Might be an uncomfortable and controversial discussion, but it's worth asking the question and exploring this further.

Before Abramovich, we were a club that would have been content with top half finishes, playing an attractive style of football and winning a cup competition every now and then. 1996-2003 being the best illustration of this.

The Abramovich years were defined by a "win at all costs" mentality. Finishing 2nd was a failure, and anything less than a successful campaign in all competitions would mean ruthless decisions would be made in the pursuit of success. 19 major trophies in 20 seasons speaks volumes of what was achieved and expected.

Now we've entered a new era under new owners and I think fans and the club alike are struggling to forge a new identity of what we are. Are we still a club expecting to go deep into title races and being immersed with Europe's elite, or have we reverted back to something that existed before Abramovich's takeover?

At the moment, it feels like winning a title or even playing in the Champions League on a regular basis is years away from happening again. It's making me wonder whether we'll see those golden years ever again.

Would be interested to hear how others see it.

Edited February 5, 20242 yr by Jezz

This is what was said when the new owners took over : 

"Our vision as owners is clear: we want to make the fans proud. Along with our commitment to developing the youth squad and acquiring the best talent, our plan of action is to invest in the club for the long-term and build on Chelsea's remarkable history of success.

 

Obviously things aren't going to plan, but I doubt their vision has changed ... 

 

Most here I feel think Chelsea should be what it was under Mourinho 2004-2006. We were ruthless and nothing else was enough but to win the next game and the trophy. In England the landscape changed massively after those years. Money started to flood in with TV revenue and foreign investors. Nowadays even the lowest and the most bottom sides have excellent players and top managers. Anyone can win anyone on their day. Although the top 2-3 dogs still win most games.

2010 on we have struggled more but managed to win trophies.

After the Roman era we are lacking an identity which is probably very expected. 

Resources are still there to compete with City and Liverpool on the pitch. We have that. 

Strategically we decided to fire everyone and hire everyone. We went for young players and fairly inexperienced staff. If you want to align your expectations to something I think, for your own health, you should align to that. That is what I have done to survive this week in week out. 

I don't want us to be what we were under Roman. I want something new. By that I mean we were firing and hiring managers and bought players that were already established. 

I want us to create a new way of running a club and bringing something new to the sport. 

I want us to win. Naturally but I am ready to wait for it if it means we can see the young side grow into something good and great. If we go on and fire managers on yearly basis we always start again and go back.

Sadly our expectations and everyone that comments on Chelsea are still living in the Roman era which makes it that much harder for the side to succeed. Maybe that helps them in a way also I don't know. 

Anyway I like the fact we are in a new era. Losing games makes it hard naturally but I like the idea of seeing prime Palmer, Enzo, Mudryk bullying opposition teams 2027-2028 season after we've seen them grow into those roles. 

1 minute ago, evissy said:

Most here I feel think Chelsea should be what it was under Mourinho 2004-2006. We were ruthless and nothing else was enough but to win the next game and the trophy. In England the landscape changed massively after those years. Money started to flood in with TV revenue and foreign investors. Nowadays even the lowest and the most bottom sides have excellent players and top managers. Anyone can win anyone on their day. Although the top 2-3 dogs still win most games.

2010 on we have struggled more but managed to win trophies.

After the Roman era we are lacking an identity which is probably very expected. 

Resources are still there to compete with City and Liverpool on the pitch. We have that. 

Strategically we decided to fire everyone and hire everyone. We went for young players and fairly inexperienced staff. If you want to align your expectations to something I think, for your own health, you should align to that. That is what I have done to survive this week in week out. 

I don't want us to be what we were under Roman. I want something new. By that I mean we were firing and hiring managers and bought players that were already established. 

I want us to create a new way of running a club and bringing something new to the sport. 

I want us to win. Naturally but I am ready to wait for it if it means we can see the young side grow into something good and great. If we go on and fire managers on yearly basis we always start again and go back.

Sadly our expectations and everyone that comments on Chelsea are still living in the Roman era which makes it that much harder for the side to succeed. Maybe that helps them in a way also I don't know. 

Anyway I like the fact we are in a new era. Losing games makes it hard naturally but I like the idea of seeing prime Palmer, Enzo, Mudryk bullying opposition teams 2027-2028 season after we've seen them grow into those roles. 

