Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)

[Rajiztar]

Absolutely with Club Like United with its history and money there always an assumption that We will get our act together eventually and its the Similar case now with Chelsea as well as they have money and Stature as well due to their past exploits Under Abramovic .

The size of the money we front loaded into our first team soon our owners will announce stadium plan. Will see.

They want to give pochettino enough to keep the team competitive for two three years and will take charge of new stadium progress in my opinion.

 

[gajender]

The size of the money we front loaded into our first team soon our owners will announce stadium plan. Will see.

They want to give pochettino enough to keep the team competitive for two three years and will take charge of new stadium progress in my opinion.

I also believe new bigger stadium is definitely on the card to truly exploit potential of Chelsea as an Asset and if you can have team which can truly peak while not needing much investment during Lean period of Stadium construction I think that's the ideal situation for new owners .

 

[fergieisold]

Definitely partly to do with that, although the agreement was it had to be done over a decade. Then the ffp amortization is definitely a factor, and then probably simply the ambition from the owners. They had to decide on either doing a slow rebuild with a side and structure that had massive cracks or rip up the foundation - and take some calculated risks to get it done on a shorter timescale.

Everything the club has done so far is in line with fpp regulations so talking about the failure of ffp as it relates to Chelsea, as many are tending to do right now, is irrelevant.

I think it's super unlikely that a manager as good as Poch can't make a team out of these guys. Most of the players were bought at close to fair value so any losses would be normal course and I doubt many of them will fail as the recruitment is much improved over the previous regime. It's also important to consider that half the spend will be covered by player sales, there is an additional Brightonesque model being implemented to generate profit from player sales, and most importantly:

The owners are top hedge fund guys. Most of the risks are being hedged which is a much longer discussion. Importantly, they should not care about buying player x for 50m and selling him for 40m. What they care about is by keeping the team competitive, improving the structure, which will ensure the club's value increases from 4bn to 10bn within the next 8-10 years as expected. That is the ultimate driver for everything.

10bn? Not a chance. The Glazers are struggling to get 6bn for a much bigger club.

 

[Rajiztar]

I also believe new bigger stadium is definitely on the card to truly exploit potential of Chelsea as an Asset and if you can have team which can truly peak while not needing much investment during Lean period of Stadium construction I think that's the ideal situation for new owners .

I hope so. Pochettino also there and did well overall when stadium project was announced at spurs. So in that sense he has that experience as well.

It may take more time for us than spurs rebuild their stadium. So also making sense of long term contracts too. It's just a theory though.

 

[Cathy Ferguson]

Caicedo, Levia and Ohlise cost around the same as Casemiro, Mount and Antony. Chelsea know what they are doing.

 

[justsomebloke]

Definitely partly to do with that, although the agreement was it had to be done over a decade. Then the ffp amortization is definitely a factor, and then probably simply the ambition from the owners. They had to decide on either doing a slow rebuild with a side and structure that had massive cracks or rip up the foundation - and take some calculated risks to get it done on a shorter timescale.

Everything the club has done so far is in line with fpp regulations so talking about the failure of ffp as it relates to Chelsea, as many are tending to do right now, is irrelevant.

I think it's super unlikely that a manager as good as Poch can't make a team out of these guys. Most of the players were bought at close to fair value so any losses would be normal course and I doubt many of them will fail as the recruitment is much improved over the previous regime. It's also important to consider that half the spend will be covered by player sales, there is an additional Brightonesque model being implemented to generate profit from player sales, and most importantly:

The owners are top hedge fund guys. Most of the risks are being hedged which is a much longer discussion. Importantly, they should not care about buying player x for 50m and selling him for 40m. What they care about is by keeping the team competitive, improving the structure, which will ensure the club's value increases from 4bn to 10bn within the next 8-10 years as expected. That is the ultimate driver for everything.

Yeah, but ultimately "keeping the team competitive" is less a product of the volume of investment than something you achieve by running the football club well and carefully building a well-functioning squad and a quality organisation generally. I don't think you can really fast-track that by just spending a lot of money quickly. City should be the template here.

