Chelsea rumours 2
Use our rumours form to send us chelsea transfer rumours.
14 Feb 2024 08:48:42
Ed002 reports that we are talking to Everton about Onana and in negotiations, any truth? And are we interested at all? Thanks.
{Ed002's Note - Amadou Onana (DM/CB/CM) Only moved to Everton in 2022 and they are not looking to sell him but with troubles mounting they may have to listen to offers. West Ham interest has moved on but Arsenal may look again after failing to agree alternatives. Newcastle spoke with Everton in the summer and have failed to sign their primary DM/CM target but will return if he is not available. Manchester United had him a long way down their list of targets but failed to sign preferred options in the summer and he may still be of interest, but I rather doubt it. Chelsea have him on a list of midfield options but not at the top, and Barcelona may look to some horsetrading.}
Agree0
0Disagree
15 Feb 2024 09:11:02
When people talk about a spine of a team, this man is your backbone, 6’3 and recorded 6th fastest sprint speed, .3 slower than Anthony Gordon, can slip into CB when needed, covers massive areas while Caciedo could cover the small spaces, I read someone say his a typical pick profile of a cm, and a response saying it’s not a poch profile it’s a profile than is required in winning teams in premier league. Carrick - sir Alex, Jose - matic, pep - rodri, arteta - rice, klopp - Fabinho
Could play along side any of enzo lavia caicedo Gallagher too. Any partnership.
16 Feb 2024 01:25:59
Do we really need another midfielder? Enzo, Caicedo, Gallagher, Lavia, Ugochukwu, Santos, Chucky and Casedei. Granted I imagine at least 2 of the last 4 will probs go on loan again next season but don’t think we really need to be signing another CM unless Gallagher leaves.
09 Feb 2024 16:20:41
Ed
It's increasingly obvious that clubs are looking to increase capacity to assist with PSR.
In view of the countless problems we have with our location, do you feel that the best and quickest way forward would be to move and build a brand new stadium from scratch elsewhere.
I just feel that Roman drew a blank and our new owners are already having issues with locals and I also feel there is going to be massive media pressure on us buying the land from Stoll where most of the veterans would need to be re-housed which they are reluctant to happen as they are in a nice area.
{Ed002's Note - it is of that simple.}
Agree0
0Disagree
09 Feb 2024 23:08:45
Moving is the only option but the ever annoying cpo make that very impossible because If we move were no longer chelsea.
Spending 2 billion pounds to increase capacity by only 10000 seems very silly, I don't understand the finances in that but we really need to have the option to again extend that in the future.
10 Feb 2024 02:57:40
I feel very tired and very rough but I have to respond to the comment “the ever annoying CPO. ”
Actually, what’s the point, it just more unwanted drivel directed at anything Chelsea.
See you all later!
10 Feb 2024 08:53:44
I'm with Tom on this, I'm too young to remember it but my dad tells me about cpo and everything they did to help save the bridge and make sure its home to Chelsea, I don't want to move.
I would knock down the shed and hotels and build a bigger shed, stick the away fans in east upper.
10 Feb 2024 11:33:18
Steve and other posters who are really interested in the CPO and it’s updated understanding on any CFC stadium renovation or potential move, to look up the CPO minutes for January 2024.
If any poster is interested in its board members, current financials, future functions or a list of past players who are presidents (John Terry) or vice presidents, the likes of DW, JFH, MD any many others, I suggest you look on the CPO website. Some might find it interesting and educational.
10 Feb 2024 12:47:44
Thanks Tom, I understand a new stadium somewhere else will look amazing and bring in a lot of revenue but for me I'd rather be Chelsea football club playing at a 42 thousand bridge than the club in North London with a chicken standing on a tennis ball as a badge playing in a state of the art 60 thousand stadium with no trophies.
09 Feb 2024 19:53:18
Thank you Ed.
10 Feb 2024 10:17:36
Hope u are recovering Tom.
As Tom knows, for years the CPO have protected our clubs existence after a very dark time when we nearly lost our home with a potential ground share with Fulham which I believe would eventually have put us out of business.
Having said that it might be a good idea for both them and the CST to come out and let supporters know how they would feel if the owners wanted to move or indeed wanted to have the stadium re-named.
It would also be interesting to hear their thoughts on the struggles both Roman and our new owners are having with local people in trying to expand SB ( which is their right as they live there) . I'm pretty sure the local council are still in the mindset of helping us expand but maybe ED002 can confirm if this is true.
