Roman started the business model academy. vast numbers of young players came through it. It turns out good professional footballers. Of all that go through an academy only perhaps less than 1% will be any where near good enough for the first team. Under Roman because we bought from the best in the world, the pathway to first team was essentially blocked, for all but the stars. So there has always been a large turnover when the youngsters think they are ready for first team football. Very few will stick it out and keep striving, often the only way to escape, was to turn down contracts and force a sale, or run down and leave as a free agent. Without the prem league 2 where 1st teamers recovering etc, would mix with the youngsters bringing them along, their development is further stifled. This means a few who were nearly ready for first team duty slip away. This happens everywhere. Cole Palmer being a prime example.

3 hours ago, terraloon said:

You would think that to date the new owners have sold dozens of players from the academy.

I might have missed one maybe two  but to date I think they have sold from the academy 1) Mount 2) RLC 3) Hall 4) CHO 5) Gilmour & 6 )Ampadu

Of course there will be some others sold in the window likely to be Chalobah, Mattesen & maybe Gallagher but I am extremely comfortable with one two or all three being sold 

We all need to accept that the new owners aren’t RA but when you consider the numbers of  players that were sold under his ownership dwarf the six Bohley has sold and when you consider how some of those players careers have panned out players like Guehi, Abraham and Tomori sorry but I think some have got selective memories 

 

I’m not complaining or said that the new owners have sold a sheer amount of academy players, as far as I can see I didn’t even differentiate between owners. I’m just saying that paying loads of money for Cucurella when you’ve got a similar squad player in Maatsen is not good business, you’re just wasting money. My point was that the academy can be used much better for squad players than it has been so far.

On 07/06/2024 at 10:24, Ukraine Bolt said:

By the same logic we sold Mount to cover the expensive flop signings of Mudryk etc. of which Mount is the better player. We're selling to keep afloat for past stupid mistakes, Palmer is a outlier. Outside of him and Gusto i can't think of a single signing that's been value for money to date. Jackson possibly?

If anything Mudryk was Pulisics direct replacement.

Palmer is having the same kind of half space role Mount had here and would have had under Poch.

And as has been confirmed we don't have to sell.

As for value for money, on top of who I mentioned I think Lavia and Nkunku will turn out to be so, Paez almost certainly will, I think Badiashille will or close to (I remember enough of how good he was pre Poch to give up on him just yet), Colwill although not a signing we could have got the easiest pure profit of all time (or used him to get Moises over the line) but instead made a firm not for sale stance and kept him so for me that has to be a +1 for the SD. Enzo and Caicedo while probably never justifying the price tag will be very good players for us and I'm delighted we signed them.

Not to mention we wanted Wharton which had he chose us would have turned out to be a Palmer level masterstroke.

We haven't had a 100% record (who has?) and there were still some unnecessary/wrong signings (the keepers, Disasi as much as I don't think he's half as bad as claimed) but by in large I like what we've done on the player side of things since January 23.

On 07/06/2024 at 10:54, timetowaste said:

We could go on for ages about the signings so we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I don't know why you're putting any sort of value on that list, it's utterly worthless.

the fact is that if we'd saved the 100's of millions of pounds on utter dross and used the academy to fill those positions then we'd have the money to buy actual superstars where we needed to instead of now having to scrape the pennies from the back of the sofa 

49 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

the fact is that if we'd saved the 100's of millions of pounds on utter dross and used the academy to fill those positions then we'd have the money to buy actual superstars where we needed to instead of now having to scrape the pennies from the back of the sofa 

That's where the strategy for the execution of the so called vision is severely lacking. Who spends a billion quid in two windows and isn't challenging for the title straight away. 

That's why they're a laughing stock in the community, because we had players to deliver a top 4 finish without any additions. They just could have used half of the billion to reinforce team with top drawer players and elevate to the next level. 

 

The bigger issue for me is one I have been saying all along. Why are we spending money, big money at times, on so many players when every team in every league bar maybe six clubs in football are either all broke or under financial constraints. 

We are doing this because apparently they will all blow up and increase significantly in value. Great if it happens. Who we selling to? We going to sell every player to Saudi?

Nice example of how ridiculous the new ffp/psr rules. So Villa who did brilliantly last season to catch up to the top clubs now are having to sell at least one of there best players, even though they are cash rich. Probably be Arsenal or Spurs who buy either Watkins or Luiz of them, 2 clubs that have spent a huge amount the past few years and Villa were hoping to compete with. Absolute nonsense.