Maybe Poch will make something of it - indeed, it would be a surprise if he didn't. But the sense of assurance you get from some Chelsea fans around here that it'll be allright and won't fundamentally matter if there's a revolving door on the personnel side is as misplaced as the widespread sentiment among United fans that it doesn't really matter if we overpay for players because, you know, we're United. If you don't use resources efficiently and proceed according to a clear vision of what you are on the pitch and how you'll meet that standard, you're not a well-run club. And if you're not a well-run club, you generally don't have success.

Is Chelsea that? I don't know. To a casual observer, it's not easy to look at what they're doing this window and conclude that they're spending money methodically and efficiently towards realising a clear footballing vision.

 

[UsualSuspect]

10bn? Not a chance. The Glazers are struggling to get 6bn for a much bigger club.

The prediction is that all big PL clubs would be worth around 10bn in a few years. That has nothing to do with what the glazers are attempting to do.

Although it does speak to why it would be stupid for them to sell unless they receive an insane offer

 

[cpresc]

10bn? Not a chance. The Glazers are struggling to get 6bn for a much bigger club.

Which they bought for about £600m don't forget

 

[cpresc]

Caicedo, Levia and Ohlise cost around the same as Casemiro, Mount and Antony. Chelsea know what they are doing.

Agreed.

I also don't see anyone here talking about inflation - if you're buying players now and spreading the cost over many years, inflation will take out a big chunk of that fee.

 

[cyberman]

Caicedo, Levia and Ohlise cost around the same as Casemiro, Mount and Antony. Chelsea know what they are doing.

What about the 6/7 hundred million before that?
you’re missing an incredible amount of context. I’ve just read they’ve spent more than La Liga combined over the last 12 months alone and are on course to overtake Germany as well.
All started from a 3rd placed team ( 4 managers ago) who qualified for CL

 

[justsomebloke]

Agreed.

I also don't see anyone here talking about inflation - if you're buying players now and spreading the cost over many years, inflation will take out a big chunk of that fee.

All of that's fine. But it also doesn't change that they started out the Boehly era as a top 4 club, then spent close to 1 bn Euros in 3 windows, after which they still have a squad with serious question marks in several positions. And are coming off the worst PL season in club history.

Not saying it can't turn out good. But no one's in a position to seriously argue it already has, or that it's sure to.

 

[Conor]

Caicedo, Levia and Ohlise cost around the same as Casemiro, Mount and Antony. Chelsea know what they are doing.

That's not how it works, please stop moaning about the club either directly or indirectly in every single thread you enter.

 

[UsualSuspect]

Yeah, but ultimately "keeping the team competitive" is less a product of the volume of investment than something you achieve by running the football club well and carefully building a well-functioning squad and a quality organisation generally. I don't think you can really fast-track that by just spending a lot of money quickly. City should be the template here.

Maybe Poch will make something of it - indeed, it would be a surprise if he didn't. But the sense of assurance you get from some Chelsea fans around here that it'll be allright and won't fundamentally matter if there's a revolving door on the personnel side is as misplaced as the widespread sentiment among United fans that it doesn't really matter if we overpay for players because, you know, we're United. If you don't use resources efficiently and proceed according to a clear vision of what you are on the pitch and how you'll meet that standard, you're not a well-run club. And if you're not a well-run club, you generally don't have success.

Is Chelsea that? I don't know. To a casual observer, it's not easy to look at what they're doing this window and conclude that they're spending money methodically and efficiently towards realising a clear footballing vision.

City shouldn't be the template - they were rushing big deals at the start of their reign, and their template is irrelevant to a club that has already built itself up to being a CL competitor.

Why waste years slowly replacing a very unbalanced squad, unfit for purpose, when you have the option to do it in 18 months at a bigger short-term risk? Fast-tracking can be done, but again, that's relative because Chelsea are already an established big 6 club. The structure of the club has changed massively and has been working well since the Jan window. Compared to how it was run under Roman, the club is in a much better position now for sustainable success. The spanner in works was the unexpected breakdown in the relationship with Tuchel and that exacerbated the risk associated with a quick squad overhaul. Ultimately it led to some big problems, but taking a risk and failing in the short-term is not a train smash.

 

[padzilla]

The size of the money we front loaded into our first team soon our owners will announce stadium plan. Will see.

They want to give pochettino enough to keep the team competitive for two three years and will take charge of new stadium progress in my opinion.

