When Clearlake did the overhaul people thought they were mental. Not hearing too much of that. 

The sporting directors were also making mistakes by buying this and that player. No one is talking about anything of the sort now. 

We did something no one has done before. That is where you see the limitations of the pundits and the entire extent of them really. 

I thought we need to do things in a new way so we won't fall back to Roman's era and we need patience. 

Beginning to look like a good plan after all. Early days still naturally but still.

13 hours ago, evissy said:

When Clearlake did the overhaul people thought they were mental. Not hearing too much of that. 

The sporting directors were also making mistakes by buying this and that player. No one is talking about anything of the sort now. 

We did something no one has done before. That is where you see the limitations of the pundits and the entire extent of them really. 

I thought we need to do things in a new way so we won't fall back to Roman's era and we need patience. 

Beginning to look like a good plan after all. Early days still naturally but still.

There is no 'new' way. The owners have done some good things, some atrocious things, but let's not pretend they are doing anything new, different or unique. That's just nonsense PR. The owners bought a club, kicked out the previous staff and players, and brought in new ones. That is a takeover tale as old as time and we don't need to give people credit for doing business as usual.

Objectively we were a top 4 club who has spent 2 years nowhere near that level, and the owners have spent almost all their funds just to bring usm, at a generous best, on parity with where we were in 2021.

We've got a good coach in Maresca, but we also lost a truly top-tier one in Thomas Tuchel. We have Cole Palmer but we've also lost many great players (especially defenders) along the way. That's just normal ups and downs of any squad, nothing special.

On 03/12/2024 at 00:48, SydneyChelsea said:

There is no 'new' way. The owners have done some good things, some atrocious things, but let's not pretend they are doing anything new, different or unique. That's just nonsense PR. The owners bought a club, kicked out the previous staff and players, and brought in new ones. That is a takeover tale as old as time and we don't need to give people credit for doing business as usual.

Objectively we were a top 4 club who has spent 2 years nowhere near that level, and the owners have spent almost all their funds just to bring usm, at a generous best, on parity with where we were in 2021.

We've got a good coach in Maresca, but we also lost a truly top-tier one in Thomas Tuchel. We have Cole Palmer but we've also lost many great players (especially defenders) along the way. That's just normal ups and downs of any squad, nothing special.

Nope. I am sorry mate but the way I see it we have done things in a new way. No PR either. 

Tell me which club lets say in England changed the owner, changed almost the entire staff, sold almost every player (worth of selling) and replaced them with 18-21 year old players. And to add to this season the plan was to create a big squad that can handle all the cups and Club World Cup. We did it and we are progressing as planned.

They also said specifically they'd do 4 transfer windows and would use the exact amount of money they used. That money spent was I think in the terms which the sale was granted by Roman. Roman wanted to make sure the first team squad is taken care of. 

That 4 window period is over and we have completely changed the squad with, let me remind you, YOUNG TALENT. For the young talent to be the right talent is up to a grand plan and smart decisions. Our sporting directors have done well there. You can't deny that. What is less said is we have a group that is growing at the same age bracket to be future champions and winners. Not the old mix and match group.

Maresca is also part of their decisions as was Pochettino who did well with a young squad with ton of injuries. 

Maresca just said in his last presser he thinks Chelsea with this squad will dominate English football for 5-10 years. He wants to lead the group to that success. He said he told this to the owners before he was signed and he still thinks so. I think that is encouraging and goes along with the progress we see on the pitch as well.

 

Let's suppose we're on our way back to being in contention for silverware: would the supporters who feel alienated from the club be reconciled with the current owners and their decisions? 

Edited December 4, 20241 yr by Valerie

51 minutes ago, evissy said:

 

That 4 window period is over and we have completely changed the squad with, let me remind you, YOUNG TALENT (and Sanchez, Badiashille, Disasi, Tosin, Veiga, KDH, Mudryk, Casadei, Felix, Kellyman, etc). For the young talent to be the right talent is up to a grand plan and smart decisions. Our sporting directors have done well there. You can't deny that. What is less said is we have a group that is growing at the same age bracket to be future champions and winners. Not the old mix and match group.