13 minutes ago, dkw said:

Nice example of how ridiculous the new ffp/psr rules. So Villa who did brilliantly last season to catch up to the top clubs now are having to sell at least one of there best players, even though they are cash rich. Probably be Arsenal or Spurs who buy either Watkins or Luiz of them, 2 clubs that have spent a huge amount the past few years and Villa were hoping to compete with. Absolute nonsense.

Always been about favoring the established core.

53 minutes ago, dkw said:

Nice example of how ridiculous the new ffp/psr rules. So Villa who did brilliantly last season to catch up to the top clubs now are having to sell at least one of there best players, even though they are cash rich. Probably be Arsenal or Spurs who buy either Watkins or Luiz of them, 2 clubs that have spent a huge amount the past few years and Villa were hoping to compete with. Absolute nonsense.

Working entirely as intended. 

6 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

 

 

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Nice example of how ridiculous the new ffp/psr rules. So Villa who did brilliantly last season to catch up to the top clubs now are having to sell at least one of there best players, even though they are cash rich. Probably be Arsenal or Spurs who buy either Watkins or Luiz of them, 2 clubs that have spent a huge amount the past few years and Villa were hoping to compete with. Absolute nonsense.

The rules that take into " book values" etc just means useless players that have been bought by a club will remain but " pure profit" better players from the academy have to be sold .  It's just ridiculous.

27 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Working entirely as intended. 

Make sure no one competes with certain clubs. 

1 hour ago, dkw said:

Make sure no one competes with certain clubs. 

Exactly 

On 10/06/2024 at 02:53, dkw said:

Make sure no one competes with certain clubs. 

If we remember the history of how FFP came to be, it is easy to see that was the intention all along.

The first noises were Arsene Wengers' comments about 'financial doping' and the media coverage and response that vilified Chelsea and Manchester United for their spending. It was warmly supported by Liverpool and Benitez's similar commentary about Chelsea spending and 'the Liverpool way'

Bayern Munich were the instigators, influencing the G14 and pressuring UEFA into drafting the first FFP rules. See Uli Hoeness' comments about Abramovich prior to the CL Final. 

The common theme is that all these clubs were 'once-great' who had their place at the top table threatened by 'lesser' clubs in the early-mid 00s. Arsenal were rapidly fading, Liverpool were unable to keep pace, Bayern Munich were threatened domestically and were a non-factor in the Champions' League. 

We now have strong evidence that FFP/PSR doesn't do what it's supposed to - this study from Feb 2024  shows that while English clubs were more profitable, they were not necessarily more sustainable and the increase in profit was largely due to an unrelated factor (increase in TV revenue). Whereas a normal business might want to capitalise on a good year and invest further, I would argue the results show that clubs are unable to take advantage of their profit, leading to terminal debt cycles.

The reason the G14 (including Chelsea) agreed to FFP in the first place was that it allowed to bring up the drawbridge with them, spooked by the influx of Middle Eastern cash. No longer could smaller clubs 'do a Chelsea' and threaten the hegemony virtually overnight with investor wealth, but it also means that smaller clubs have no way of capitalising on their successes. 

FFP stops another club from doing what Chelsea did under Abramovich, but it also stops another club doing what Chelsea did under Ken Bates - and that is far worse.

4 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

If we remember the history of how FFP came to be, it is easy to see that was the intention all along.

The first noises were Arsene Wengers' comments about 'financial doping' and the media coverage and response that vilified Chelsea and Manchester United for their spending. It was warmly supported by Liverpool and Benitez's similar commentary about Chelsea spending and 'the Liverpool way'

Bayern Munich were the instigators, influencing the G14 and pressuring UEFA into drafting the first FFP rules. See Uli Hoeness' comments about Abramovich prior to the CL Final. 

The common theme is that all these clubs were 'once-great' who had their place at the top table threatened by 'lesser' clubs in the early-mid 00s. Arsenal were rapidly fading, Liverpool were unable to keep pace, Bayern Munich were threatened domestically and were a non-factor in the Champions' League. 

We now have strong evidence that FFP/PSR doesn't do what it's supposed to - this study from Feb 2024  shows that while English clubs were more profitable, they were not necessarily more sustainable and the increase in profit was largely due to an unrelated factor (increase in TV revenue). Whereas a normal business might want to capitalise on a good year and invest further, I would argue the results show that clubs are unable to take advantage of their profit, leading to terminal debt cycles.