Poch in charge of London clubs who have moved to a new stadium usually doesn't last long.

 

[justsomebloke]

City shouldn't be the template - they were rushing big deals at the start of their reign, and their template is irrelevant to a club that has already built itself up to being a CL competitor.

Why waste years slowly replacing a very unbalanced squad, unfit for purpose, when you have the option to do it in 18 months at a bigger short-term risk? Fast-tracking can be done, but again, that's relative because Chelsea are already an established big 6 club. The structure of the club has changed massively and has been working well since the Jan window. Compared to how it was run under Roman, the club is in a much better position now for sustainable success. The spanner in works was the unexpected breakdown in the relationship with Tuchel and that exacerbated the risk associated with a quick squad overhaul. Ultimately it led to some big problems, but taking a risk and failing in the short-term is not a train smash.

What I mean by the City template isn't "doing it slowly", and my lack of conviction Chelsea is doing great also is not essentially because they're doing things too quickly. It's about doing it on the basis of a clear and settled vision of what you want to be, doing it by building top quality in every area of your organisation (which is something that does take time), and also doing it by using resources efficiently (which includes an ambitious but still economical approach to signings). Maybe you can fast-track most of that, but that doesn't change the need to use resources efficiently and buy players in accordance with a clear plan and vision. That's the difference between quickly building a contender and just throwing a lot of money around. If you look at Boehly era Chelsea I'm not sure there's a lot of compelling evidence so far that they're much more the former than the latter of those things. Again, not saying it can't turn out that way, but am saying there's too much starry-eyed readiness to take that for granted at this point.

 

[UsualSuspect]

I also don't see anyone here talking about inflation - if you're buying players now and spreading the cost over many years, inflation will take out a big chunk of that fee.

And for good reason - logic is scant on public forums.

All of that's fine. But it also doesn't change that they started out the Boehly era as a top 4 club, then spent close to 1 bn Euros in 3 windows, after which they still have a squad with serious question marks in several positions. And are coming off the worst PL season in club history.

Not saying it can't turn out good. But no one's in a position to seriously argue it already has, or that it's sure to.

What question marks are those? The defence is as good as any in Europe. By the end of the week the midfield will be as well. An attack of Jackson, Broja, Nkunku, Sterling, Mudryk, Madueke, Olise, is hardly terrible.

Your argument disregards the state the club were in at the time of purchase - horribly unbalanced squad with a massive wage bill and a terrible recruitment setup. You also skip context of a 1bn spending spree as if it was all spent on ready-made players for the first team. For starters about a 5th of that was spent on loan/multiclub prospects. Should be 500m in sales over 3 windows as well. As I've said before, you don't sell Hazard for 100m, replace him with Antony for 100m and then claim the club should be a better position because 100m was spent.

 

[justsomebloke]

And for good reason - logic is scant on public forums.



What question marks are those? The defence is as good as any in Europe. By the end of the week the midfield will be as well. An attack of Jackson, Broja, Nkunku, Sterling, Mudryk, Madueke, Olise, is hardly terrible.

Your argument disregards the state the club were in at the time of purchase - horribly unbalanced squad with a massive wage bill and a terrible recruitment setup. You also skip context of a 1bn spending spree as if it was all spent on ready-made players for the first team. For starters about a 5th of that was spent on loan/multiclub prospects. Should be 500m in sales over 3 windows as well. As I've said before, you don't sell Hazard for 100m, replace him with Antony for 100m and then claim the club should be a better position because 100m was spent.

Seriously?

If you look at the squad position by position, and then ask yourself this question: If you imagine a Chelsea team that has evolved to the point where they're seriously contending for the PL title, has this player shown that he's good enough to be on that team, or has he shown the opposite, or is it just too early to tell?

If you do that, I think the only part of the team where you get a clear thumbs-up is the wing backs. As for the others;

Goal: Is Sanchez or Kepa who you see playing in goal if you're challenging for the PL title? Good keepers both and it can't be ruled out, but I'd be surprised if Chelsea weren't looking into the possibility of an upgrade at some point on that path.

CBs: Thiago is obviously proven, but can't last much longer. Fofana is on his third straight seriously injury-ridden season. Disasi, Colwill and Badiashile could well be an elite central defence in a year or two, but no one can reasonably argue they've proven they're that level yet - certainly not as a unit.

