13 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

Point well made, I'll change it to "the sky is slightly less grey, the birds are a bit less annoying and we're slightly less terrible than the last 2 seasons"

Good effort but still does not really sound like me...

Maybe something more like "the sky is full of black clouds, so at least others are miserable too, the thunder has scared off those blasted birds for a while and we managed to stop being garbage long enough for us to finally beat Brentford".

Brentford was my apex result this season, so is fitting we have fallen down since then lol.

So away from my criticism of Maresca what did the SD, and/or owners, do to support Maresca for this season.

They signed Jorgensen but did they need to? Sanchez has been the first choice pick, Petrovic could easily have been the back up.

KDH that had to be a winner right? Nope Maresca often does not even put him in the squad.

Viega? Given a chance early not one of those not used even when Cucu cannot play.

Joao Felix? Lol he has made no secret of not wanting to use him.

Tosin? 4th choice CB but at least he was free.

Sancho? Yup he rates him, fair enough.

Neto? Big money signing and not really delivered but again at least he is used.

 

Whole lot of money wasted there, does not look like manager and SD aligned on signings, again.

We could do with Gallagher, who brings hard work and pressing the opposition when we need to defend the result.

1 hour ago, RMH said:

We could do with Gallagher, who brings hard work and pressing the opposition when we need to defend the result.

I would guess Maresca would have had him as 4th choice beind Lavia, Caicedo and Enzo. Realistically he would still have got lots of minutes.

But our owners wanted some PSR money and decided to get shot of him. I mean what use do we have for a hard working midfielder who leads and never gets injured?

We’ve signed 5 CBs and our best pairing came from the academy. 
 

Trust what you have at home and invest more effectively. Stewart should be sacked on the spot. 

 

11 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

We’ve signed 5 CBs and our best pairing came from the academy. 
 

Trust what you have at home and invest more effectively. Stewart should be sacked on the spot. 

 

This This & This

20 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

We’ve signed 5 CBs and our best pairing came from the academy. 
 

Trust what you have at home and invest more effectively. Stewart should be sacked on the spot. 

 

The money the ownership spent should have assembled a side able to compete for the PL as well as have future stars like Estevao coming through.

But they wasted so much on average to well below average players. 

It's amazing to think that, for a few months of us looking really good, some wanted to forget everything else these SD have done and give them their flowers.

What on earth have they done to deserve any praise? Who have they signed? Really I want to know, I want to hear from our forum members who fully back this ownership and these directors why the deserve their flowers?

Was it appointing Poch after weeks and weeks of talks only to bin him a year later? Is it appointing Maresca, who now sees to be calling out their recruitment?

Was is failing to sign Enzo and needing Eghbali to come in himself and seal that deal? Was it messing around on the Caicedo deal so we had to pay so that they almost lost him to Pool and again Egbahli had to come in and offer much more than needed to sign him?

Dont go throwing out Cole Palmers name in defence of them, that was all Joe Shields, who is not a sporting director. We have two sporting directors, Paul Winstanley and Lawerence Stewart. Joe Shields also, for better or worse, was behind our deals for Sancho and Lavia.

So what good deals have the 2 SDs done that they deserve flowers for? 

5 hours ago, axman2526 said:

It's amazing to think that, for a few months of us looking really good, some wanted to forget everything else these SD have done and give them their flowers.

What on earth have they done to deserve any praise? Who have they signed? Really I want to know, I want to hear from our forum members who fully back this ownership and these directors why the deserve their flowers?

Was it appointing Poch after weeks and weeks of talks only to bin him a year later? Is it appointing Maresca, who now sees to be calling out their recruitment?

Was is failing to sign Enzo and needing Eghbali to come in himself and seal that deal? Was it messing around on the Caicedo deal so we had to pay so that they almost lost him to Pool and again Egbahli had to come in and offer much more than needed to sign him?

Dont go throwing out Cole Palmers name in defence of them, that was all Joe Shields, who is not a sporting director. We have two sporting directors, Paul Winstanley and Lawerence Stewart. Joe Shields also, for better or worse, was behind our deals for Sancho and Lavia.

So what good deals have the 2 SDs done that they deserve flowers for? 

Thought this was a really good question. As you said above, all the 'good' deals attributed to Clearlake et al. appear to be solely the work of Joe Shields.

Caicedo and Fernandez were a known quantity that we ended up overpaying for, but both potentially have proven their worth. I think Neto has been a good signing, but it's hard to see him, Felix and Diego Moreira (lol) as anything other than a favour for Jorge Mendes. For all the talk, we haven't exactly adopted the 'Brighton' model of acquiring talents early for cheap and developing them for a profit, we have grossly overpaid for most if not all our signings under Stewart and Winstanley which has limited the profit - eg after fees/wages, we made a pittance on Angelo despite selling him to Saudi.

If there is one positive it appears that the club has a good relationship with Benfica, Monaco and Basel, but these three clubs already had a excellent relationship with the previous board too.

So in short, I genuinely can't answer that question. I have no idea what positives Stewart and Winstanley have brought in almost 2 years of being here. I hope they don't become our version of Ed Woodward.

