3 minutes ago, venom2011 said:

Their current status is irrelevant. They are good buys based on their quality, potential and cost. Also, that supposed brief is not accurate and I'm saying that as someone without any loyalty to the ownership group. You cannot sign the very best young talents with the wage structure we have. You're also competing against the biggest clubs in the world as all squads swing towards younger demos. The model greatly intrigued me because of the potential to compete without having the revenue streams of Man Utd, Liverpool etc. But whether they could build a Brighton 2.0 that could challenge for top honours was the big question.

I'd also argue this team is a fair bit closer to the title than the one they inherited. We have 4 players who are world class. And a couple who could join them with the right development and some luck. The 2022 squad was dire.

That squad got 74 points despite the club getting sanctioned and all the circus that surrounded us. Dont see us getting 74 this season.

Their current status does matter, we arent sending them out on loan, they are expected to play a role in a top 4 team now.

This isnt fifa, just because you buy a player that has a high ceiling, it doesnt mean they will reach that level, especially when the environment is not ideal.

This approach works at Brighton because there is no pressure to perfom, and players are not coming in with massive transfers fees to live up to.

It also works at Brighton and the likes, because young players are gradually learning off senior pros, coming in and out of the team. If they struggle there is no issue loaning them out.

You hit the nail on the head though, we cannot sign the best young players with the wage struture we have. This is the big point.

Why didnt we spend £500m less on transfer fees, and target the better players but with a higher wage structure? Why cant we secure a fos sponsor that wouldve incresed the revenue and allowed for more wages?

We are a contridiction. You cant spend over £200m on Caicedo and Enzo, then pull out of signing Osimhen over what proabably amounts to £10m over 5 years. You cant give a squad that has cost a £1b to rookie managers with no track record of success.

This approach is not succeeding, and i dont have any faith that it will.

10 hours ago, big blue said:

That squad got 74 points despite the club getting sanctioned and all the circus that surrounded us. Dont see us getting 74 this season.

Their current status does matter, we arent sending them out on loan, they are expected to play a role in a top 4 team now.

This isnt fifa, just because you buy a player that has a high ceiling, it doesnt mean they will reach that level, especially when the environment is not ideal.

This approach works at Brighton because there is no pressure to perfom, and players are not coming in with massive transfers fees to live up to.

It also works at Brighton and the likes, because young players are gradually learning off senior pros, coming in and out of the team. If they struggle there is no issue loaning them out.

You hit the nail on the head though, we cannot sign the best young players with the wage struture we have. This is the big point.

Why didnt we spend £500m less on transfer fees, and target the better players but with a higher wage structure? Why cant we secure a fos sponsor that wouldve incresed the revenue and allowed for more wages?

We are a contridiction. You cant spend over £200m on Caicedo and Enzo, then pull out of signing Osimhen over what proabably amounts to £10m over 5 years. You cant give a squad that has cost a £1b to rookie managers with no track record of success.

This approach is not succeeding, and i dont have any faith that it will.

Does it matter that Estevao is a €50m squad player? No. He is a fantastic purchase. You judge on current ability, potential, and fit - not your expectations being met.

Im sure everyone is well aware of why the Brighton approach works at Brighton - again an irrelevant argument. This model, while having similarities, is tweaked. Brighton don't spend 100m on a Caicedo.

Why don't we spend 500m of the transfer budget on an inflated wage structure? Here you go:

1. We rank 5th in revenue (PL teams). With the PSR reality, we are already more restricted.

2. Given the above, Osimhen not working for us is a lot worse than Osimhen not working at Man Utd where the PSR hit can be more easily absorbed.

3. You pay Osimhen 275k a week, Palmer wants that, Caicedo wants that etc etc - and rightfully so. Suddenly 25% of your wage structure increase is absorbed internally at no additional benefit to the club.

4. Teams who spend more on wages don't bat a higher average of player success. We saw this first-hand under Roman. So if you took at arbitrary success rate of 30%, you are really chaining yourself at high wage structures.

5. What you are seeing now has never been done before. You are welcome to your opinion and of course not be in favour of the model, but you do not have presedence to call upon.

6. Chelsea's competitive advantage in bridging revenue/PSR gaps has always been player trading. We had a high volume loan system and sold exceptionally well pre Blueco. This model doubles down on that.

