2 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

The fact we honestly could of gotten Olise for £40m infuriates me. 

 

They chose to not pay the wages and rather pay more for Neto, take a punt on Sancho and spread his wages between the two. He has been tearing it up in the Bundesliga.

1 hour ago, ducavis said:

They chose to not pay the wages and rather pay more for Neto, take a punt on Sancho and spread his wages between the two. He has been tearing it up in the Bundesliga.

No. We were supposed to get him before Palmer. 

Instead of paying his release clause, Tweedle dee and Tweedle dumbass tried to illegally tap up the player which pissed off Palace and they reported us to the FA. They bumped up Olise's contract afterwards. 

This whole wage thing is going to leave us behind unless it drastically changes once we are in the Champions League. 

This lot .. fck this man.. sold Gallagher to buy Felix and then loan him??

loaned chalobah to then go back crying with their tails between their legs.. paid crazy money for Neto and sancho.. when Olisie was available.. 

sacked poch for maresca.. bought a 20 mil goalkeeper which is even worse than Sanchez 

spent guzzilions on the disaster brothers from Monaco.. went into the season with only Jackson 

more than maresca It’s this lot that needs to be sacked ..

These two are so bad, it makes me miss Emenalo 🫣

15 hours ago, ducavis said:

He has been tearing it up in the Bundesliga.

Like Nkunku and Werner did?

5 hours ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Like Nkunku and Werner did?

Olise proved his PL quality at Palace prior to the BL.

14 hours ago, Jezz said:

These two are so bad, it makes me miss Emenalo 🫣

Never mentioned these two 🤡 in the same sentence as Emenalo. They couldn’t even clean Emenalo boots. It’s like going from a nice Q7 to a f**king Lada.

They are not clowns. Nor are the owners. Clowns are funny and don't know what they are doing. These pricks know exactly what they are doing.

Just now, Zeta said:

They are not clowns. Nor are the owners. Clowns are funny and don't know what they are doing. These pricks know exactly what they are doing.

No, they don't 

12 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

No, they don't 

Yes, they do.

Anyone know the salary of these two fools? Would love to know 

9 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Yes, they do.

Makes absolutely no sense but ok

Liverpool’s title* winning team will cost £413m. They even ‘assisted’ Liverpool’s build by taking away the duds, like permanently-injured Lavia, and Mr kick shin pads all game Caicedo for £115m.

This sophisticated big data system of identifying the best options lead us to enquire about hidden gem Garnacho for £60m, seems this ‘big data’ and scouting database was just a copy of Fifa FC 2025 on PS5. 

41 minutes ago, Zeta said:

They are not clowns. Nor are the owners. Clowns are funny and don't know what they are doing. These pricks know exactly what they are doing.

I've never seen a funny clown in my life to be honest.

45 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

Makes absolutely no sense but ok

Ok my friend, will try and explain it.

 

Would you be surprised to know the majority of our ownership, as none football people, we surprised to find out we had to qualify for the CL, rather than it being a given, each season?

It's true.

Now what is the principle goal of a company like Clearlake Captial, or Eldridge, or the other corporations that own BlueCo?

Making money for their shareholders and themselves.

Can they find a way to ensure we make it to the CL each year, therefore make that money? No, because sporting results cannot be certain. They would need to spend big on some top players, and, most importantly, pay big wages and bonuses. Even then we could miss out, and the wage structure is broken.

By what they are doing they are making it so they don't need CL money to make money for their shareholders. 

Lower wage bill, diversified the portfolio of the club from all being Chelsea FC to being 18 separate companies, including Cobham and the parking lot as 2 on their own. 

We don't even need the money of a front of shirt sponsor this year. Not for PSR, not for making the shareholders money. Nobody in PL history has done that.

 

Is like if you could buy an item for a pound, and then sell it on for 10 pounds, woild you then decided nevermind that, I will buy this item for 10 pounds and sell it for 15 if they found a buyer, or if not the first buyer would take it for 10. 

Why would anyone do that? That's what they would be doing if the broke the wage structure to gamble on CL each year.

