2 hours ago, HazardousChoice said:

Did Lukaku turn us down?

If I recall Correctly Lukaku wanted to come to us but his agent didn't come to the negotiating table and told him United were the only option which led to Rom firing Raiola shortly after.

2017 was a shocking window and us failing to get our main targets and then panic buying dross set us back significantly, I'd argue we haven't actually recovered from it, we've certainly not challenged for a title since.

I'm not saying we didn't have a bad window under Roman, we had many particularly once Marina came in but the club generally conducted its affairs in a much more professional and quietly competent manner.  Boehly emulating our worst window under Roman in his very first window while having a near unlimited budget isn't promising.

There's been a lot of noise from Boehly both in failing to get things done and interviews away from the club and I'm not sure it's a positive change.

Seems a lot of the positivity is linked to us getting a mythical but yet unknown director to handle everything and keep Todd away but given we've now started being Publically rejected by directors across Europe I'm not sure I feel the optimism either.

Does kind of make you wonder if Ratcliffe wouldn't have been the better deal. More knowledgeable and probably would have kept his cards closer to his chest.

On 23/09/2022 at 15:10, Sconnie Blue said:

I would say Boehly publicly claiming he wants to adopt RB's model in acquiring clubs all across the world to be our 'feeder clubs', which would then allow us to have first dibs on young talent as well as having destinations for our loan players to go and develop, is evidence enough.  He also stated he wants more investment in the academy. 

Of course actions speak louder than words, but this summer proved Boehly isn't afraid to put his money where his mouth is. 

 

looked up into on RBs business model, have to say you 're correcyt. It's very impressive .they develop young players in RB owned clubs all over the place. They all play the to the same system as RB Salzburg and benefit from scientific based development .

over 63% of incoming transfers are from their feeder clubs. Rarely buy anyone over 23, 

Average age of the team seems to be about 22 

Can see why we  were after Freund  shame he didn't come but happy if we follow their model. I feel a lot more confident for the future. 

cheers mate

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 20223 yr by The Rising Sun
Explanation added

12 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

looked up into on RBs business model, have to say you 're correcyt. It's very impressive .they develop young players in RB owned clubs all over the place. They all play the to the same system as RB Salzburg and benefit from scientific based development .

over 63% of incoming transfers are from their feeder clubs. Rarely buy anyone over 23, 

Average age of the team seems to be about 22 

Can see why we  were after Freund  shame he didn't come but happy if we follow their model. I feel a lot more confident for the future. 

cheers mate

That business model is about making money not winning silverware. I want Chelsea to be successful on the pitch, i don't care about how much money we can make for our owner.

On 21/09/2022 at 07:18, axman2526 said:

So far we know that 3 people (Michael Edwards, Luis Campos and Christophe Fruend) have turned down the chance to become our DOF/Sports director.

I have seen it speculated that 3 more, one from RB Leipzig, one from Bayer Leverkusen and Paul Mitchell from Monaco, have also been approached and decided against joining.

On top of that the fella we hired as Commercial director has been fired one month after coming in.

This after spending near 300mill for a manager we sack 6 days later.

Is it any wonder our new owners, Todd especially, are being questioned...

So sheddenders, do you have confidence in our new owners to get things right?

The new owners have spent a huge amount of money on the squad. Dont think even Roman would've spent that much. It's been a sincere effort but at times its too much interference. Only sore point has been the sacking of Tuchel. I suppose they'll learn to draw the line at some point.  They're trying to put a system in place at par with the best run clubs for long term success. Personally speaking, I'm happy with where we're headed and the intent shown since they've taken over.

On a human level, its not possible for anyone to agree a 100% with anyone else's decisions and the same goes for the owners and the fans. 

 

1 hour ago, Nick05 said:

The new owners have spent a huge amount of money on the squad. Dont think even Roman would've spent that much. It's been a sincere effort but at times its too much interference. Only sore point has been the sacking of Tuchel. I suppose they'll learn to draw the line at some point.  They're trying to put a system in place at par with the best run clubs for long term success. Personally speaking, I'm happy with where we're headed and the intent shown since they've taken over.

On a human level, its not possible for anyone to agree a 100% with anyone else's decisions and the same goes for the owners and the fans. 

 

He probably did if we consider inflation. 

1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

He probably did if we consider inflation. 