My original post is because I see other clubs being able to move a short distance or expand on the existing site without the serious issues Roman and our necowners face which is holding our club back financially.
10 Feb 2024 15:59:17
Sorry Bill, I wasn't dismissing your post.
10 Feb 2024 18:35:53
No worries Steve, I did not take it that way all is good.
10 Feb 2024 20:08:25
Bill, thanks for your concern, I’m ok thanks. I will take it easy for a few days and then await the results. Fingers crossed the new treatments work.
10 Feb 2024 20:58:48
The only fans that don't appreciate the CPO are overseas fans who have never set foot inside Stamford bridge.
10 Feb 2024 23:54:16
Fingers and toes crossed for you Tom, hope you are well and back with us soon.
11 Feb 2024 00:08:19
Sure they helped the club back in the day but with this whole stadium thing they are absolutely holding the club back. We can hold around 40000, very poor number for a club who has been the most successful club in the last 15 years.
An upgrade to 60000 is fine as long as tgere are capabilities to further expand that to 80000 in the future.
11 Feb 2024 07:28:27
How about “when your in a hole stop digging. ”
Again, it’s typical to use a word like “absolutely” when you have little clue about the CPO.
I’m personally not bothered about moving away from Stamford Bridge. Places like Battersea and Earls Court have been mentioned in the past. The former is not going to happen and the last report I saw in the CPO minutes was something like “the current owners/ developers have NO plans for a football stadium on the site” and “Hammersmith and Fulham council are COMPLETELY against a football stadium at Earls Court. ”
Of cousre things can change but I can’t see to many suitably sized plots of land becoming available in that area in the near future.
The club have said it is considering all options. It has also said it welcomes the opportunity to discuss all of the options with ALL of its partners. Those partners include the CPO.
Also, we are called Chelsea” for a reason!
11 Feb 2024 10:25:36
Im happy with staying at Stamford Bridge as well and surely there must be a way of extending with a bit of clever architecture.
I do wonder if the club considered or bid for the site being relocated to Imperial Wharf right next to Chelsea Harbour for those who don’t know. Over the last sort of 15 years there has been a huge amount of building work going on round there and surely would have been enough room for a new stadium.
11 Feb 2024 11:06:01
Whitey, it was reported that Roman was one of the under bidders for th Battersea power station site. I’m Tod that that redevelopment is spectacular.
The problem is that riverside sites are a premium for house builders. There seems to be more profit in building homes than football stadiums.
Most clubs are named because of there locality to a particular area. I remember some of my West Ham supporting mates saying it was wrong to have there name attached to a stadium in Stratford. I think that was more to do with them not wanting to leave Upton Park and the chicken run.
Chelsea as a location is in my opinion prestigious and should be a fantastic marketing factor for our club. If I remember correctly we are about 3 miles from Buckingham Pacace and not much more from Westminster Abbey. Also only a step or two away from the “trendy” Kings Rd. These things are all promotional positives for our “unique club and its location. ”.
12 Feb 2024 09:07:19
Standard, please stop embarrassing yourself.
12 Feb 2024 19:23:21
Tom, the owners have a really difficult problem about Stamford Bridge. A lot of top clubs are redeveloping their grounds to compete to increase capacity and generate more revenue particularly because of the ever changing financial sustainability regulations. Stamford Bridge is outdated and certainly cannot be described as a 21st century stadium. What to do about it is the issue. I have always believed that building a 60,000 seater stadium on the current site is practically and financially infeasible. Personally, I don’t have a problem with moving or re- naming the stadium if it benefits the club.
As for” there is a reason we are called Chelsea” that is open to debate; technically we are not talking n Chelsea. The main reason we are called Chelsea is that Fulham FC had already been founded and admitted to the Football League many years before we joined. Apparently other options for our name would included Kensington FC and London FC.
I don’t believe that our prestigious location is significantly helpful in generating revenue. I believe it is actually a hindrance to redevelopment. Along with the site line issues the increasing affluence around the ground will make planning applications more difficult and protracted.
Finally, I hope you make a full and speedy recovery from your treatment.
{Ed002's Note - The issue with the stadium is related to something else entirely.}
12 Feb 2024 21:15:27
Jimbo, thanks I am recovering from a new treatment that has knocked me a bit sideways.
Like you I have never felt emotionally attached to Stamford Bridge. I am attached to the name Chelsea and whatever the history was about how our club got its name it is the name Chelsea and what it stands for that I support.
