Currently, I am planning to attend. If anyone else from here is going, we could maybe organise to meet up or something? Let me know if you're going to be there.

24 minutes ago, Zeta said:

Currently, I am planning to attend. If anyone else from here is going, we could maybe organise to meet up or something? Let me know if you're going to be there.

That statement is littered with some of the most daft and entitled sh*te I've ever seen. And of course bits of truth that we can all agree with. I hope it goes well for whoever joins because if I were the board I'd toss that straight in the bin.

Edited January 9Jan 9 by venom2011

They'll ignore it, regardless. But as fans if we're not happy with the way the club is being run, we should at least try and do something, even if it is pointless in the end.

Please no we hate Tottenham chants and selfies like last time.

If it’s anything like the away fans at Fulham, it’ll be great.

@loz @Mod pin please.

4 hours ago, venom2011 said:

That statement is littered with some of the most daft and entitled sh*te I've ever seen. And of course bits of truth that we can all agree with. I hope it goes well for whoever joins because if I were the board I'd toss that straight in the bin.

We have no entitlement to win, nobody does.

We have an entitlement to be run as both a business and football club/team, not as a means to only line Clearlake pockets.

Jose Feliciano made it clear from early on, has just taken so long for the fruit to be seen.

"It is more important to build business value than win or lose on the field"

What they have shown is winning and losing does not matter, only building business value.

7 hours ago, Zeta said:

They'll ignore it, regardless. But as fans if we're not happy with the way the club is being run, we should at least try and do something, even if it is pointless in the end.

Yeah I think the point of it is to just make the owners look as bad as possible, the more discontent from the fans the worse it looks to their investors, the people that Eghbali etc really care about.

5 hours ago, axman2526 said:

We have no entitlement to win, nobody does.

We have an entitlement to be run as both a business and football club/team, not as a means to only line Clearlake pockets.

Jose Feliciano made it clear from early on, has just taken so long for the fruit to be seen.

"It is more important to build business value than win or lose on the field"

What they have shown is winning and losing does not matter, only building business value.

I agree, Chelsea FC should be run like a sound business and football club. And there is zero evidence that it's being used only to line Clearlake's pockets. Whatever you think of the ownership group, it comprises best-in-class businessmen. They are not morons, despite what anyone sitting on their stained sofa and chatting on a forum says. Only a moron spends 100m on Caicedo and Enzo if their clear goal is to line their own pockets. Look at how differently Clearlake and The Glazers operate.

Feliciano's quote was in the context of building record levels of revenue and he is very much correct. To get Chelsea to match Europe's elite, they need to build a sustainable business that can increase value, and this IS more important than day-to-day match results especially in the short-term. If the goal was just to win, it would firstly be a foolish goal; and secondly it would inevitably lead to unsustainable decision-making given the current climate.

What they have shown is that winning comes second to sustainability goals (for now) and that's fine. Chelsea are currently closer to being a club that sees stable success than at anytime under Roman. We're not there, mistakes have been made and were inevitable, but Roman always had the luxury of papering over cracks with expensive short-term solutions.

The fact that they ignored the bitching and moaning, never hired someone like Zidane to truly muddy the waters even though it would appease some - that actually impressed me.

30 minutes ago, venom2011 said:

What they have shown is that winning comes second to sustainability goals (for now) and that's fine. Chelsea are currently closer to being a club that sees stable success than at anytime under Roman. We're not there, mistakes have been made and were inevitable, but Roman always had the luxury of papering over cracks with expensive short-term solutions.

Chelsea under Roman:

2 x Champions Leagues

5 x Premier Leagues

5 x FA Cups

2 x Europa Leagues

1 x Club World Cup

Average Premier League position of 3.66

Chelsea under Clearlake

1 x Europa Conference League

1 x Club World Cup

Average Premier League position of 7.33

Please explain this stable success? What is success? Not being liquidated? Not being relegated? Being an ‘also ran’?

Well now that legitimately surprises me.

I completely disagree with you Venom.

5 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Well now that legitimately surprises me.

I completely disagree with you Venom.

Nothing wrong with that 😃. If you'd like to elaborate I'm all ears.

Looks like we have an early contender for comedy post of the year for the 2026 Shed End awards !

9 hours ago, The Boehly Babes said:

Chelsea under Roman:

2 x Champions Leagues

5 x Premier Leagues

5 x FA Cups

2 x Europa Leagues

1 x Club World Cup

Average Premier League position of 3.66

Chelsea under Clearlake

1 x Europa Conference League

1 x Club World Cup

Average Premier League position of 7.33

Please explain this stable success? What is success? Not being liquidated? Not being relegated? Being an ‘also ran’?

What do you think this achieves by showing trophy hauls of essentially two different clubs, existing in different climates and rulesets, and with about 15 years difference in tenure?

