2 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I appreciate your comment and will take it into consideration.

If someone wants to bring up that they're close with a director of the club, something like that is unlikely to be brushed under the carpet.

You simply aren’t reading what I write or just don’t understand.

1) You claim that I said the director I know is my “ mate” I have never claimed that I simply said I know one of the directors. Is everyone you know your mate?

2) You say I claimed I was close to the person in question. Agin where did I say that?

34 minutes ago, terraloon said:

You simply aren’t reading what I write or just don’t understand.

1) You claim that I said the director I know is my “ mate” I have never claimed that I simply said I know one of the directors. Is everyone you know your mate?

2) You say I claimed I was close to the person in question. Agin where did I say that?

If I claim I knew someone’s personality and intentions, then yes they would have to be my mate.

If it’s a fleeting conversation, then no I don’t know them.

They’re either your friend or it’s pointless to bring up as you don’t know what they’re actually like.

3 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I really can't be arsed to break this down so i'll reply to key talking points in bullet points.

• the Roman-era squad was bloated. If it was bloated back then, we must be close to erupting at this point. Not sure how Clearlake have improved this, in fact quite the opposite.

• The squad was aged, however only a select few needed to be replaced to compete. You mention Auba, but he was signed by these owners. We could easily have got another couple of seasons out of Azpi. There was no need for such an abrupt upheaval.

• Funnily enough Pulisic would probably be our best winger if we still owned him.

• Yes - amortisation has been covered often. It still doesnt change the fact we paid £105m for a player worth about £60m at most. This isn't new ground we're breaking here.

• Defending the Sanchez signed, do i even bother to read on?

• We had the deal tied up long before Liverpool ever got involved, we had our pants pulled down and had to swing our bo**ocks at the last minute because our negotiators are idiots. Same with Enzo.

• Chelsea's need for a deep playmaker, good job every manager has him playing as a box crashing 8 because he's a liability anywhere near the defence. Worth every penny, definitely not a status symbol post world cup....

• Cole Palmer has worked out fabulously, incredible player. I think its disingenuous to pretend it wasn't pure luck that we ended up with him. We didn't even approach Man City until the very end of the window when we'd missed out on all of our targets that summer (common theme). Certainly no one could have predicted his meteoric rise and if they could why is this the only signing of this ilk that has worked in this fashion?

• We shouldn't be aiming to be a selling club with little success like Red Bull and Man City have always bought established winners, never this youth gamble. I don't have an issue with the multi-club model so i'm not sure why this is brought up either. Comparing apples and oranges here.

• The less i say about Winstanley and Stewart the better as i cba getting banned.

• I'm not sure if you followed Chelsea back then but everyone was aware of Courtois after his first season at Madrid and that he was good enough for us, however we had signed him up to a two year loan. Petrovic has been at Strasbourg for a year as well, not half a season. Making up things again. Your comments about the coaching staff not making someone number one because its dangerous is more bo**ocks after that's exactly what they did with Sanchez last summer and told Jorgensen he can have the cup games. They set a precedent last summer and now you're pretending that none of that happened, weird.

• Congrats to them for having a vision, that doesn't mean it's the right one. You all keep regurgitating this "they're here for a decade so get used to it" speech but that doesn't mean we should just accept it, what kind of boot licker opinion is that? Why would you just roll over and accept something you don't agree with?