Great post.

I loved the 2004-06 era, and I always had hope we could replicate that further down the line under Abramovich's ownership throughout the early to mid 2010s.

I think my mindset shifted once Manchester City and to a lesser extent Liverpool started to dominate the league and left the rest of us behind. It was at that point we needed to change our strategy if we wanted to get close to the top and be a major contender rather than be a 'flash in the pan' cup competition team.

Ownership upheaval and the massive turnover of the squad was always going to be difficult to navigate through. I think it's just proven to be far more challenging than most of us could ever anticipate.

I'm always hopeful for better days ahead and this young squad will develop and grow into something special, but days like yesterday make me wonder whether we're even on the right path going forward.

Olderschoolcfc made a great point on another thread about football being cyclical, and it's probably worth remembering that Liverpool were dominant from the mid 70s (9 league titles in 15 years) but have won 1 league title in the last 33 years now, and then Manchester United under Ferguson were rampant, but in 10 seasons since he left, despite spending a shedload of money, they only have three cups to show for it and no titles in 10 seasons (soon to be 11). We all know how barren the Spurs trophy cabinet is, and Arsenal are also now on a run of no league titles in 20 years, albeit they have done well in the FA Cup. 

Winning stuff is very difficult. You almost need a perfect storm of players, investment, management to coincide with a downturn in the fortunes of your rivals.

I think our time will come again, just need to be patient. Our owners have certainly made mistakes but they do seem to have the right intentions. Try and enjoy the ride I guess. At least it makes you appreciate the good times, and perhaps when they come again (and they will) it will feel even sweeter after the current struggles.

Edited February 5, 20242 yr by Sexyfootball

It's not about loosing games, or not winning titles. it's about the spineless performances that we are seeing lately. I thought that Pochettino was picking up and developing some good football, but the latest loses have been shocking not because of the loss, but because of the way that the team has played (not played). And that's something the new Chelsea cannot become, spineless, without fight, without a care, so casual that it looks like a training game. I don't want that Chelsea, I want to a Club mentality that gives its all every weekend, independently of the result or where we sit on the table.

2 hours ago, evissy said:

Most here I feel think Chelsea should be what it was under Mourinho 2004-2006. We were ruthless and nothing else was enough but to win the next game and the trophy. In England the landscape changed massively after those years. Money started to flood in with TV revenue and foreign investors. Nowadays even the lowest and the most bottom sides have excellent players and top managers. Anyone can win anyone on their day. Although the top 2-3 dogs still win most games.

2010 on we have struggled more but managed to win trophies.

After the Roman era we are lacking an identity which is probably very expected. 

Resources are still there to compete with City and Liverpool on the pitch. We have that. 

Strategically we decided to fire everyone and hire everyone. We went for young players and fairly inexperienced staff. If you want to align your expectations to something I think, for your own health, you should align to that. That is what I have done to survive this week in week out. 

I don't want us to be what we were under Roman. I want something new. By that I mean we were firing and hiring managers and bought players that were already established. 

I want us to create a new way of running a club and bringing something new to the sport. 

I want us to win. Naturally but I am ready to wait for it if it means we can see the young side grow into something good and great. If we go on and fire managers on yearly basis we always start again and go back.

Sadly our expectations and everyone that comments on Chelsea are still living in the Roman era which makes it that much harder for the side to succeed. Maybe that helps them in a way also I don't know. 

Anyway I like the fact we are in a new era. Losing games makes it hard naturally but I like the idea of seeing prime Palmer, Enzo, Mudryk bullying opposition teams 2027-2028 season after we've seen them grow into those roles. 

Sorry but I don't get how everything you explained in the first few paragraphs of your post about our successful past brought you to the conclusion that somehow this young side is going to "grow into something good and great" and prime Enzo and Mudryk are going to be bullying the opposition in a few years' time. Are you saying you're hoping and praying this is what's going to happen? Because currently I don't see it. 

