The Board

[Blues Forever 1,010]

 

[Blues Forever 1,010]

 

[Superblue_1986 5,330]

It would be interesting to see whether the Chelsea board are prepared to wait for him. I've referenced previously that the club should only take top targets in the transfer market and if a top target isn't available this summer then wait for them. If Edwards is the man they want but he wants a break could the club make do now and perhaps look at bringing him in after the World Cup with a view towards looking at next summer? It's almost certain that the club will have to operate without a sporting director this summer, so would it pose issues if that role was left vacant for a few extra months once the season has started if it means the club getting their number one target?

[whats happening 1,201]

cant wait to see who will be our panic buy in late august 

[laura90 534]

21 hours ago, Fernando said:

This is purely wrong. If anything you should look at the transfer thread where some one was mentioning how a small team like leeds can ask 70 million for a player. 

Money that is generated by TV is what is bringing interest from overseas. And it will just continue to grow. 

So there is value in buying a pl club. I do believe as well that 20 years from now the value of the club will be much more then what was paid. 

Leeds United is selling Raphina for 70 millions because he kept them up. If they don't replace him properly they may be relegated the very next season. You see Chelsea as jo jo club bringing 4,5 billions back? Or you see Chelsea on the bottom half of the table bringing hundreds of  millions of revenue? From TV income?  Southampton is getting Tv money on regular bases yet they new owner Solak invested 100 millions to buy major part of the club. Why didn't he have to invest 10 times more? Southampton sold defender for 80 millions not long ago. And later sold Mane, one of the best league attackers for 30 millions. Just because middle club make 100 millions from the player once, doesn't mean they are  able of doing that year after year.

Or you see Chelsea in the upper part of the table , without CL generating hundred of millions from TV income and player sale and commercial revenue, enough to repay 4,5 billions in 10 years? 450 mil profit. Or 20 years? 225 mill profit. We are sitting on the 7th place without Europa generating at least 400 millions of matchday, tv income and commercial revenue. How?

We don't have Cl income. We are on seventh place and our tv income isn't 300 mill but 150. TV revenue relies heavily on CL.  Our matchday income 2019 was 75 mill. Was 95 mill 2015. It decreased.  So our commercial revenue needs to stay the same when we are seventh as 2019 when we won  Europa League and had Hazard on the form of his life.  It wont.

We may have more twitter fans from Arsenal but they have more spending money fans. They spend money to watch their team fail season after season. We are yet to find out how much  will our fans spend when we are seventh.

And our ability to sell player for 100 millions? We can't sell player to save our lives. Loan after loan. We have spent summer after summer waiting to sell someone to sign somebody and we only managed to sell Hazard,  Cat molester and youth for peanuts. We have thirty players we could sell but no buyers. And you are making us selling club? We need miracles to get there. Even when we had diamonds we sold them for peanuts. If we ever get lucky in that department we will play CL not sit on 7th place.

I am not saying we will  go bankrupt in the middle of the table. We have been there. And going after Sterling this year and Lukaku last year we are  getting that pensioners vibe from past times back. We can function there. But can't get 4,5 billions back. Ever.

[Superblue_1986 5,330]

10 hours ago, laura90 said:

We may have more twitter fans from Arsenal but they have more spending money fans. They spend money to watch their team fail season after season. We are yet to find out how much  will our fans spend when we are seventh.

I would agree with this. I don't think it takes too long in sport to build the foundations of a brand name if the club is successful and I would argue that our name and standing around the world is now above Arsenal and sitting comfortable in third behind Liverpool and United for English teams.

However it does take longer to build that 'hardcore' fanbase and it is very likely that Arsenal still hold a more hardcore fanbase currently than us which as you said will likely spend more money on the club. I think Arsenal are in danger of losing that position if they don't start showing more success on the pitch, and there's an argument that Chelsea will be building that 'hardcore' fanbase right now. Unless you have family links, most children are drawn to the more successful sides and over the last 15-20 years that is what Chelsea will be looking to build. Draw those new football fans in who in time will be the ones more likely to spend money on the club. As I don't live anywhere near London and grew up in the 90's I was the only Chelsea supporter in my class at school but I know this is no longer the case with my kids going to school now.