The argument that the squad being "bloat" during the Roman era is disavowed by the modern squad's size is a misunderstanding of what "bloat" actually implied in the circumstances. During Abramovich, the problem wasn’t the quantity of players, but the paucity of long-term value, coherence, and sell-on value. The squad was riddled with expensive veterans and duplicate options who bore little relation to the long-term game plan. The larger modern squad is undoubtedly bloated, but it's young, modular, and geared for development. The average age has plummeted. This makes a difference. To have a 22-year-old reserve winger on low wages who can develop to three times his value down the line is very different from having a 31-year-old striker on £200k a week whom you simply can't sell on. The rebuild wasn't about decreasing for the sake of decreasing—it was about rebalancing for the future. On whether the team needed an overhaul or a couple of “select” substitutions, that argument only makes sense if your aim is patching over holes rather than redesigning the structure. Yes, Azpi could've had one more season. But leaders do break down, and keeping them on the pitch slows down transition. Rüdiger and Christensen had already departed; Kante had injury issues. Relying on what remained of the Abramovich squad would've merely stopped the inevitable. Aubameyang was indeed a misfire under the new regime—one of a series of errors they're not immune to—but he was a short-term stopgap in the chaotic post-Tuchel early stages, not the symbol of the long-term project. One error does not disprove the plan; that makes the point about the mayhem of a hasty managerial handover and an adapting internal regime. The Enzo argument falls into the usual trap of neglecting market context. Chelsea paid his release fee—no one made Benfica haggle below that. Was it expensive? Yes. But high-end players, particularly those newly emerged from a World Cup, always come with a price tag. To flatly state "he cost £60m" disregards the fact that transfer valuations change with time, with market conditions, with the level of competition. What does concern us now is that Enzo has established himself as a keystone of the midfield—not perfect, not always played in his optimal position, but adapting into the setup. As for him being played as an eight—this says as much about the shifting tactics of successive managers as about his inherent profile. Long-range passing, tight control, the linkage of defence and attack continue to be his core qualities that will only become clearer as the setup around him stabilises. Concerning Robert Sánchez, it's simple to sneer in hindsight after a shaky season, but hindsight isn't analysis. Chelsea had to have a Premier League-proven goalkeeper when both Mendy and Kepa left, and Petrovic was a league unknown, Jorgensen untested. Sánchez, for the price and youth, was a homegrown, relatively cheap choice. He might not become Chelsea's long-term No. 1, but the reasoning for that signing in the moment was good. Teams will always require their transitional pieces during rebuilds, and not every signing made will last for a decade as a starter. To argue that his simple purchase negates the rest of the plan isn't shallow—it's reductionist. The Caicedo saga itself is misunderstood. It's not the case that Chelsea had the deal "tied up" before Liverpool jumped in. Brighton played both parties expertly, and Liverpool made an offer that prompted Chelsea to match and then beat. Chelsea's recruitment unit stuck to their target, and they won over the player's choice despite being outbid for a short time. That isn't having your "pants pulled down" – that's standing firm on a priority signing under market pressure. Caicedo has since displayed exactly why the club bought him: his defensive statistics, carries that move the game forward, and ball-winning data for his age group are elite. It's not the price tag itself; it's buying generational midfield quality in a thin market. Palmer being called "pure luck" shows a basic misunderstanding of the elite scouting process. Was his meteoric ascent predicted on this level? Not probably. This, though, is what intelligent recruitment does—finds the underused elsewhere and gambles on the ceiling. This was the same with Riyad Mahrez from Leicester or Dele Alli from MK Dons. If we call every breakout star "luck," we rob football of its strategic complexity. The reality that Palmer worked out so incredibly isn't evidence that it happened by chance—it's evidence that Chelsea's scouting operation noticed something that City didn't deem important. That's a success. And as for the argument that Chelsea shouldn’t “aspire to be a selling club" such as Red Bull or that Man City never bet on youth—neither of these claims holds water. Red Bull's model has created Champions League-quality players and made money on the pitch after performing some of the highest-intensity football in several leagues. City, meanwhile, completely nurtured young stars—Foden the stand-out example—and consistently employed under-23 signings with the aim of molding them into world-class performers (Sané, Jesus, Rodri, etc.). The idea isn’t to emulate Red Bull or City—or to become either of them—it’s to take what they’re doing and translate that on Chelsea's scope and ambitions The Courtois comparison isn't fair. He played two complete seasons with Atlético Madrid and was one of the La Liga's standout goalkeepers before he went back to Chelsea. That's quite contrary to Petrovic's one season—not two—at New England followed by being thrust into the Premier League. Developmental timelines count. To equate the two disregards simple differences in experience, level of competition, and strategic timing. While Sánchez might have been awarded a No. 1 jersey last summer, that choice already changed. If anything, that indicates the club will change direction as performances go—rather than stubbornly adhere to decisions for ego's sake. Last but not least, being a "bootlicker" for seeing a long-term strategy is anti-intellectual and dismissive. No one is calling for fans to roll over and swallow poor performances sight unseen. Criticism is warranted—albeit on the basis of facts, not frustration. Having a strategy does not imply perfection—it implies that the club no longer exists on a merry-go-round of one manager followed by the next without purpose. After years of success predicated on short-term thinking, Chelsea's finally trying to construct something that will last. It may not always be tidy, and may not always be popular, but to call it idiotic or arrogant is to deny any subtle understanding of project management, squad development, and football as an organic, living ecosystem. In short, frustration from fans during an unstable time is to be expected, but most of the attacks in this response are emotionally reactive and shaky facts.

