to this?

Could be the reason we’re buying sh*t tons of teenagers.

FFP doesn't care about what players the money is spent on. It is about managing the net financial activity. I assume younger players are viewed more positively in this respect, since there is a possibility to develop them and then sell on for a profit. Loan fees can also help to offset the costs while they develop in some cases. But there is still a risk of loss with these players if they do not fulfil their potential.

11 hours ago, timetowaste said:

I'll probably get laughed at but I still don't think squad wise we're too far off challenging for the league, we're a top manager and 3 possibly 4 signings away from having a very good team, if we were able to field something like the below we should be pushing for minimum top 4 next season and looking to win the league in a couple of years.



Subs: Sanchez, Chilwell, Badiashile, Gusto, Chukwemeka, Lavia, Murdyk, Angelo, D.Fofana
 

4th signing would be a CB but it depends on how Fofana is after the injury.

Ive added in 3 players who I think are realistic transfer targets that would massively improve the team. Of course it's dependant on finances and if we're still able to sell 'the project' but it's not unreasonable to think we'd generate at least £200m from sales if we got rid of Gallagher, Broja, Lukaku, Sterling, Maatsen, Cucurella, Hall, Chalobah.

 

Who are these "James" and "Fofana" you speak of for our back four?

You surley dont mean Reece and Wesley do you? That is very optimistic of you.

57 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Who are these "James" and "Fofana" you speak of for our back four?

You surley dont mean Reece and Wesley do you? That is very optimistic of you.

I guess we'll have to see, a perfect world would be Reece and Fofana's surgeries were successful but we just don't know. We have Badiashile who was quality before Poch came in, is it the injury he got at the end of the season that's derailed him or is it bad management 🤷‍♂️

4 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Basically you're saying that our current manager, of whom you have been highly critical, is currently having to make do with a team that is missing your entire preferred defence, plus half your preferred attack ? 

Poch has definitely been unlucky with injuries this season and up until last month I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but even with the issues we've had we shouldn't be in the position we're in.

I've mentioned before, my biggest concern is how little he's improved our young players, he's actually made them worse. Enzo being an example, he was one of the few shining lights of last season and now he's hardly getting the ball and looks a total flop.

That team he had out against Wolves was more than good enough to beat them but the tactical approach was terrible and it wasn't the first time.

2 hours ago, forbzy said:

FFP doesn't care about what players the money is spent on. It is about managing the net financial activity. I assume younger players are viewed more positively in this respect, since there is a possibility to develop them and then sell on for a profit. Loan fees can also help to offset the costs while they develop in some cases. But there is still a risk of loss with these players if they do not fulfil their potential.

If this is correct which of our recent signings qualify as academy players if any?  Kendry Paez, Deivid Washington?, Angelo?, Andrey Santos?

It works like this: while FFP mandates that clubs must break even, it exempts a number of costs from the calculation. These include infrastructure spending (like the finance costs of building a new stadium), investment in community schemes (school outreach programmes etc) and women’s football as well as the full cost of youth development. These expenditures, it was argued, were not the kind of things that clubs should be penalised for. In the case of youth development, though, what it means is that Premier League clubs can spend as much as they like on their academies without having pressure to cut costs – like transfer fees or player wages – to be FFP-compliant.

And, to compound the incentive, while academy costs are excluded from the FFP calculation, income from sales of academy graduates is included.

25 minutes ago, DarkMata said:

If this is correct which of our recent signings qualify as academy players if any?  Kendry Paez, Deivid Washington?, Angelo?, Andrey Santos?

It works like this: while FFP mandates that clubs must break even, it exempts a number of costs from the calculation. These include infrastructure spending (like the finance costs of building a new stadium), investment in community schemes (school outreach programmes etc) and women’s football as well as the full cost of youth development. These expenditures, it was argued, were not the kind of things that clubs should be penalised for. In the case of youth development, though, what it means is that Premier League clubs can spend as much as they like on their academies without having pressure to cut costs – like transfer fees or player wages – to be FFP-compliant.

And, to compound the incentive, while academy costs are excluded from the FFP calculation, income from sales of academy graduates is included.

I would say none of them. Because to date they haven't had any involvement with our academy. Omari Hutchinson, Dujuan Richards, Alex Matos etc. probably fall under that category.

Need to change the title of this....everytime I see it, I think we are getting sold again.

'Todd and co agree purchase' perhaps?

1 hour ago, nonotnowjim said:

Need to change the title of this....everytime I see it, I think we are getting sold again.

Members AF get perks

2 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Need to change the title of this....everytime I see it, I think we are getting sold again.

'Todd and co agree purchase' perhaps?

Clearlake and Co owners of Chelsea FC would be more accurate. Todd holds less than a 10% stake.

57 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Clearlake and Co owners of Chelsea FC would be more accurate. Todd holds less than a 10% stake.

Or just "BlueCo" ... the actual name of the consortium that bought us ! (and Strasbourg)

4 parties involved  : Clearlake Capital (managing partners Eghbali & Feliciano), Hans-Jorg Wyss, Todd Boehly,  and Mark Walter of Guggenheim Partners, who also own the LA Dodgers, the LA Lakers and, in women's basketball, the LA Sparks

10 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Clearlake and Co owners of Chelsea FC would be more accurate. Todd holds less than a 10% stake.

 

9 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Or just "BlueCo" ... the actual name of the consortium that bought us ! (and Strasbourg)

4 parties involved  : Clearlake Capital (managing partners Eghbali & Feliciano), Hans-Jorg Wyss, Todd Boehly,  and Mark Walter of Guggenheim Partners, who also own the LA Dodgers, the LA Lakers and, in women's basketball, the LA Sparks

Todd is fine, it's how it's recognised by most! If it's edited to a million different people, then it really will look like it's been sold again!

5 hours ago, Modueke said:

 

Todd is fine, it's how it's recognised by most! If it's edited to a million different people, then it really will look like it's been sold again!

I wasn't suggesting a million different people ... just "BlueCo buy Chelsea" ... but no worries !

Getting paid £20m per year for his heap of sh*t management of the club apparently.

 

 

18 minutes ago, dkw said:

 

 

Can't be true, I was told they wanted to cleanse Chelsea of everything Roman era just because they can.

46 minutes ago, Argo said:

Can't be true, I was told they wanted to cleanse Chelsea of everything Roman era just because they can.

I think they'll end up cleansing more of those fans too while they are at it!