Stable success is the ability to challenge for highest honours consistently (and win) while working within the means of the club. This includes adhering to governing body regulations and financial controls.

Spending frivolous amounts of money on players without resale value, putting them on big contracts, having to paper over cracks consistenly, and doing under-the-table payments to get deals over the line is not that. Winning the league and then bombing out for 3 years with an experienced, expensive squad is not that. If Roman bought Chelsea today, a lot of what he'd do would be similar to Clearlake.

This club is currently run to a debt that it didn’t have under Roman, before he erased the debt. And they’ve sank the value of the club with their idiotic decisions of taking us to being a midtable team. We’re under investigation and possibly transfer ban due to the stupid amount of money spent by this idiots on dross. This brilliant minds haven’t been able to get a FOS sponsor deal and they’ve let pass the best opportunity to relocate Stamford Bridge to Earle’s Court, thereby passing on the increase of ticket revenue. These “best-in-class businessmen” are showing really how Americans can do it better in European football, we’re just a bunch of know nothings that can’t see the real value of the process.

Well, all I can say is “f**k them”. Get out of this Club!

13 hours ago, venom2011 said:

I agree, Chelsea FC should be run like a sound business and football club. And there is zero evidence that it's being used only to line Clearlake's pockets. Whatever you think of the ownership group, it comprises best-in-class businessmen. They are not morons, despite what anyone sitting on their stained sofa and chatting on a forum says. Only a moron spends 100m on Caicedo and Enzo if their clear goal is to line their own pockets. Look at how differently Clearlake and The Glazers operate.

Feliciano's quote was in the context of building record levels of revenue and he is very much correct. To get Chelsea to match Europe's elite, they need to build a sustainable business that can increase value, and this IS more important than day-to-day match results especially in the short-term. If the goal was just to win, it would firstly be a foolish goal; and secondly it would inevitably lead to unsustainable decision-making given the current climate.

What they have shown is that winning comes second to sustainability goals (for now) and that's fine. Chelsea are currently closer to being a club that sees stable success than at anytime under Roman. We're not there, mistakes have been made and were inevitable, but Roman always had the luxury of papering over cracks with expensive short-term solutions.

The fact that they ignored the bitching and moaning, never hired someone like Zidane to truly muddy the waters even though it would appease some - that actually impressed me.

Only a moron spends 100m on Enzo, 80m on Mudryk and 60m on Gittens if their goal is success and to build revenue.

" They are not morons, despite what anyone sitting on their stained sofa and chatting on a forum says. "

Are you judging us all by your soft furnishing standards?😂

3 hours ago, venom2011 said:

What do you think this achieves by showing trophy hauls of essentially two different clubs, existing in different climates and rulesets, and with about 15 years difference in tenure?

Stable success is the ability to challenge for highest honours consistently (and win) while working within the means of the club. This includes adhering to governing body regulations and financial controls.

Spending frivolous amounts of money on players without resale value, putting them on big contracts, having to paper over cracks consistenly, and doing under-the-table payments to get deals over the line is not that. Winning the league and then bombing out for 3 years with an experienced, expensive squad is not that. If Roman bought Chelsea today, a lot of what he'd do would be similar to Clearlake.

You have got to be trolling.

The board have spent 2 billion, a ridiculous amount of money. That hasn't translated into stable on field success which has lost us big revenue (and a shirt sponsor). In order to cover their f*&,k up, they've had to resort to loopholes, buying and selling hotels and womens football teams. The world club cup was the only paper they had to cover the one in 2 billion cracks and that's fallen off. The club is an absolute mess.

9 hours ago, venom2011 said:

What do you think this achieves by showing trophy hauls of essentially two different clubs, existing in different climates and rulesets, and with about 15 years difference in tenure?

Stable success is the ability to challenge for highest honours consistently (and win) while working within the means of the club. This includes adhering to governing body regulations and financial controls.

Spending frivolous amounts of money on players without resale value, putting them on big contracts, having to paper over cracks consistenly, and doing under-the-table payments to get deals over the line is not that. Winning the league and then bombing out for 3 years with an experienced, expensive squad is not that. If Roman bought Chelsea today, a lot of what he'd do would be similar to Clearlake.

Give you your dues Venom. First Sarri, then Jorginho and now Clearlake!! You are always up for a fight.

13 hours ago, venom2011 said:

What do you think this achieves by showing trophy hauls of essentially two different clubs, existing in different climates and rulesets, and with about 15 years difference in tenure?

Stable success is the ability to challenge for highest honours consistently (and win) while working within the means of the club. This includes adhering to governing body regulations and financial controls.

Spending frivolous amounts of money on players without resale value, putting them on big contracts, having to paper over cracks consistenly, and doing under-the-table payments to get deals over the line is not that. Winning the league and then bombing out for 3 years with an experienced, expensive squad is not that. If Roman bought Chelsea today, a lot of what he'd do would be similar to Clearlake.