2 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I really can't be arsed to break this down so i'll reply to key talking points in bullet points.

• the Roman-era squad was bloated. If it was bloated back then, we must be close to erupting at this point. Not sure how Clearlake have improved this, in fact quite the opposite.

According to the accounts ,which are in the public domain, as at 30/6/21 there were 129 Players , mangers and coaches. At the end of the 30/6/24 year there were 122!

• The squad was aged, however only a select few needed to be replaced to compete. You mention Auba, but he was signed by these owners. We could easily have got another couple of seasons out of Azpi. There was no need for such an abrupt upheaval.

PEA was indeed signed by the owners he was a mistake of that there was no doubt. It to a large degree subjective when assessing the squad that the owners had. Could we have got another couple of years out of Dave? Not sure we could have but if his time at Atlético is anything to go by he certainly wouldn’t have been anything more than a bit player.

Was there a need for such a radical rebuild? Maybe not

• Funnily enough Pulisic would probably be our best winger if we still owned him.

In his 4 seasons at Chelsea out of the annual PL minutes ( 38 games x 90 minutes = 3420 minutes) he played in 19/20 a total of 1727minutes, 20/21 1737, 21/22 1286 and 22/23 813. When he played he did so with energy and effort but his body by my estimation just wasn’t up to the physicality of the PL .. It was said by many that his body was made of glass. To be fair he did suffer a lot of injuries

• Yes - amortisation has been covered often. It still doesnt change the fact we paid £105m for a player worth about £60m at most. This isn't new ground we're breaking here.

Yep on the circumstances at the point of purchase we do indeed seem to have overpaid that said once his career at CFC has finished we will be able to judge ,based on longevity, his year on year contribution and factor in any return we will be able to answer with far more authority the question what was he worth it or not.

• Defending the Sanchez signed, do i even bother to read on?

Defending is one thing explaining the rationale maybe isn’t one and the same

• We had the deal tied up long before Liverpool ever got involved, we had our pants pulled down and had to swing our bo**ocks at the last minute because our negotiators are idiots. Same with Enzo.

Pretty sure that you are wrong about having a deal agreed with Brighton before Liverpool became involved .It was reported that we didn’t make a bid prior to Liverpool making and having an offer of £111m accepted by Brighton .It was the players decision to turn down Liverpool .

• Chelsea's need for a deep playmaker, good job every manager has him playing as a box crashing 8 because he's a liability anywhere near the defence. Worth every penny, definitely not a status symbol post world cup....

Think you are being a bit harsh on Enzo but have to say I rate him as decent certainly not any more than that.

• Cole Palmer has worked out fabulously, incredible player. I think it’s disingenuous to pretend it wasn't pure luck that we ended up with him. We didn't even approach Man City until the very end of the window when we'd missed out on all of our targets that summer (common theme). Certainly no one could have predicted his meteoric rise and if they could why is this the only signing of this ilk that has worked in this fashion?

All transfers are a gamble it’s absolutely staggering how few transfers turn out well. Disingenuous to pretend it wasn’t pure luck that we signed him not so sure that’s right but irrespective of why or how we signed him he did sign and was a great signing at that

• We shouldn't be aiming to be a selling club with little success like Red Bull and Man City have always bought established winners, never this youth gamble. I don't have an issue with the multi-club model so i'm not sure why this is brought up either. Comparing apples and oranges here.

Think you mis understand what is being said when Red Bull & Man City are mentioned.

• The less i say about Winstanley and Stewart the better as i cba getting banned.

What are their objectives as laid out by the board? What will their KPIs be ? How are they being monitored?

• I'm not sure if you followed Chelsea back then but everyone was aware of Courtois after his first season at Madrid and that he was good enough for us, however we had signed him up to a two year loan. Petrovic has been at Strasbourg for a year as well, not half a season. Making up things again. Your comments about the coaching staff not making someone number one because its dangerous is more bo**ocks after that's exactly what they did with Sanchez last summer and told Jorgensen he can have the cup games. They set a precedent last summer and now you're pretending that none of that happened, weird.