Central midfield: You could argue Fernandez has already proven he's a genuine linchpin for a top team, although you could also argue it's premature to say that. Caicedo and Lavia obviously warrant big optimism (as does Chukwuemeka), but still, they need to show it for a protracted period before you can say there aren't serious question marks.

An attack of Jackson, Broja, Nkunku, Sterling, Mudryk, Madueke, Olise is hardly terrible no, but it also hasn't shown yet that it's adequate or good, and these are not players of such astounding quality that it would be against all reasonable expectation should they fail to deliver. A good few of them did just that last season. Every single one of them goes in the "too early to tell" bag.

in short - this is a squad brim-full of "maybe he will, maybe he won't" players. In part that's simply because so many of them are new, but that also means you reasonably have to accept there's a greater level of uncertainty here, as opposed to just assuming that just because these are good players with obvious top level potential, that's what they'll be. If you think stuff like you've got a defence "as good as any in Europe", you're taking a lot of things for granted that you can't possibly know yet.

 

[WeePat]

I don’t think you two are even disagreeing that much. Are there question marks over a team freshly assembled and just one game into the season? Of course. Nothing has happened yet. We’re at the starting line and the story hasn’t been written yet, so until it has, there’s question marks over almost every single player in the squad.

 

[justsomebloke]

I don’t think you two are even disagreeing that much. Are there question marks over a team freshly assembled and just one game into the season? Of course. Nothing has happened yet. We’re at the starting line and the story hasn’t been written yet, so until it has, there’s question marks over almost every single player in the squad.

In a nutshell.

 

[UsualSuspect]

What I mean by the City template isn't "doing it slowly", and my lack of conviction Chelsea is doing great also is not essentially because they're doing things too quickly. It's about doing it on the basis of a clear and settled vision of what you want to be, doing it by building top quality in every area of your organisation (which is something that does take time), and also doing it by using resources efficiently (which includes an ambitious but still economical approach to signings). Maybe you can fast-track most of that, but that doesn't change the need to use resources efficiently and buy players in accordance with a clear plan and vision. That's the difference between quickly building a contender and just throwing a lot of money around. If you look at Boehly era Chelsea I'm not sure there's a lot of compelling evidence so far that they're much more the former than the latter of those things. Again, not saying it can't turn out that way, but am saying there's too much starry-eyed readiness to take that for granted at this point.

Understandable. However, the vision and ambition is clear and settled to anyone who really follows the ins and outs of the club. Disregard the manic first 6 months as it was the result of a quick takeover and small window to improve the squad - everything since has been clear and concise with proper long-term planning. The academy, already one of the best in Europe has actually been improved and seen investment. The recruitment structure, completely overhauled and now matches the best in Europe (likes of RB group). A clear plan in place since the last Jan window to build a young, hungry team supplemented by the great academy and a multiclub model - which is well on its way to being realised. The commercial setup has been overhauled with new revenue streams being a particular focus - already some new deals made with more to come - as well as some digital innovations in the pipeline. Next is the physical infractructure - stadium planning is underway and investment now being sought for the rebuild. Nothing about this is haphazard or 'just simply throwing money around'. It's a really uninformed conclusion bandied about by opposition fans.

 

[justsomebloke]

Understandable. However, the vision and ambition is clear and settled to anyone who really follows the ins and outs of the club. Disregard the manic first 6 months as it was the result of a quick takeover and small window to improve the squad - everything since has been clear and concise with proper long-term planning. The academy, already one of the best in Europe has actually been improved and seen investment. The recruitment structure, completely overhauled and now matches the best in Europe (likes of RB group). A clear plan in place since the last Jan window to build a young, hungry team supplemented by the great academy and a multiclub model - which is well on its way to being realised. The commercial setup has been overhauled with new revenue streams being a particular focus - already some new deals made with more to come - as well as some digital innovations in the pipeline. Next is the physical infractructure - stadium planning is underway and investment now being sought for the rebuild. Nothing about this is haphazard or 'just simply throwing money around'. It's a really uninformed conclusion bandied about by opposition fans.

That sounds good. Seems clear even to a casual observer like myself that good people have been brought in on the recruitment side. Now the proof is in what the on-pitch end product turns out to be.