7. Lastly, functionally - a lot of what they're doing is the best way to do it given our situation. Being able to easily rid yourself of Garnacho and Delap next season is a strength. That's not to say there aren't problems or mistakes being made. We sure could use a smattering of quality in key areas to push us up another level. Wharton, Guehi, and hell - bringing in both Emegha and Panichelli next season would require no wage structure adjustments

36 minutes ago, venom2011 said:

Does it matter that Estevao is a €50m squad player? No. He is a fantastic purchase. You judge on current ability, potential, and fit - not your expectations being met.

Im sure everyone is well aware of why the Brighton approach works at Brighton - again an irrelevant argument. This model, while having similarities, is tweaked. Brighton don't spend 100m on a Caicedo.

Why don't we spend 500m of the transfer budget on an inflated wage structure? Here you go:

1. We rank 5th in revenue (PL teams). With the PSR reality, we are already more restricted.

2. Given the above, Osimhen not working for us is a lot worse than Osimhen not working at Man Utd where the PSR hit can be more easily absorbed.

3. You pay Osimhen 275k a week, Palmer wants that, Caicedo wants that etc etc - and rightfully so. Suddenly 25% of your wage structure increase is absorbed internally at no additional benefit to the club.

4. Teams who spend more on wages don't bat a higher average of player success. We saw this first-hand under Roman. So if you took at arbitrary success rate of 30%, you are really chaining yourself at high wage structures.

5. What you are seeing now has never been done before. You are welcome to your opinion and of course not be in favour of the model, but you do not have presedence to call upon.

6. Chelsea's competitive advantage in bridging revenue/PSR gaps has always been player trading. We had a high volume loan system and sold exceptionally well pre Blueco. This model doubles down on that.

7. Lastly, functionally - a lot of what they're doing is the best way to do it given our situation. Being able to easily rid yourself of Garnacho and Delap next season is a strength. That's not to say there aren't problems or mistakes being made. We sure could use a smattering of quality in key areas to push us up another level. Wharton, Guehi, and hell - bringing in both Emegha and Panichelli next season would require no wage structure adjustments

Where are you getting £275K a week for Osimhen from ?

According to Capology he earns €144K per week at Galatasaray. There was definitely a deal that could have been done for Osimhen that fit our wage model. £108K a week for Gittens; £100K a week for Garnacho. Don't sign either of those, have Sterling and George as the LW options who are already on the books, and hey presto plenty in the tank for a signing like Osimhen.

Re point 7 : if we'd never signed dross like Garnacho and Delap in the first place, we wouldn't need to get rid of them LOL. Sort of like shooting your foot off and complementing yourself for being a good shot and knowing the way to the hospital ...

16 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Where are you getting £275K a week for Osimhen from ?

According to Capology he earns €144K per week at Galatasaray. There was definitely a deal that could have been done for Osimhen that fit our wage model. £108K a week for Gittens; £100K a week for Garnacho. Don't sign either of those, have Sterling and George as the LW options who are already on the books, and hey presto plenty in the tank for a signing like Osimhen.

Re point 7 : if we'd never signed dross like Garnacho and Delap in the first place, we wouldn't need to get rid of them LOL. Sort of like shooting your foot off and complementing yourself for being a good shot and knowing the way to the hospital ...

Firstly, If you can show us where Osimhen earns €144K gross, even on Capology, I'll send you an I <3 Enzo Maresca t-shirt. Even net, as 20% tax on his £340k/week wage gets him £272k.

Secondly, his wage at Gala is irrelevant. The move would have been Napoli - Chelsea and you think a player is taking a 50% wage cut in a big transfer to Chelsea?

Half of City's higher-wage signings since '23 have been dross as well. In a muppet's head every big signing that never happened would've been a success. Without cooking the books do you think they could easily cover those cracks with a Semenyo signing?

But hey...presto...

15 minutes ago, venom2011 said:

Firstly, If you can show us where Osimhen earns €144K gross, even on Capology, I'll send you an I <3 Enzo Maresca t-shirt. Even net, as 20% tax on his £340k/week wage gets him £272k.

Secondly, his wage at Gala is irrelevant. The move would have been Napoli - Chelsea and you think a player is taking a 50% wage cut in a big transfer to Chelsea?