Think you may have misread what was being said re the6th months. I accept it might be me but I took the 6th month period referring to the end of the 23/4 season when Petrovic was playing and how at the end of that season the likelihood of him being selected for season 24/25 over Sanchez was unlikely

• Congrats to them for having a vision, that doesn't mean it's the right one. You all keep regurgitating this "they're here for a decade so get used to it" speech but that doesn't mean we should just accept it, what kind of boot licker opinion is that? Why would you just roll over and accept something you don't agree with?

Likewise it doesn’t mean it’s the wrong one. As for not accepting the owners bing in place for a decade what’s your plan ? Write an angry letter to the Times?

4 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I appreciate your comment and will take it into consideration.

If someone wants to bring up that they're close with a director of the club, something like that is unlikely to be brushed under the carpet.

That's a fair comment

41 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

If I claim I knew someone’s personality and intentions, then yes they would have to be my mate.

If it’s a fleeting conversation, then no I don’t know them.

They’re either your friend or it’s pointless to bring up as you don’t know what they’re actually like.

You are at it yet again.

Here’s what I said

“Do you actually know any of the directors? I do .The person in question isn’t diabolical he is an incredibly intelligent and generous person. One thing he ain’t is diabolical.”

Do you even know what diabolical means?

I give you this additional snippet the person in question and I had numerous conversations at games them being two rows behind me . I was introduced to them and despite me and them having those conversations I can say without almost without any doubt they won’t remember me but I do them.

Edited June 14, 20251 yr by terraloon

Criticizing posters and directors or other people in general is pretty hard. In many ways. Especially if you don't know them or know the entire picture they are operating in. Very human though. And it seems very football-fan-like.

I do it, you do it - we all do it. Sometimes it would be better to just shut the f**k up and stop criticizing others. 🤣

Just now, terraloon said:

You are at it yet again.

Here’s what I said

“Do you actually know any of the directors? I do .The person in question isn’t diabolical he is an incredibly intelligent and generous person. One thing he ain’t is diabolical.”

I give you this additional snippet the person in question and I had numerous conversations at games them being two rows behind me . I was introduced to them and had several conversations with them I can say without any doubt they won’t

Here’s what the common explanation of what is meant when you say you know someone

When you say you "know someone", it generally means you have some level of familiarity or acquaintance with that person, but the depth of that knowledge can vary greatly. It could range from simply knowing their name and recognizing them to having a deeper understanding of their personality, motivations, and experiences. 

Here's a breakdown of what it can mean to "know someone":

1. Acquaintance: This is the most basic level of knowing someone. It might involve: 

• Knowing their name and maybe a few basic details about them.

• Having brief interactions, like small talk or casual conversations.

• Being able to recognize them in public.

37 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

That’s fair comment

It would be if I said that but I didn’t !

1 minute ago, terraloon said:

It would be if I said that but I didn’t !

Crikey, how did i get here 😅

34 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Crikey, how did i get here 😅

We've been infiltrated by the BlueCo PR machine and you have been identified as someone in need of "re-education" !

Badge of Honour if you ask me LOL

Edited June 14, 20251 yr by Sexyfootball

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

.The person in question isn’t diabolical he is an incredibly intelligent and generous person. One thing he ain’t is diabolical.”

Do you even know what diabolical means?

Do you ?

Perfectly apt word seeing as the majority of posters on here think S&W are both absolutely crap !

We could always change the thread title to one of the synonyms LOL

• Our very bad directors

• Our poor directors

• Our dreadful directors

• Our awful directors

• Our terrible directors

• Our frightful directors

40 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Do you ?

Perfectly apt word seeing as the majority of posters on here think S&W are both absolutely crap !

We could always change the thread title to one of the synonyms LOL

• Our very bad directors

• Our poor directors

• Our dreadful directors

• Our awful directors

• Our terrible directors

• Our frightful directors

I don't. Too early to judge.

56 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Do you ?

Perfectly apt word seeing as the majority of posters on here think S&W are both absolutely crap !

We could always change the thread title to one of the synonyms LOL

• Our very bad directors

• Our poor directors

• Our dreadful directors

• Our awful directors

• Our terrible directors

• Our frightful directors

So here’s our directors names

Todd Boehly (Chair)

Behdad Eghbali 

Jose E. Feliciano 

Mark Walter 

Hansjorg Wyss

Jonathan Goldstein

Barbara Charone

Lord Daniel Finkelstein, OBE

James Pade

David Barnard

Tell me say just 4 of them what makes them fit your description of diabolical

On 13/06/2025 at 14:09, terraloon said:

I am perfectly aware that you dint start the thread. I said that you took the of thread title wade in with negativity.

