The Board

[Superblue 6,331]

Not everything will go smoothly, but I'm genuinely looking forward to the next chapter in our club. It's clear that there are a lot of things that could be done far more efficiently at the club and still keep us challenging for trophies, and I'm confident that Boehly, in time, will put things in place to make that happen.

I like the idea of the manager being backed not just with resources, but with time and patience. I believe that of all the managers we've had during Roman's era at the club, Tuchel is probably the one that you'd want coming into this position. He's already built a rapport and bond with the fans (even more incredible considering he replaced Lamps), and won some trophies to prove his credibility as a coach. The last few months have also really shown the man, taking the club on his back and representing us through such trying times. He never bitched and moaned, he didn't bail out on the situation. 

This whole situation kind of feels like a reward to him for what he had to put up with last season. He has to make it work, it's pointless giving him the opportunity to build something if he proves incapable of doing so. But I have a feeling the whole situation will refresh him this summer and he'll get things back ticking again.

 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[King Kante 1,312]

1 hour ago, Blues Forever said:

 

Personally, I hope we go down the Milan sort of route and get an ex-player in this role: 

Top picks

Drogba

Cech

JT is unfortunately discounted due to the PR storm he would create. 

Outsiders: 

Ballack (probably not here long enough)

Paulo (apprantly absolutely delightful to work with and has good people skills) 

SFL (if he gives up management; cannot see it; difficult if TT is here also) 

Maka

Wise (not sure if he would be liked enough/isn't too tarred by the Newcastle fiasco)

Are the type of people I would like to see in this role. People who love/have a strong affinity to the club, where players of top standing and will give their all to the role. 

This I think will work better if we are giving the manager a lot of autonomy as they don't need to prove themselves so much. 

Edited June 22, 2022 by King Kante

[Superblue 6,331]

1 minute ago, King Kante said:

Personally, I hope we go down the Milan sort of route and get an ex-player in this role: 

Drogba

Cech

JT is unfortunately discounted due to the PR storm he would create. 

Outsiders: 

Ballack (probably not here long enough)

Paulo (apprantly absolutely delightful to work with and has good people skills) 

SFL (if he gives up management; cannot see it) 

Maka

Are the type of people I would like to see in this role. People who love/have a strong affinity to the club, where players of top standing and will give their all to the role. 

I think if we were going to do this then the obvious candidate becomes Cech given he already has some board experience and from what I understand, some aspects of his role entail what a sporting director would usually do.

My understanding with the likes of Werner and Havertz was that Cech and Lampard did a very good job selling the club passionately, which shouldn't be a charade to them. It's essentially 'their' club.

Whether you can rely on an ex player to fulfil such an important role with limited or no experience I think could be a bit of a risk. However you are right I think a number of clubs on the continent excel in maximising legends of the club is administrative and/or representative capacities. The likes of Bayern and Ajax have always done this well.

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Henrique 9,133]

Optimism level: 0

Despite what many people said, Chelsea success in past 20 years had everything to do with people who were running the club.

New owners got zero experience with football, and he comes from American sports background. In USA you might run a franchise like Knicks, who gets poor results and still makes cash. The future of this club is probably the present day United and Arsenal: 0 pressure for results, as long as financial situation is great.

Chelsea was a club that demanded results. Not different how Real Madrid, Barcelona or Bayern operate. Now the clubs is going in a different position. They are basically giving Tuchel the mission to take the club out of this difficult situation.

Look at Liverpool: they finally got the right manager in Klopp. After Klopp, Liverpool will go back to their former mediocrity. A successful club is not a one which the success relies on the manager, it's a club that can find success no matter who the coach is.  

[laura90 556]

If Boehly really expects milking money from fans based on poor results season after season, he did his maths wrong.  He simply came to Premier League too late and in the wrong club. It crossed my mind that he will be getting average players and be looking for average results, but how will he get his invested money back? These American owners of sport franchise are used to being awarded for failure. When I looked at Knicks revenue charts I was astonished: The worse results the bigger revenue. I guess they rely on matchday experience/ income. 

New York Knicks rewards failure.