It’s the same club. Chelsea Football Club.

15 years difference? We won the Champions League in 2021, Clearlake inherited that Champions League winning squad and in less than 2 seasons succeeded in ensuring we didn’t even qualify for the competition!

Stable success? Challenging for the highest honours? We aren’t doing any of that!

Clearlake have taken a debt free Champions League winning side and turned us into a mid table Premier League club with 2B in debt now.

I REALLY struggle to see how you can spin anything into a positive with these clowns running the show.

15 hours ago, The Boehly Babes said:

It’s the same club. Chelsea Football Club.

15 years difference? We won the Champions League in 2021, Clearlake inherited that Champions League winning squad and in less than 2 seasons succeeded in ensuring we didn’t even qualify for the competition!

Stable success? Challenging for the highest honours? We aren’t doing any of that!

Clearlake have taken a debt free Champions League winning side and turned us into a mid table Premier League club with 2B in debt now.

I REALLY struggle to see how you can spin anything into a positive with these clowns running the show.

15 years difference...in tenure. If you're going to counterargue, at least get the original statement right.

Clearlake inherited an overpaid, poorly constructed squad who had lost two of its best defenders for free due to mismanagement. A squad riddled with injuries due to player burnout. They had two clear choices: continue papering over cracks a la Man Utd - needing to take more expensive gambles and employ coaches who can provide instant gratification. Live and die on the whims of a manager. Get a good one, win a cup or two. Get a bad one, fire him and repeat. Or start a process of burning the house down. They picked the right one even if it meant short-medium term pain.

More short-termism. And let's not forget how this club magically became debt free. This is 2026. It's a different league, and different climate, and as I've said - if Roman bought this club today, he'd pretty much do exactly what Clearlake has done and used our competitive advantage (academy+trading) to close the gap.

PSG are currently considered the best side in the world. Is there a big difference between PSG and Chelsea if both sides have all players fit? No. Are their models that different? They've regularly competed for the same targets. Average age is similar as well. Chelsea have for 4 years had more key players injured than just about anyone else. And of course they have Marquinhos and Dembele to provide nous. But give me Lavia, Cole, James, Levi, Cucu, Fofana, Caicedo fit and consistently available and we would be dominating teams regularly. And just imagine if they'd managed to pull off their intended targets - Olise, Raphinha, Huijsen, Doue, Barcola, Hakimi etc.

If you're struggling to see ANYTHING positive, I'd humbly suggest you're the problem.

1 hour ago, venom2011 said:

15 years difference...in tenure. If you're going to counterargue, at least get the original statement right.

Clearlake inherited an overpaid, poorly constructed squad who had lost two of its best defenders for free due to mismanagement. A squad riddled with injuries due to player burnout. They had two clear choices: continue papering over cracks a la Man Utd - needing to take more expensive gambles and employ coaches who can provide instant gratification. Live and die on the whims of a manager. Get a good one, win a cup or two. Get a bad one, fire him and repeat. Or start a process of burning the house down. They picked the right one even if it meant short-medium term pain.

More short-termism. And let's not forget how this club magically became debt free. This is 2026. It's a different league, and different climate, and as I've said - if Roman bought this club today, he'd pretty much do exactly what Clearlake has done and used our competitive advantage (academy+trading) to close the gap.

PSG are currently considered the best side in the world. Is there a big difference between PSG and Chelsea if both sides have all players fit? No. Are their models that different? They've regularly competed for the same targets. Average age is similar as well. Chelsea have for 4 years had more key players injured than just about anyone else. And of course they have Marquinhos and Dembele to provide nous. But give me Lavia, Cole, James, Levi, Cucu, Fofana, Caicedo fit and consistently available and we would be dominating teams regularly. And just imagine if they'd managed to pull off their intended targets - Olise, Raphinha, Huijsen, Doue, Barcola, Hakimi etc.

If you're struggling to see ANYTHING positive, I'd humbly suggest you're the problem.

OK. So Clearlake infected the club 3 years ago. Sir Roman was here 15 years. That’s a 5 x difference. So taking the league position and trophies under Clearlake and x’ing by 5 we’ll still win f**k all of importance.

Clearlake inherited a Champions League winning squad, the only reason Rudiger & Christensen went on free’s was due to the sanctions from the UK Government, which have now been proven to be wholly unlawful and unreasonable, totally out of Romans control. Clearlake also ‘inherited’ Bruce Buck, Marina Granasvokia & Petr Cech who were all instrumental in the success of the club and knew its DNA, they were cast out immediately.

PSG appointed Luis Enrique to lead their project, a Champions League winning coach who has experience managing and developing some of the world’s greatest players. Clearlake have appointed Graham Potter, Enzo Maresca & now Liam Rosenior.

