The Board

[OneMoSalah 8,776]

2 hours ago, King Kante said:

Personally, I am of the opinion Granny had final say on transfers. This meant that she could kill a deal if she wanted to or she could get one through. 

Do I think she scouted players? No, I do not. 

Do I think she would push through deals that weren't necessarily what the manager wanted and/or what she was being told was a good player by other people? Yes, I do. 

The problem for me with Granny was that she was in the most powerful position in regard to signing players (outside of RA) but didn't have much judgement on whether they would be any good or not (as she doesn't have a football background.) As a result she didn't kill deals that should've been (I mean how many of us muppets on here would've killed the Lukaku deal if we had as much power as her, owing to us knowing he was a Donkey?.) 

I think with her, she just went on what was told and she played a version of Fantasy manager in selling players (she was good at this) to balance the books to fund the incoming players. However, she wasn't able to judge from a footballing perspective if the deal was good or not; just from a financial one; this is also why we kept on extending players like Baka and Batsh*t. 

For me, a DoF should have knowledge of football in order to make the final sign off as otherwise they're going to get blamed. It is the same in all industries, whoever is the one signing off the cheques is ultimately responsible (even if they've not done the leg work) as they've got overriding power to stop/push something through. 

If she was a director of football all points would be valid. But she was a chief executive/director of the club. Not a director of football. Two different roles. Michael Emenalo is the closest thing we’ve had to a DoF. Petr Cech’s role too maybe had bits of it. 

She has final sign off on deals as she was effectively the most important or powerful person on the business side of it barring Roman himself. Undoubtedly. Does that mean she would be abrasive and push her own agenda re signings? I doubt it. Which is usually the narrative and has been for years which is incredibly mind numbing to read as its clear it isn’t. She was also heavily involved with getting and renewing club sponsorships etc so its clear she wasnt a director of football as when has any DoF been involved in thr commercial side of things? 

For players the managers didnt necessarily want, Most clubs (barring perhaps the City’s, Madrid’s, PSG’s who also have the pulling factor now as well as the vast finances) never have only one target 9\10 times unless its an exceptional circumstances or position, they have a plan B, C or D. Which again it is definitely run by a manager because why spend money on someone who wont bring a return on an investment? Mourinho on Zouma back in the day for instance, Zouma was suggested by someone in scouting and Mourinho OK’d it. Courtois and De Bruyne also scouted heavily by the club and suggested to Villas-Boas who said lets do it. Mata too. Also maybe there has been times when someone’s pushed for a player who financially is difficult to get (Lampard with Rice for instance was a big one) which yes she can pull the plug but I doubt she makes that decision alone as well. Or without other input. I mean good business people and leaders in successful organisations usually don’t make decisions without other input. 

Scouting of these players you named was a big issue. But again how often barring the exceptional circumstances do clubs get 99% of transfers right? There is a magnitude of things too, some players end up doing well at  some teams and then not doing well at others, some aren’t just up to the standard and then theres the circumstances where they just aren’t fancied by managers when coaches change and they end up rotting on the bench. Thats ultimately what has affected our transfers more than anything, player X Y or Z is for manager X Y or Z. Then we change and it goes tits up or they don’t fit or want to leave. No long term stability or plan is ultimately one of our worst enemies in sustaining success (although we’ve still managed to do well). 

[didi007 69]

5 minutes ago, Hermione said:

I'm not suffering from anything you're just delusional enough to believe him scoring a couple tap ins against some farmers means he contributed. He missed 3-4 more clear chances and if he didn't start we would've won 4-0 both matches, he hampered both games with his medieval touches and finger pointing. 

Move already to the Inter forum and spare us from that trash.

Whether they were tap ins or whatever, he still scored and we won the trophy!!! Jeez!!!

[Fernando 6,453]

If Cech and company was part of the screw up of getting Lukaku then they rightly deserve to go. 

Even regular people here in this forum knew it was a nuts idea! 

[OneMoSalah 8,776]

4 minutes ago, Fernando said:

If Cech and company was part of the screw up of getting Lukaku then they rightly deserve to go. 

