1 minute ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Depends on who he hired to scout players. I haven't forgotten the uproar and online protests about some of our transfer activity with Emanalo.

6 years under Emanalo

League titles: 2

FA Cup: 1

League Cup: 1

CL: 1

Europa League: 1

3 years left for Clearlake to match this.

23 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

6 years under Emanalo

League titles: 2

FA Cup: 1

League Cup: 1

CL: 1

Europa League: 1

3 years left for Clearlake to match this.

6 years under Emanalo and he was hated by 90% of the fanbase. Especially for the recruitment the season Jose got sacked.

2 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I wish to one day be able to bury my head in the sand and pretend that everything is okay like this.

You actively avoid any point people make and just keep reiterating that we need to trust the process and if we want an opinion maybe we should become billionaires and buy the club. Zzzzzzz.

Bury your head in the sand or keep up the horrible end of the world aka "let's switch everyone after 2 years" narrative in the circumstances we are in. That is very Romanesque.

Why look for Roman era when there is no Roman era? It is gone. Finito.

31 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

6 years under Emanalo

League titles: 2

FA Cup: 1

League Cup: 1

CL: 1

Europa League: 1

3 years left for Clearlake to match this.

I am 100% sure they don't look at Emenalo's 6 years. This is 2025. They appreciate what he did for the club if someone tells them, sure but won't look at how he did things. Completely different time, circumstances, ideas...

1 hour ago, evissy said:

I am 100% sure they don't look at Emenalo's 6 years. This is 2025. They appreciate what he did for the club if someone tells them, sure but won't look at how he did things. Completely different time, circumstances, ideas...

1 hour ago, evissy said:

Bury your head in the sand or keep up the horrible end of the world aka "let's switch everyone after 2 years" narrative in the circumstances we are in. That is very Romanesque.

Why look for Roman era when there is no Roman era? It is gone. Finito.

Just because its different time and different owners doesn't mean we should accept mediocrity.

If a dictatorship took over your country would you just accept it and say "ah well, its just a different time"?

No one has a problem with sticking with a manager if there is clear improvement.

5 hours ago, evissy said:

Roman had his way. I am sure that is the case. Roman is now gone if you haven't noticed. New guys new ideas that takes time.

Ok but how can you judge the validity of these new ideas when the people coming up with them aren't interested in seeing them through?

We've appointed 3 permanent managers in 3 seasons, and seem to be stuck in a constant rebuild because we don't rate many of the players that we've signed, even if they were signed just a few months ago.

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by yaz

1 hour ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Just because its different time and different owners doesn't mean we should accept mediocrity.

If a dictatorship took over your country would you just accept it and say "ah well, its just a different time"?

No one has a problem with sticking with a manager if there is clear improvement.

You are comparing football fandom to country and dictatorship 🤣🤣🤣

1 hour ago, yaz said:

Ok but how can you judge the validity of these new ideas when the people coming up with them aren't interested in seeing them through?

We've appointed 3 permanent managers in 3 seasons, and seem to be stuck in a constant rebuild because we don't rate many of the players that we've signed, even if they were signed just a few months ago.

The managerial merry-go-round is something I worry. That is something I can't agree with the owners and directors so far.

To be fair Evissy has made a couple of very fair points.

It was only 3 months ago that many were lined up praising Maresca for our results, the football we played and that even the directors deserved their flowers for choosing him.

Not all, some of us did not jump the gun, but his name being sung showed a large portion did.

Secondly Many also declared "we've got our Chelsea back". Now those same fans have flip flopped after jumping the gun again.

To someone like evissy who clearly backs this ownerships ideas, on everything bar manager merry go rounds, that is no doubt disappointing.

As someone who has been against these owners as soon as Clearlake got involved, I feel disappointed in us fans allowing what happened to our club with a wimper, going back to the sanctions on the club and it being accepted like the war was our fault so we deserved it.

We've just signed 2 young talents from Sporting for a combined €75m.

This is what confuses me most about this new ownership. The sums are so huge for these unknown talents.

26 minutes ago, KonaKai Blue said:

We've just signed 2 young talents from Sporting for a combined €75m.

This is what confuses me most about this new ownership. The sums are so huge for these unknown talents.

Probably part of their "pump and dump" strategy to inflate the value of the club.

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by Sexyfootball

13 minutes ago, KonaKai Blue said:

We've just signed 2 young talents from Sporting for a combined €75m.

This is what confuses me most about this new ownership. The sums are so huge for these unknown talents.

We haven't seen any grand plan laid out to us in terms of these buys. What we have is Boehlys words on youngsters. "Let's buy them before they are established and the cost is premium." (I am paraphrasing). He actually said that and the directors are doing as told. I know it is massively risky to pay over the odds for them because you never know what comes of any of them. It is down to the directors' knowledge and ability as well as the clubs ability to nurture the talent and LUCK. But you can't win in this talent game without taking risks.