Meant to say that Roman probably wouldn't have spent this much in this window if he were still here.

10 minutes ago, Nick05 said:

Meant to say that Roman probably wouldn't have spent this much in this window if he were still here.

That's what I mean about inflation. We spent about £170m the 2004 summer window. That was a sh*t load of money at the time. 

Considering the inflation rate from that time grew approximately 283%, £170m in 2004 would be  £400-£500m today. 

https://theshortfuse.sbnation.com/2019/5/10/18564736/xgunners-historical-transfer-inflation-transfer-records-top-transfers

 

On 25/09/2022 at 11:00, coco said:

That business model is about making money not winning silverware. I want Chelsea to be successful on the pitch, i don't care about how much money we can make for our owner.

Absolutely.mate, I've said before  if we DO make money it will go out of the club to our investors..

success hasn't built up profits for the club in the last 20 years, so I don't think our investors are looking at an expensive gamble on us being successful and turning the sort of profit that will satisfy them.

I'm genuinely at a loss to understand.

all I know is, if I had their sort of money our club wouldn't be somewhere I would think I could profit from !

 

 

 

 

 

 

So people are now upset we are trying to be self sustainable? 

 

37 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

So people are now upset we are trying to be self sustainable? 

 

I'm not, I like the business model that you pointed out to me, because I think it's good for the long term future.

I agree that ultimately it profits the owners, and I was dead against us being put under a deadline to accept an investment group as owners. I preferred Ratcliffe, I thought it would be similar to Roman, if only the guy hadn't slept thru everything only to wake up when it was a fine deal.

I don't like us being owned by profit led investors,  I hate the fact that our club , our supporters, our money is seen as a n opportunity for people with no connection to our club to make money from.

And I don't buy the myth that rich people must " know what their doing"   The same wealthy geniuses wrecked the world's finances in 2008 which we had to pay for.

And now you've gone and ruined my brief optimism !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 25/09/2022 at 17:45, Sconnie Blue said:

That's what I mean about inflation. We spent about £170m the 2004 summer window. That was a sh*t load of money at the time. 

Considering the inflation rate from that time grew approximately 283%, £170m in 2004 would be  £400-£500m today. 

https://theshortfuse.sbnation.com/2019/5/10/18564736/xgunners-historical-transfer-inflation-transfer-records-top-transfers

 

Consider though that it was Romans money which we never had to be paid back

THIS money being spent is from the £800 million debt from loans and rolling credit which is gonna have to be repaid by our Club and us supporters

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

I'm not, I like the business model that you pointed out to me, because I think it's good for the long term future.

I agree that ultimately it profits the owners, and I was dead against us being put under a deadline to accept an investment group as owners. I preferred Ratcliffe, I thought it would be similar to Roman, if only the guy hadn't slept thru everything only to wake up when it was a fine deal.

I don't like us being owned by profit led investors,  I hate the fact that our club , our supporters, our money is seen as a n opportunity for people with no connection to our club to make money from.

And I don't buy the myth that rich people must " know what their doing"   The same wealthy geniuses wrecked the world's finances in 2008 which we had to pay for.

And now you've gone and ruined my brief optimism !

 

You realise he owns both the LA Dodgers and LA Lakers, right? 

Success is clearly on top of Boehly's priority. Along with making this club self sufficient, which it hasn't been for years. 

1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

You realise he owns both the LA Dodgers and LA Lakers, right? 

Success is clearly on top of Boehly's priority. Along with making this club self sufficient, which it hasn't been for years. 

Yeah. Let's hope he does the same for us . . 

 

13 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

You realise he owns both the LA Dodgers and LA Lakers, right? 

Success is clearly on top of Boehly's priority. Along with making this club self sufficient, which it hasn't been for years. 

I don't get all this ridiculous negativity about the new owner, based on his previous sports club ownership I don't see any reason to fear he is some kind of asset stripping monster who is only bothered about making money and doesn't care about success. Everything he has done previous has shown him to be completely the opposite of this.

15 minutes ago, dkw said:

I don't get all this ridiculous negativity about the new owner, based on his previous sports club ownership I don't see any reason to fear he is some kind of asset stripping monster who is only bothered about making money and doesn't care about success. Everything he has done previous has shown him to be completely the opposite of this.