Also about firing and hiring managers and buying players that were already established. Boehly and Co sacked three managers in the last 16 months, are you sure it's the new era because it sure as hell doesn't look like it. The only difference is, under Roman normally we would proceed to win something under new manager, now we're just getting progressively worse. As for established players, you've gotta be joking. Every side buys established players, you can't be competitive while just buying youngsters with potential, you need experience, it's all about balance and we're clearly lacking it.

The fans' expectations are valid. They are based on the fact that we've been one of the most successful clubs in the world over the last twenty years and we have a cabinet full of trophies to show for it. The only positive I could say about the current ownership is they're clearly willing to spend big, but apart from that it's just a nasty mix of arrogance and incompetence. 

Edited February 5, 20242 yr by abramovich

Pep changed football for the better and for the worse. 

10 minutes ago, abramovich said:

Sorry but I don't get how everything you explained in the first few paragraphs of your post about our successful past brought you to the conclusion that somehow this young side is going to "grow into something good and great" and prime Enzo and Mudryk are going to be bullying the opposidtion in a few years' time. Are you saying you're hoping and praying this is what's going to happen? Because currently I don't see it. 

Yes. I wish we'd take this approach and those players come as good as predicted. The journey itself from here to that would be rewarding. This is the only way buying these young players make sense to me.

Also about firing and hiring managers and buying players that were already established. Boehly and Co sacked three managers in the last 16 months, are you sure it's the new era because it sure as hell doesn't look like it. The only difference is, under Roman normally we would proceed to win something under new manager, now we're just getting progressively worse. As for established players, you've gotta be joking. Every side buys established players, you can't be competitive while just buying youngsters with potential, you need experience, it's all about balance and we're clearly lacking it.

We didn't buy established players. Maybe we are breaking the mould. Again I don't understand why we bought so much inexperience/potential if there was no plan.

The fans' expectations are valid. They are based on the fact that we've been one of the most successful clubs in the world over the last twenty years and we have a cabinet full of trophies to show for it. The only positive I could say about the current ownership is they're clearly willing to spend big, but apart from that it's just a nasty mix of arrogance and incompetence. 

They are valid if the owners are incompetent and without a Long term plan. I just don't understand why they would operate exactly the same way as every major club and our past owner if they want to create something big. Maybe they are idiots and don't know anything about anything...that is a possibility. I am hoping they have knowledge and smart people working for them. 

👆

2 hours ago, RMH said:

It's not about loosing games, or not winning titles. it's about the spineless performances that we are seeing lately. I thought that Pochettino was picking up and developing some good football, but the latest loses have been shocking not because of the loss, but because of the way that the team has played (not played). And that's something the new Chelsea cannot become, spineless, without fight, without a care, so casual that it looks like a training game. I don't want that Chelsea, I want to a Club mentality that gives its all every weekend, independently of the result or where we sit on the table.

I think that idea of a fighting side is nice but I don't believe that. We are just not used of losing and that is that. 

I can understand this new collection to lose like they did. Liverpool absolutely played us off the park. They ran over us in a way we haven't seen before. That shattered the team. Wolves capitalized on it. We made so many mistakes. 

Up and down with young sides. 

I haven't seen that much of players not believing the system or Pochettino. This is something we can't know from the outside of course. 

Let's see how we play against Villa.

Edited February 5, 20242 yr by evissy

For some reason the thread title made me think of that 'But Doctor, I am Pagliacci' joke.

Tbh I just think clubs should generally perform to the level of the resources. 

We havent been a win at all cost club since probably 2010.

I think most fans would be happy if we were date I say it, performing like Arsenal, ie attractive football generally, and competing but not quite winning. Basically where we were before this takeover, even if the football was a little turgid.

At the moment we have no identity, we look like a sinking ship with no star players, no leaders, and no plan, nothing really for the fans to even get behind. 

If I had to bet, I would say we are more likely to be relegated than win the league in the next 5 years. 

Only way of fixing this is to somehow strike gold with the next set of appointments at board level, in the dug out, and with the playing staff, as the financial advantage we had has pretty much been evaporated by so many poor decisions.

We are kind of like Liverpool under Hodgson, they ended up getting Suarez for cheap, Rodgers came in and they started playing better football, then Klopp came in and elevated them back amongst the big boys with the help of Michael Edwards finding great signings at great prices like Salah, Mane, Firmino, Wijaldum, Robertson. 