 

So to sum it up they have found ways, as the smart businessmen that they are, to make money for themselves and the shareholders without the need of any sporting success. Sporting success woild be a bonus, but is not needed. No risk, all reward.

 

26 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Ok my friend, will try and explain it.

 

Would you be surprised to know the majority of our ownership, as none football people, we surprised to find out we had to qualify for the CL, rather than it being a given, each season?

It's true.

Now what is the principle goal of a company like Clearlake Captial, or Eldridge, or the other corporations that own BlueCo?

Making money for their shareholders and themselves.

Can they find a way to ensure we make it to the CL each year, therefore make that money? No, because sporting results cannot be certain. They would need to spend big on some top players, and, most importantly, pay big wages and bonuses. Even then we could miss out, and the wage structure is broken.

By what they are doing they are making it so they don't need CL money to make money for their shareholders. 

Lower wage bill, diversified the portfolio of the club from all being Chelsea FC to being 18 separate companies, including Cobham and the parking lot as 2 on their own. 

We don't even need the money of a front of shirt sponsor this year. Not for PSR, not for making the shareholders money. Nobody in PL history has done that.

 

Is like if you could buy an item for a pound, and then sell it on for 10 pounds, woild you then decided nevermind that, I will buy this item for 10 pounds and sell it for 15 if they found a buyer, or if not the first buyer would take it for 10. 

Why would anyone do that? That's what they would be doing if the broke the wage structure to gamble on CL each year.

 

So to sum it up they have found ways, as the smart businessmen that they are, to make money for themselves and the shareholders without the need of any sporting success. Sporting success woild be a bonus, but is not needed. No risk, all reward.

 

Sorry but I can't buy into this theory at all, a club who's at the pinnacle of the sport rakes in hundreds of millions with sponsorships, prize money, global fanbase expansion etc. A raise in wage structure of say £30m-£40m a year pales in comparison to potential income, and why would the people taking over, mostly billionaires, get any satisfaction of taking one of the leading clubs in world football back decades? All for the sake of a few million guaranteed quid to add on to the pile of cash they already have? Also, would there be much money in the pot when the players depreciate in value because of poor performance and our club isn't attractive to the young talent we sign?

I think what we're seeing is a bunch of people who don't understand football well and think it's possible to win things with inexperienced players and backroom staff. It's naivety and trust in the wrong people to spend their cash.

21 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

Sorry but I can't buy into this theory at all, a club who's at the pinnacle of the sport rakes in hundreds of millions with sponsorships, prize money, global fanbase expansion etc. A raise in wage structure of say £30m-£40m a year pales in comparison to potential income, and why would the people taking over, mostly billionaires, get any satisfaction of taking one of the leading clubs in world football back decades? 

Because it is not about their Egos or satisfaction. They are not Roman, or Forests owner, or even Leicesters former owner, they are a larger scale version of the Glazer family. Did their egos get in the way of them taking United from being one of the world's top teams in to becoming a laughing stock? No, because it made them a fortune. 

And again you are talking potential income, a big risk when they know nothing about the game coming in. Their shareholders don't want risk, they want their profits.

 

26 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

All for the sake of a few million guaranteed quid to add on to the pile of cash they already have? Also, would there be much money in the pot when the players depreciate in value because of poor performance and our club isn't attractive to the young talent we sign?

All for their shareholders to continue to make profits, which brings in more shareholders and makes them more money. 

The players are one aspect of their business plan, not the only one though. Ultimately I expect we move away from signing players of the Mudryk and Neto valuation. We already have moved away from the Caicedo and Enzo valued ones.

 

30 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

I think what we're seeing is a bunch of people who don't understand football well and think it's possible to win things with inexperienced players and backroom staff. It's naivety and trust in the wrong people to spend their cash.

You don't get to where they have in life by being that naive. 

They've been owners for coming along 3 years now. You don't think, all this time, Winstanley and Stewart are some sort of genius masterminds that control them, do you?

24 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Because it is not about their Egos or satisfaction. They are not Roman, or Forests owner, or even Leicesters former owner, they are a larger scale version of the Glazer family. Did their egos get in the way of them taking United from being one of the world's top teams in to becoming a laughing stock? No, because it made them a fortune. 