Half of City's higher-wage signings since '23 have been dross as well. In a muppet's head every big signing that never happened would've been a success. Without cooking the books do you think they could easily cover those cracks with a Semenyo signing?

But hey...presto...

Sorry my mistake - looked at wrong season (24/25) for Osimhen on Capology.

THIS is the owner's opinion of them...vvv

"Chelsea rewards recruitment team with long-term contracts

ca.sports.yahoo.com — August 14, 2025 at 05:01 PM GM

Chelsea has extended long-term contracts for its recruitment leadership team following last season's success.

Co-sporting directors Paul Winstanley and Laurence Stewart, along with recruitment chiefs Joe Shields and Sam Jewell, received six-year deals until 2031. These performance-based contracts mirror player and coaching agreements.

The quartet's extensions reflect confidence in their strategy, which has seen significant investment and the acquisition of promising young talent, contributing to the club's recent Champions League qualification and cup victories.

19 hours ago, big blue said:

Some good signings, alot of really poor signings.

Is it the SD's or owners that have put the wage cap and age restrictions on?

Hard to know who to blame for what. Eghbali seems to be very involved, is he the one driving all this?

Osimhen, Olise, Hujsen, Neves, Cherki, Barcola, Ekitike, Woltemade, Hincapie, Wirtz, Bellingham, Doue, Donnarumma, Pacho, Kvaraskhelia, Pacho, Alvarez, Guler, Garcia, Gravenberch, Mastantuono, Tonali, Isak.

All those players are or were 25 under and have moved to other clubs in the time frame that these sporting directors have been in charge.

So when the whole model is suppose to buying the best young talent in the world, it doesnt seem to be quite hitting the brief, if it was then another 4/5 of these players would be in the squad.

I think the wage bill is far more important for whatever masterplan they have in mind, so they'd probably pass on anyone who demands more than what they're willing to offer.

Plus, they've spent so much money on sh*t it reached a point where now they've got resctrictions on spending. That's why they missed out on Simons and are not planning to make any January signings.

It's just one big stinky mess.

Edited January 2Jan 2 by abramovich

2 hours ago, venom2011 said:

Chelsea's competitive advantage in bridging revenue/PSR gaps has always been player trading. We had a high volume loan system and sold exceptionally well pre Blueco. This model doubles down on that.

You do realise that we have gone from having no debt at all to our holding companies carrying over £1 billion debt mostly due to our current player trading policy?

Even taking into account player sales we are roughly £600 million in debt from player trading alone

The PSR gaps you mentioned were not bridged by player trading.

They were bridged by selling hotels and the women's team to ourselves along with handing out long extended contracts to amortise the cost of the fees we were paying for the players we were buying

There's a very good reason that this BlueCo model hasn't been tried before , "hoping" it "might" work isn't the gamble that our club should be involved in .

Edited January 2Jan 2 by The Rising Sun
Information

18 hours ago, venom2011 said:

Their current status is irrelevant. They are good buys based on their quality, potential and cost. Also, that supposed brief is not accurate and I'm saying that as someone without any loyalty to the ownership group. You cannot sign the very best young talents with the wage structure we have. You're also competing against the biggest clubs in the world as all squads swing towards younger demos. The model greatly intrigued me because of the potential to compete without having the revenue streams of Man Utd, Liverpool etc. But whether they could build a Brighton 2.0 that could challenge for top honours was the big question.

I'd also argue this team is a fair bit closer to the title than the one they inherited. We have 4 players who are world class - I'd actually argue 5 if Lavia could stay fit - and a couple who could join them with the right development and some luck. The 2022 squad was dire.

"The 2022 squad was dire ?"

The one that won the club world cup, reached both domestic cup finals only losing both on penalties, beat but were knocked out of the CL by Real Madrid, finished in the top 4 , with a manager who we won the Champions League with , all despite playing in the most tumultuous conditions after being sanctioned?

The new owners have actually spent record amounts , and racked up enormous debts.

If you believe we were dire when we were sold, you should be devastated at what we are now.

4 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

"The 2022 squad was dire ?"

The one that won the club world cup, reached both domestic cup finals only losing both on penalties, beat but were knocked out of the CL by Real Madrid, finished in the top 4 , with a manager who we won the Champions League with , all despite playing in the most tumultuous conditions after being sanctioned?