Even regular people here in this forum knew it was a nuts idea! 

Rumblings Cech wanted the club to keep Lukaku for another season as he felt he showed he was strong in moments towards end of season. Not sure what he saw.

Also, talk he felt as if his authority was deteriorating with the new ownership so he felt it was right to go.

[King Kante 1,474]

19 hours ago, OneMoSalah said:

If she was a director of football all points would be valid. But she was a chief executive/director of the club. Not a director of football. Two different roles. Michael Emenalo is the closest thing we’ve had to a DoF. Petr Cech’s role too maybe had bits of it. 

She has final sign off on deals as she was effectively the most important or powerful person on the business side of it barring Roman himself. Undoubtedly. Does that mean she would be abrasive and push her own agenda re signings? I doubt it. Which is usually the narrative and has been for years which is incredibly mind numbing to read as its clear it isn’t. She was also heavily involved with getting and renewing club sponsorships etc so its clear she wasnt a director of football as when has any DoF been involved in thr commercial side of things? 

For players the managers didnt necessarily want, Most clubs (barring perhaps the City’s, Madrid’s, PSG’s who also have the pulling factor now as well as the vast finances) never have only one target 9\10 times unless its an exceptional circumstances or position, they have a plan B, C or D. Which again it is definitely run by a manager because why spend money on someone who wont bring a return on an investment? Mourinho on Zouma back in the day for instance, Zouma was suggested by someone in scouting and Mourinho OK’d it. Courtois and De Bruyne also scouted heavily by the club and suggested to Villas-Boas who said lets do it. Mata too. Also maybe there has been times when someone’s pushed for a player who financially is difficult to get (Lampard with Rice for instance was a big one) which yes she can pull the plug but I doubt she makes that decision alone as well. Or without other input. I mean good business people and leaders in successful organisations usually don’t make decisions without other input. 

Scouting of these players you named was a big issue. But again how often barring the exceptional circumstances do clubs get 99% of transfers right? There is a magnitude of things too, some players end up doing well at  some teams and then not doing well at others, some aren’t just up to the standard and then theres the circumstances where they just aren’t fancied by managers when coaches change and they end up rotting on the bench. Thats ultimately what has affected our transfers more than anything, player X Y or Z is for manager X Y or Z. Then we change and it goes tits up or they don’t fit or want to leave. No long term stability or plan is ultimately one of our worst enemies in sustaining success (although we’ve still managed to do well). 

I think once ME left she effectively absorbed his role. Now I do not think she was an out and out DoF but I think she took on a lot of the responsibilities of a DoF once ME left. 

This for me is seen in a few public instances: 

1) ME being on the bench with Conte for his last game at the club. The two of them hugged it out at the end (something I witnessed being there) this told me that they got on well and that they weren't happy with something at board level which is why ME was leaving. 

2) Cech came in after the disasters that were 2017 and Kepa in 2018. I think by that point Granny realised she wasn't getting the deals right/a good enough judge of footballing ability so need someone to help her a bit more with this and for someone to act as a bridge between board and playing staff/coaches. 

On the abrasive comment, there have been lots of comments from various people that she was or at the least 'very tough'. So, I think she was a strong personality that would finalise deals. 

For me, I don't think she scouted, but I do think she had final sign off. Now people can slice this which ever way i.e. she wasn't scouting so she wasn't a DoF or she was the person that just finalised deals. I think she was the latter, however, either way, if you're the one doing the final sign off, then ultimately you're responsible for the signing as you have the power to kill the deal. This is especially true in American sports where the GM gets held accountable most of the make up of the squads, even though they don't do the scouting. 

Thus, I don't see how she cannot get blame for the make up of the squad because her lack of judgement on footballing ability allowed her to sign off numerous deals that were poor value. 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Superblue 6,370]

It seems ironic that the club went through what felt like a lifetime of uncertainty and in no uncertain terms threats from Government and its media sources about our future existence, to now see just a few weeks after our future being secured, that same Government going down in the smoke of its own disgraces. 

