This doesnt sit well with me. Who has been singing the players? who has been selling the players? Who signs the manager and who sacks the manager? Im just thinking how far the boardroom-level dysfunction has affected the team if at all? Who's damn project is this? 

Marescar has his work cut out if this spills over. Who tells the other party you're fired in Apprentice fashion, we're defo an apprenticeship for the owners.  

Another day and another self made headline fest for the papers. 

Boehly appears to be the lesser of two evils.

My impression of him is he always had good intentions, and his first and foremost goal was winning trophies. However, he was seriously naive early on and learnt some harsh lessons along the way.

Clearlake seemed more interested in making money and trophies were largely an afterthought.

Either way, it's a huge mess. Instability at the top is always a recipe for disaster in any organisation, let alone a football club.

Edited September 8, 20241 yr by Jezz

30 minutes ago, Jezz said:

Boehly appears to be the lesser of two evils.

My impression of him is he always had good intentions, and his first and foremost goal was winning trophies. However, he was seriously naive early on and learnt some harsh lessons along the way.

Clearlake seemed more interested in making money and trophies were largely an afterthought.

Either way, it's a huge mess. Instability at the top is always a recipe for disaster in any organisation, let alone a football club.

I haven't made up my mind yet. I trust Boehly more to drive a winning culture, but Clearlake are the ones with the enormous financial resources.

Clearlake

Team Eghbali it is.

 

 

A lot of people are giving Boehly the benefit of the doubt but at the end of the day, he's the one that brought Clearlake in as his investor. The fact he has a problem with them means he can have a problem with the next investor that comes in. The whole thing has become a mess. I wish someone else would just come in to buy both Clearlake and Boehly out.

I hope all the billionaires turn on each other like this.

8 hours ago, JM7 said:

Exactly, it’s power they want. They already had loads of money.  

Without spending another £1 the power already  lies 100% with Clearlake so I personally take this press report with a mountain of salt.

Clearlake can appoint , sack and sideline any company official they want to and save a very few company decisions make those calls  without Bohley or any other the other shareholders having  input or indeed support .

Potentially this situation is no different to the position KSE found themselves at Arsenal where Usmanonov held  in excess of 25% of the shareholding .

Usmanonov didn’t  have a seat at the table and other than having the right to attend and vote at shareholders meetings where KSE did what they liked, his shares entitled him  to nothing more than a certificate.

Bohley will know that in any partnership there will be difference, around any boardroom there will be different opinions so I personally treat these reports to a large degree as mischief making . 
 

What I do believe we have here is  the classic team building and by that I don’t mean on pitch I mean the  off field team .
 

Love it or hate it the various strands to the back room organisation BlueCo inherited wasn’t close to fit for purpose be it commercial, scouting, administrative indeed I have spoken to someone who is now involved at a very senior level and the feeling was that the structure wasn’t close to fit for purpose in the modern era  with those that had the ear of the owner being too influential even in areas outside their stated remit some that interfered weren’t ever officially appointed . Senior appointees don’t ship up to be micro managed but that’s what they faced. 

Trying to unpick the previous culture which yes had delivered but even the if we are all honest we surely would agree that we should have won more but off field significant issues needed  to be addressed that’s why I find it significant that the chap from Clearlake is now moving on his role  was never long term it was a transitional appointment where no doubt he adopted the mantra “ If the people won’t change we will change the people” 
 

Having said all that I do think some people particularly journalists need to go back and look at their historical comments particularly in their ridicule of Bohley . Now some seem to be reinventing history or shall I say their view of that history.
 

AsI said I do take these “ leaks” with copious amounts of salt but I would expect that there have been much talk between the shareholders particularly around three areas one of which has to be about on the field but close to that will be the commercial side of things and of course the log jam around the stadium rebuild.