The new ownership have bought us at the top and had to spend in order to do so. They won't be looking to just watch this investment slide into obscurity. The returns they'll see on the club aren't through milking a few million out of the club each year. It's why they had no problems agreeing to not draw money from the club for the next 10 years. They'll see their investment in 10, 15, 20 years time when the club is hopefully worth a multiple of what they paid. Whether they can do that or not, we'll see but they're obviously confident that they can make good money from their investment, and sustaining success within the club is going to be incredibly important to ensuring that happens.

[Vesper 23,958]

On 21/06/2022 at 18:13, Fernando said:

We started bad with Luakaku,

that was NOT Tuchel

it has been definitely established now it was MARINA

as were so many of the other disasterclass moves

her legacy will be poor

we won what we won despite her, not because of her

and now we are paying the price

she will end up costing around £600m, £700m or so in shit deals buys, sales, non sales, non buys of every stripe, plus horrific contract management over the past 5, 6 years

only Barca has a worse track record over that span of time

Manure third

no other teams on planet remotely close to the Big 3 of Fails

at least we won some huge trophies, that is the only redeeming value

Edited yesterday at 12:05 by Vesper

[Fulham Broadway 15,332]

Think a lot will be disappointed with the immediate future. Best years have gone. The 'consortium' have bought for profit, and will want an early return.

They will panic if the CL spot suddenly becomes elusive, -that's when we might gat a few decent players. 

[Superblue_1986 5,330]

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Think a lot will be disappointed with the immediate future. Best years have gone. The 'consortium' have bought for profit, and will want an early return.

They will panic if the CL spot suddenly becomes elusive, -that's when we might gat a few decent players. 

I disagree. I think with the stipulations in place regarding future investment into the club and their inability to profit from the club for the next decade, prevents the idea of early returns.

With a £4bn takeover, they won't get return on investment by the club paying out £10-20m a year in dividends. They'll get the return on investment down the line by building the value of the club up and eventually selling all or some of their shares.

They will definitely want to do things differently to Roman and I've no doubt in my mind that the club will move into a more American model with regards to how it's brand is marketed. There will be internal changes in the board room and structurally which may mean the club has to take a step backwards before moving forwards but ultimately if the club doesn't continue to remain competitive and successful the value of their investment will diminish. 

Ultimately we're not going to know right now what is in store for us in the next 5,10, 20 years but I like the owner. He comes across very well, and he's an astute businessman but his prior dealings with sports teams in America have also centred on winning. He seems like he's got the balls to front the whole thing up and take over the reigns from the old establishment of Buck and Marina when it probably would have been easier for the next 6 - 12 months to let them carry on and smooth a transition. His neck is on the line this summer and I'm pretty sure he and the club will do the upmost to ensure the new ownership doesn't get off to a bad start.

[Fulham Broadway 15,332]

35 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

I disagree. I think with the stipulations in place regarding future investment into the club and their inability to profit from the club for the next decade, prevents the idea of early returns.

With a £4bn takeover, they won't get return on investment by the club paying out £10-20m a year in dividends. They'll get the return on investment down the line by building the value of the club up and eventually selling all or some of their shares.

They will definitely want to do things differently to Roman and I've no doubt in my mind that the club will move into a more American model with regards to how it's brand is marketed. There will be internal changes in the board room and structurally which may mean the club has to take a step backwards before moving forwards but ultimately if the club doesn't continue to remain competitive and successful the value of their investment will diminish. 

Ultimately we're not going to know right now what is in store for us in the next 5,10, 20 years but I like the owner. He comes across very well, and he's an astute businessman but his prior dealings with sports teams in America have also centred on winning. He seems like he's got the balls to front the whole thing up and take over the reigns from the old establishment of Buck and Marina when it probably would have been easier for the next 6 - 12 months to let them carry on and smooth a transition. His neck is on the line this summer and I'm pretty sure he and the club will do the upmost to ensure the new ownership doesn't get off to a bad start.