And again you are talking potential income, a big risk when they know nothing about the game coming in. Their shareholders don't want risk, they want their profits.

 

All for their shareholders to continue to make profits, which brings in more shareholders and makes them more money. 

The players are one aspect of their business plan, not the only one though. Ultimately I expect we move away from signing players of the Mudryk and Neto valuation. We already have moved away from the Caicedo and Enzo valued ones.

 

You don't get to where they have in life by being that naive. 

They've been owners for coming along 3 years now. You don't think, all this time, Winstanley and Stewart are some sort of genius masterminds that control them, do you?

Think we'll just have to agree to disagree on it (like pretty much everything else Chelsea related) because we could go on for days discussing this. The bottom line in my view is that with the money that they've spent they will have expected/wanted success as well as a return on their investment, but they have chosen the wrong people to lead the 'project'. 

7 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

Think we'll just have to agree to disagree on it (like pretty much everything else Chelsea related) because we could go on for days discussing this. The bottom line in my view is that with the money that they've spent they will have expected/wanted success as well as a return on their investment, but they have chosen the wrong people to lead the 'project'. 

The good thing is time will show us what is the truth, in the end. 

No hard feelings though.

29 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

The good thing is time will show us what is the truth, in the end. 

No hard feelings though.

None at all mate, wouldn't be the same if we actually agreed on something 

1 hour ago, timetowaste said:

None at all mate, wouldn't be the same if we actually agreed on something 

We must have agreed on something by now.

Sanchez?

25 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

We must have agreed on something by now.

Sanchez?

Fair point, I don't think either of us can make the case that he's anything other than toss.

5 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Ok my friend, will try and explain it.

 

Would you be surprised to know the majority of our ownership, as none football people, we surprised to find out we had to qualify for the CL, rather than it being a given, each season?

It's true.

Now what is the principle goal of a company like Clearlake Captial, or Eldridge, or the other corporations that own BlueCo?

Making money for their shareholders and themselves.

Can they find a way to ensure we make it to the CL each year, therefore make that money? No, because sporting results cannot be certain. They would need to spend big on some top players, and, most importantly, pay big wages and bonuses. Even then we could miss out, and the wage structure is broken.

By what they are doing they are making it so they don't need CL money to make money for their shareholders. 

Lower wage bill, diversified the portfolio of the club from all being Chelsea FC to being 18 separate companies, including Cobham and the parking lot as 2 on their own. 

We don't even need the money of a front of shirt sponsor this year. Not for PSR, not for making the shareholders money. Nobody in PL history has done that.

 

Is like if you could buy an item for a pound, and then sell it on for 10 pounds, woild you then decided nevermind that, I will buy this item for 10 pounds and sell it for 15 if they found a buyer, or if not the first buyer would take it for 10. 

Why would anyone do that? That's what they would be doing if the broke the wage structure to gamble on CL each year.

 

So to sum it up they have found ways, as the smart businessmen that they are, to make money for themselves and the shareholders without the need of any sporting success. Sporting success woild be a bonus, but is not needed. No risk, all reward.

 

I agree that this is likely their strategy to make money. Supposedly one of the reasons they hired Maresca on a 5 year deal was the relatively low wages. It remains to be seen whether they are smart businessman though. They may have procured a number of young players, several of whom could have resale value. However the return on investment will only be known when they actually sell these players. So far they seem to be running into issues selling most of these players and have had to resort to loans. Then they have had to come up with accounting tricks like selling the ground to Blueco to avoid PSR fines. So it remains to be seen if their strategy works.

That being said it is pretty clear that their strategy is all about return on investment for individual players, rather than through success on the field. You could argue the latter frequently doesn't produce financial success. I think Roman lost money most of the time. Then again he loved the game and the club. 

On 13/02/2025 at 03:07, Qaz said:

Arrivals 25/26:
Estêvão €34.00m: +2 Looks a big bargain. One of the most promising under 18 players in the world coming in on for a relatively cheap fee.
Kendry Páez €10.00m: +1.5 also looks like a bargain. Not at promising as Estêvão but very cheap for what he looks like he could be.