I’ve always considered the name and the club’s location in London to be a positive. If I had a marketing hat to put on I would be licking my lips at the thought of selling the club in general and particularly its up market location.
If I remember correctly the stadium proposal Roman put forward was for a 60k capacity. I attended the meeting that took place about 10 years ago. It wasn’t the best meeting I have attended but I voted with Roman/ club. If I remember correctly I think the vote was 60/ 40 but a 75% majority was required. I also seem to remember the then chairman of the CPO resigned. The new owners have stated that they want a constructive dialogue with all of its partners and that includes the CPO.
12 Feb 2024 23:15:56
I don’t know everything about the issues surrounding the stadium perfectly but upgrading it like Liverpool stand by stand would barely add 10,000 seats and I believe it was said to cost roughly £30,000/ seat.
Even if we could get planning permission from surrounding neighbours (who at the moment seem to be against the re-build), can acquire the needed land, can overcome the fact that the land is surrounded by a train track and 2 roads, we still have the issue of egress. There’s not the infrastructure to have more than 55k people leaving the stadium.
Abramovich had people working on the idea for near on 10 years and just about managed to come up with a plan to dig down in order to facilitate a stadium at 58k? The cost was around 1.4bn which was 2 years ago now so undoubtedly would be much higher given how prices have changed since. Not to mention it would require us to find another home for 3-4 years. I believe Wembley said no at the time (maybe they’d change their mind as it would have been back to back with spuds sharing at the time, and perhaps since it’ll have been a few years they might be open to it again) or sharing either with Fulham or palace I believe were the other options.
Ultimately we have 3 choices. Stay at 42k with an outdated stadium. Spend an exorbitant amount on a rebuild to get to 55-60k and have no further chance for expansion in the future, or relocate to a nearby location where we can build a stadium at whatever capacity we need (within reason) at a lower price than a rebuild, with the potential of future expansion, whilst allowing for the redevelopment of Stamford bridge into apartments or w/ e to fund the new stadium.
If a suitable nearby location comes up I think we need to grab it with both hands.
13 Feb 2024 06:44:53
Just on financial and time scale agreements I agree with you Fuser although if we left I'm not quite sure who would profit from the sale if SB, the club or the CPO's, perhaps Tom could help with this question if he is upto to it at the moment with his health issue.
Tom, hope your health is improving day by day.
13 Feb 2024 08:15:00
Bill, it will be a few days yet before I’m firing on all cylinders.
The CPO wasn’t set up as a for profit organisation. In fact the annual budget is usually set at break even. It’s raises funds by selling shares and a few functions each year that are usually open to non shareholders.
It was set up to protect the name and the Chelsea estate. I’m not going to talk for the other shareholders but I think if the new owners put forward a proposal that means security for the club and its name the CPO shareholders would be happy enough. Remember the CPO is a democratic organisation run by its members.
13 Feb 2024 09:50:28
Does anyone know what the issue is with redeveloping the stadium?
Also, are there any sites available that could house a new stadium?
{Ed002's Note - The issue was where the team would play with Earls Court no longer an option.}
13 Feb 2024 11:19:42
Just to tack on to Tom's excellent and informative post above re the CPO - until the club presents an option for the CPO to vote on, the CPO has absolutely no input into the stadium discussions. There literally isn't a proposal to vote on so what exactly could the CPO even be in opposition to?
Further to this, and sorry for repeating myself, but if you are still unhappy at the CPO despite all the above, you can just buy a share and have your say. You aren't restricted to moaning about it.
But again, there is nothing at the moment for you to have your say on, so you will be shouting into the wind against your perceived adversaries.
13 Feb 2024 13:06:21
RBD, spot on mate.
I say again, the new owners have said they will continue to communicate with all the stakeholders and that includes the CPO.
The CPO provides the minutes to its meetings in a regular basis for all fans to read.
08 Feb 2024 10:42:18
Ed002 what do you see or think happens with mudryk? He is struggling and looks far off the pace and level of the Premier league with others ahead of him. Could he go on loan in the summer? Or maybe even a sale?
{Ed002's Note - Mykhaylo Mudryk struggled to settle with the cultural changes and his family initially still being in the Ukraine (although that has now been largely resolved). Chelsea has no intention of loaning him out having already rejected an offer in January but there was a proposal from another side to take him as part payment for a player Chelsea are interested in. Before the summer there will be discussions about all players and then it will become clearer.}
Agree0
0Disagree
08 Feb 2024 20:31:42
Could we ask the player of interest,
09 Feb 2024 08:08:42
Hmm, would have to be a high value player. Osimhem or Leao?
