28 minutes ago, coco said:

You have got 2 amber and 3 red that all won CL with us, just seems unfair and like we forget the whole point of this is to win silverware. We could have a team like Spuds with Harry Kane and his brilliant individual stats, that has basically won f**k all for them.

 

Everyone will have an opinion on individual players, but the undeniable conclusion is that most of our expensive transfers have been very disappointing. Hard to argue against that surely ?

19 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

The majority of our highest valued transfers are from the recent years and  that has a lot to do with the football climate where the transfer fees got much higher than 10+ years ago. Some of those transfers were also simply replacements due to other players leaving the squad as well, we lost Hazard, Willian and Pedro and got Pulisic, Ziyech and Werner. Then it's also a bit subjective to say that Chilwell that has been injured a lot has a full pass as a green transfer but not Jorginho that has been a key player for years, the impact of Jorginho has been far greater for example. Obviously some transfers were failures, replacing Matic for Bakayoko and D.Costa for Morata was a big reason why we couldn't keep up with Man City for example but at the same time we bought Pulisic as 20 years old so it was pretty impossible for him to do what Hazard did at 27-29.

All the assessments are subjective, and they are my opinion. Everyone will have their own opinion, but it's a pretty tragic list all things considered ! A huge amount of wasted money ... if a new owner comes in with a more frugal attitude to transfers, and we miss out on all these big money failures, then it is not necessarily the poisoned chalice it might appear ?

21 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Everyone will have an opinion on individual players, but the undeniable conclusion is that most of our expensive transfers have been very disappointing. Hard to argue against that surely ?

When i look at the silver cupboard it's easier to argue your point, but i admit we may have won more with better transfers.

27 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Everyone will have an opinion on individual players, but the undeniable conclusion is that most of our expensive transfers have been very disappointing. Hard to argue against that surely ?

Most of everyone's expensive transfers have been disappointing. 

Look at all the top clubs that realistically compete for trophies in their country and in Europe and I imagine if we compared our transfer business with them, it would all be very similar. We aren't going to hit a home run every time, but throwing a bunch of money at the way and hoping it sticks in some semblance of a pattern isn't the way to go about it either. We are going to have to be very smart and cunning with our moves.

I think betting that the next owner won't operate in the same capacity as Roman is smart and I imagine the club isn't going to be stupid about this.

Todd Boehly and Hansjörg Wyss have submitted their offer to buy #Chelsea, but one well-placed figure suggests that Roman Abramovich is unsure about selling to them.

[via @JacobSteinberg]

59 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Everyone will have an opinion on individual players, but the undeniable conclusion is that most of our expensive transfers have been very disappointing. Hard to argue against that surely ?

In the past 20years, only 3 times did a high profile transfer (above 65million) worked out and that was Cristiano Ronaldo, Gareth Bale and Van Dijk. Everyone else fell short. 

Edited March 8, 20224 yr by Deino

21 minutes ago, chiefBlueCFC said:

Look at all the top clubs that realistically compete for trophies in their country and in Europe and I imagine if we compared our transfer business with them, it would all be very similar. We aren't going to hit a home run every time, but throwing a bunch of money at the way and hoping it sticks in some semblance of a pattern isn't the way to go about it either. We are going to have to be very smart and cunning with our moves.

I think betting that the next owner won't operate in the same capacity as Roman is smart and I imagine the club isn't going to be stupid about this.

That's true but every club has hits and misses, Emenalo and Marina probably have the same number of successes and failures. I think the good thing going forward is that the club may not approve £70m+ signings any more which means we won't be having catastrophic failures like Kepa and Lukaku any more. (Kepa more in an economic sense)

Property investor Nick Candy reportedly putting in a bid and he’s a Chelsea fan too with strong links in west london and wants to expand the bridge. Only issue being he’s only worth 850 ‘million’ alone, so will need a consortium of most likely Americans. 