Arrivals 24/25:

Pedro Neto €60.00m: -1.5 I think we paid too much but I won't go so far as to call him a -2 yet
João Félix €52.00m: -1.5 This one is difficult as his value is higher as part of the Gallagher sale and he could end up recovering most of his fee on sale. Still looks like alot
Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall €35.40m: -2 You'd need to take 5million off the effective transfer keeping in mind that Micheal Golding went the other way for that amount and wasn't worth that. Still, this looks a rough deal and probably going to leave at a loss
Filip Jørgensen €24.50m: +1 Early to say but he looks a good young keeper and if given a real chance, i think could end up being a bargain

Mike Penders €20.00m: 0 I just can't determine either way yet. Aparently is very promising but you'd expect a bit for that kind of cash
Aarón Anselmino €16.50m: +0 too early for me to make a call
Mathis Amougou €15.00m +0 too early
Renato Veiga €14.00m +2 really good buy. If he leaves, it will be at a substantial profit and if not, we could have a good player
Caleb Wiley €10.10m +0 I just know nothing, I am would lean very slightly positive on Anselmino and very slightly negative on Wiley
Marc Guiu €6.00m +2 bargain. He probably won't make it at Chelsea but at that price, a really good purchase that will very likely end up making Chelsea money
Jadon Sancho loan but I think transfer will be around €30.00m: +2.5 absolute bargain, his current form and expectations might work against him, but to get him at such a low fee and reduced wages was great business

Arrivals 23/24:

Moisés Caicedo €116.00m: +0.5 Very good player, very expensive transfer fee, i'm leaning very slighly positive in the belief that he will be here a long time and contribute well even if he never gets that kind of fee in a sale.
Roméo Lavia €62.10m: -1  good player but expensive. Can't give him a positive rating unless he improves his injury record
Cole Palmer €47.00m: +3 one of the best players in the world, for a very reasonable fee and on a long contract at a tiny wage. Imagine the mess we'd be in without him
Axel Disasi €45.00m: -1 looks expensive, not a total flop but i can't see us selling him for his full incoming fee. Still Villa taking him at full wages +5 million could be an indication he might end up recovering most of his transfer fee
Nicolas Jackson €37.00m: +2.5 strong bargain. he's cheap and has a long contract meaning he will probably be here a long time at a cheap wage
Lesley Ugochukwu €27.00m -1 not looking great but cheap enough and young enough that things could turn around quickly for him
Robert Sánchez €23.00m -1 seperate the player (as first choice) from the deal and this isn't that bad. this probably going to end up leaving at a loss
Djordje Petrovic €16.00m +1 he's cheap, he's doing well at Strasborg, I think he's been treated a bit unfairly. I think he will end up leaving for more than he joined.
Deivid Washington €16.00m -1 haven't seen much of him and he's very unlikely to make it Chelsea. Likely ro recover most of his fee tho
Ângelo €15.00m +2 sold at a profit, maybe that's financial shenadigans, but a profit is a profit

Note: I think Christopher Nkunku for €60.00m was agreed before Stewart/Winstanley so I'm leaving him out of the calculation

Arrivals 22/23
Enzo Fernández €121.00m -1.5 I just don't see him ever recovering that kind of transfer fee even if he's a good player who could end up being very useful for a long time
Mykhaylo Mudryk €70.00m -2 I would have put minus 3 as an absolute disaster but his B sample hasn't come back yet and the club is still registering him for the Europa league suggesting they still think he has a chance of not being banned.
Benoît Badiashile €38.00m -0.5 I am largely neutral on this one. He's not that expensive and could end up being good but not shown enough yet so very slight negative score
Noni Madueke €35.00m - +1 I honestly don't really like him and don't think he'll make it. But i'm judging the deal not the player and the deal was a solid value/risk
Malo Gusto €30.00m +2 a good deal even very good deal. He will likely end up being sold for much more if he leaves
Cesare Casadei €14.86m -0.5 sold at a minor loss but with some add-ons. this looks like a very minor loss 
Andrey Santos €12.50m +2.5 huge bargain for that price

David Datro Fofana €12.00m -0.5 was a  cheap speculative signing that probably won't pay off but is likely to return most of his transfer outlay
 

Seems like my post sitrred up alot of comments, some constructive and some stupid and pointless

It was (obviously) just an analysis of the incomings and not the outgoings (which are also a very mixed bag) nor the squal utilization (bomb squad) issue is almost all negative.