I don't see any negativity based sports club ownership. There can't be considering it's been sucessful.

But you have to admit that he needs some help in football matters, he is struggling to convince anyone to take the Director of football position for example, and a £800 million debt which he is using to finance transfers etc doesn't sit well with me.

unfortunately lots of supporters think he is spending money from his own wallet, which he could easily afford , but instead he has dropped a huge debt on us which has to be repaid at some point.

And a record transfer spend for TT only to bullet him shortly after doesn't inspire positivity does it ?

Anyway, I hope no one turns against him or Potter in the stadiums, I'm prepared to wait , and if we can play an exciting brand of football, that'll do for me

49 minutes ago, dkw said:

I don't get all this ridiculous negativity about the new owner, based on his previous sports club ownership I don't see any reason to fear he is some kind of asset stripping monster who is only bothered about making money and doesn't care about success. Everything he has done previous has shown him to be completely the opposite of this.

I think that the main possible issue is not Todd Boehly, he will want Chelsea to be successful, but the investment company behind him. It is not the same as the LA Dodgers, as far as I know, who have a series of individual investors but not an investment company as Clearlake (but I may be wrong). So, no matter how Todd Boehly runs the LA Dodgers, the people behind him at Chelsea are different.

2 hours ago, RMH said:

I think that the main possible issue is not Todd Boehly, he will want Chelsea to be successful, but the investment company behind him. It is not the same as the LA Dodgers, as far as I know, who have a series of individual investors but not an investment company as Clearlake (but I may be wrong). So, no matter how Todd Boehly runs the LA Dodgers, the people behind him at Chelsea are different.

I thought the Dodgers buyout was the same, mostly investors. these are the Guggenheim owners from Wikipedia.

Quote

 

Mark R. Walter

Walter is the "controlling partner" of Guggenheim Baseball Management. He is the chief executive of Guggenheim Partners, an investment and advisory firm with more than $270 billion in assets under management. Based in New York and Chicago, the firm was founded in 1999 and is now a global investment and advisory financial services firm that engages in investment banking, asset management, capital markets services, and insurance services.

Todd Boehly

Previously president of Guggenheim Partners until leaving in 2015, Boehly bought some of the assets he had collected at Guggenheim, including The Hollywood Reporter, Dick Clark Productions, and Security Benefit, to found Eldridge Industries, a private investment firm that specializes in providing both debt and equity capital.^[26] A graduate of William & Mary in Virginia, Mr. Boehly dealt in leveraged finance at Credit Suisse First Boston and high-yield investments at Whitney & Co. He joined Guggenheim in 2001 to lead its corporate-credit business.^[25]

Peter Guber

Guber is an American business executive, entrepreneur, educator and author. He is Chairman and CEO of Mandalay Entertainment. Guber's most recent films from Mandalay Entertainment include The Kids Are All Right, Soul Surfer and Bernie. He has also produced Rain Man, Batman, The Color Purple, Midnight Express, Gorillas in the Mist, The Witches of Eastwick, Missing, and Flashdance. Guber's films have grossed over $3 billion worldwide and received 50 Academy Award nominations.^[27]

Guber is also co-owner of four professional sports teams: the Golden State Warriors of the National Basketball Association (NBA), the Los Angeles Dodgers of Major League Baseball, the Major League Soccer team Los Angeles FC, and the professional eSports organization aXiomatic Gaming, that acquired controlling interest in one of the world's premier esports team franchises, Team Liquid.^[28]

Stan Kasten

Stan Kasten (born February 1, 1952, in Lakewood Township, New Jersey) is the former president of the Atlanta Braves and the Washington Nationals, and the current president and part-owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Long involved in Atlanta professional sports, he also served as general manager of the NBA's Atlanta Hawks and president of the NHL's Atlanta Thrashers.

A native of New Jersey, Mr. Kasten became the youngest NBA general manager in 1979 when he joined the Atlanta Hawks at age 27. In 1986 he took over as president of both the Hawks and Ted Turner 's other franchise, the Atlanta Braves, where he stayed until 2003. He landed in Washington in 2006 as president of the Nationals franchise, stepping down after the 2010 season.^[25]

He has won two NBA Executive of the Year awards, three NBA division titles, and, with the Braves, 12 baseball division titles, five National League pennants and one World Series Championship.^[25]

Robert (Bobby) Patton, Jr.