I know I wrote earlier that the essential point isn't how quickly things happen and I think fundamentally that is true. But there is a real downside to attempting to assemble a new team with the extreme speed we're talking about here. If you build more gradually, you allow the key pieces to emerge that you can build around, and the exact nature of the limitations become clearer. You can then act with greater precision in adding pieces that alleviate the weaknesses, or enhance the strengths. It's also much easier for new players to integrate into a team where needs and roles are clear, than to find their place and function on a team where so much is in flux at the same time. I'll genuinely and enthusiastically salute the quality of your recruitment people and the clarity of their (football) vision if they turn out to have assembled a truly contending squad in this manner. And Poch, if he manages to make this work quickly.

 

[GoonerBear]

Understandable. However, the vision and ambition is clear and settled to anyone who really follows the ins and outs of the club. Disregard the manic first 6 months as it was the result of a quick takeover and small window to improve the squad - everything since has been clear and concise with proper long-term planning. The academy, already one of the best in Europe has actually been improved and seen investment. The recruitment structure, completely overhauled and now matches the best in Europe (likes of RB group). A clear plan in place since the last Jan window to build a young, hungry team supplemented by the great academy and a multiclub model - which is well on its way to being realised. The commercial setup has been overhauled with new revenue streams being a particular focus - already some new deals made with more to come - as well as some digital innovations in the pipeline. Next is the physical infractructure - stadium planning is underway and investment now being sought for the rebuild. Nothing about this is haphazard or 'just simply throwing money around'. It's a really uninformed conclusion bandied about by opposition fans.

You are correct of course about the casual observer. Of course, the casual observer does see things like the mess around shirt sponsorship, Christian Vivelli leaving after only 7 months in charge, the hiring and firing of guys like Potter and Lampard, the backlash from the local fans of multiclub model, the aggressive nature in the transfer market, even the recent dealings with regards Caceido and Lavia with Liverpool. That's not too mention whats most important and that's what we've seen on the pitch so far.

I've little doubt Chelsea will achieve success. What I'm not sure about is if it will be to some genius plan from Boehly and Clearlake, or if its not just going to be a case of just like under Roman, you can throw a shit load of money at it and see what sticks. The only difference I'm seeing is your now focusing on the best U23 players.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

You are correct of course about the casual observer. Of course, the casual observer does see things like the mess around shirt sponsorship, Christian Vivelli leaving after only 7 months in charge, the hiring and firing of guys like Potter and Lampard, the backlash from the local fans of multiclub model, the aggressive nature in the transfer market, even the recent dealings with regards Caceido and Lavia with Liverpool. That's not too mention whats most important and that's what we've seen on the pitch so far.

I've little doubt Chelsea will achieve success. What I'm not sure about is if it will be to some genius plan from Boehly and Clearlake, or if its not just going to be a case of just like under Roman, you can throw a shit load of money at it and see what sticks. The only difference I'm seeing is your now focusing on the best U23 players.

Yup. Of course they will have success, they have spent more money than the La Liga and Bundesliga combined in the last 12 months. But it is not some genius plan, just throw enough money at it and see what sticks. This is proven to work as with Chelsea under Roman and City under Abu Dhabi.

 

[justsomebloke]

Yup. Of course they will have success, they have spent more money than the La Liga and Bundesliga combined in the last 12 months. But it is not some genius plan, just throw enough money at it and see what sticks. This is proven to work as with Chelsea under Roman and City under Abu Dhabi.

What, you actually think that's what City's doing?

 

[bringbackbebe]

What, you actually think that's what City's doing?

It's what City used to till Guardiola arrived.

 

[Oranges038]

All this spending will come back to bite them in the ass down the line. Especially when they have several duds on 8 year deals Bogarding their way through contracts.

What they've done is assembled a squad full of players with potential, but half of them will never reach it or perform consistently enough to theirs. Chelsea will continue to fluctuate between being near the top and sacking their manager and dropping down the league every other year.

 

[justsomebloke]

It's what City used to till Guardiola arrived.

Maybe, but it's not how they got where they are today, and it's not what they're doing now.

 

[bringbackbebe]

Maybe, but it's not how they got where they are today, and it's not what they're doing now.