PSG spent 70M on Kvara, we spent 60M on Gittens. PSG spent 50M on Doue we spent 60M on Pedro Neto. PSG spent 45M on Barcola, we spent 40M on Nicholas Jackson.

If the models are apparently ‘similar’ one club is definitely doing a much better job of it than the other.

1 hour ago, venom2011 said:

And just imagine if they'd managed to pull off their intended targets - Olise, Raphinha, Huijsen, Doue, Barcola, Hakimi etc.

Quite telling with this one, all these ‘identified’ players and not one of them signed. Shows the view of the project from the outside or the incompetence of the SD’s at the very least.

Clearlake haven’t used Cobham though, Reece James came through long before they came along and for some unknown reason there’s a real unwillingness to use Josh. If the ‘model’ is player farming then academy ‘sales’ every year are being grossly undermined by the replacements being bought in.

I had positivity toward the way Todd was building the squad. Experience sprinkled with talented youth. It didn’t work out, some easy to foresee (Sterling being used goods) some unforeseen (Koulibaly being that dreadful after such dominance in Serie A)

Clearlake have destroyed us. We’re Brighton with a bigger budget. Football is about trophies and success not spreadsheets and all this club is now is an ‘asset’ for a hedge fund.

Humbly, that’s not being negative, it’s being realistic about the situation.

On 09/01/2026 at 22:55, venom2011 said:

I agree, Chelsea FC should be run like a sound business and football club. And there is zero evidence that it's being used only to line Clearlake's pockets. Whatever you think of the ownership group, it comprises best-in-class businessmen. They are not morons, despite what anyone sitting on their stained sofa and chatting on a forum says. Only a moron spends 100m on Caicedo and Enzo if their clear goal is to line their own pockets. Look at how differently Clearlake and The Glazers operate.

Feliciano's quote was in the context of building record levels of revenue and he is very much correct. To get Chelsea to match Europe's elite, they need to build a sustainable business that can increase value, and this IS more important than day-to-day match results especially in the short-term. If the goal was just to win, it would firstly be a foolish goal; and secondly it would inevitably lead to unsustainable decision-making given the current climate.

What they have shown is that winning comes second to sustainability goals (for now) and that's fine. Chelsea are currently closer to being a club that sees stable success than at anytime under Roman. We're not there, mistakes have been made and were inevitable, but Roman always had the luxury of papering over cracks with expensive short-term solutions.

The fact that they ignored the bitching and moaning, never hired someone like Zidane to truly muddy the waters even though it would appease some

Chelsea is NOT being run like a sound business model. Far from it

4 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Chelsea is NOT being run like a sound business model. Far from it

Care to qualify that? Or are we just shouting popular inaccuracies for likes?

What's your understanding of the current business model and what exactly makes it unsound, in your opinion?

I'm not really sure what the protest hopes to achieve. I'm not even sure what I would hope it achieves.

There's a confusion in the running of the club. We aren't seeing the energy I would like in getting us a new stadium. In improving our financial efforts off the field through a new FOS.

Whilst at the same time, the owners are fiddling with prices on tickets, making things worse for the average match going fan.

I'm actually broadly fine with the tactics on the pitch. The squad under Roman was aging, we weren't being smart with the talent that came in, it was scattergun and we felt like we were drifting.

Now at least I can see a strategy to bring in younger talent and see it's value grow. Rosenior is a better appointment than many of the names some people would "prefer".

My concern is that in every other aspect, they aren't running things effectively, so I worry that they are going to do many many stupid things in the long run even in those aspects I like.

But saying all of that. I don't see what the protest achieves because I don't know what the target is.

11 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I'm not really sure what the protest hopes to achieve. I'm not even sure what I would hope it achieves.

There's a confusion in the running of the club. We aren't seeing the energy I would like in getting us a new stadium. In improving our financial efforts off the field through a new FOS.

Whilst at the same time, the owners are fiddling with prices on tickets, making things worse for the average match going fan.

I'm actually broadly fine with the tactics on the pitch. The squad under Roman was aging, we weren't being smart with the talent that came in, it was scattergun and we felt like we were drifting.

Now at least I can see a strategy to bring in younger talent and see it's value grow. Rosenior is a better appointment than many of the names some people would "prefer".

My concern is that in every other aspect, they aren't running things effectively, so I worry that they are going to do many many stupid things in the long run even in those aspects I like.

But saying all of that. I don't see what the protest achieves because I don't know what the target is.

Well said. Those are definitely problems that need to be addressed with urgency. The FOS should apparently be done soon...we can hope. In fact, broadly speaking we need one of the sporting directors to man-up and improve transparency on the sponsor, stadium, and ticket issues. It feeds the general negavity surrounding the ownership, for which the optics are already poor as the average fan sees no real connection to them. Whatever they've done, good or bad, feels emotionless. Like being ruled by a king who never walks the streets.