 

There are 141 people on this planet richer than Roman.

 

https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

 

https://www.forbes.com/profile/roman-abramovich/?list=billionaires&sh=338973e4134a

25 minutes ago, Term_X said:

Property investor Nick Candy reportedly putting in a bid and he’s a Chelsea fan too with strong links in west london and wants to expand the bridge. Only issue being he’s only worth 850 ‘million’ alone, so will need a consortium of most likely Americans. 

 

Yeah that is not even enough to redevelop the bridge nevermind buy the club. 

In theory the ideal candidate if he can  find backers, English, local and a fan. Does not mean  he would be a great owner of course.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10591763/British-property-developer-Nick-Candy-working-2-5bn-bid-takeover-Chelsea.html

This guy

Whoever takes over, I hope they have the right interests at heart.

So sad it’s had to end this way, I genuinely believed Roman and his family would be part of Chelsea for a very long time.

9 hours ago, chiefBlueCFC said:

That gif was my exact sentiment when I saw that Woody Johnson was linked with purchasing Chelsea. I'm trying to think of the equivalent of the NYJ in the prem and I can't think of a suitable club to compare them to, but jeez louise this would be disastrous 

If Any American owner comes close to those two clowns that stripped Liverpool then definitely not welcome. funny thing though , the morality mickeys were in damage limitation control at the time (they couldnt sing sold to the usa anymore to man utd, so as usual it was yeah but no but, our yanks are football men lol)

1 hour ago, Kev56 said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10591763/British-property-developer-Nick-Candy-working-2-5bn-bid-takeover-Chelsea.html

This guy

Haha he is married to Holly Vallance. Our latest WAG? Lmao

8 hours ago, axman2526 said:

You forgetting the Turkish billionaire? Lol 😉

Could well be. Seem to be front runners. 

I can see why we are being chased by several US investors. If you think about it Roman is selling us Debt free. 

So don't bother investing in the stadium.

Sell off what you can  of the squad.

Utilize the youth team and free transfers. 

Bring wages down.

Keep the side 4th or 3rd to bring in CL money. Could quickly become profitable.

Read that that guy is just using the situation to promote his crypto company. I guess we'll see if he's really serious about buying us. 

7 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

All the assessments are subjective, and they are my opinion. Everyone will have their own opinion, but it's a pretty tragic list all things considered ! A huge amount of wasted money ... if a new owner comes in with a more frugal attitude to transfers, and we miss out on all these big money failures, then it is not necessarily the poisoned chalice it might appear ?

Yes but I think only partially due to our situation because we have no choice but to find some good players that won't be a failure. I agree that it's great to miss out of any future Lukaku but the squad will need new players and not all can come from the academy, it's great if we can upgrade 2 youngsters from time to time but for example even if our squad is worth a lot right now, whatever is the value it will go down because we'll lose a significant number of players by default. The bare minimum is to find replacements for at least some of them just like we refreshed the squad once Willian and Pedro left.

The new owner won't have the option to be shy and to start slow, he/she/they will have to show some level of commitment to the club as soon as the summer transfer window because we're losing Dave, Rudiger and Christensen.

To rebuild our backline properly, well it could cost us like Lukaku did or more I mean Tuchel did want Hakimi and he did want Haaland/Lukaku so if he has any say in the summer it won't be just some budget signings all around. On top of that maybe the option to sell Jorginho and Kante will be very tempting to the new owner since their contracts will expire next year so the new owner could try to convince the fans that selling some key players and going with Gilmour and Gallagher in the midfield will be just fine.

8 hours ago, Deino said:

In the past 20 years, only 3 times did a high profile transfer (above 65million) worked out and that was Cristiano Ronaldo, Gareth Bale and Van Dijk. Everyone else fell short. 

Exactly !

And if we have an owner who is not as forthcoming as Roman with the cash, and hence we are not able to drink the water from the poisoned well of high profile transfers, then that might actually be a good thing LOL.