It's pretty much a large percentage of how they got to where they are. Guardiola elevated them from 90% to 100%.

 

[UsualSuspect]

That sounds good. Seems clear even to a casual observer like myself that good people have been brought in on the recruitment side. Now the proof is in what the on-pitch end product turns out to be.

I know I wrote earlier that the essential point isn't how quickly things happen and I think fundamentally that is true. But there is a real downside to attempting to assemble a new team with the extreme speed we're talking about here. If you build more gradually, you allow the key pieces to emerge that you can build around, and the exact nature of the limitations become clearer. You can then act with greater precision in adding pieces that alleviate the weaknesses, or enhance the strengths. It's also much easier for new players to integrate into a team where needs and roles are clear, than to find their place and function on a team where so much is in flux at the same time. I'll genuinely and enthusiastically salute the quality of your recruitment people and the clarity of their (football) vision if they turn out to have assembled a truly contending squad in this manner. And Poch, if he manages to make this work quickly.

100% agree with you. The most efficient process is and will always be a gradual one for obvious reasons. And there definitely were unnecessarily hasty decisions like the medical staff restructuring. But that is better built upon a solid foundation and I believe what the owners (and fans) admitted was that the foundation was rotten. So the first window comes around and while there are some changes, it's not crazy. The bare minimum was to replace the outgoings of Rudiger and Christensen, and to provide backup to our perennially injured fullbacks. Tuchel was a class of manager who could paper over the cracks while the club rebuilds, but alas... Then by the time the next window comes around, things are so bad under Potter that the only options are to continue to fill cracks or demolish right there. Both ways had positive and negative consequences. And as you say, the integration of new players was a big consideration and I think if the was any hope of a top 4-6 challenge under Potter it would have been less chaotic.

Of course, the casual observer does see things like the mess around shirt sponsorship, Christian Vivelli leaving after only 7 months in charge, the hiring and firing of guys like Potter and Lampard, the backlash from the local fans of multiclub model, the aggressive nature in the transfer market, even the recent dealings with regards Caceido and Lavia with Liverpool. That's not too mention whats most important and that's what we've seen on the pitch so far.

I've little doubt Chelsea will achieve success. What I'm not sure about is if it will be to some genius plan from Boehly and Clearlake, or if its not just going to be a case of just like under Roman, you can throw a shit load of money at it and see what sticks. The only difference I'm seeing is your now focusing on the best U23 players.

Most of those are minor consequences of a lot of change. Vivell left of his own accord after feeling underutilized. Lampard was always an interim manager. Potter was a risk that never panned out but no issue with him being given the opportunity. Caceido and Lavia transfers were planned for almost 12 months with Joe Shields doing a lot of the groundwork, no matter what armchair critics or Liverpool fans say. Again, something that may look crazy to the casual but the plan was always to sign both and that's simply what happened.

I don't believe it's any genius plan, but also far from throwing money at things and seeing what sticks.

 

[UsualSuspect]

All this spending will come back to bite them in the ass down the line. Especially when they have several duds on 8 year deals Bogarding their way through contracts.

So you have a dud on low wages who has some resale value. Why would that bite the club in the ass? Take Mudryk - 62m + add ons. If he's a dud in 3 years the club should have no issue selling him with his 97k wages. If the club sell him at 40m it's break-even on the books. In what world do people expect a bunch of players to sit on contracts and not have any desire to play football? If players have been identified to have the right mentality by recruitment, they will want to be sold rather than waste their career.

 

[MegadrivePerson]

Caicedo, Levia and Ohlise cost around the same as Casemiro, Mount and Antony. Chelsea know what they are doing.

That's a very selective use of players though!

You could just as easily say Cucurella, Mudryk and Fofana cost more than Malacia, Antony, and martinez, Chelsea are clueless.

 

[Rajiztar]

100% agree with you. The most efficient process is and will always be a gradual one for obvious reasons. And there definitely were unnecessarily hasty decisions like the medical staff restructuring. But that is better built upon a solid foundation and I believe what the owners (and fans) admitted was that the foundation was rotten. So the first window comes around and while there are some changes, it's not crazy. The bare minimum was to replace the outgoings of Rudiger and Christensen, and to provide backup to our perennially injured fullbacks. Tuchel was a class of manager who could paper over the cracks while the club rebuilds, but alas... Then by the time the next window comes around, things are so bad under Potter that the only options are to continue to fill cracks or demolish right there. Both ways had positive and negative consequences. And as you say, the integration of new players was a big consideration and I think if the was any hope of a top 4-6 challenge under Potter it would have been less chaotic.