I hope I'm wrong - but can't see the success we've had in the last 18 years being replicated. Profit through the brand and expansion of TV revenue will be sought just as keenly as success on the pitch.

 

38 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

His neck is on the line this summer

Pretty certain it isn't - he can be entrenched for decades if he wants - Glazers anyone ? Ashley ?

Anyway lets be glass half full and hope for the best.

[Superblue_1986 5,330]

34 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

I hope I'm wrong - but can't see the success we've had in the last 18 years being replicated. Profit through the brand and expansion of TV revenue will be sought just as keenly as success on the pitch.

There's a real argument that the success of Roman's tenure could and should have been even greater. 

We don't need to be the biggest spenders to compete, we've been crying out for changes in strategies behind the scenes, particularly regarding recruitment and squad building. Let's see what the new ownership put in place.

38 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Pretty certain it isn't - he can be entrenched for decades if he wants - Glazers anyone ? Ashley ?

Anyway lets be glass half full and hope for the best.

Probably worded that a bit too dramatically and meant more with regards to his standing amongst Chelsea fans, than necessarily his ownership on the line.

Having said that he's not majority owner so there will be pressure within the board room and consortium for him to get things right.

[Fulham Broadway 15,332]

9 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

Having said that he's not majority owner so there will be pressure within the board room and consortium for him to get things right.

Like your optimism and we can hope - I dont think the consortium that bought Chelsea did so because they are die hard Chelsea fans though, but because a successful West London club has the potential to make them richer. We'll see. 

[OneMoSalah 7,749]

On 24/06/2022 at 13:03, Vesper said:

that was NOT Tuchel

it has been definitely established now it was MARINA

as were so many of the other disasterclass moves

her legacy will be poor

we won what we won despite her, not because of her

and now we are paying the price

she will end up costing around £600m, £700m or so in shit deals buys, sales, non sales, non buys of every stripe, plus horrific contract management over the past 5, 6 years

only Barca has a worse track record over that span of time

Manure third

no other teams on planet remotely close to the Big 3 of Fails

at least we won some huge trophies, that is the only redeeming value

Hardly  

Talk about throwing a respected and highly successful person under the bus now they are on their way out…. although I am glad she is being asked to stay available for the new owner at present because she is clearly good at her job and can still contribute.

Whether or not she picked signings (again I doubt it severely, she was the last person to sign off on deals, that was a given in her role - which prior to her was probably Roman, who also had the final sign off on some horrible signings but don’t see you saying his legacy will be poor or he picked players although he did push heavily for Sheva and Ballack) she wasn’t exactly going and watching players and picking them without input from others. That wasn’t her role and for years to have seen this nonsense branded around here by many users, it is simply moronic to assume she randomly had a brainwave and thought ok lets sign Kepa, Lukaku, Werner, Ziyech (or anyone else who struggled) etc and put these into motion herself. Just an easy target now shes on the way out.

In fact, I would go as far as saying, moronic isn’t even the word. This narrative comes from people who are living in some sort of deluded fantasy that previous managers and the scouting department shouldn’t shoulder a lot of the blame. They should. Clearly. In fact I would say 75% of the blame for bad transfers at least lies with them. Easily.

I mean to say our transfer record is as bad as Uniteds or Barcelona’s is absolutely mind blowing I mean barring Liverpool and City recently every big club has had some shockers but thats the transfer market.

Our transfer record over the past 10, 11, 12, 13 years or so has been pretty good and Marina will have had final sign off on a lot.

I mean signings like Hazard, Mata, Costa, Courtois, Matic, Kante, Kovacic, Rudiger, Chilwell, Mendy, Silva, Cahill, Jorginho, Fabregas, Giroud, Alonso, Pedro, Willian, Azpilicueta, Ramires off the top of my head have all been successes and contributed to the club in a big way. 