The new owners have actually spent record amounts , and racked up enormous debts.

If you believe we were dire when we were sold, you should be devastated at what we are now.

'with a manager who we won the Champions League with' - that's the be all and end all. Defense was about on par and the heart was ripped out before BlueCo took over, also no Cucurella and an injury prone James. Kante was on his last legs and no one else really holds a candle to the likes of Caicedo, Lavia, and Santos talent-wise. The attack was pathetic and again I'd take Palmer, Neto, Estevao.

8 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

You do realise that we have gone from having no debt at all to our holding companies carrying over £1 billion debt mostly due to our current player trading policy?

Even taking into account player sales we are roughly £600 million in debt from player trading alone

The PSR gaps you mentioned were not bridged by player trading.

They were bridged by selling hotels and the women's team to ourselves along with handing out long extended contracts to amortise the cost of the fees we were paying for the players we were buying

There's a very good reason that this BlueCo model hasn't been tried before , "hoping" it "might" work isn't the gamble that our club should be involved in .

And what? You think any other model would result in less debt? The moment they made a decision to overhaul the squad it was inevitable.

Of course it was bridged in majority through player trading. PSR - and UEFA FFR require player trading as a key driver for balancing - contract amortisation is encompassed and not exclusive.

There are very good reasons why people fear being the first do anything. And you thinking the gamble isn't worth it is irrelevant. The owners are where they are because they dare to try and fail.

11 hours ago, venom2011 said:

And what? You think any other model would result in less debt? The moment they made a decision to overhaul the squad it was inevitable.

Of course it was bridged in majority through player trading. PSR - and UEFA FFR require player trading as a key driver for balancing - contract amortisation is encompassed and not exclusive.

There are very good reasons why people fear being the first do anything. And you thinking the gamble isn't worth it is irrelevant. The owners are where they are because they dare to try and fail.

There is no reason at all to put our club into a situations where we've gone from an elite club to one that is "taking a gamble" ( btw, any idea when that gamble might, maybe, hopefully, fingers crossed, pay off ?)

If they had spent that £1 billion the way we were used to spending, we wouldn't have plummeted down the table and out of Europe, losing millions of CL revenue in the process .

And your " The owners are where they are because they dare to try and fail" is exactly why we are no longer the elite, debt free, football club that they bought.

Edited January 3Jan 3 by The Rising Sun
Information

12 hours ago, venom2011 said:

'with a manager who we won the Champions League with' - that's the be all and end all. Defense was about on par and the heart was ripped out before BlueCo took over, also no Cucurella and an injury prone James. Kante was on his last legs and no one else really holds a candle to the likes of Caicedo, Lavia, and Santos talent-wise. The attack was pathetic and again I'd take Palmer, Neto, Estevao.

You seem to be very pleased with the way we are now , very supportive of our Private Equity investment ownership , and very dismissive and dissatisfied about the old regime. .

That 'pathetic" attack? We were the 3rd highest goal scoring team in the League.

That defence you've dismissed as being inferior? We had the 3rd best defensive goals against in the League..

You must have been delighted when the club was sanctioned and that useless Abramovitch was forced to sell up .

Come on you BLUES!

Edited January 3Jan 3 by The Rising Sun
Info

12 hours ago, venom2011 said:

And what? You think any other model would result in less debt? The moment they made a decision to overhaul the squad it was inevitable.

Of course it was bridged in majority through player trading. PSR - and UEFA FFR require player trading as a key driver for balancing - contract amortisation is encompassed and not exclusive.

There are very good reasons why people fear being the first do anything. And you thinking the gamble isn't worth it is irrelevant. The owners are where they are because they dare to try and fail.

The scum that runs us can dare to try and fail elsewhere - I have no idea where the money that finances them is coming from, and I want them out of the club before they do more damage. They get out now, they still make money. Win win as the Chinese would say.

18 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

You seem to be very pleased with the way we are now , very supportive of our Private Equity investment ownership , and very dismissive and dissatisfied about the old regime. .

That 'pathetic" attack? We were the 3rd highest goal scoring team in the League.

That defence you've dismissed as being inferior? We had the 3rd best defensive goals against in the League..

You must have been delighted when the club was sanctioned and that useless Abramovitch was forced to sell up .

Come on you BLUES!