If you want my overall feelings it's this:

1. I thought sacking Pochettino was a mistake. I think he's a better manager than Maresca. He's more adaptible with tactics, more resourceful in making use of the players around him, more experienced, better able to deal with difficult situations (like the one we are in right now). I think he's better at developing players overall (not just the few picked out that fit his tactical setup exactly like Maresca).

I don't think Maresca would have acheived 6th place (with an xG that would have seen us finish 5th) given that incredible and generationally bad injury crisis last season and I beleive had Pochettino stayed, we'd probably be doing a little bit better this season*.

*Off point/tangent a little, but sometimes I imagine an alternate history if Pochettino had his way and was still manager. We would have kept Gallagher and not bought Felix, which probably also flows through to not purchasing KDH and still having Micheal Golding (or selling him for a little less). Chilwell would probably be a major part of the squad, Chalobah (who was our best defender last year) probably wouldn't have been loaned out. We probably would have stuck with Stirling rather than loaning him out to a rival paying more than half his wages and then not bought Neto for €60.00m. With all that money we'd have saved not buying Neto or Felix, there probably would have been money left over for another striker (no idea who). Overall, I think we'd have a stronger squad and would be doing (at least a little) better this season. Anyways, back to main topic

2. The bomb squad is/was indefensible. First and least importantly, it is poor ethically and not becoming of a team like Chelsea. We are not some sunday league club that needs to f*ck players over like that in order to survive. But that's secondary to the fact it is just poor management to loan players out paying more than half their wages to play for a rival or worse (in the case of Chilwell), sit in the stands and do absolutely nothing for 6 months as one of the clubs higher earners. In the case of Stirling, we loan out the player and then spend €60.00m on Neto in what is largely a sideways move, just an incredible waste, It just a very poor utilisation of resources already at the club which then inevitably leads onto less resources available to strengthen the team later.

3. I will actually defend the recruitment strategy. When it works (getting Palmer, Jackson and the looking promising Estêvão Willian in young on cheap fees, cheap wages and very long contracts) it works brilliantly. In fact I think the places where it's failed worst is when we already have players at the club (sometimes on high wages that will be difficult to move) capable of doing the job (Stirling, Gallagher, Chilwell) or when we buy players (like Felix) when it's not even really clear that is the problem position that needs the resources the most (not cooperating with the team manager enough). 

The issue with the strategy (or at least the way the sporting directors are doing it) is that it tries to do too much too soon. These footballers are human beings, when they move clubs they are moving to a new environment, usually moving house, sometimes moving country and occasionally even having to learn a new language. This harms team cohesion (at least in the short term) and when it's over done (like it has been), the new (usually young) players joining come into an environment lacking leaders and positive established team culture from senior pros.

I think back to an interview with Phil Giles, the director of football at Brentford (i think this is the interview linked below). As most of you will know Brentford (and Brighton) are probably the two biggest Premier League success stories over the last 5-10 years. Both clubs that probably belong in the Championship but through very good management have established themselves as top-half Premier League teams. In this interview he was asked what he/the team could have done better and his answer was (to paraphrase) "we tried to do too much, too early, and it slowed our progress". That is exactly what happened at Chelsea. New owners, tried to do too much, too early.

So overall, I am not happy with their choice of manager (I think we should have just stuck with Poch), the bomb squad was a big mistake and unnecessary and that was a sympton of them trying to change too much too soon. However, I think the recruitment strategy of young players on long, low wage contracts is a good idea if implemented more patiently and in better consultation with the manager of the day's need.

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 20251 yr by Qaz

1 hour ago, Qaz said:

Seems like my post sitrred up alot of comments, some constructive and some stupid and pointless

It was (obviously) just an analysis of the incomings and not the outgoings (which are also a very mixed bag) nor the squal utilization (bomb squad) issue is almost all negative.