 

 

21 minutes ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

A lot of people are giving Boehly the benefit of the doubt but at the end of the day, he's the one that brought Clearlake in as his investor. The fact he has a problem with them means he can have a problem with the next investor that comes in. The whole thing has become a mess. I wish someone else would just come in to buy both Clearlake and Boehly out.

They can’t for another 8 or so years

15 minutes ago, PloKoon13 said:

I hope all the billionaires turn on each other like this.

Be very careful what you wish for

Edited September 8, 20241 yr by terraloon

6 hours ago, bluetrooper said:

This doesnt sit well with me. Who has been singing the players? who has been selling the players? Who signs the manager and who sacks the manager? Im just thinking how far the boardroom-level dysfunction has affected the team if at all? Who's damn project is this? 

Marescar has his work cut out if this spills over. Who tells the other party you're fired in Apprentice fashion, we're defo an apprenticeship for the owners.  

Another day and another self made headline fest for the papers. 

I assume that you have never been involved in a football boardroom. 
 

In the day when I was involved every director wanted to get their own way, every director would have someone outside the supposed confines of that boardroom to who they would moan about the collective decision if they didn’t get their own way. I lost count at the number of times the chairmen reminded attendees of the need for confidentiality but time after time  contentious matters were shared 

Do you think RA spoke to the likes of Mourino when he was sacked or any of the numerous appointments made and terminated under him ? Do you remember TT saying the first time he met RA was at the CL final. 
 

Ironically what we are seeing and yes formation of such is uncomfortable, is a team with clear lines of responsibility and being made accountable  for their areas of remit it will become clearer once we see the clear separation between operational and on field matters 

Edited September 8, 20241 yr by terraloon

38 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Without spending another £1 the power already  lies 100% with Clearlake so I personally take this press report with a mountain of salt.

Clearlake can appoint , sack and sideline any company official they want to and save a very few company decisions make those calls  without Bohley or any other the other shareholders having  input or indeed support .

Potentially this situation is no different to the position KSE found themselves at Arsenal where Usmanonov held  in excess of 25% of the shareholding .

Usmanonov didn’t  have a seat at the table and other than having the right to attend and vote at shareholders meetings where KSE did what they liked, his shares entitled him  to nothing more than a certificate.

Bohley will know that in any partnership there will be difference, around any boardroom there will be different opinions so I personally treat these reports to a large degree as mischief making . 
 

What I do believe we have here is  the classic team building and by that I don’t mean on pitch I mean the  off field team .
 

Love it or hate it the various strands to the back room organisation BlueCo inherited wasn’t close to fit for purpose be it commercial, scouting, administrative indeed I have spoken to someone who is now involved at a very senior level and the feeling was that the structure wasn’t close to fit for purpose in the modern era  with those that had the ear of the owner being too influential even in areas outside their stated remit some that interfered weren’t ever officially appointed . Senior appointees don’t ship up to be micro managed but that’s what they faced. 

Trying to unpick the previous culture which yes had delivered but even the if we are all honest we surely would agree that we should have won more but off field significant issues needed  to be addressed that’s why I find it significant that the chap from Clearlake is now moving on his role  was never long term it was a transitional appointment where no doubt he adopted the mantra “ If the people won’t change we will change the people” 
 

Having said all that I do think some people particularly journalists need to go back and look at their historical comments particularly in their ridicule of Bohley . Now some seem to be reinventing history or shall I say their view of that history.
 

AsI said I do take these “ leaks” with copious amounts of salt but I would expect that there have been much talk between the shareholders particularly around three areas one of which has to be about on the field but close to that will be the commercial side of things and of course the log jam around the stadium rebuild.

 

 

Are you on Clearlake's payroll by any chance? Or you have a remarkable capacity to be optimistic about any situation but when Boehly Camp literally briefs their journalist and words such as untenable and civil war is used then one is obviously far removed from any internal board room disagreements that happens all the time as you say.

We've heard "Trust the process" a lot but its now clear 3 quarters of the ownership can't even get behind the model. And another of the major sticking points is that Eghbali is too directly involved in the recruitment process and I thought the entire point of the entire structure was that we were going to move away from just that!