9 hours ago, coco said:

When i look at the silver cupboard it's easier to argue your point, but i admit we may have won more with better transfers.

We might just as easily have won all that silver without running up a £1.5 billion debt to our owner ?

£80M a year loss or thereabouts ... and in the most part connected to high profile purchases, and their associated wage costs.

10 hours ago, Term_X said:

Property investor Nick Candy reportedly putting in a bid and he’s a Chelsea fan too with strong links in west london and wants to expand the bridge. Only issue being he’s only worth 850 ‘million’ alone, so will need a consortium of most likely Americans. 

 

This is the one that interests me.

Its the knowledge this chap and his brother have in terms of the  property market.

I know all about the issues around land ownership , the freehold etc but I will throw into the pot the problems that now exist around thenEarls Court development and the power held by the pitch owners 

So let’s just suppose that in exchange for a land swap and say 25-30% of the cost of building  and moving to a 60k new stadium on the sites of the now demolished exhibition buildings at Earl’s Court how would people feel ? 
 

For me it actually would fit like a glove because once in a stadium my focus would be 100% on matters on the pitch
 

 

I hope our aim to win trophies is instilled so hard into the club agenda that even a new owner won't look to change that. Even though you can argue with that path I think that is something that separates us from most big clubs. If Arsenal wanted to win trophies they'd done something about it. 

In America professional teams are not chasing the biggest prize with this ferocity if the stadium is full and money rolls in. A trophy for them is just an icing on the cake. For Roman trophies are everything.

Difficult situation. We need the right owners and we need them in quick.

Because this was shaping up to be a pivotal summer before Roman decided to sell the club. Now I don't think you can overstate how important the summer will be with it looking likely that we'll lose 75% of our Champions League winning defense for nothing at all. And Jorginhos, Kantes and Silvas contracts are out in a year so there are some major decisions to be taken there as well. Everything is completely up in the air right now and there are reports that our director, techincal director and chairman will leave the club alongside Roman. So in that case we need a new structure in no time as well.

3 minutes ago, Sindre said:

Difficult situation. We need the right owners and we need them in quick.

Because this was shaping up to be a pivotal summer before Roman decided to sell the club. Now I don't think you can overstate how important the summer will be with it looking likely that we'll lose 75% of our Champions League winning defense for nothing at all. And Jorginhos, Kantes and Silvas contracts are out in a year so there are some major decisions to be taken there as well. Everything is completely up in the air right now and there are reports that our director, techincal director and chairman will leave the club alongside Roman. So in that case we need a new structure in no time as well.

Maybe that's a good thing. There can be no assumption under these circumstances that we just need to manage the status quo. There is no doubt that a new owner and management need to immediately show their worth and ambition. If we're lucky this could be a boost for our summer. 

15 hours ago, axman2526 said:

You forgetting the Turkish billionaire? Lol 😉

Could well be. Seem to be front runners. 

I can see why we are being chased by several US investors. If you think about it Roman is selling us Debt free. 

So don't bother investing in the stadium.

Sell off what you can  of the squad.

Utilize the youth team and free transfers. 

Bring wages down.

Keep the side 4th or 3rd to bring in CL money. Could quickly become profitable.

Again completely wrong way to look at it. You should think of Chelsea as like a very expensive house you rent out. You don’t care if the rent doesn’t cover the costs because you make all your money on the house price going up. 

I’ll say it again, despite the losses Abramovitch has likely made a profit through owning chelsea. It’s value today is about20-30x what he paid for it. . The annual losses of Chelsea probably just help with taxes. 

I like the idea of say Candy as a CFC fan being a part owner yet has been mentioned it would be as part of a consortium bid. I see an issue with the suggested US part of the consortium as they will want ROI.

Might work if CFC snap up aspiring US players so they can promote this back home and build up the US market. 

With this also likely to be pre-season matches in the US, not the worst place to go by any means.