06 Feb 2024 20:33:50
What new players, ones signed under this ownership are actively looking and trying to leave, rumours of enzo, and carney,
Agree0
0Disagree
07 Feb 2024 00:06:23
Presumably many. Don't see why they'd want to be a part of this mess.
07 Feb 2024 07:15:10
Why Carney, he has been injured for most of the season,
07 Feb 2024 07:59:08
I am OK with it. 120m € for Enzo and 20m€ for Carney Chukwuemeka And we are more than fine. For 140m € we can get top CM, top CAM and good CF.
You can add Caicedo for 130m€.
08 Feb 2024 09:39:56
TheBlue, any change to that opinion this morning?
08 Feb 2024 11:28:45
Dihanio, yes players have not said they are leaving, media as always making up stories.
{Ed002's Note - Another thread full of nonsense. The posters are simply trolling the site.}
08 Feb 2024 11:34:01
I would hope none.
09 Feb 2024 06:24:56
No Dihanio. One good game doesn't fix problems we've been facing for sometime now.
06 Feb 2024 20:11:25
Today there's rumours boehly and eghbali are not in good terms
Players not happy with lack of tactics given by poch
Concerns over poch and his affiliation to spurs is against him
Owners are content with signings made under directors
When clubs in the mess it is, it's easy for these rumours to start, but of all the rumours, the one the owners are happy with the squad built so far is the most laughable, if it's true and there happy not of gotten in proven goalscorer in 3 windows then there's no hope for the summer.
Agree0
0Disagree
07 Feb 2024 00:07:08
Beg to bring Mr Mourinho back, and follow him to the ends of the earth.
07 Feb 2024 07:17:59
Standard, you remember how Mourinho's sevond term finished and you still want him back, are you his bank manager by any chance?
07 Feb 2024 08:55:54
Bill, watch the games we had when mourinho left compared to now. We were losing yes, but the passion and effort was there. I don't care about being a poor side, as long as effort and passion is there. This current crop couldn't give a toss.
07 Feb 2024 09:12:39
How would that help Standard if we lost with Mourrinho? .
We need a coach who will pick a team and formation to win games.
07 Feb 2024 10:21:09
I actually think the most interesting detail in these reports is the rumours of tension between Boehly and Eghbali.
I have long suspected that Boehly wanted to buy into the Premier League for the glory as much as anything, while Eghbali and the rest of Clearlake saw it as a good commercial opportunity - I think now they would be happy to rid themselves of the club if possible. Boehly is certainly a less conspicuous presence now that he was a year ago.
It seems to me that the reason there is no immediate pressure on the SDs is because whether they are producing on the pitch or not, the squad is full of sellable assets since they are all young and by most accounts on lower end wages relative to their transfer fees. That could well have ultimately been their brief to deliver on. No one in the media is really talking about it from this angle, it's all just derivative 'Boehly is an idiot who thought he could outsmart the league'.
07 Feb 2024 10:29:54
The passion and effort absolutely was not there when Jose got sacked in his second spell. He lost the players, they stopped playing for him and we finished 10th after winning the league. Jose will always be loved at Chelsea but I think it would be a dangerous appointment right now.
07 Feb 2024 11:00:28
Mourinho is interested in MUFC job. He is not interested in Chelsea.
08 Feb 2024 11:27:09
And Chelsea are not interested in him either therefore all good.
{Ed002's Note - The entire thread is (yet again) complete nonsense.}
05 Feb 2024 07:31:08
This is probably just wishful thinking on behalf of the sender and I personally hope it's not true but I've just been messaged by a mate who says there is a strong rumour of a 9am board meeting being called. My bet would be that this is just normal procedure and people are making 2+2=5.
Agree0
0Disagree
05 Feb 2024 09:48:43
Tom
Hopefully it equals 4, this cannot continue with a toxic atmosphere at the Bridge, it just will not help with player confidence.
I wanted Poch to succeed and I believed he was the right person to guide these youngsters but his tactics, substitutions and him coming out stating his job is not safe suggests that he feels his time is up and maybe the players know it as well.
I'm sure TS's wife also does not help matters and I won't be sorry to see her ho at the end of the season.
04 Feb 2024 16:39:04
Quick question for any of the Eds is pochetino now under pressure for his job after several poor displays and making it look like were worse off than last season.