Patton is a partner of Guggenheim Baseball Management and became part owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers on April 30, 2012. Patton principally operates oil and gas properties in Texas and Kansas and has additional investments in many other sectors, including ranching and insurance. He serves on the Board of Security Benefit Corporation and the Advisory Council of the University of Texas College of Liberal Arts. He also serves as the tournament chairman of the Dean & Deluca Invitational PGA Tour event at Colonial Country Club in Fort Worth, Texas. Patton received a B.B.A. from the University of Texas as well as a J.D. from St. Mary's University and LLM from Southern Methodist University. Patton resides in Fort Worth, where he was born and raised.^[29]

 

 

57 minutes ago, dkw said:

I thought the Dodgers buyout was the same, mostly investors. these are the Guggenheim owners from Wikipedia.

 

You're right, it looks similar structure. I guess that the difference is that Americans know about American sports and, evidently, not much about European sports (football in our case). I'm sitting on the fence, to be honest. I think there are signs of trying to improve the running of the Club and improve the team, which is good, but there's been too much improvisation, which is not good though expected as a new comer. In any case, it is too early to judge how the future is going to be. I think that criticism is justified in some cases but we need to give the owners a period of grace.

2 hours ago, dkw said:

I thought the Dodgers buyout was the same, mostly investors. these are the Guggenheim owners from Wikipedia.

 

 " The Atlantic Thrashers" ? You better be good with a name like that !!

1 hour ago, RMH said:

You're right, it looks similar structure. I guess that the difference is that Americans know about American sports and, evidently, not much about European sports (football in our case). I'm sitting on the fence, to be honest. I think there are signs of trying to improve the running of the Club and improve the team, which is good, but there's been too much improvisation, which is not good though expected as a new comer. In any case, it is too early to judge how the future is going to be. I think that criticism is justified in some cases but we need to give the owners a period of grace.

I put the improvisation down to rushing things through to get the transfer window sorted, they really didnt have much time to get in amongst the way football is ran. 

56 minutes ago, dkw said:

I put the improvisation down to rushing things through to get the transfer window sorted, they really didnt have much time to get in amongst the way football is ran. 

Maybe, but that's why it doesn't make much sense how quickly they've been to sack the whole structure that was in place and that could have helped moving on. No matter how bad or good people think they were under Roman, they could have stayed at least until the new structure was in place. I don't know, maybe there were some tensions between the old and new that could not coexist, but it didn't make sense some of the sackings that occurred from one day to another within the transfer window. The only thing I know, is that all is pure speculation, and that I think that the new owners want to run a successful club, in a way, I feel that they are different to the Glazers. But only time will tell.

On 23/09/2022 at 15:24, WhiteWall said:

Does kind of make you wonder if Ratcliffe wouldn't have been the better deal. More knowledgeable and probably would have kept his cards closer to his chest.

Even though Ratcliffe might be more knowledgeable the way he came in for Chelsea was extremely disrespectful. He basically waited until things were almost wrapped up in the decision for the bidding of the club and made a bid to try and gazump everyone. Say what you want about Boehly but at least he bought us in a respectful manner and he himself knows he isn't completely knowledgeable in the game, so he is willing to recruit experts. A good sign of a leader is when he knows his strengths and his weaknesses. Noehly clearly excels in the money-making part of the club but he is willing to hire people who are more knowledgeable in the day-to-day running of the sports part of the club. 

Edited September 27, 20223 yr by Frankie8Lampard

People wishing for Ratcliffe might like to cast a glance at how Nice are doing in their 4th year of his ownership ... not even managed a top 4 placing in the piss weak Ligue 1 yet !

I think Bohley has done well so far. With all these potential bids, they all promised loads but it’s unclear whether they would deliver or not. 
 

Bohley’s bid was the cleanest, well thought and genuine. He’s spent the money and seems to have a clear plan in place. 
 

I do miss Roman but it was clear that certain areas of the club were badly ran. 

I think they're going to try their best, I don't know who's money they spent in this last transfer window but they were ready to spend.

Many think that the Dodgers baseball team is one of the most stable out there, they don't win the championship often but they are always competitive so maybe that's a sign that they know what they're doing.

At this point it's a bit unfair to compare Roman with the new guys, times were much different when Roman took over.