 

Edited January 6, 20251 yr by SydneyChelsea

12 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Thought this was a really good question. As you said above, all the 'good' deals attributed to Clearlake et al. appear to be solely the work of Joe Shields.

Caicedo and Fernandez were a known quantity that we ended up overpaying for, but both potentially have proven their worth. I think Neto has been a good signing, but it's hard to see him, Felix and Diego Moreira (lol) as anything other than a favour for Jorge Mendes. For all the talk, we haven't exactly adopted the 'Brighton' model of acquiring talents early for cheap and developing them for a profit, we have grossly overpaid for most if not all our signings under Stewart and Winstanley which has limited the profit - eg after fees/wages, we made a pittance on Angelo despite selling him to Saudi.

If there is one positive it appears that the club has a good relationship with Benfica, Monaco and Basel, but these three clubs already had a excellent relationship with the previous board too.

So in short, I genuinely can't answer that question. I have no idea what positives Stewart and Winstanley have brought in almost 2 years of being here. I hope they don't become our version of Ed Woodward.

 

That's another point I did not being up, who is responsible for tanking the Samu deal to make nice with Jorge Mendes and bring in Felix, who clearly Maresca had no interest in using?

Samu is at least a striker, maybe one Maresca would have been willing to use in place of Jackson at times? Maybe one who proves more able than Nico, who knows.

So who tanked the Samu deal? Was it the owners (meaning Egbahli) or the SDs? Whoever it was they sabotaged Maresca before the season began, lumbering him with a player he did not want in a position we already had a lot of coverage for. 

It is not the way to run a professional top end club.

Seems like if City are found guilty, it will drag on another 2 years as the punishment could be so severe that it would complicate the entire English League pyramid.

One of my suggestions for adequate punishment would be relegation + ownership have to sell, but this works too. 

Quote

“If Manchester City are found guilty then the whole board of directors has to resign because they will have been found guilty of misrepresentation, effectively lying to a commission.”

“You can't relegate them because the Premier League and the EFL are independent bodies, so the EFL doesn't have to accept them. Given the Everton and the Forest points deductions, they were both described by the commission of being ‘minor breaches’. Well, what Manchester City are being accused of is major breaches over a 9-10 year period. So, you would be looking at somewhere between 60 and 100 points if you go through on a charge by charge basis. So, it would relegate them."

https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/drag-on-another-two-seasons-why-man-city-115-charge-ffp-case-hit-2026-premier-league-giants-fight-fines-relegation-punishment/blt46295ed9e9aed8e8

 

On 05/01/2025 at 20:17, axman2526 said:

It's amazing to think that, for a few months of us looking really good, some wanted to forget everything else these SD have done and give them their flowers.

What on earth have they done to deserve any praise? Who have they signed? Really I want to know, I want to hear from our forum members who fully back this ownership and these directors why the deserve their flowers?

Was it appointing Poch after weeks and weeks of talks only to bin him a year later? Is it appointing Maresca, who now sees to be calling out their recruitment?

Was is failing to sign Enzo and needing Eghbali to come in himself and seal that deal? Was it messing around on the Caicedo deal so we had to pay so that they almost lost him to Pool and again Egbahli had to come in and offer much more than needed to sign him?

Dont go throwing out Cole Palmers name in defence of them, that was all Joe Shields, who is not a sporting director. We have two sporting directors, Paul Winstanley and Lawerence Stewart. Joe Shields also, for better or worse, was behind our deals for Sancho and Lavia.

So what good deals have the 2 SDs done that they deserve flowers for? 

It all starts with the new owners, with no experience of English football, ripping apart Chelsea's backroom staff and Todd, inexperienced in anything to do with the game we love, appointing himself Sporting Director.

I could go on , but I can't find my blood pressure tablets !

On 09/01/2025 at 01:42, Sconnie Blue said:

Seems like if City are found guilty, it will drag on another 2 years as the punishment could be so severe that it would complicate the entire English League pyramid.

One of my suggestions for adequate punishment would be relegation + ownership have to sell, but this works too. 

 

That article is the irrelevant Keith Wyness (sacked by Everton) talking bullsh*t and advertising his "football consultancy", whatever that is. Your quote is actually from "football finance expert" Kieran Maguire (Swiss Ramble blog). Maguire is just speculating at best. Firstly, the FA, not the leagues, oversee the movement of clubs through the national league structure and would be tasked with resolving any dispute. There is nothing to say that the EFL can "refuse" a relegated club; if City were guilty and stripped of their points for this season, they would simply end the season on 0 points as the last-placed club and the normal relegation procedure follows. The EFL, independently, may decide how they will implement the sanctions in their league (including requiring the board of directors to resign etc.) but that will be decided for them.

Maguire also exaggerates the "fraud" aspect of City's conduct (and has probably opened himself up to a decent legal censure in doing so...). What City are alleged to have done would be considered small fry in terms of serious or criminal fraud, though the EPL and its member clubs may have a different view on the civil legal ramifications. In their challenge to the APT rules it was clear to see City were arguing that they consider their transactions/sponsorships to be sufficiently arm's length and it is merely a matter of legal opinion as to whether it is. It is going to be hard to argue that City were conniving and deliberate when one of the sponsors in question was literally called "First Abu Dhabi Bank" and City have always been relatively open about their sponsors coming from Abu Dhabi.