Most of those are minor consequences of a lot of change. Vivell left of his own accord after feeling underutilized. Lampard was always an interim manager. Potter was a risk that never panned out but no issue with him being given the opportunity. Caceido and Lavia transfers were planned for almost 12 months with Joe Shields doing a lot of the groundwork, no matter what armchair critics or Liverpool fans say. Again, something that may look crazy to the casual but the plan was always to sign both and that's simply what happened.

I don't believe it's any genius plan, but also far from throwing money at things and seeing what sticks.

Arsenal fans again start to complain about our spending. Some said two three weeks ago we don't have midfield. Now saying we are buying too many players. Just feels like our chelsea are back.

We lacked physicality for too long and lower mid table teams bully us and shithousing their way to either win or draw. Now we added physicality,power and pace all over the pitch.No one can bully us anymore.

This season we will get some goals from corners and free kicks. We will surprise many teams. No doubt. Coasting points against lower mid table teams we will be fine. After long time our fans looking forward to next match with great optimism.

 

[Oranges038]

So you have a dud on low wages who has some resale value. Why would that bite the club in the ass? Take Mudryk - 62m + add ons. If he's a dud in 3 years the club should have no issue selling him with his 97k wages. If the club sell him at 40m it's break-even on the books. In what world do people expect a bunch of players to sit on contracts and not have any desire to play football? If players have been identified to have the right mentality by recruitment, they will want to be sold rather than waste their career.

In the world where you are guaranteed millions over 8 years. Only an idiot would give that up, so they either sit there and get paid over 100k a week or get paid up to leave when it doesn't work out. And nobody is ever giving Chelsea 40m for Mudryk.

How do you know that they are identifying players with the right mentality? What's the process? How long do they watch them for? What's the criteria? How have they managed to sort this all out in a year, when other clubs take ages to do it? And most still don't get it right every time or most of the time especially with young unproven players, but Chelsea are banking on a near 100% hit rate with basically a whole new squad.

From the outside the process looks like this.

"Who's Arsenal or Liverpool linked with this week?"

"Caicedo and Lavia"

"Sign them"

"What? Both?"

"Yes."

 

[justsomebloke]

In the world where you are guaranteed millions over 8 years. Only an idiot would give that up, so they either sit there and get paid over 100k a week or get paid up to leave when it doesn't work out. And nobody is ever giving Chelsea 40m for Mudryk.

How do you know that they are identifying players with the right mentality? What's the process? How long do they watch them for? What's the criteria? How have they managed to sort this all out in a year, when other clubs take ages to do it? And most still don't get it right every time or most of the time especially with young unproven players, but Chelsea are banking on a near 100% hit rate with basically a whole new squad.

From the outside the process looks like this.

"Who's Arsenal or Liverpool linked with this week?"

"Caicedo and Lavia"

"Sign them"

"What? Both?"

"Yes."

This is yet another thing that we just don't know how will work out yet. Contracts of that length are extremely rare in football, and as far as I know no one has ever tried this as a general approach before. How movable players who fail to make it will be with very long contracts (but on the whole on less annual wages than they'd have if on normal length contracts), who knows.

 

[Oranges038]

This is yet another thing that we just don't know how will work out yet. Contracts of that length are extremely rare in football, and as far as I know no one has ever tried this as a general approach before. How movable players who fail to make it will be with very long contracts (but on the whole on less annual wages than they'd have if on normal length contracts), who knows.

Well they can just sell them for 40m each and recoup their money.....

For example - take Fofana contracted to 2029. Been injured for 3 years in a row now. Reports suggest he's on up to 200k a week. Who's going to take him off Chelsea?

Lukaku and Sterling are on 300k+ with 3/4 years left, who the feck is taking on either of them?

 

[Rnd898]

From the outside the process looks like this.

"Who's Arsenal or Liverpool linked with this week?"

"Caicedo and Lavia"

"Sign them"

"What? Both?"