What goes around, comes around.

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[manpe 10,861]

56 minutes ago, Blues Forever said:

 

So... best to wait till next summer or go for someone else?

[Blue Armour 4,278]

3 hours ago, Blues Forever said:

 

So...maybe just wait for a year?

Think the club can survive without one for a year., especially if it means getting a quality director in next year.

Get an agreement with Edwards to start early next summer.

[Superblue 6,370]

If there was a player who was undisputed first choice target, but he wasn't available for a year I would say the club needs to wait rather than buying an alternative that may not be as good or suited.

I can't help but feel this falls into the same bracket. You can't always look too far ahead into the future as the club needs to look after themselves today, but for the new ownership they've committed a minimum of 10 years to the club and as a project therefore, can afford to take a longer term approach to some areas. They need to assess whether Michael Edwards is that much better than everybody else that they discuss the role with. If he is then he should be worth the wait. 

It's not an ideal situation but Boehly has done the very best he could do this summer and if he needs to front that area up still for another 12 months then so be it. We hopefully won't need to have such a hectic summer window next year anyway.

If the club committed to him now to start next summer the likelihood is that he'll start putting some plans in place in the background and do some light work ahead of that time anyway. 

 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Superblue 6,370]

1 hour ago, Blues Forever said:

 

I still stand by what I said previously. If the club has identified him as the best and outstanding candidate for the role then they should wait for him.

We'd say the exact same thing if a number one target wasn't available yet on the playing staff, so why should that be any different in the board room.

It's been chaotic at times this summer and Boehly is obviously having to learn quickly on the job but we've so far signed three excellent players in my opinion for the first team, with possibly one or two more to come despite no opportunity to plan ahead months in advance like other clubs so it's not like this summer has been a mitigated disaster.

[Vesper 28,768]

Chelsea owners left facing questions over links to Saudi Arabia after relationship emerges between club director Jonathan Goldstein and the country's Public Investment Fund - who own Premier League rivals Newcastle

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-11114261/Chelsea-owners-facing-questions-Saudi-links.html

Chelsea’s owners are facing further questions about their links to Saudi Arabia after one of the club’s new directors, Jonathan Goldstein, brokered a £750million property deal with the Public Investment Fund, who also own Newcastle.

Sportsmail revealed earlier this month that PIF have billions of pounds managed by Chelsea’s new majority shareholder, Clearlake Capital, raising fears among some rivals about the potential for collaboration and possible conflicts of interest.

Those concerns will have increased on Monday with the announcement that Goldstein’s property company Cain International have agreed a joint investment with PIF in the Aman Group, who own luxury hotels and apartments.

Goldstein played a key role in facilitating Chelsea’s 4.25billion takeover earlier this summer along with LA Dodgers owner Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali of private equity firm Clearlake, who own 60 per cent of the club.

PIF paid £350m to buy Newcastle last year and are funding the LIV Series that has caused so much disruption to the world of golf, but Chelsea insist that Saudi money was not used to fund Clearlake’s purchase of Chelsea.

In another intriguing twist, however, two of Newcastle’s owners attended Chelsea’s first home game of the new regime on Sunday, with Amanda Staveley and Mehrdad Ghodoussi guests in the executive box belonging to director Eghbali, the founding partner of Clearlake.

Staveley and Ghodoussi are believed to have used the audience with the Chelsea hierarchy to discuss transfers and press their case to take several of the club’s fringe players on loan.

Newcastle had hoped to sign Timo Werner before the German striker opted to return to RB Leipzig, but remain interested in loan moves for Conor Gallagher, Callum Hudson-Odoi and Armando Broja.

[Superblue 6,370]

They can question whatever they want.

These owners of football clubs are hugely successful business people or consortiums with multiple links and ventures. 

Journalists can try to piece together links if they wish but ultimately the Premier League cannot prevent business deals taking place that are completely outside the remit of football. So long as deals are made "above board" and there's no reasons to suggest they wouldn't be, there's not even a question to be answered here.