The Board

[LDN Blue 7,903]

  Quote

Back in the day, i used to scoff at the fact that chelsea were tryna be an IT club, especially when Peter Kenyon left us to join them. But as time goes by, nobody can really say that "its cause of Abramovich" anymore. Truth is in the world of football, they actually have the best business model going. Their transfer dealings over the last 3 years have been astute and they are possibly the only club in europe that you cannot say made a mistake with players they let go. Barring the Torres deal, they no more loose money on players, instead make a profit! .The chelsea fans gripe is just sentimental since most players let go are quite likeable e.g.Mata, Schurrle, Luiz, Alex but the truth is football wise, they dont miss them. Now you can imagine how i feel when for some reason Tom Cleverley was allowed to develop and play ahead of a player like Pogba who in the most rarerest of appearances showed him authority, Now then realise that this same Cleverly is still a Man Utd Player!

This is a comment on the Cuadrado story in Sky Sports by a user called 'manutd fan'.

Shows a lot of how we're beginning to be perceived now in world football. The change in attitude from our board deserves a lot of credit and you can see why there's a drastic revamp going on with the board now, to meet this attitude. Buck and Gourlay represent the 'old' Chelsea, of reckless purchasing.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

  On 30/01/2015 at 13:56, LDN Blue said:

This is a comment on the Cuadrado story in Sky Sports by a user called 'manutd fan'.

Shows a lot of how we're beginning to be perceived now in world football. The change in attitude from our board deserves a lot of credit and you can see why there's a drastic revamp going on with the board now, to meet this attitude. Buck and Gourlay represent the 'old' Chelsea, of reckless purchasing.

Emenalo could have sold Tal ben Haim to Bayern Munich for £100 million plus Schweinsteiger.

[xPetrCechx 13,565]

:clap:

[MrBlueGuy 1,552]

Anyone else frustated that we seems to be the only team that cares about FFP? The likes of City and Liverpool going out there and spending £50-£100m like it is nothing while we are supposed to be earning £300m+ a year in revenue and have to operate with a 1 in 1 out policy? FFS we are not Arsenal/Spurs, can't we just give Moses back to Stoke on loan and sign Pedro or something? Just sell Mikel for £10m and sign Witsel £25m.

It is almosts as if last summer was too good for us and we believe we can carry on doing that from now on when in reality we had lot of luck(Lukaku 28m, Luiz 50m, Schurrle 23m) which is unlikely to happen again.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

  On 22/07/2015 at 16:39, MrBlueGuy said:

Anyone else frustated that we seems to be the only team that cares about FFP? The likes of City and Liverpool going out there and spending £50-£100m like it is nothing while we are supposed to be earning £300m+ a year in revenue and have to operate with a 1 in 1 out policy? FFS we are not Arsenal/Spurs, can't we just give Moses back to Stoke on loan and sign Pedro or something? Just sell Mikel for £10m and sign Witsel £25m.

It is almosts as if last summer was too good for us and we believe we can carry on doing that from now on when in reality we had lot of luck(Lukaku 28m, Luiz 50m, Schurrle 23m) which is unlikely to happen again.

No. Because we have a stadium we need to pay for, and we're trying to operate within our means. But I see your point. City, Barcelona, Real all spend millions and no severe sanctions are ever imposed on them. Makes you think FFP is in essence a load of bollocks, but let's also take into consideration we don't need to spend millions. City have spent ridiculous money, Arsenal have spent, Liverpool have invested, and United are spending serious amounts also - they're all still miles behind us.

[MrBlueGuy 1,552]

  On 22/07/2015 at 16:51, Alex said:

No. Because we have a stadium we need to pay for, and we're trying to operate within our means. But I see your point. City, Barcelona, Real all spend millions and no severe sanctions are ever imposed on them. Makes you think FFP is in essence a load of bollocks, but let's also take into consideration we don't need to spend millions. City have spent ridiculous money, Arsenal have spent, Liverpool have invested, and United are spending serious amounts also - they're all still miles behind us.