As for which director I certainly am not going to identify which one but again you are not reading what was said. I certainly didn’t say I was his mate but again you join up the dots incorrectly.

Was Sanchez bought to improve the squad ( to be fair I don’t think he has) what about Cucerella or what about Cacedio, how about Enzo or Palmer? Then let’s talk abut Neto or Tosin or how about Nunkuku and maybe even Fernandez. Do you really believe any of these were purchased without the intention of improving the squad?

Have we walked away from Gittens or Maignan? Think you have missed the reason why the club in the first mini window didn’t sign the players. Will they sign ? Who knows at this point in time

Petrovic made the call not to go to the club WC . He created a major issue when he sold his IR but when a player says he wants to be guaranteed a starter which seems to be the case what would you do?

Petrovic actually said he SHOULD start as number 1 (and if he isnt any good then he should be dropped), unlike Sanchez who was dislodged by Petrovic under Poch, BUT then sent away by Mascara because he said he couldnt play with his feet! well how did that work out?

Remember Sanchez started as number 1 and then after countless cock ups was dropped, with Mascara then stating "JORGENSEN IS MY NUMBER 1"

Only for Mascara to do a u turn a couple of games later and state "Sanchez is my number 1"

petrovic is better then both of them (and knows it), does Mascara pick the team?

3 hours ago, Clown Lake said:

The argument that the squad being "bloat" during the Roman era is disavowed by the modern squad's size is a misunderstanding of what "bloat" actually implied in the circumstances. During Abramovich, the problem wasn’t the quantity of players, but the paucity of long-term value, coherence, and sell-on value. The squad was riddled with expensive veterans and duplicate options who bore little relation to the long-term game plan. The larger modern squad is undoubtedly bloated, but it's young, modular, and geared for development. The average age has plummeted. This makes a difference. To have a 22-year-old reserve winger on low wages who can develop to three times his value down the line is very different from having a 31-year-old striker on £200k a week whom you simply can't sell on. The rebuild wasn't about decreasing for the sake of decreasing—it was about rebalancing for the future. On whether the team needed an overhaul or a couple of “select” substitutions, that argument only makes sense if your aim is patching over holes rather than redesigning the structure. Yes, Azpi could've had one more season. But leaders do break down, and keeping them on the pitch slows down transition. Rüdiger and Christensen had already departed; Kante had injury issues. Relying on what remained of the Abramovich squad would've merely stopped the inevitable. Aubameyang was indeed a misfire under the new regime—one of a series of errors they're not immune to—but he was a short-term stopgap in the chaotic post-Tuchel early stages, not the symbol of the long-term project. One error does not disprove the plan; that makes the point about the mayhem of a hasty managerial handover and an adapting internal regime. The Enzo argument falls into the usual trap of neglecting market context. Chelsea paid his release fee—no one made Benfica haggle below that. Was it expensive? Yes. But high-end players, particularly those newly emerged from a World Cup, always come with a price tag. To flatly state "he cost £60m" disregards the fact that transfer valuations change with time, with market conditions, with the level of competition. What does concern us now is that Enzo has established himself as a keystone of the midfield—not perfect, not always played in his optimal position, but adapting into the setup. As for him being played as an eight—this says as much about the shifting tactics of successive managers as about his inherent profile. Long-range passing, tight control, the linkage of defence and attack continue to be his core qualities that will only become clearer as the setup around him stabilises. Concerning Robert Sánchez, it's simple to sneer in hindsight after a shaky season, but hindsight isn't analysis. Chelsea had to have a Premier League-proven goalkeeper when both Mendy and Kepa left, and Petrovic was a league unknown, Jorgensen untested. Sánchez, for the price and youth, was a homegrown, relatively cheap choice. He might not become Chelsea's long-term No. 1, but the reasoning for that signing in the moment was good. Teams will always require their transitional pieces during rebuilds, and not every signing made will last for a decade as a starter. To argue that his simple purchase negates the rest of the plan isn't shallow—it's reductionist. The Caicedo saga itself is misunderstood. It's not the case that Chelsea had the deal "tied up" before Liverpool jumped in. Brighton played both parties expertly, and Liverpool made an offer that prompted Chelsea to match and then beat. Chelsea's recruitment unit stuck to their target, and they won over the player's choice despite being outbid for a short time. That isn't having your "pants pulled down" – that's standing firm on a priority signing under market pressure. Caicedo has since displayed exactly why the club bought him: his defensive statistics, carries that move the game forward, and ball-winning data for his age group are elite. It's not the price tag itself; it's buying generational midfield quality in a thin market. Palmer being called "pure luck" shows a basic misunderstanding of the elite scouting process. Was his meteoric ascent predicted on this level? Not probably. This, though, is what intelligent recruitment does—finds the underused elsewhere and gambles on the ceiling. This was the same with Riyad Mahrez from Leicester or Dele Alli from MK Dons. If we call every breakout star "luck," we rob football of its strategic complexity. The reality that Palmer worked out so incredibly isn't evidence that it happened by chance—it's evidence that Chelsea's scouting operation noticed something that City didn't deem important. That's a success. And as for the argument that Chelsea shouldn’t “aspire to be a selling club" such as Red Bull or that Man City never bet on youth—neither of these claims holds water. Red Bull's model has created Champions League-quality players and made money on the pitch after performing some of the highest-intensity football in several leagues. City, meanwhile, completely nurtured young stars—Foden the stand-out example—and consistently employed under-23 signings with the aim of molding them into world-class performers (Sané, Jesus, Rodri, etc.). The idea isn’t to emulate Red Bull or City—or to become either of them—it’s to take what they’re doing and translate that on Chelsea's scope and ambitions The Courtois comparison isn't fair. He played two complete seasons with Atlético Madrid and was one of the La Liga's standout goalkeepers before he went back to Chelsea. That's quite contrary to Petrovic's one season—not two—at New England followed by being thrust into the Premier League. Developmental timelines count. To equate the two disregards simple differences in experience, level of competition, and strategic timing. While Sánchez might have been awarded a No. 1 jersey last summer, that choice already changed. If anything, that indicates the club will change direction as performances go—rather than stubbornly adhere to decisions for ego's sake. Last but not least, being a "bootlicker" for seeing a long-term strategy is anti-intellectual and dismissive. No one is calling for fans to roll over and swallow poor performances sight unseen. Criticism is warranted—albeit on the basis of facts, not frustration. Having a strategy does not imply perfection—it implies that the club no longer exists on a merry-go-round of one manager followed by the next without purpose. After years of success predicated on short-term thinking, Chelsea's finally trying to construct something that will last. It may not always be tidy, and may not always be popular, but to call it idiotic or arrogant is to deny any subtle understanding of project management, squad development, and football as an organic, living ecosystem. In short, frustration from fans during an unstable time is to be expected, but most of the attacks in this response are emotionally reactive and shaky facts.