Edited September 8, 20241 yr by OriginalS

I know it is fun to speculate who is more or less of an evil from the two... Reality is the only solid information on the two men is this

I think Eghbali looks more evil from the two. 😐🆚👿

We have absolutely no solid information on the case and they have the system in place where every member has to agree on every decision.

Let's wait and see how this progresses. Hopefully the first team is not affected by this in any shape or form. I think it won't.

If it's a choice between the two I'd rather Todd because of his success within sport in general, although the problem is Todd is going to have to bring on more investors that are currently unknown to us because I'm fairly sure he wouldn't be able to buy Clearlake out on his own.

1 hour ago, OriginalS said:

Are you on Clearlake's payroll by any chance? Or you have a remarkable capacity to be optimistic about any situation but when Boehly Camp literally briefs their journalist and words such as untenable and civil war is used then one is obviously far removed from any internal board room disagreements that happens all the time as you say.

We've heard "Trust the process" a lot but its now clear 3 quarters of the ownership can't even get behind the model. And another of the major sticking points is that Eghbali is too directly involved in the recruitment process and I thought the entire point of the entire structure was that we were going to move away from just that!

Not on anyone’s payroll any more let alone Clearlake’s but the simple fact is that I have been involved  in these type of matters so I can identify each of the moving parts and certain of the inevitabilities.
 

Sorry but you have fallen into the trap of accepting the narrative the press are driving . I personally find it unlikely that words like untenable or civil war were briefed or indeed used by Bohley or indeed Eghali that is some journalist or someone that claims to be ITK playing big ones You clearly do so my guess is we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I get that there is frustration but this is indeed a process a process that will see u turns, changes , resets or whatever you want to call them but going back to my point about the press they are thirsting for a clickbait sort of story . Anyone that has been involved in any strategic re set will confirm that it’s never plain sailing the sad part for me is that so many are buying into the lines that is in effect civil war . 
 

I go back to my point made some time ago some Chelsea supporters seem to want this project, process and or ownership fail. I know I don’t if for no other reason as if it does it possibly would lead to administration at best oblivion at worse.

47 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Not on anyone’s payroll any more let alone Clearlake’s but the simple fact is that I have been involved  in these type of matters so I can identify each of the moving parts and certain of the inevitabilities.
 

Sorry but you have fallen into the trap of accepting the narrative the press are driving . I personally find it unlikely that words like untenable or civil war were briefed or indeed used by Bohley or indeed Eghali that is some journalist or someone that claims to be ITK playing big ones You clearly do so my guess is we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I get that there is frustration but this is indeed a process a process that will see u turns, changes , resets or whatever you want to call them but going back to my point about the press they are thirsting for a clickbait sort of story . Anyone that has been involved in any strategic re set will confirm that it’s never plain sailing the sad part for me is that so many are buying into the lines that is in effect civil war . 
 

I go back to my point made some time ago some Chelsea supporters seem to want this project, process and or ownership fail. I know I don’t if for no other reason as if it does it possibly would lead to administration at best oblivion at worse.

I respect your opinion on that of course but when one's entered brief-counterbrief territority within a consortium that group of people is obviously not working together anymore but pulling apart. I think you would agree with that?

They've gone public with this. When seasoned businessmen does that they do it for a reason. The store broke in the states which I think adds to its significance and Boehly used Matt Law to respond and we know he's got direct links to that camp as I previously mentioned. So this is not some gossipy Daily Mirror story with no substance either.

The Ten-Hag - Sancho relationship was over when them two entered into brief-counterbrief territory for example and i'll be extremely surprised if the current ownership group is still holding together in 6 months.

As for u-turns there's been nothing but u-turns for two years my man. And when you do nothing but u-turns you are of course not going anywhere at all. Which is an apt way of describing how the clubs been run since their takeover really.