The reason the G14 (including Chelsea) agreed to FFP in the first place was that it allowed to bring up the drawbridge with them, spooked by the influx of Middle Eastern cash. No longer could smaller clubs 'do a Chelsea' and threaten the hegemony virtually overnight with investor wealth, but it also means that smaller clubs have no way of capitalising on their successes. 

FFP stops another club from doing what Chelsea did under Abramovich, but it also stops another club doing what Chelsea did under Ken Bates - and that is far worse.

' but it also stops another club doing what Chelsea did under Ken Bates - and that is far worse.' ? In what way.

Edited June 11, 20241 yr by Kev56

On 09/06/2024 at 23:31, dkw said:

 even though they are cash rich. 

Where do you get their cash number?

If I am not wrong the limit of psr loss is around 100m + in 3 season, if they have to sell, it means that they are over this number 

 

 

4 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Where do you get their cash number?

If I am not wrong the limit of psr loss is around 100m + in 3 season, if they have to sell, it means that they are over this number 

 

 

Villa have the 4th wealthiest owners in the league. 

Wages costs, amortization, and transfer fees have gone up substantially since Villa took the risk on Emery. They've succeeded but the Champions League money will not account to that fiscal year's books. If Villa intend to continue spending in line with performance on the pitch and comply with PSR, they would likely need to move on a first team player for a substantial profit. It's already being suggested that Douglas Luiz is on his way to Juventus. 

18 hours ago, Kev56 said:

' but it also stops another club doing what Chelsea did under Ken Bates - and that is far worse.' ? In what way.

We spent well under Uncle Ken when it was needed and cemented ourselves into a top 6 (if not top 4) club. We signed a lot of foreign players on big wages (for the time) and also took big money risks (£11m on Lampard and £15m for Hasselbaink would be like spending £70-£80m today). We finished 6th a few times and while it did financially harm us, it was not a death knell to our competitiveness allowing us to finish 4th in 02/03. We know what happened after.

With PSR rules in place we would not have been able to follow the same high-risk, high-reward strategy. Look at Brighton and West Ham, for all they have spent and for all their hype, they have been nowhere near the Champions' League because their best players end up siphoned off elsewhere.

3 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

We spent well under Uncle Ken when it was needed and cemented ourselves into a top 6 (if not top 4) club. We signed a lot of foreign players on big wages (for the time) and also took big money risks (£11m on Lampard and £15m for Hasselbaink would be like spending £70-£80m today). We finished 6th a few times and while it did financially harm us, it was not a death knell to our competitiveness allowing us to finish 4th in 02/03. We know what happened after.

With PSR rules in place we would not have been able to follow the same high-risk, high-reward strategy. Look at Brighton and West Ham, for all they have spent and for all their hype, they have been nowhere near the Champions' League because their best players end up siphoned off elsewhere.

Yes it was high risk. We gambled, finished 4th and got sold, clearing our debts and grew as a club. 

There is an alternative story where we didn't finish 4th. We finished 8th. And Roman didn't like the look of us and bought Tottenham. 

We then debt spiral and get relegated and spend the next 30 years dropping down the leagues. Maybe to eventually rebound as a solid championship club, but not a certainty by any means.

West Ham and Brighton cannot gamble like we did because of the rules. So they've have had to stay as mid table PL clubs, well run, but not challenging for the title until their revenues reach top 6 level. Which may never happen for them (although it has happened for Tottenham). 

Those are the realities of a system where there aren't some financial checks in place. 

30 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

West Ham and Brighton cannot gamble like we did because of the rules. So they've have had to stay as mid table PL clubs, well run, but not challenging for the title until their revenues reach top 6 level. Which may never happen for them (although it has happened for Tottenham). 

Those are the realities of a system where there aren't some financial checks in place. 