I honestly cba, this is a forum not your diary. Keep it short and concise. I'll reply in the morning when i can be arsed to read this waffle.

3 hours ago, terraloon said:

You are at it yet again.

Here’s what I said

“Do you actually know any of the directors? I do .The person in question isn’t diabolical he is an incredibly intelligent and generous person. One thing he ain’t is diabolical.”

Do you even know what diabolical means?

I give you this additional snippet the person in question and I had numerous conversations at games them being two rows behind me . I was introduced to them and despite me and them having those conversations I can say without almost without any doubt they won’t remember me but I do them.

So you don't know them then. Glad that's cleared up. You've had a couple of conversations in the public eye and they've been pleasant to you out of politeness to the fans.

You have as much idea about what they're like behind closed doors than any of us do. I met Joey Barton once at a football presentation and he was lovely, think we'd all agree he's a complete c**t in real life. You have absolutely no idea about their level on intelligence and you have no idea how generous they are, not to mention these are two traits they could easily possess and still be diabolical (not sure why you're so hung up on that word).

32 minutes ago, Caps_Lock_King said:

Petrovic actually said he SHOULD start as number 1 (and if he isnt any good then he should be dropped), unlike Sanchez who was dislodged by Petrovic under Poch, BUT then sent away by Mascara because he said he couldnt play with his feet! well how did that work out?

Remember Sanchez started as number 1 and then after countless cock ups was dropped, with Mascara then stating "JORGENSEN IS MY NUMBER 1"

Only for Mascara to do a u turn a couple of games later and state "Sanchez is my number 1"

petrovic is better then both of them (and knows it), does Mascara pick the team?

Sanchez was dislodged in 23/24 because he was injured in total for 141 days missing 27 games

Robert Sánchez - Injury history...