 

 

There, and that's without those on loan like Sterling. It looks like they've gone out on a shopping spree and some have turned out to be very good and some have turned out to be not so good. We're all happy with how the first team is progressing, I don't deny it, but the distance between the first team and second team in defence and midfield is abysmal. We are all talking about the young promises that are due to come next season and the following one, we'll see how they adapt and how they are integrated. So yeah, they haven't done that well, it's not like they've identified the talent and gone for it and 90% of the players bought have turned out to be so, it's more like 50% of a large shopping bill.

27 minutes ago, Valerie said:

Let's suppose we're on our way back to being in contention for silverware: would the supporters who feel alienated from the club be reconciled with the current owners and their decisions? 

There's a better atmosphere at the Bridge now that the team is progressing nicely but outside there are grunts about ticketing, how the club responds to questions and concerns about bots buying most tickets, how they removed subsidies to supporters clubs, prices and quality of food and drinks, the Westview, reducing capacity for home and away fans, and lack of a clear plan for Stamford Bridge, selling of home grown established players (most notably Gallagher), etc. I was in support of the owners (not a strong one but I wasn't against them) but there are things that are making me a bit more alienated from the board than before.

On 02/12/2024 at 17:48, SydneyChelsea said:

There is no 'new' way. The owners have done some good things, some atrocious things, but let's not pretend they are doing anything new, different or unique. That's just nonsense PR. The owners bought a club, kicked out the previous staff and players, and brought in new ones. That is a takeover tale as old as time and we don't need to give people credit for doing business as usual.

Objectively we were a top 4 club who has spent 2 years nowhere near that level, and the owners have spent almost all their funds just to bring usm, at a generous best, on parity with where we were in 2021.

We've got a good coach in Maresca, but we also lost a truly top-tier one in Thomas Tuchel. We have Cole Palmer but we've also lost many great players (especially defenders) along the way. That's just normal ups and downs of any squad, nothing special.

Respectfully disagree. Any organization, sport or other industry, would struggle with the level of reorganization Chelsea have been through. Owners deserve more credit, and their ambition is starting to yield results now. Still early days though. 

Think we’ve just many fond memories of years gone by - we were spoiled. 

What is is they say - be nostalgic about the past, realistic about the present, optimistic about the future. All can be true! 

45 minutes ago, PhilH930 said:

Respectfully disagree. Any organization, sport or other industry, would struggle with the level of reorganization Chelsea have been through. Owners deserve more credit, and their ambition is starting to yield results now. Still early days though. 

Why should they deserve credit for doing the bare minimum - addressing a problem of their own making?

No one asked for the "reorganisation". The slightest bit of critical thinking reveals that the owners are basically doing exactly what the club were doing before, just with different people and a different level of success. The tale in the media and parrotted by idiots, that Chelsea prior to Clearlake was "not a well-run club", is nonsense and is targeted at bringing in investment riches for the club's current owners.

This is not some new tale or unique methodology. As I've said before this sort of investment and 'tactic' has been used the last 20 years to inflate the value of companies and then sell them when markets or governments eventually regulate. Just like Uber, Netflix, Airbnb etc. claimed they were 'disruptors' due to having inflated share values despite being still grossly unprofitable. We've seen it all before - come in, change for the sake of change, spend lots of money and make sure you get some friendly media on board.

If authorities ever get their sh*t together on FFP/PSR, or Man City get their way by including shareholder loans in the APT rules, we are f**ked.

Anyway, the real problem isn't these owners. For the time being at least our interests as fans, and theirs, are aligned. Whatever issues we seen so far will pale in comparison to when the current owners' sell their stake to another investor left holding the bag.

Edited December 5, 20241 yr by SydneyChelsea

The owners deserve no praise. We've literally spanked what isit? 2 billion? Just to be a top 4 challenger. 

Too much money has been wasted for me to be happy with their involvement. Dewsbury Hall,l and 6 keepers. Who the hell sanctioned that over the summer?

2 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

The owners deserve no praise. We've literally spanked what isit? 2 billion? Just to be a top 4 challenger. 

Too much money has been wasted for me to be happy with their involvement. Dewsbury Hall,l and 6 keepers. Who the hell sanctioned that over the summer?

Weve literally spunked £2b? Have we?