 

 

1 hour ago, evissy said:

I know it is fun to speculate who is more or less of an evil from the two... Reality is the only solid information on the two men is this

Blimey this club has aged Todd really quickly! I guess the same could be said for many of us! 👀

32 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

I respect your opinion on that of course but when one's entered brief-counterbrief territority within a consortium that group of people is obviously not working together anymore but pulling apart. I think you would agree with that?

They've gone public with this. When seasoned businessmen does that they do it for a reason. The store broke in the states which I think adds to its significance and Boehly used Matt Law to respond and we know he's got direct links to that camp as I previously mentioned. So this is not some gossipy Daily Mirror story with no substance either.

The Ten-Hag - Sancho relationship was over when them two entered into brief-counterbrief territory for example and i'll be extremely surprised if the current ownership group is still holding together in 6 months.

As for u-turns there's been nothing but u-turns for two years my man. And when you do nothing but u-turns you are of course not going anywhere at all. Which is an apt way of describing how the clubs been run since their takeover really.

 

 

Two weeks ago Bloomberg in the US reported that US investors are losing the desire to invest in PL clubs that almost certainly because the big potential earners are now either in Middle East or US ownership already many others won’t offer up opportunities to turn a profit so the big investors are already sorted. Irrespective we still see the likes of Birmingham, Wrexham and others where money is still shipping up.

Two weeks on Bloomberg published this article 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2024/09/06/chelsea-fcs-backers-clearlake-and-todd-boehly-weigh-ownership-options/
 

It is from that article everything in the British press has followed and almost certainly those British journalists through their old boy networks will have been speaking to Bloombergs journalists as opposed to the main players. 

It’s no coincidence that they, Bloomberg, cover themselves because they don’t say a spokesperson for a or b they just talk about people . In other words people who claim to be ITK.

Of course powerful successful businessmen  struggle to work in total agreement and almost certainly sooner rather than later they will inevitably fall out but rarely will they air their differences in public simply because the value of their stock will fall.

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 20241 yr by terraloon

17 minutes ago, terraloon said:

but rarely will they air their differences in public simply because the value of their stock will fall.

But thats whats happened here, that's my point.

You can be of the opinion that this article isn't a brief but I think most that reads it and knows a bit of the history between Matt Law and Boehly/Goldstein realize that it is. He doesn't even hide his source either in the usual "a source close to the situation told..." but just comes straight and essentially says he's got it directly from Todd.

So Boehly has made it public now, for better or worse.

 

 

Edited September 8, 20241 yr by OriginalS

16 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Maybe Todd can go get some rich middle east guys to buy out Clearlake 

 

13 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Don't think 2.5bill will do it though. Get to 3.5bill plus and I think their stance changes, and the middle eastern businessmen will consider that a drop in the ocean. They want power, not profit.

 

13 hours ago, JM7 said:

Exactly, it’s power they want. They already had loads of money.  

 

It's not power, it's prestige they want. They have power and quite a bit from oil (even though its drying up in a few places), geographic location, the free market, etc...

But to be a top PL club, for example man city, the owner is extremely respected in that region.

See below...but I didn't think the club can be sold (including shares) until the 10yr mark!? But let's say they can for this bit.

I think I voted for the Saudi grp during the purchase of Chels. 

Unfortunately I don't think Saudi can step in any more as they have enough "investments" in the PL (esp. newcastle). Qatar can't buy us for similar reasons but Europe not PL. Bahrain is already heavily involved too, especially as a country but they may be able to take control of chelsea if they move assets around (maybe, no idea). UAE is interesting, they didn't go in as a country but one of the 7 states (Abu dhabi) so technically someone from Dubai could buy Chels. They aren't connected in any way. 2 different families.

Anyway though, as I said above, I didn't think any of the grp could sell up. Its the grp (and shares) that was decided on to stay for 10yrs right? If they can sell or buy shares then when does the clause of can't sell the club for 10 yrs kick in? Is there a minimum share limit or something, lol.