We are also much better equipped on nurturing talents with Strasbourg. The plan is to buy a club from Portugal and maybe Brazil as well. Remains to be seen I guess.

Under Roman, who I consider the best owner in the world, we mainly bought established players. And the situation was when we actually bought DeBruyne, Salah, Lukaku, Courtois was their avenue to the first team was blocked by old established players and rarely did we have the chance to nurture them in a proper way. Now in a few years we are in that situation when Enzo, Palmer, Madueke, Jackson and co are established and experienced. How the owners work with the plan is beyond me but hopefully we are challenging much better.

Roman leaving was unfortunate and no one can do anything about it but we need to move on to the reality of 2025.

You choose it being glass half empty or glass half full.

The owners are doubling down on a strategy that clearly isn't working, buying inexperienced mentally weak players in positions that are a low priority.

There has to be something we're all missing with this strategy.

The BlueCo "Teenage Kicks" XI ... signed for a collective £146m give or take.

For team completeness, I included Acheampong at right back, as BlueCo are yet to sign a teenage right back, I had to select Paez in the pivot as well :-)

Essugo is too old to make the XI as he is turned 20 on March 14th LOL.

<<EDIT: Forgot Washington ! So that's another £18.4m to add on, taking us up to £164m LOL >>

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by Sexyfootball

57 minutes ago, evissy said:

We haven't seen any grand plan laid out to us in terms of these buys. What we have is Boehlys words on youngsters. "Let's buy them before they are established and the cost is premium." (I am paraphrasing). He actually said that and the directors are doing as told. I know it is massively risky to pay over the odds for them because you never know what comes of any of them. It is down to the directors' knowledge and ability as well as the clubs ability to nurture the talent and LUCK. But you can't win in this talent game without taking risks.

We are also much better equipped on nurturing talents with Strasbourg. The plan is to buy a club from Portugal and maybe Brazil as well. Remains to be seen I guess.

Under Roman, who I consider the best owner in the world, we mainly bought established players. And the situation was when we actually bought DeBruyne, Salah, Lukaku, Courtois was their avenue to the first team was blocked by old established players and rarely did we have the chance to nurture them in a proper way. Now in a few years we are in that situation when Enzo, Palmer, Madueke, Jackson and co are established and experienced. How the owners work with the plan is beyond me but hopefully we are challenging much better.

Roman leaving was unfortunate and no one can do anything about it but we need to move on to the reality of 2025.

You choose it being glass half empty or glass half full.

The young signings we made under Roman were risk free as they were inexpensive. The ones under Blue Co are being signed for established player fees. It's good to take risks but they are leaving themselves with an almighty boom or bust task here.

49 minutes ago, KonaKai Blue said:

The young signings we made under Roman were risk free as they were inexpensive. The ones under Blue Co are being signed for established player fees. It's good to take risks but they are leaving themselves with an almighty boom or bust task here.

As said it is risky. Looking at someone like Estevao at this very moment I am sure most big clubs are thinking he looks a real deal... someone who is better at risk assessment can comment on that side of things.

Anyway we are probably going to buy those Roman -era cheap youngsters as we have like Guiu and some blockbuster players like Estevao or this new Sporting winger and I am sure everyone of them are put into category in terms of risk and reward.

Strasbourg winger Moreira is a very low risk player. We bought him for free and sold him to Strasbourg. No harm no foul. Got him for free, got a 2,8m loan fee and sold for 2m. Good business. He was never seen as a player for Chelsea probably. Just a way to earn.

Deivid Washington is something in between. We'll have to wait and see whether he turns out to be 16m or something else.

Implementing a few older names to the squad is something they probably look at too but I see something exciting in the all youth squad as we now have.

1 hour ago, KonaKai Blue said:

The young signings we made under Roman were risk free as they were inexpensive. The ones under Blue Co are being signed for established player fees. It's good to take risks but they are leaving themselves with an almighty boom or bust task here.

Lukaku was pretty expensive at the time we first bought him. And ended up being one of the worst investments in the history of football.

For me buying youngsters is not the problem, it's the neglect of the glaring deficiencies the first Chelsea team have that has turned me against them (plus the obvious disdain for match going fans and supporters in general, giving preference to tourists). They are not concerned how Chelsea does, we could finish mid table for the third season in a row, not have a front shirt sponsor next year, and keep increasing corporate and ticket tourists while emptying Stamford Bridge (see the last European game), and they wouldn't give a flying duck as long as they were identifying the next youngster for an inflated price to make money from in the future. They are removing the essence of what a football Club is about and building an empty shell to sell on for an artificially inflated value in 7-8 years time. I hope to be wrong, but that is how I see it right now.

On 18/03/2025 at 18:46, evissy said:

They are the owners and decide what is best for their Chelsea. As I have said multiple times before they want the team to do well as do us fans.