A board of directors can be directed to resign (ie have no direct involvement), but the PL can't compel an owner to divest their stake, because the PL doesn't govern corporate structures. One private organisation can't tell another private organisation how to structure its shares. The EPL explored this in 2023 following the Abramovich saga but it has no legal authority to do so, it will be left to whatever the UK Government does with its football regulator.

Edited January 9, 20251 yr by SydneyChelsea

All this City and PNS stuff (or whatever it is) I guess might have something to do with it, but the lack of transfer talk/rumour around us is disappointing. I think a couple of half decent signings could be enough to get us back into top four finishing territory. But so far the only rumours I’ve seen are about players going out (KDH) and pretty fantastical stuff like United selling us Mainoo.

After all the utterly bonkers spending, are we finally done with signing anyone, even if actually beneficial/necessary?

On 05/01/2025 at 14:14, Sconnie Blue said:

We’ve signed 5 CBs and our best pairing came from the academy. 
 

Trust what you have at home and invest more effectively. Stewart should be sacked on the spot. 

 

I absolutely agree but this has been the case with Chelsea for decades. Our academy players have often been better than our signings. Even back when Conte was in charge i remember Aina coming through and looking a great prospect and we went and signed Zappacosta that summer to play understudy. 

I see we've passed the PL's PSR test for 23/24, as has every other PL club !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cx2y7l0dk02o 

Maybe now people will still listening to know nothing f**kwits on twitter/tik tok peddling utter bullsh*t.

On 08/01/2025 at 14:42, Sconnie Blue said:

Seems like if City are found guilty, it will drag on another 2 years as the punishment could be so severe that it would complicate the entire English League pyramid.

One of my suggestions for adequate punishment would be relegation + ownership have to sell, but this works too. 

 

There is every chance they stay up at a 60 point deficit.

They'll need to get 90 points to put them on 30 points in the table which given how hopeless the newly promoted teams are these days will likely be enough.

45 minutes ago, dkw said:

Maybe now people will still listening to know nothing f**kwits on twitter/tik tok peddling utter bullsh*t.

Yeah. Dork calling Borson, Dork calling Borson, nanu nanu

 

4 hours ago, Argo said:

There is every chance they stay up at a 60 point deficit.

They'll need to get 90 points to put them on 30 points in the table which given how hopeless the newly promoted teams are these days will likely be enough.

If they are found guilty, relegation would probably be pointless anyway. They would just get promoted again instantly. I think if 100 points is the maximum punishment, they should spread it out over multiple seasons. Start each season at -20. They won't get relegated, but their European hopes for the next 5 years will be severily damaged. I know City have been in the top 4 with over a 20+ point cusion in recent years, but doing that starting from -20 is a lot more difficult. It would probably take 10 games alone, each season, to get out of the relegation zone.

Again, my point is strictly with how the other 19 clubs will react in wanting to participate in another league campaign with City's current owners who would be convicted cheaters. 

If I was a rival fan, I would be laughing at this. All of this money spent on potential that is quite frankly no better than the potential we have at Cobham and the ones we have let go.

Jackson, Madueke, Sancho, Neto, Guiu, Enzo, Lavia (mainly because he is always injured) Cucurella, Sanchez, Disasi, Badiashile, Veiga, Mudryk, Gusto (possibly down to the role he has been given since Mareca took over) Fofana, Jorgensen.

Have a I missed anybody? This is an absurd number of players that just aren't cutting it.

10 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

If I was a rival fan, I would be laughing at this. All of this money spent on potential that is quite frankly no better than the potential we have at Cobham and the ones we have let go.

Jackson, Madueke, Sancho, Neto, Guiu, Enzo, Lavia (mainly because he is always injured) Cucurella, Sanchez, Disasi, Badiashile, Veiga, Mudryk, Gusto (possibly down to the role he has been given since Mareca took over) Fofana, Jorgensen.

Have a I missed anybody? This is an absurd number of players that just aren't cutting it.

Pretty sure rivals are back on the same laughter train that they were kn for the past 2 seasons.

9 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

If I was a rival fan, I would be laughing at this. All of this money spent on potential that is quite frankly no better than the potential we have at Cobham and the ones we have let go.

Jackson, Madueke, Sancho, Neto, Guiu, Enzo, Lavia (mainly because he is always injured) Cucurella, Sanchez, Disasi, Badiashile, Veiga, Mudryk, Gusto (possibly down to the role he has been given since Mareca took over) Fofana, Jorgensen.

Have a I missed anybody? This is an absurd number of players that just aren't cutting it.

It is pretty clear based on the apparent decisions to sell Veiga and Nkunku that the ownership model is to get in young players on long deals, then either loan them out or sell them for a profit. That will ensure the owners make their dividends but it won't lead to any realistic improvements on the pitch.

No, we don't have our Chelsea back.

It is still this ownerships Chelsea, and we won't get our Chelsea back until they are gone.