Robert Sánchez - Injury history

Yes Meresca did say that at that point Jorgensen was his number one but you miss the last bit of the quote where he added”"I said that the Filip solution [against West Ham] was also to give Robert some time to recover mentally and physically," the Blues boss said.”

Please don’t think for one second do I think Sánchez should be anywhere close to being our first choice keeper, although there were major improvements toward the end on 24/25.

But having a keeper that try’s to dictate and then asks to be left out of a squad isn’t the actions of a professional and inevitably was t going to go down well

49 minutes ago, terraloon said:

So here’s our directors names

Todd Boehly (Chair)

Behdad Eghbali 

Jose E. Feliciano 

Mark Walter 

Hansjorg Wyss

Jonathan Goldstein

Barbara Charone

Lord Daniel Finkelstein, OBE

James Pade

David Barnard

Tell me say just 4 of them what makes them fit your description of diabolical

This thread is aimed at the Sporting Directors Winstanley and Stewart, as is blindingly obvious if you re-read all the posts from the beginning ...

2 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Sanchez was dislodged in 23/24 because he was injured in total for 141 days missing 27 games

Robert Sánchez - Injury history...

Robert Sánchez - Injury history

Yes Meresca did say that at that point Jorgensen was his number one but you miss the last bit of the quote where he added”"I said that the Filip solution [against West Ham] was also to give Robert some time to recover mentally and physically," the Blues boss said.”

Please don’t think for one second do I think Sánchez should be anywhere close to being our first choice keeper, although there were major improvements toward the end on 24/25.

But having a keeper that try’s to dictate and then asks to be left out of a squad isn’t the actions of a professional and inevitably was t going to go down well

No surprise that our form improved significantly once Sanchez was dropped/injured and Petrovic was number one

Just now, Sexyfootball said:

This thread is aimed at the Sporting Directors Winstanley and Stewart, as is blindingly obvious if you re-read all the posts from the beginning ...

Yeah but one of the other ones said hello to him once in the stands so now he has to white knight for them and let everyone know he knows them

16 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

I honestly cba, this is a forum not your diary. Keep it short and concise. I'll reply in the morning when i can be arsed to read this waffle.

The waffle is the posts and digs you're taking at others. Glad to see you run away because you cant be "arsed", proving you are here to trigger others and add nothing but bitterness and negativity.

2 minutes ago, Clown Lake said:

The waffle is the posts and digs you're taking at others. Glad to see you run away because you cant be "arsed", proving you are here to trigger others and add nothing but bitterness and negativity.

it's midnight, i don't have time to read your 1500+ word essay. If i submitted that at university the lecturer would expect two weeks to grade it.

It won't take me that long because its mostly bo**ocks that is easy to counter, i just respect my sleep more than i ever will you.

we'll chat tomorrow, try not to suffocate between Clearlake's arse cheeks before i wake up x

2 minutes ago, Clown Lake said:

The waffle is the posts and digs you're taking at others. Glad to see you run away because you cant be "arsed", proving you are here to trigger others and add nothing but bitterness and negativity.

Honestly he has a point.

A wall of text is really awkward to read if it isn't broken up with paragraphs, headings, white space, etc etc.

6 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

it's midnight, i don't have time to read your 1500+ word essay. If i submitted that at university the lecturer would expect two weeks to grade it.

It won't take me that long because its mostly bo**ocks that is easy to counter, i just respect my sleep more than i ever will you.

we'll chat tomorrow, try not to suffocate between Clearlake's arse cheeks before i wake up x

Very mature.

5 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Honestly he has a point.

A wall of text is really awkward to read if it isn't broken up with paragraphs, headings, white space, etc etc.

This was not his complaint, he just can't be "arsed" or bothered. I'll keep your comment in mind next time, however that was not the issue. I expected your response to be honest :)

10 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

This thread is aimed at the Sporting Directors Winstanley and Stewart, as is blindingly obvious if you re-read all the posts from the beginning ...

Is it ? Only the one that created the thread will know the answer to that question but a little tip if that’s what they did mean they should have said Sporting Directors. Others I agree have taken that way but I would suggest that UB refers them as being a”BUNCH of C**TS” not a pair but a bunch that to me suggests it’s more than two

The debate for me suggests it wasn’t confined to just the SD is that Interesting because many of the players talked about as being terrible signings were actually made before one or both of them turned up !