9 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

The Media PR briefs are insane. Genuine insanity. Deflecting and flat out lying.

They didn’t get a CB in the summer because Maresca apparently deleveraged their position (so what’s changed now?), they are in the market for an elite CB (yet the only reported names are 20 year olds with less than 50 appearances), and they only loaned Bounanoutte because their preferred attackers weren’t available. (YOU SPENT 2 MONTHS TRYING TO GET SIMONS YET TWERKED FOR GARNACHO!!??).

Strap in lads. We have the true face of BlueCo at the helm now.

Strange the Dodgers have never had a problem spunking money…only this week signed a hitter Kyle Tucker for $240 million for a 4 year contract….another World Series this year no doubt…they certainly buy experience and spend the money to win..Todd has no problem with that…just a problem with Chelsea it seems.

1 hour ago, CFCCAN said:

Strange the Dodgers have never had a problem spunking money…only this week signed a hitter Kyle Tucker for $240 million for a 4 year contract….another World Series this year no doubt…they certainly buy experience and spend the money to win..Todd has no problem with that…just a problem with Chelsea it seems.

It's something I do not get either. European football is all about midfielders and attacking players. They are the most expensive, the highest paid and they bring everything the fans are looking for - entertainment and goals.

This project would have been a successfull one so far had the board thought of mixing things up. Build a solid defence to support young midfielders and attacking players.

It's insane to think players like Palmer and Caicedo will waste their best years waiting for youngsters at the back to grow older enough so they can be trusted with defending properly. Complete lunacy.

1 hour ago, CFCCAN said:

Strange the Dodgers have never had a problem spunking money…only this week signed a hitter Kyle Tucker for $240 million for a 4 year contract….another World Series this year no doubt…they certainly buy experience and spend the money to win..Todd has no problem with that…just a problem with Chelsea it seems.

The SDs has somehow scammed their way into convincing the board that their way works.

Boehly's other sports teams aren't ran as bad as us

The difference to the Dodgers is that we have Clearlake Capital as the majority shareholder, and winning isn't as important to them as "building business value".

Boehly is a bit part player in both organisations as well to be fair ...

Todd would have been much better off buying a club as a sole owner, and within his own personal budget, if he wanted to get into football. I imagine he regrets his involvement with BlueCo with the benefit of hindsight ..

2 hours ago, CFCCAN said:

Strange the Dodgers have never had a problem spunking money…only this week signed a hitter Kyle Tucker for $240 million for a 4 year contract….another World Series this year no doubt…they certainly buy experience and spend the money to win..Todd has no problem with that…just a problem with Chelsea it seems.

The main difference with the ownership of the Dodgers & Chelsea is that Todd is (mainly) in control of the Dodgers, unfortunately at Chelsea the strings are being pulled by that greasy c**t Eghbali & Clearlake. Todd’s input now appears to be minimal hence the lack of presence at games.

2 minutes ago, The Boehly Babes said:

The main difference with the ownership of the Dodgers & Chelsea is that Todd is (mainly) in control of the Dodgers, unfortunately at Chelsea the strings are being pulled by that greasy c**t Eghbali & Clearlake. Todd’s input now appears to be minimal hence the lack of presence at games.

Mark Walter is the chairman and controlling owner of the Dodgers.

Todd is a minority partner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Baseball_Management

Edited January 17Jan 17 by Sexyfootball

11 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Mark Walter is the chairman and controlling owner of the Dodgers.

Todd is a minority partner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Baseball_Management

As he (Boehly) is in case of the ownership of Chelsea.

31% I believe. So what is his purpose here? To act like the face of the ownership solely for PR?

Whatever it may be, I'd like to see Boehly f**k off as much as Clearlake. None of them deserve to be the owner(s) of Chelsea Football Club. The government created a financial monster by selling to this clowns.

With all the money they've 'invested' we could already be competing with the likes of Manchester City and Liverpool and the big European clubs like we USED to. The blueprint was already there when the government forced Roman to sell and they've completely f**ked everything up. It's ridiculously embarrassing because I sh*t you not we're going to be in big trouble over the course of a couple years, competitive AND financially.

On 16/01/2026 at 11:04, Sexyfootball said:

100%. It will be the owners cleaning house of the last bastions of the Roman era. Trev on borrowed time too ... (expecting him to be first out the door when they bring in this new centre back).

Lol it's insane to think the owners would get rid of players because they were here in the Roman era.

James would be sold simply because he has a high wage and would fetch a high transfer fee.

They have zero sentimentality.