Even the likes of de Bruyne, Salah, Lukaku (1st time round), Luiz all made the club shedloads of money as well as multiple other loanees to comply with FFP and be reinvested so this narrative that Marina has fucked hundreds of millions is absolutely mind boggling. Plus you look at the recent integration of Mount, James, Chalobah, the money raised by sales of Tomori (FL should of tried harder to play him and never let him go out on loan to Milan because he is a sore miss just now with AC and Rudi away) and Abraham, the academy has also served us well on and off the pitch. 

Ok she wasn’t the chief executive to 2014 but its widely been reported since 2010 she was Roman’s main representative at the club due to being his chief assistant and was heavily involved in transfers and contracts.

I think it shes goes elsewhere and is half as successful and makes an impression like she did here, some of you might start to see her value instead of making daft accusations that she alone is responsible for X, Y or Z. We complained about the board and others beforehand but personally I think with Marina leaving, it is a huge gap to fill.

And for your post to say what we won despite her? With despite her in bold. That is absolutely mental  She was hugely involved in getting Jose back as well as Conte and Tuchel in the door, in fact a lot would say she probably had the most involvement.  

Edited 4 hours ago by OneMoSalah

[Vesper 23,958]

1 hour ago, OneMoSalah said:

Hardly  

Talk about throwing a respected and highly successful person under the bus now they are on their way out…. although I am glad she is being asked to stay available for the new owner at present because she is clearly good at her job and can still contribute.

Whether or not she picked signings (again I doubt it severely, she was the last person to sign off on deals, that was a given in her role - which prior to her was probably Roman, who also had the final sign off on some horrible signings but don’t see you saying his legacy will be poor or he picked players although he did push heavily for Sheva and Ballack) she wasn’t exactly going and watching players and picking them without input from others. That wasn’t her role and for years to have seen this nonsense branded around here by many users, it is simply moronic to assume she randomly had a brainwave and thought ok lets sign Kepa, Lukaku, Werner, Ziyech (or anyone else who struggled) etc and put these into motion herself. Just an easy target now shes on the way out.

In fact, I would go as far as saying, moronic isn’t even the word. This narrative comes from people who are living in some sort of deluded fantasy that previous managers and the scouting department shouldn’t shoulder a lot of the blame. They should. Clearly. In fact I would say 75% of the blame for bad transfers at least lies with them. Easily.

I mean to say our transfer record is as bad as Uniteds or Barcelona’s is absolutely mind blowing I mean barring Liverpool and City recently every big club has had some shockers but thats the transfer market.

Our transfer record over the past 10, 11, 12, 13 years or so has been pretty good and Marina will have had final sign off on a lot.

I mean signings like Hazard, Mata, Costa, Courtois, Matic, Kante, Kovacic, Rudiger, Chilwell, Mendy, Silva, Cahill, Jorginho, Fabregas, Giroud, Alonso, Pedro, Willian, Azpilicueta, Ramires off the top of my head have all been successes and contributed to the club in a big way. 

Even the likes of de Bruyne, Salah, Lukaku (1st time round), Luiz all made the club shedloads of money as well as multiple other loanees to comply with FFP and be reinvested so this narrative that Marina has fucked hundreds of millions is absolutely mind boggling. Plus you look at the recent integration of Mount, James, Chalobah, the money raised by sales of Tomori (FL should of tried harder to play him and never let him go out on loan to Milan because he is a sore miss just now with AC and Rudi away) and Abraham, the academy has also served us well on and off the pitch. 

Ok she wasn’t the chief executive to 2014 but its widely been reported since 2010 she was Roman’s main representative at the club due to being his chief assistant and was heavily involved in transfers and contracts.

I think it shes goes elsewhere and is half as successful and makes an impression like she did here, some of you might start to see her value instead of making daft accusations that she alone is responsible for X, Y or Z. We complained about the board and others beforehand but personally I think with Marina leaving, it is a huge gap to fill.

And for your post to say what we won despite her? With despite her in bold. That is absolutely mental  She was hugely involved in getting Jose back as well as Conte and Tuchel in the door, in fact a lot would say she probably had the most involvement.  

I am not changing my long held opinion

it's where I personally draw the line

people can either accept that it is the way I feel or not

I have been pretty damn consistent on this since I joined this board 4 and half years ago

it is not like it is something new for me