Yep I know and not demanding the board go out there and fo 150m on Grizemann and Pogba or something but reasonable signings like Pedro, Witsel for around maybe 40m max after selling the others, surely we can afford something like that even with the stadium? Also I thought the stadium is not accounted within FFP? Otherwise if it costs 500m we can be looking at min of 5 more years of this type of summer(and basically become Arsenal when they started their Emirates project).

I agree our squad is more than able to compete with the best as it stands, but never heard to try improve bit by bit all the time.

[iseah100 5,612]

Totally forgot about the stadium. That's probably why the spending isn't there.

[I_Just_Blue_Myself 29]

i really hope we arent enterting arsenal territory and are going to be hamstrung by a stadium for years to come.

[Fernando 6,537]

  On 22/07/2015 at 16:39, MrBlueGuy said:

Anyone else frustated that we seems to be the only team that cares about FFP? The likes of City and Liverpool going out there and spending £50-£100m like it is nothing while we are supposed to be earning £300m+ a year in revenue and have to operate with a 1 in 1 out policy? FFS we are not Arsenal/Spurs, can't we just give Moses back to Stoke on loan and sign Pedro or something? Just sell Mikel for £10m and sign Witsel £25m.

It is almosts as if last summer was too good for us and we believe we can carry on doing that from now on when in reality we had lot of luck(Lukaku 28m, Luiz 50m, Schurrle 23m) which is unlikely to happen again.

Maybe we are going to give a shot to young and fringe players as this article puts it:

http://www.espnfc.us/club/chelsea/363/blog/post/2531871/chelsea-will-rely-on-youth-and-fringe-without-more-signings

I have no problem with this just as long we do give them a sustained period.

Meaning not just give them one game here and there and that's that.

If we don't that and spend most of the time with the same eleven with little rotation then it will cost us.

[lucio 5,418]

Don't care about the stadium , would rather play on a cowfield, and continue to buy good players each window.

Aren't Liverpool developing their stadium too?

[cfcs most wanted 657]

  On 23/07/2015 at 09:58, lucio said:

Don't care about the stadium , would rather play on a cowfield, and continue to buy good players each window.

Aren't Liverpool developing their stadium too?

The money will run out sometime, Abramovic can't always fund our time, we need to generate our own revenues and a big stadium with more than 60000 seats adds to the revenue

[Muzchap 8,966]

Jesus - how is it that all of a sudden:

Net Transfer Spend = Success

It absolutely fucking DOES NOT

City and PSG have spent sooo much in the past 5 years - probably £200million a season just on transfers - are they any nearer winning the CL? No! They're still shocking - same with PSG.

Stop believing the bollox that Transfer Spend = Success

Transfer Spend buys you players and there's a 50/50 chance they will perform for you - it's an awful gamble.

Having a settled, well drilled team and improving the squad season on season is a much more sensible way of doing things - tears how UTD built an Era.

Having a larger stadium also helps financially and allows the exponential growth of the club.

[Barbara 15,149]

I don't get TalkChelsea, I really don't.

The same people screaming at the top of their lungs we're wasting such an amazing generation of young players (which I don't completely agree with, but it's the absolutely truth for many of you), is moaning now even louder because we don't sign new players although our manager said if some of the English young talent we have now don't make it to England NT in five years it would be on him.

Mourinho couldn't have been more honest and straight with us since he's arrived back. First season he said wasn't for titles, we weren't ready, small horses and all that while also saying the following we'd be ready. He kept the speech throughout the whole of his second season and started talking about developing youth. Do people expect those kids to magically be integrated in 2020?

So you either defend youth development and integration and accept the onus that comes with it: making room for them to play in the first team as subs somewhat often (starting with matches far and apart and progressing from there) or you keep bringing players either on their peak or about to explode, with tons of professional matches on their belts.

We need more depth on the bench, I fully support the idea, but if Mourinho and the board want to use our loaned players and youth to gradually become our bench, it's a gamble most of people here should support as they don't cease to give Mourinho stick for not integrating young players. Also there has been some pressure on us to use our academy players and people are start to raise eyebrows on our loan system, I think we're going to start justify both.