3 hours ago, CFCCAN said:

Strange the Dodgers have never had a problem spunking money…only this week signed a hitter Kyle Tucker for $240 million for a 4 year contract….another World Series this year no doubt…they certainly buy experience and spend the money to win..Todd has no problem with that…just a problem with Chelsea it seems.

If Todd was the one making the decisions still we’d be a better place than where we are now. He made mistakes in that first window, but ultimately wants to see us win. Clearlake couldn’t give a sh*t about on field results.

CANT WE JUST SACK HIM NOW

Liam Rosenior on Chelsea owners coming in the dressing room

They were in there (after Arsenal) and I encourage them to keep coming in.

38 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Lol it's insane to think the owners would get rid of players because they were here in the Roman era.

James would be sold simply because he has a high wage and would fetch a high transfer fee.

They have zero sentimentality.

I guess someone hasn't been paying attention to their actions since they bought the club ? They've been systematically cleaning house at every layer of the operation ...

Liam. You don't need tactics !!

2 hours ago, petre ispirescu said:

It's something I do not get either. European football is all about midfielders and attacking players. They are the most expensive, the highest paid and they bring everything the fans are looking for - entertainment and goals.

This project would have been a successfull one so far had the board thought of mixing things up. Build a solid defence to support young midfielders and attacking players.

It's insane to think players like Palmer and Caicedo will waste their best years waiting for youngsters at the back to grow older enough so they can be trusted with defending properly. Complete lunacy.

True. But Palmer certainly won't waste his best years. He has shown by leaving City and ignoring Pep's advice to stay longer, that he is determined to get the best for himself.

Before summer this clown will be gone and an other one coming in.

47 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

I guess someone hasn't been paying attention to their actions since they bought the club ? They've been systematically cleaning house at every layer of the operation ...

That's not the same though is it.

They've not chopped any "Roman" players we wish they hadn't. James will only go if it makes "financial sense", same with Palmer. It has nothing to do with when they arrived.

I’d argue if they had left Romans last team ( European champions) and supported it with the academy Roman built we’d be better off.

Instead they spent a billion to take us to mid table…..shocking.

Before Roman, we weren't particularly successful, the odd cup here and there, usually around 6th-8th place. Then we got a taste of success. Now it's gone again. Perhaps this is just the norm and we've returned to where we are supposed to be. Not every successful team stays successful forever.

14 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

I'm sure our players will love that and welcome the Beloved Leaders with open arms!

7 minutes ago, Valerie said:

I'm sure our players will love that and welcome the Beloved Leaders with open arms!

The more the merrier as they say. It is more fun with more people

14 minutes ago, Zeta said:

Before Roman, we weren't particularly successful, the odd cup here and there, usually around 6th-8th place. Then we got a taste of success. Now it's gone again. Perhaps this is just the norm and we've returned to where we are supposed to be. Not every successful team stays successful forever.

That 20 year period of success with Roman, plus the 10 year top 6 success before him is enough to instill winning dna into a club. I believe it is still there but the owners have well and truly set us back with the one thing every club needs to win.....money! How they've done the reverse just gives me a headache. No club or sports team in history I can think of has gone backwards by spending so much.

41 minutes ago, Zeta said:

Before Roman, we weren't particularly successful, the odd cup here and there, usually around 6th-8th place. Then we got a taste of success. Now it's gone again. Perhaps this is just the norm and we've returned to where we are supposed to be. Not every successful team stays successful forever.

44 minutes ago, Zeta said:

Before Roman, we weren't particularly successful, the odd cup here and there, usually around 6th-8th place. Then we got a taste of success. Now it's gone again. Perhaps this is just the norm and we've returned to where we are supposed to be. Not

They carried on spending and more in the way Roman did. . Our fall wasn't inevitable.

This is the club they bought vvv

Chelsea's triumph in 2021 solidified their status as one of the top clubs in European football, adding to their previous Champions League win in 2012.

54 minutes ago, Zeta said:

Before Roman, we weren't particularly successful, the odd cup here and there, usually around 6th-8th place. Then we got a taste of success. Now it's gone again. Perhaps this is just the norm and we've returned to where we are supposed to be. Not every successful team stays successful forever.

Chelsea won their first European trophy, the Cup Winners' Cup, in 1971 and again in 1998, while Arsenal had not won any European trophies before the Abramovich era. Therefore, Chelsea had more European success than Arsenal during that time.

a

Hate to be a doomer but we got extremely lucky there

13 minutes ago, Drogba1 said:

Hate to be a doomer but we got extremely lucky there

All that matters at this early stage of his reign are wins. It's too early to be focusing on tactics.

Edited January 17Jan 17 by Remodez