OhForAGreavsie

Wrong thread.

I'll keep an eye out. My feeling is that many categories reflect no knowledge or skill so it only takes a couple such to turn the thing into a lottery where success is based on luck and luck alone. That doesn't seem interesting or worthwhile to me.

Only if you can realise it. I remain strongly in favour of a new build away from SB if a location can be found: - Cheaper since at least some of the cost can be offset by development of the SB site. A larger site, with fewer restrictions e.g. line of sight issues, allows more freedom of design as well as an opportunity to benefit from improved transport links. As implied in the post I'm quoting. potential stadium sponsors prefer new build over legacy venues which resist adoption of the rights name. Chelsea also have no debt or at least won't have if this sale goes through on the terms Roman advertised.

Has anyone read any comment on CFC's situation from 3, Hyundai, Trivago, or other club sponsors?

The fewer categories being predicted, the more interested I'd be. With the categories listed I would be a spectator.

Everyone acknowledges that in his role as owner of Chelsea Roman's performance has been exemplary. I won't bore everyone with a list of examples because I think everyone knows them. On the other hand, even when speaking with the cast iron protection of Parliamentary Privilege, the best that MP Chris Bryant can say against Roman is that he [Bryant] has seen a mention in an unpublished report that Roman has been involved with illicit activities. If this is so then throw the book at him but is it so. The report does not contain fresh information. If its supposed claims can be substantiated then action against Romain is warranted and indicated. Yet, nothing. Roman knowingly paid $100,000,000 for an asset worth $billions. This was a crime against the Russian people but that crime was committed by Yeltsin not Abramovich. It maybe that I have been too complacent to look into Roman's dealings so I genuinely want to know what it is he has done to make him worthy of the toxicity you describe?

List your reasons please.

Would you argue that these two wishes are mutually exclusive?

They are of course going to swear black and white that Newcastle was, and would have been, their first choice but few will doubt that given a chance they'd have come over to the Blue side.

Reece had not yet played in the Championship five years ago. 🙂

No. One of the first things he did.

The government don't actually want to do anything to damage those Russians who fund them. They just want to do things which will hit the headlines and make it look like they are doing something. Hence they announce the legislation needed to act against the wealth of Putin's oligarchs will take 18 months to get through Parliament and, when the opposition offered to cooperate to see that the legislation gets passed in a few days they refused..

And yet the Glaziers had to have their arms very severely twisted to persuade them to restart United's women's team. Even then the support was shoddy and they lost one of the WSL's best coaches as a result.

Are you talking about the consortium involving the Swiss banker Wyss? If so, I liked the interviews I've seen with Todd Boehly. He's an impressive bloke. He isn't Roman but we've been spoilt. We are never going to find another Roman.

Don't want to sign Mbappe.

Ditto the women's team Deal breaker for me.

And his lack of interest in football. We've had an owner with a football fan's dream approach to running the club. Whatever we get now must be less and is going to feel awful. We've lived with less before however so, even if it might feel like the end of the world, it really won't be.

It's good take and I hope that you're right. I may be dumb and criminally under informed but I don't see why Roman is such a pariah other than that people don't like Chelsea and he's a Russian they've actually heard of. Yes he was allowed to buy state assets at a price which amounted to theft but the guilty one for me is the one who sold the assets. If it can be shown that Roman has been delivering kick-backs, monetary or otherwise, in return for benefitting from the giveaway then he would be corrupt and I would turn against him. I've heard such kick-backs alleged however I've never seen the claims substantiated.

I'm not a hypocrite and I won't ever pretend I saw a world class performer in Mas but, if that's how he develops, I will be as pleased as the rest of us for him and for Chelsea.

That, in my opinion, is because he isn't anything else either. At least not quite at the required level.

Yes, I agree with this. If our other attackers were more efficient Mason could more easily find a role in the side. The solution I advocate for however is that we find a player who can make those key moments work for his side more often than Mas does. Also, thanks for digging some sense out of what I wrote. I've re-read it and it is so badly written it amounts to gibberish. Don't know how that happened. Must try harder. 😖

Have to admit I'm far more often frustrated by Mas than I am happy with his contributions but, as I implied earlier, I also often feel we're a better side when he plays than when he doesn't. I see this as being despite not being accurate enough in what he does, often enough he does other things to compensate and to balance the team. Things we miss when he does not play. What I want is a player offering balance and greater accuracy and such a player would relegate Mason to the bench. My takeaway is that Mas should get starts but only because our forward players as a group are not good enough. No problem at all on the different emphasis we put on Mason's attributes. Everybody gets it wrong sometimes, or at least I do anyway. For example, I did not spot Salah's quality when he was here.

Well, yes, this is a different question to whether Mas is the long term answer for us. I think he is an enigma in our current squad. When he plays we see that we need more from the player in that role but, when he doesn't play we see that even so he can offer more than some of the alternatives. My view is that we try to find the player who can provide a long term answer.

Getting on for ten-and-a-half years ago, when I told people Romelu would be stuck with his limitations for the rest of his career they replied with comments like this. Many absolutely would not accept my analysis that players not only do not improve their basic level, they cannot improve it. Even last summer people were telling me Rom had done extra homework with Conte and he was all new and shiny. I had not watched Rom play even one minute for Inter but I knew those people were not right, that they could not be right. Perhaps you will disagree with me now but Mas will not make the improvements you hope for. I agree with you. This is the correct approach but it must be accompanied by correct judgement. In order to get the judgements right we have to understand that players cannot improve their talent level. They can only learn to make better use of the talent they have. When I watched KDB while back at Genk on loan after signing for us, I posted (on CFCNet) to say that I loved, loved, loved the way he played football. When he eventually joined our squad, barring a simple but beautiful assist on his debut, he struggled to find his level but it was there to be found. Time should have been given. Mas on the other hand is already playing at his level. The 'more' we might hope for from him is not there. A squad player is all Mas can be for us but, given the start he has made to his career, I don't believe that will be something he can accept. Kai however is not yet playing to his maximum potential so it is at least possible that his output can increase.

I'm afraid my opinion has hardened that we need someone better than Mas in the role he plays. What you've described is exactly what I think the problem is with him. He nearly got it right. As usual. In the phrase I coined, about a year or so ago I think, "Mason nearly always, nearly gets it right." We need a player who can actually get it right more often.