We were a successful team and in many ways still are. They bought the club and decided to empty house and start with their plan. I have no problem with that. You buy Chelsea and try. Then we come and criticize.

I think the plan on paper at least is pretty sound.

1,5bn argument is the one the media is throwing around. If you empty house completely it costs alot. In another scenario we spend 600m and keep many of the old players. I like the total reset. Whether it works is naturally judged in the future years and not now. Every successful team on this level is on that average age mark 27-28 or older.

Ok then... please copy and paste the owner's "plan on paper" that you've seen , are satisfied with , and concluded that it's " pretty sound"

Thank you.

On 17/03/2025 at 10:21, evissy said:

Don't overcomplicate things. They are American venture capitalists. So you see what you get. Just look at what they do in general and you get the idea. I understand the negatives and the positives of it.

What they need is the team doing well financially and that means it needs to do well in the sporting side as well. Those two are heavily aligned. We as fans want that as well. I am not going into ticket prices as I am not a match going fan. Basically the prices are going up as they have done so unfortunately that will cut out fans that can't afford it.

We also want young exciting players. I think fans prefer Cobham youth but seem to be fine with Manchester City youth as well.

What is not aligned at this very moment with fans and owners is the plan that requires time. Fans want quick success but the reality is we are far from competing. We can change managers every year as we have to find the next Pep/Jose or we could just stick with what we have. I personally would like us to give time to Enzo. He is learning as is the young team.

What fans seem to want is the Roman way of buying experienced players and coaches. We might go that way in the future. But I don't think we are there yet. I'd like a coach to build the culture like Klopp, Pep and Jose did.

2022/2023 season.

City had to win the treble which included the CL to make a £ 80 million profit.

Bournemouth made a profit and Brighton made more than City without winning anything. Every other club made losses. Our owners are not dependant on a successful football team to extract wealth from our football club. They are gambling on a massive increase in broadcasting and commercial revenue to drive their goal of paying returns to their investors.

Their interests are not aligned with the interests of Chelsea football fans.

Technology Digital Annual Update.pdf

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

29 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

2022/2023 season.

City had to win the treble which included the CL to make a £ 80 million profit.

Bournemouth made a profit and Brighton made more than City without winning anything. Every other club made losses. Our owners are not dependant on a successful football team to extract wealth from our football club. They are gambling on a massive increase in broadcasting and commercial revenue to drive their goal of paying returns to their investors.

Their interests are not aligned with the interests of Chelsea football fans.

Technology Digital Annual Update.pdf

The main reason Brighton made a profit that season was because Boehly handed them large fees for Cucurella and Potter & his staff. They also sold Bissouma to Spurs for £25m, Trossard to Arse for £21m, and Maupay to Everton for £15m.

In a normal season (i.e. pre-Boehly) they make a loss like the rest, and are propped up by loans from Bloom at favourable interest rates.

19/20 lost £70m ; 20/21 lost £134m

Cheers for the Arun District Council document btw :-)

12 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

The main reason Brighton made a profit that season was because Boehly handed them large fees for Cucurella and Potter & his staff. They also sold Bissouma to Spurs for £25m, Trossard to Arse for £21m, and Maupay to Everton for £15m.

In a normal season (i.e. pre-Boehly) they make a loss like the rest, and are propped up by loans from Bloom at favourable interest rates.

19/20 lost £70m ; 20/21 lost £134m

Cheers for the Arun District Council document btw :-)

No problem. You're right though, EPL clubs don't generate profits, in fact FFP allows for clubs to lose millions every season ! Dunno how that Arun docu got attached, hope it was interesting. !

Edited March 20, 20251 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

2022/2023 season.

City had to win the treble which included the CL to make a £ 80 million profit.

Bournemouth made a profit and Brighton made more than City without winning anything. Every other club made losses. Our owners are not dependant on a successful football team to extract wealth from our football club. They are gambling on a massive increase in broadcasting and commercial revenue to drive their goal of paying returns to their investors.

Their interests are not aligned with the interests of Chelsea football fans.

Technology Digital Annual Update.pdf

Great post. Bang on the money

1 hour ago, WhiteWall said:

Great post. Bang on the money

Cheers mate.👍

Why are you complicating everything? On purpose...You go lengths to make out our owners being evil money grabbing investors. They are investors yes but if you just look what being successful with the sport inside the club means for exposure and fabase..

Liverpool was not winning anything before Klopp and now that they have they are the first club to a ton of new potential fans/supporters/customers (pick your favourite of the semantics pool). It is much easier to sell Liverpool now when they are doing well on the football pitch.

Manchester United again is the perfect example. They have financial issues after years of horrible results. It is not by accident. Both Liverpool and MU are owned by American conglomerate of businessmen. How do Boehlys boys compare to those two is beyond me. Time will tell I guess.

I am sure the owners want:

Success on the balance sheets

Success on the football pitch

Because the two are heavily aligned.