But the PSR rules don't prevent clubs from tumbling down the leagues. They set a hard cap for upward mobility, but the same risks of financial failure still exist and are potentially even furthered by sporting sanctions - just ask Barcelona

 

 

I'm not sure what i am struggling with the most:

Is it the banality of when we do well its great, when its not's going well, not so great.  That's philosophy that is 

 

"We’ve done it with the dodgers, putting together a team that’s very fluid and comes together,"  I am sorry but in what dimension can the sport of baseball be classified as fluid, where 4 blokes stand still at bases and a group of blokes stand still in the outfield, whilst one bloke from the opposition x 3 stands up and tries to hit the ball either into the stand or to get it to hit the ground, 

 

Finally, comraderie? Seriously. Is this Todd's attempt at getting down with Putin as well. Not a good path to go down Todd, not if you're Chelsea owner.  Just stick to camaraderie like the rest of us.

 

15 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

 

I'm not sure what i am struggling with the most:

Is it the banality of when we do well its great, when its not's going well, not so great.  That's philosophy that is 

 

"We’ve done it with the dodgers, putting together a team that’s very fluid and comes together,"  I am sorry but in what dimension can the sport of baseball be classified as fluid, where 4 blokes stand still at bases and a group of blokes stand still in the outfield, whilst one bloke from the opposition x 3 stands up and tries to hit the ball either into the stand or to get it to hit the ground, 

 

Finally, comraderie? Seriously. Is this Todd's attempt at getting down with Putin as well. Not a good path to go down Todd, not if you're Chelsea owner.  Just stick to camaraderie like the rest of us.

 

He likes that " good news , bad news " schtick.

He said " good news is that the fans care so much , bad news is that the fans care so much "

On the stadium it was " good news is that the stadium is in a prime London location, the bad news is that...etc etc"

He was at it again in the Qatar interview too.

Jaysus, change the tune Toddster !

It’s been a chaotic couple of years. Big year ahead - always thought it would take three years for the number of on and off the pitch changes to settle. With the new manager maybe that’s longer. 

Actions speak louder than words - most fans would give anything for owners that have carried the level of investment we have seen. It’s a different Chelsea these days, but excited to see where the owners can take us. 

7 hours ago, PhilH930 said:

It’s been a chaotic couple of years. Big year ahead - always thought it would take three years for the number of on and off the pitch changes to settle. With the new manager maybe that’s longer. 

Actions speak louder than words - most fans would give anything for owners that have carried the level of investment we have seen. It’s a different Chelsea these days, but excited to see where the owners can take us. 

Bit of a last chance saloon season in my opinion.

Sacking Pochettino after he had us in Top 4 form for the last 50% of the season and turned us into consistent winners at the Bridge was a ballsy move and so was replacing him with another inexperienced coach on a five year contract. The squad is talented but they are doubling or even tripling down on the youngster strategy which continues to be risky business but they have clearly made their mind up about the strategy here. I think we need to do something about the goalkeepers and strikers especially (I believe Guiu is brought in to compete with Jackson) and Maresca himself is quite the wildcard for me so its hard to predict how the season is going to go but another two or three steps backwards now after some relative improvement towards the end under Pochettino would hurt.

I still believe one or two late twenties year old "been there and done that" type of players would have helped us and the manager a massive amount but I would be very surprised if it happens unfortunately.

 

 

 

On 27/06/2024 at 01:43, PhilH930 said:

It’s been a chaotic couple of years. Big year ahead - always thought it would take three years for the number of on and off the pitch changes to settle. With the new manager maybe that’s longer. 

Actions speak louder than words - most fans would give anything for owners that have carried the level of investment we have seen. It’s a different Chelsea these days, but excited to see where the owners can take us. 

The owners are using the club's money for investment in players etc.  That spending has to come from our income.

 

 

 

 

On 27/06/2024 at 09:28, OriginalS said:

Bit of a last chance saloon season in my opinion.

Sacking Pochettino after he had us in Top 4 form for the last 50% of the season and turned us into consistent winners at the Bridge was a ballsy move and so was replacing him with another inexperienced coach on a five year contract. The squad is talented but they are doubling or even tripling down on the youngster strategy which continues to be risky business but they have clearly made their mind up about the strategy here. I think we need to do something about the goalkeepers and strikers especially (I believe Guiu is brought in to compete with Jackson) and Maresca himself is quite the wildcard for me so its hard to predict how the season is going to go but another two or three steps backwards now after some relative improvement towards the end under Pochettino would hurt.

I still believe one or two late twenties year old "been there and done that" type of players would have helped us and the manager a massive amount but I would be very surprised if it happens unfortunately.

 

 

 

A couple of old heads might stabilise the dressing room and make all the difference. Bit like Vialli RIP and Mark Hughes years back