Man Utd rewards failure. (They could go without CL for decades and have mediocre players and their revenue wouldn't significantly drop. Yet they care for CL and are getting Ten Hag).

Arsenal rewards failure. (They are without CL for quite sometime and have youngsters. Their revenue is still high, they make profit but after some time their young guns are threatening to leave leaving them no option but to invest and get that CL back).

Liverpool rewards failure. Just like United they could go without Cl for decades and have average players or youth and yet their fans that never walk alone would invest in that club enough for them to make a profit.

As much as some say we will be run like United, Arsenal or Liverpool before Klopp, that is simply not possible. We just don't have fanbase  as these clubs do. They have supporters from 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, from all around the world who invest in club. They have big stadiums and massive match day income. 

We don't have large fanbase that has been with us in decades. We don't have big stadium. If they stop investing and try to run us as midtable cash cow they may have stadium full but their bank account will be almost empty with tendency of getting emptier year by year.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by laura90

[Fernando 6,376]

3 hours ago, laura90 said:

If Boehly really expects milking money from fans based on poor results season after season, he did his maths wrong.  He simply came to Premier League too late and in the wrong club. It crossed my mind that he will be getting average players and be looking for average results, but how will he get his invested money back? These American owners of sport franchise are used to being awarded for failure. When I looked at Knicks revenue charts I was astonished: The worse results the bigger revenue. I guess they rely on matchday experience/ income. 

New York Knicks rewards failure.

Man Utd rewards failure. (They could go without CL for decades and have mediocre players and their revenue wouldn't significantly drop. Yet they care for CL and are getting Ten Hag).

Arsenal rewards failure. (They are without CL for quite sometime and have youngsters. Their revenue is still high, they make profit but after some time their young guns are threatening to leave leaving them no option but to invest and get that CL back).

Liverpool rewards failure. Just like United they could go without Cl for decades and have average players or youth and yet their fans that never walk alone would invest in that club enough for them to make a profit.

As much as some say we will be run like United, Arsenal or Liverpool before Klopp, that is simply not possible. We just don't have fanbase  as these clubs do. They have supporters from 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, from all around the world who invest in club. They have big stadiums and massive match day income. 

We don't have large fanbase that has been with us in decades. We don't have big stadium. If they stop investing and try to run us as midtable cash cow they may have stadium full but their bank account will be almost empty with tendency of getting emptier year by year.

 

 

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. 

[guddy69 171]

3 hours ago, laura90 said:

If Boehly really expects milking money from fans based on poor results season after season, he did his maths wrong.  He simply came to Premier League too late and in the wrong club. It crossed my mind that he will be getting average players and be looking for average results, but how will he get his invested money back? These American owners of sport franchise are used to being awarded for failure. When I looked at Knicks revenue charts I was astonished: The worse results the bigger revenue. I guess they rely on matchday experience/ income. 

New York Knicks rewards failure.

Man Utd rewards failure. (They could go without CL for decades and have mediocre players and their revenue wouldn't significantly drop. Yet they care for CL and are getting Ten Hag).

Arsenal rewards failure. (They are without CL for quite sometime and have youngsters. Their revenue is still high, they make profit but after some time their young guns are threatening to leave leaving them no option but to invest and get that CL back).

Liverpool rewards failure. Just like United they could go without Cl for decades and have average players or youth and yet their fans that never walk alone would invest in that club enough for them to make a profit.

As much as some say we will be run like United, Arsenal or Liverpool before Klopp, that is simply not possible. We just don't have fanbase  as these clubs do. They have supporters from 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, from all around the world who invest in club. They have big stadiums and massive match day income. 

We don't have large fanbase that has been with us in decades. We don't have big stadium. If they stop investing and try to run us as midtable cash cow they may have stadium full but their bank account will be almost empty with tendency of getting emptier year by year.

 

 

I would say our fan base is bigger than. Arsenal's.. 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

 

[Superblue 6,331]

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 1,440]

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

[laura90 556]

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 6,331]

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 27,361]

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 June 24, 2022 by Vesper

[Fulham Broadway 16,413]

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 6,331]

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.