"Yes."

We've held a concrete interest in Lavia since August last year though. Romano even confirmed we made a bid for him on deadline day 2022 just a couple months after Lavia first signed for Southampton, which they rejected. Then after we hired Joe Shields to the recruitment team the interest became even more solid. In case you're not aware who Joe Shields is, he's the one who first scouted Lavia for Man City, then went on to buy him for Southampton when he was their DoF for a brief spell last season and since early this year he's been at Chelsea and has been recommending the club sign him ever since. We've been after Lavia long before the fecking scousers ever even got involved and it's all well documented too. I'm sure Liverpool trying desperately to hijack our Caicedo deal played some part in us finally deciding to go fully after Lavia as well but the interest has still been there since last year.

As for Caicedo he's another one we've been interested in for a while now. There's lots and lots of reports from credible journalists saying we even made a £50-55M bid for him around mid-January which was before Arsenal even registered their interest in the lad. And funnily enough our current sporting director Paul Winstanley was Brighton's head of recruitment from 2014-2022 and was the one who flew to Ecuador to sign Caicedo to Brighton in the first place but you really think Chelsea had no idea who he was and only got interested in him because other top clubs did too?

But I suppose it's more fun to ignore the facts and just laugh at the stupid American (who btw has played little to no part in any transfer business for almost a year now).

 

[GoonerBear]

Arsenal fans again start to complain about our spending. Some said two three weeks ago we don't have midfield. Now saying we are buying too many players. Just feels like our chelsea are back.

We lacked physicality for too long and lower mid table teams bully us and shithousing their way to either win or draw. Now we added physicality,power and pace all over the pitch.No one can bully us anymore.

This season we will get some goals from corners and free kicks. We will surprise many teams. No doubt. Coasting points against lower mid table teams we will be fine. After long time our fans looking forward to next match with great optimism.

Why you singling out Arsenal fans when there's fans of all clubs questioning your spending?

When you spend an unprecedented upwards of £800M+ pounds in little over 12 months, then yeah I'm afraid everyone will be questioning your spending, even your own fan's should be, that just comes with the territory.

 

[Oranges038]

We've held a concrete interest in Lavia since August last year though. Romano even confirmed we made a bid for him on deadline day 2022 just a couple months after Lavia first signed for Southampton, which they rejected. Then after we hired Joe Shields to the recruitment team the interest became even more solid. In case you're not aware who Joe Shields is, he's the one who first scouted Lavia for Man City, then went on to buy him for Southampton when he was their DoF for a brief spell last season and since early this year he's been at Chelsea and has been recommending the club sign him ever since. We've been after Lavia long before the fecking scousers ever even got involved and it's all well documented too. I'm sure Liverpool trying desperately to hijack our Caicedo deal played some part in us finally deciding to go fully after Lavia as well but the interest has still been there since last year.

As for Caicedo he's another one we've been interested in for a while now. There's lots and lots of reports from credible journalists saying we even made a £50-55M bid for him around mid-January which was before Arsenal even registered their interest in the lad. And funnily enough our current sporting director Paul Winstanley was Brighton's head of recruitment from 2014-2022 and was the one who flew to Ecuador to sign Caicedo to Brighton in the first place but you really think Chelsea had no idea who he was and only got interested in him because other top clubs did too?

But I suppose it's more fun to ignore the facts and just laugh at the stupid American (who btw has played little to no part in any transfer business for almost a year now).

So Shields and Lavia are like Arry & Nico. That's a nice love story.

Caicedo is just the shiny new toy everyone wants, he's just an overhyped Wilson Palacios regen. That 115m price tag is going to look very stupid in a few years.

 

[Rajiztar]

Why you singling out Arsenal fans when there's fans of all clubs questioning your spending?

When you spend an unprecedented upwards of £800M+ pounds in little over 12 months, then yeah I'm afraid everyone will be questioning your spending, even your own fan's should be, that just comes with the territory.

Well when arsenal fans don't question about your spending why we need to question ours despite you had more net spend than ours for past three seasons including this season.

We are fine with ffp till now. So what bothers you about our spending.

 

[Rnd898]

So Shields and Lavia are like Arry & Nico. That's a nice love story.

Something like that, yeah.