3 hours ago, dkw said:

Weve literally spunked £2b? Have we?

I thought it was a net £800mil over the 2 yrs! Sure it was something like that actually. I need to find the articles again but I definitely posted them up in this thread. If I have time later I'll try and go through the thread and dig them out.

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Why should they deserve credit for doing the bare minimum - addressing a problem of their own making?

No one asked for the "reorganisation". The slightest bit of critical thinking reveals that the owners are basically doing exactly what the club were doing before, just with different people and a different level of success. The tale in the media and parrotted by idiots, that Chelsea prior to Clearlake was "not a well-run club", is nonsense and is targeted at bringing in investment riches for the club's current owners.

This is not some new tale or unique methodology. As I've said before this sort of investment and 'tactic' has been used the last 20 years to inflate the value of companies and then sell them when markets or governments eventually regulate. Just like Uber, Netflix, Airbnb etc. claimed they were 'disruptors' due to having inflated share values despite being still grossly unprofitable. We've seen it all before - come in, change for the sake of change, spend lots of money and make sure you get some friendly media on board.

If authorities ever get their sh*t together on FFP/PSR, or Man City get their way by including shareholder loans in the APT rules, we are f**ked.

Anyway, the real problem isn't these owners. For the time being at least our interests as fans, and theirs, are aligned. Whatever issues we seen so far will pale in comparison to when the current owners' sell their stake to another investor left holding the bag.

No one asked for the reorganization, but was somewhat forced upon us. I think the club was poorly run in the latter Roman years, and the sanctions further decimated things. Without the owners actions we’d be having a different conversation. Easy to criticize when you see the spend headlines, but bigger picture is a more stable, structured club  

Perhaps you’re right and different owners would have done it better. For me that is tough time see, and I credit their ambition. 

8 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

If authorities ever get their sh*t together on FFP/PSR, or Man City get their way by including shareholder loans in the APT rules, we are f**ked.
 

No they won't, it would take a miracle for it to happen

On 04/12/2024 at 11:12, Valerie said:

Let's suppose we're on our way back to being in contention for silverware: would the supporters who feel alienated from the club be reconciled with the current owners and their decisions? 

Silverware was never the issue with me, I was more concerned about the safety of the club as a whole. Even with the improvements on the pitch, I still don't like the way the owners have gone about things. The way they have done things has been needlessly risky, and they've gambled our clubs future on it working out, and we still have a long way to go before we're safe.

On 02/12/2024 at 08:58, evissy said:

When Clearlake did the overhaul people thought they were mental. Not hearing too much of that. 

The sporting directors were also making mistakes by buying this and that player. No one is talking about anything of the sort now. 

We did something no one has done before. That is where you see the limitations of the pundits and the entire extent of them really. 

I thought we need to do things in a new way so we won't fall back to Roman's era and we need patience. 

Beginning to look like a good plan after all. Early days still naturally but still.

I didn't (well atleast not partly).

I was concerned we were going a little too young but the squad that oversaw the first half of 22/23 absolutely needed gutting.

10 hours ago, PhilH930 said:

No one asked for the reorganization, but was somewhat forced upon us. I think the club was poorly run in the latter Roman years, and the sanctions further decimated things. Without the owners actions we’d be having a different conversation. Easy to criticize when you see the spend headlines, but bigger picture is a more stable, structured club  

Perhaps you’re right and different owners would have done it better. For me that is tough time see, and I credit their ambition. 

I agree, Roman lost his edge or was distracted in the last few years. Possibly because he was unable to enter the country - I don’t blame him. 
 

We were slowly dropping down the table, nowhere near a league title for years and somewhere between 3/4/5th. 

On 02/12/2024 at 08:58, evissy said:

When Clearlake did the overhaul people thought they were mental. Not hearing too much of that. 

The sporting directors were also making mistakes by buying this and that player. No one is talking about anything of the sort now. 

We did something no one has done before. That is where you see the limitations of the pundits and the entire extent of them really. 

I thought we need to do things in a new way so we won't fall back to Roman's era and we need patience. 

Beginning to look like a good plan after all. Early days still naturally but still.

We're nearly back to where we were before the new owners wrecked the club.. great isn't it?  On top of that they've taken us from being debt free to dicing with breaking PSR rules with massive spending.