Actually not at all. I will simply defend what needs to be defended, in any discussion. There are definitely things they've done well, and a lot they haven't. I have zero loyalty or affection for BlueCo - they very much still need to prove their intentions. But that doesn't mean I will bleat like a sheep because it's more acceptable.

9 minutes ago, bluelightening said:

The scum that runs us can dare to try and fail elsewhere - I have no idea where the money that finances them is coming from, and I want them out of the club before they do more damage. They get out now, they still make money. Win win as the Chinese would say.

Understand the frustration. I honestly don't think they've damaged much at all - considering the state of the squad and the club at the time of the takeover. And there are much worse ways it could have gone with different owners. Of course that doesnt mean that you should blindly accept their failures.

The decision to completely overhaul the squad was correct. To change the wage model was correct. To change the transfer policy was correct, given the landscape and club status. To change the club structure was correct. To move to a multi-club model was correct. All of these put us in a better position to be successful going forward compared to where we were. But the implementation of these has so far been a mixed bag and I'm sure most of us can agree on what needs to be changed/tweaked.

Edited January 3Jan 3 by venom2011

6 minutes ago, venom2011 said:

The decision to completely overhaul the squad was correct. To change the wage model was correct. To change the transfer policy was correct, given the landscape and club status. To change the club structure was correct. To move to a multi-club model was correct. All of these put us in a better position to be successful going forward compared to where we were.

In your opinion ...

Oh to be the ‘dire’ champions of Europe again.

I went utter f**king sh*te overall, they have a little bit of credit but not much. The money spent in comparison to the amount of hit signings we have is a disgrace, the managerial appointments have been piss poor, their communication with supporters has been dog sh*t.

24 minutes ago, venom2011 said:

Understand the frustration. I honestly don't think they've damaged much at all - considering the state of the squad and the club at the time of the takeover. And there are much worse ways it could have gone with different owners. Of course that doesnt mean that you should blindly accept their failures.

The decision to completely overhaul the squad was correct. To change the wage model was correct. To change the transfer policy was correct, given the landscape and club status. To change the club structure was correct. To move to a multi-club model was correct. All of these put us in a better position to be successful going forward compared to where we were. But the implementation of these has so far been a mixed bag and I'm sure most of us can agree on what needs to be changed/tweaked.

Football, is about the now. Immediate results, winning trophies. If you thnk the club needed to change that... I cant help you.

I often wear sunglasses looking into the future because of the blinding light of optimism. That light has created a huge shadow over Stamford bridge, 1.5 billion in debt, five managers now in 3 three and a half seasons... Hiring and firing is worse under the new owners - a better way of doing business you say?

Didnt we try the multi club under Roman? the only club doing it correctly is Nottingham forrest. Ask Strasbourg fans what they think of the set up.

WE've spent massive money on players who were injured when we bought them, we've got senior professionals who cant get in the squad, we sold our best youngsters to direct rivals ahead of us in the league.

The change that needs to happen is the owners selling up. Full stop. Exclamation mark. The club has been asset stripped and cant buy players without selling and not sure what the club sells to itself to balance the books this season.

The players who bought into the change of ownership, and have done well wont be here past the summer, we will have to cash out of the casion we were forced into to hand over our money.

Owners out by Summer would be a perfeect scenario

29 minutes ago, venom2011 said:

Actually not at all. I will simply defend what needs to be defended, in any discussion. There are definitely things they've done well, and a lot they haven't. I have zero loyalty or affection for BlueCo - they very much still need to prove their intentions. But that doesn't mean I will bleat like a sheep because it's more acceptable.

Thanks for insulting Chelsea fans by saying "we are bleating like sheep" if we dare to voice criticism of what's happening at our club..

So, If Roman had suddenly announced at the start of a season that he was now going to change the way we did things, and try something that no one else has tried, and was going to "take a gamble" with our club instead, then sacked loads of staff, appointed himself interim Sporting Director, spent over a £1 billion and in the process bombed us down the League table and out of Europe, and told us to forget about the new stadium he promised us, that would have had your approval??

15 minutes ago, C3blue said:

Oh to be the ‘dire’ champions of Europe again.

😂 They were bad times weren't they??

Pure sh*te. Next question.

Poor from me,

would probably translate to a 3/10 which in itself imo probably represents the ratio of successes/signings or maybe I'm being over generous.