So it's a long way back to the top from here, hopefully we do get there, and we form an identity along the way. 

In my opinion, the club has had an identity crisis for some time, long before the new owners came in.

It all started to go wrong (again - in my opinion) when we got Sarri. We consciously changed from being a functional team that unapologetically played to its strengths (whether that was under Jose, Carlo, or even Conte) - to a team that appeared to be trying to emulate others.
 

We did this by trying to force the team into a possession at all costs mentality, with a set of players that were not cut out for that style, and in a league where for that style to work, you have to be the very best at playing it. 

Once that decision was made, we have appeared lost and a bit directionless. Lamps tried to balance it with a more attacking ethos - but we were getting ripped apart. Tuchel tried to balance it by shutting up shop and being ultra cautious - which was stinking the place up. Potter came and we were seeing slow slithers of progress - but not at the pace fans wanted. And now poch…. But in that time, the squad has been overhauled, the owners have changed and the league has gotten stronger. 
 

For me - we are still caught in the possession for a sake of possession mentality. Possession does not always equal control. We are a passive team that often get controlled by the team we play against. Nottingham forest can sit back, concede possession, but still be in control against us.  It is painful at times. 

The fix…. Is exactly what we are doing. Stop caring about short term results, give the manager time to implement a new system annd identity, and go about it with an attitude of knowing we are Chelsea, and better than the rest. Don’t imitate others. f**k em all. 

10 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

In my opinion, the club has had an identity crisis for some time, long before the new owners came in.

It all started to go wrong (again - in my opinion) when we got Sarri. We consciously changed from being a functional team that unapologetically played to its strengths (whether that was under Jose, Carlo, or even Conte) - to a team that appeared to be trying to emulate others.

Problem is we didn't have a choice, what worked for the previous decade was being left behind, hence Mou's decline.

Yes we won in 2017 but that was thanks to Conte catching the league flat footed with that formation change in a 16 game ish spell, as soon as that got found out we and Conte had little answer, luckily it was too late to catch us at the top that year but it came home to roost the following season.

Our footballing identity couldn’t be more obvious…

We're Yank c**ts with bad hair who know f**k all about football.

17 hours ago, Gonoir Beniashile said:

We're Yank c**ts with bad hair who know f**k all about football.

At least they've got some hair.

25 minutes ago, Kev56 said:

At least they've got some hair.

The one on the left looks like a nonce.

Edited February 11, 20242 yr by Gonoir Beniashile

19 hours ago, Gonoir Beniashile said:

We're Yank c**ts with bad hair who know f**k all about football.

Todd came to teach the sawker followers in Europe how to do it. This would be a season that would begin with an all-star game followed by the regular Euro Soccer League Championship Bowl.  Lets not forget that All the top clubs in Eng-ger-land are owned by yanks and arabs and other foreign nationals [thats BreXit and vulture capitalism and Neo-Feudalism for yer].  Half the premier league is owned by yanks? or something like that.

Potentially the only good thing about a North v South Soccer All star game is that we dont have to bother with that sh1t hole in the midlands . . .

“Ultimately I hope the Premier League takes a little bit of a lesson from American sports,” Boehly said. . . In the UK it is relatively rare  for a sporting director or chairmen to go on the record, as is usual in America.  One of the great things about Roman was he never said a word to the media.

Todd did the long contract thing. Amortisation, the accounting principle which allows fees to be spread over the length of the contracts, was being stretched to the nth degree. That allowed Chelsea to dip their annual spending under financial fair play, profit and sustainability rules. Boehly looked to have bucked the system.  So that seemed like a cute little financial trick.

Sorry, I went off rambling. . .identity? IF we are going for Yoof, I think we can expect a LOT more to come out of that academy. Which will be loaned off to Strasbourg. . . They just love Todd in Strasbourg.

I don't think the club's vision has changed with the new owners, the new owners are just struggling to find the right way to get there. I don't believe we are a for-profit club now and our goal is to just get to europe. ATM that may be our goal but sometimes you need short term goals to reach long term ones. 

I think it is quite clear we are using model similar to Brighton. 

Lots lots of young player in long term contract.