We're on a good run , I love the football. But that can never excuse the way the owners ruined us .

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

On 04/12/2024 at 11:12, Valerie said:

Let's suppose we're on our way back to being in contention for silverware: would the supporters who feel alienated from the club be reconciled with the current owners and their decisions? 

NEVER 

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

NEVER 

I'm going to put you down as an undecided 

How any Chelsea fan could be happy that our club is majority owned by an American investment company is beyond me.

The ONLY reason ClearLake exists is to extract wealth from anything  it owns and to provide "favourable returns to its investors"(their words) That shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, neither should our great recent results make us forget why they are involved with us.

 

 

I bet Laurel and Hardy grinning like a Chester cat right now. Still don’t want them around 

5 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

How any Chelsea fan could be happy that our club is majority owned by an American investment company is beyond me.

The ONLY reason ClearLake exists is to extract wealth from anything  it owns and to provide "favourable returns to its investors"(their words) That shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, neither should our great recent results make us forget why they are involved with us.

 

 

If only we had purely altruistic owners like so many other clubs...

All I care about is goal alignment. Clearlake win in the long term if Chelsea wins, and the fans are happy. The club is not in a position to be bled dry without big investment - it's not Man Utd. And you don't sign Caicedo @ 100m if your only mandate is to extract wealth. You would do a 1:1 copy of Brighton's model and call it a day. 

Instead, what we're seeing is something of a Madrid-Brighton hybrid and if they manage to take another step forward it will be a fantastic achievement. 

15 hours ago, venom2011 said:

If only we had purely altruistic owners like so many other clubs...

All I care about is goal alignment. Clearlake win in the long term if Chelsea wins, and the fans are happy. The club is not in a position to be bled dry without big investment - it's not Man Utd. And you don't sign Caicedo @ 100m if your only mandate is to extract wealth. You would do a 1:1 copy of Brighton's model and call it a day. 

Instead, what we're seeing is something of a Madrid-Brighton hybrid and if they manage to take another step forward it will be a fantastic achievement. 

 I'd like to know why you think ClearLake are here if it's not to extract wealth from its investment ?After the 10 year embargo on paying dividends and management fees to themselves is lifted we are absolutely in a position to be bled dry.

The £100m fee for Caciedo was paid from our club's income, not from ClearLake's billions. Our holding company, BlueCo are over £600 million in debt. Success didn't generate profits for Chelsea during our most successful period ever.  But whatever happens, ClearLake's investors WILL profit from our club, they are here for no other reason. 

 

 

8 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

 I'd like to know why you think ClearLake are here if it's not to extract wealth from its investment ?After the 10 year embargo on paying dividends and management fees to themselves is lifted we are absolutely in a position to be bled dry.

The £100m fee for Caciedo was paid from our club's income, not from ClearLake's billions. Our holding company, BlueCo are over £600 million in debt. Success didn't generate profits for Chelsea during our most successful period ever.  But whatever happens, ClearLake's investors WILL profit from our club, they are here for no other reason. 

 

 

Firstly, it depends on your definition of 'extract wealth' - How? When?

I believe the consortium are simply here to be successful i.e. trophies, profitability, structurally etc with a view to increasing the club's value. Any dividend payouts will be a natural consequence of them hitting their targets but that is not their modus.

Clearlake's responsibility to its investors is to increase asset value first and foremost. Chelsea are arguably, right now, worth more than the sum of what the ownership have spent on acquisition and transfers. The squad is probably more valuable than it's ever been. In 10 years, ceteris paribus, the club could be worth 2 to 3x what it is today. At that point they could sell up and walk away happy - which is typically what they'd do. I have no problem with that either.

Chelsea was less of a football business than it was an Oligarch's toy. And even then the value of the club increased significantly. Under normal operating circumstances Roman would have made a decent profit on the sale of the club.

I could care less about the motivations of  Clearlake's investors. I care about what Clearlake i.e. Eghbali, Feliciano and the rest of the consortium do. They may, and probably do, have motivations that extend beyond traditional business practices.

Hearing nothing on the supposed “cival war”, it’s all gone mega quiet on that front.