[iseah100 5,612]

  On 23/07/2015 at 15:39, Barbara said:

I don't get TalkChelsea, I really don't.

The same people screaming at the top of their lungs we're wasting such an amazing generation of young players (which I don't completely agree with, but it's the absolutely truth for many of you), is moaning now even louder because we don't sign new players although our manager said if some of the English young talent we have now don't make it to England NT in five years it would be on him.

Mourinho couldn't have been more honest and straight with us since he's arrived back. First season he said wasn't for titles, we weren't ready, small horses and all that while also saying the following we'd be ready. He kept the speech throughout the whole of his second season and started talking about developing youth. Do people expect those kids to magically be integrated in 2020?

So you either defend youth development and integration and accept the onus that comes with it: making room for them to play in the first team as subs somewhat often (starting with matches far and apart and progressing from there) or you keep bringing players either on their peak or about to explode, with tons of professional matches on their belts.

We need more depth on the bench, I fully support the idea, but if Mourinho and the board want to use our loaned players and youth to gradually become our bench, it's a gamble most of people here should support as they don't cease to give Mourinho stick for not integrating young players. Also there has been some pressure on us to use our academy players and people are start to raise eyebrows on our loan system, I think we're going to start justify both.

Tibo-Begovic-Blackman

Zouma-Cahill-JT-Stones?

Azpi-Ivanovic-LB?

RLC-Mikel-Cesc-Ramires-Matic

Moses-Cuardado-Salah-Hazard-Oscar-Willian-Traore

Costa-Falcao-Remy.

Really, a LB or Ake and maybe a backup dm would be good. But there is depth and talent.

[Pizy 18,552]

Hasn't it been confirmed that Roman will personally fund the new stadium and that it won't eat into Chelsea's transfer dealings at all?

Also, to be blunt, I never have and never really will care about bringing through loads of academy players. I'm not English and couldn't care less about the England national team so all this talk about it being such a big deal is annoying. If they are an exceptional case then fine, but if it stops us buying great players (like it appears to be now) that's what pisses me off a bit.

The very best sides like Real Madrid, Bayern, and Barca barely have any academy players in their teams. They go out and splash millions and millions on players EVEN AFTER WINNING TITLES.

[Unionjack 7,531]

  On 23/07/2015 at 15:44, iseah100 said:

Tibo-Begovic-Blackman

Zouma-Cahill-JT-Stones?

Azpi-Ivanovic-LB?

RLC-Mikel-Cesc-Ramires-Matic

Moses-Cuardado-Salah-Hazard-Oscar-Willian-Traore

Costa-Falcao-Remy.

Really, a LB or Ake and maybe a backup dm would be good. But there is depth and talent.

I'm sorry bud but theres alot in your squad I could really do without.

And OK I can understand the penny pinching IF that is the situation because of the new stadium - we are purely guessing at that like we always do.

So the 1 in 1 out I can live with too but what is wrong with bringing 1 in then sending one out?

What I dont agree with is this is the best squad we can get. For Mou to say some of the rubbish Ive read hes said then theres summet strange going on.

[didierforever 7,349]

  On 23/07/2015 at 15:57, Pizy said:

Hasn't it been confirmed that Roman will personally fund the new stadium and that it won't eat into Chelsea's transfer dealings at all?

Also, to be blunt, I never have and never really will care about bringing through loads of academy players. I'm not English and couldn't care less about the England national team so all this talk about it being such a big deal is annoying. If they are an exceptional case then fine, but if it stops us buying great players (like it appears to be now) that's what pisses me off a bit.

The very best sides like Real Madrid, Bayern, and Barca barely have any academy players in their teams. They go out and splash millions and millions on players EVEN AFTER WINNING TITLES.

awkward!!!

[Pizy 18,552]

  On 23/07/2015 at 16:07, didierforever said:

awkward!!!

Xavi gone, Iniesta slowly being phased out. Their best XI has very few Barca products in it.

7 of their 11 starters were bought, many for enormous sums.