Makes no sense that they can't sell the club but they can sell/buy shares to buy each other out! So much info is missing in all this.

I'm sure there's clauses though, wouldn't be a decent legal document if it was simple and it's a 2bil purchase (can't remember how much they bought chelsea for in the end). I expect the clauses themselves to be a very long read. So no idea personally.

Same day, different click bait.

It is very difficult to tell whether Eghbali or Boehly or something/someone else is the reason we are doing things like we do. 

I personally like the idea we have sporting director(s), we scout young talent, we have trimmed down the squad in terms of age and average salary. I think it is better to do something else than just continue to do what we did under Roman.

We need to perform better on the pitch and hopefully that happens in the coming seasons.

22 minutes ago, OriginalS said:

But thats whats happened here, that's my point.

You can be of the opinion that this article isn't a brief but I think most that reads it and knows a bit of the history between Matt Law and Boehly/Goldstein realize that it is. He doesn't even hide his source either in the usual "a source close to the situation told..." but just comes straight and essentially says he's got it directly from Todd.

So Boehly has made it public now, for better or worse.

 

 

I wrote about the media a few posts back or maybe a different thread, can't recall.

 

A source close to the situation could mean him, Matt Law, (making it up himself). Technically he can be classed as a "source close to boehly or clearlake".

 

We once set up 3 sets for reporters on the same floor of a building in Baghdad. Each facing a different location. The news team reported it as 3 separate locations in Baghdad. Same building, a few metres apart but technically they are right, it's 3 different locations. We obviously made sure to pick rooms and balconies that didn't share the same decor. Lol

 

Journalists/reporters are very clever with their words. And it's extremely rare they don't add their own spin to the matter for extra clicks and follows, it's their job to create discussion and drama.

4 hours ago, terraloon said:

I assume that you have never been involved in a football boardroom. 
 

In the day when I was involved every director wanted to get their own way, every director would have someone outside the supposed confines of that boardroom to who they would moan about the collective decision if they didn’t get their own way. I lost count at the number of times the chairmen reminded attendees of the need for confidentiality but time after time  contentious matters were shared 

Do you think RA spoke to the likes of Mourino when he was sacked or any of the numerous appointments made and terminated under him ? Do you remember TT saying the first time he met RA was at the CL final. 
 

Ironically what we are seeing and yes formation of such is uncomfortable, is a team with clear lines of responsibility and being made accountable  for their areas of remit it will become clearer once we see the clear separation between operational and on field matters 

What a an oddly arrogant reply. 😉 Are you Ken Bates? 

Remember the Harding/ Bates power struggle? turned fairly nasty. That was two competing interests was it not. I do find it strange the business experts running our club didnt delineate and establish clear lines before they dropped 1 billion into a project. I just find it strange one man upmanship. 

2 minutes ago, bluetrooper said:

  I do find it strange the business experts running our club didnt delineate and establish clear lines before they dropped 1 billion into a project. I just find it strange one man upmanship. 

This...100%

I really doubt they didn't cross "t's" and dot "i's".

2 hours ago, terraloon said:

 

I go back to my point made some time ago some Chelsea supporters seem to want this project, process and or ownership fail. I know I don’t if for no other reason as if it does it possibly would lead to administration at best oblivion at worse.

I dont think there is a fan who wants it to go wrong, I dont, and after 1 billion in transfers Id also like to see a competitive team on the pitch, stability for the "project" to grow. 

If there is a "power struggle", wouldnt this indicate that the scattergun approach to running the club & its recruitment strategy are reflective of issues at board level? I'd simply argue the friction between the owners/ sporting directors has led to the implosion we've seen on the field and training ground. 

I do wonder where Maresca has got his siege mentality-like approach from already. Wonder if he was also blindsided by it all before signing. 

The club will always be in existence, the owners come and go. I would dearly love all the off-field shenanigans of the last 3 years to stop influencing the on field side of things. The club simply needs a period of calm.