If you want my overall feelings it's this:

1. I thought sacking Pochettino was a mistake. I think he's a better manager than Maresca. He's more adaptible with tactics, more resourceful in making use of the players around him, more experienced, better able to deal with difficult situations (like the one we are in right now). I think he's better at developing players overall (not just the few picked out that fit his tactical setup exactly like Maresca).

I don't think Maresca would have acheived 6th place (with an xG that would have seen us finish 5th) given that incredible and generationally bad injury crisis last season and I beleive had Pochettino stayed, we'd probably be doing a little bit better this season*.

*Off point/tangent a little, but sometimes I imagine an alternate history if Pochettino had his way and was still manager. We would have kept Gallagher and not bought Felix, which probably also flows through to not purchasing KDH and still having Micheal Golding (or selling him for a little less). Chilwell would probably be a major part of the squad, Chalobah (who was our best defender last year) probably wouldn't have been loaned out. We probably would have stuck with Stirling rather than loaning him out to a rival paying more than half his wages and then not bought Neto for €60.00m. With all that money we'd have saved not buying Neto or Felix, there probably would have been money left over for another striker (no idea who). Overall, I think we'd have a stronger squad and would be doing (at least a little) better this season. Anyways, back to main topic

2. The bomb squad is/was indefensible. First and least importantly, it is poor ethically and not becoming of a team like Chelsea. We are not some sunday league club that needs to f*ck players over like that in order to survive. But that's secondary to the fact it is just poor management to loan players out paying more than half their wages to play for a rival or worse (in the case of Chilwell), sit in the stands and do absolutely nothing for 6 months as one of the clubs higher earners. In the case of Stirling, we loan out the player and then spend €60.00m on Neto in what is largely a sideways move, just an incredible waste, It just a very poor utilisation of resources already at the club which then inevitably leads onto less resources available to strengthen the team later.

3. I will actually defend the recruitment strategy. When it works (getting Palmer, Jackson and the looking promising Estêvão Willian in young on cheap fees, cheap wages and very long contracts) it works brilliantly. In fact I think the places where it's failed worst is when we already have players at the club (sometimes on high wages that will be difficult to move) capable of doing the job (Stirling, Gallagher, Chilwell) or when we buy players (like Felix) when it's not even really clear that is the problem position that needs the resources the most (not cooperating with the team manager enough). 

The issue with the strategy (or at least the way the sporting directors are doing it) is that it tries to do too much too soon. These footballers are human beings, when they move clubs they are moving to a new environment, usually moving house, sometimes moving country and occasionally even having to learn a new language. This harms team cohesion (at least in the short term) and when it's over done (like it has been), the new (usually young) players joining come into an environment lacking leaders and positive established team culture from senior pros.

I think back to an interview with Phil Giles, the director of football at Brentford (i think this is the interview linked below). As most of you will know Brentford (and Brighton) are probably the two biggest Premier League success stories over the last 5-10 years. Both clubs that probably belong in the Championship but through very good management have established themselves as top-half Premier League teams. In this interview he was asked what he/the team could have done better and his answer was (to paraphrase) "we tried to do too much, too early, and it slowed our progress". That is exactly what happened at Chelsea. New owners, tried to do too much, too early.

So overall, I am not happy with their choice of manager (I think we should have just stuck with Poch), the bomb squad was a big mistake and unnecessary and that was a sympton of them trying to change too much too soon. However, I think the recruitment strategy of young players on long, low wage contracts is a good idea if implemented more patiently and in better consultation with the manager of the day's need.

 

 

 

A lot of it makes sense till you think about what the Chelsea brand is .. they paid 4£ billion for a brand not just assets . They with their actions are killing the brand - Brighton lost 7-0 the other day, doesn’t mean much but for Chelsea that’s a disaster. 
 

This model ensures survival not trophies. A business sees exponential returns if you scale top line and not optimise bottom line- unless of course you are a PE firm which strips a company of everything.

what clearlake are doing is exactly that - we should be very worried they will extract their pound of flesh even if it comes at whatever cost.

we passed on Olisie in the summer - he wasn’t a world class player but a good premier league player - the kind of transfer we would do in a jiffy and not even think about it . That for me is a big big red flag.. 

we can always argue for both sides but facts show what they truly are..