{Ed002's Note - Pochettino is at risk because of results - he is working in a difficult environment and someone advising the club is suggesting a change is needed which someone else is suggesting continuity.}
Agree0
0Disagree
04 Feb 2024 22:36:42
Shambles.
04 Feb 2024 20:00:12
If you do not mind me asking ed, who would be of interest if they were to pull the plug on poch, are the club now aware that they have clearly made some disasterous mistakes in the transfer market and if so what in gods name can they do to rectify the mess theyv put together since taking over its a really strange thing how fast the club has fallen and how disattachted the fans feel from the circus.
{Ed002's Note - There is no point discussing this until the time is right.}
04 Feb 2024 20:10:57
Ed
When there is a difference of opinion, how do the owners make a decision one way or the other?
{Ed002's Note - They will discuss it involving a couple of advisors to the club and come to a decision.}
04 Feb 2024 20:39:55
I personally would give Poch the cup final and if we lose he should leave. Its disappointing as he seems like a decent all round guy and is being hugely let down by the group of players.
Ed can I ask who are other candidates being considered?
I honestly think we could have Pep in charge or a prime Mourihno and they would struggle with these players. The problem is far greater than manager and is down to the two muppets running our club.
{Ed002's Note - There is no point discussing options at this time.}
04 Feb 2024 21:27:23
Interesting Ed2, what are your thoughts about the whole situation? I just can't understand how badly things have gone.
{Ed002's Note - Injuries have played a significant part of screwing up the season.}
05 Feb 2024 09:18:44
I hope the 'advisors' aren't the same ones who were in charge of recruitment and the 'plan'
05 Feb 2024 09:29:20
Thank you Ed for your responses, I know it's tough to answer these type of questions from us.
31 Jan 2024 21:16:18
Ed002 are we still trying to get deals done in January?
{Ed002's Note - Many, many players will come and go today.}
Agree1
0Disagree
05 Feb 2024 06:30:41
What happened with many in goings and out goings last day od January transfer window? Or simply has financial issues coming in June due to shambolic amateur transfer policy?
28 Jan 2024 15:00:13
Hi Ed,
Is there any truth in this Callum Wilson talk?
I'm guessing a Broja replacement if it's true?
{Ed002's Note - I would nold your breath.}
Agree0
0Disagree
28 Jan 2024 15:42:55
Thanks ed.
28 Jan 2024 12:31:50
Ed002 dou you think broja will leavev in the next few data and we will sign a striker? And any other positions we could add a player? Thanks.
{Ed002's Note - If a club makes an acceptable bid then yes he will leave - right now there has not been anything offered that the club would deem acceptable. The club have held discussions over replacements but may stick with the forward options they have until the summer with Deivid Washington given a chance and Nkunku and Jackson not toofar away from a return.}
Agree0
0Disagree
29 Jan 2024 13:05:06
Ed002 rumors that we might look to bring jonathan david in,? Any truth?
{Ed002's Note - Jonathan David (S/AM) Lille, like many French clubs were hit hard by the loss of broadcast revenue and will need to sell some of their more valuable assets even though they do not want to. Jonathan David is valued by Lille at an unrealistic €60M. Napoli and Spurs no longer see him as a possible addition due to his price. Real Madrid have previously declared an interest but their focus has turned away as they wanted to include a player in any deal. He has been recommended to Chelsea by an ex player but the club have preferred targets - although his agent remains very keen on the move and remains in discussions with Chelsea. The Manchester United coach tried to take him to Ajax and could potentially look to taking him to Manchester United but I suspect that option will soon be gone. Aston Villa or Milan may offer a viable solution but the fee is a huge issue.}
29 Jan 2024 13:32:09
Interesting, I do like him and his versatility Is a plus, can play Cf, in a two or wide if needed. Ed002 do you think a deal is possible in next few days?
{Ed002's Note - Lots of things are possible but Lille will not want to sell without adding a replacement - and the striker they are working on is an addition rather than a replacement. There are other options.}
25 Jan 2024 08:08:33
Are we having a collaboration or collection or sponsor with " Jordan " ( Nike ) ? They ended there partnership with psg and rumours are they want a London club?
Agree0
0Disagree
25 Jan 2024 09:22:35
Matt, rumours are it’s us or the spuds.
If I were a betting man and I am, I think it will be us.
25 Jan 2024 18:49:48
Tom, I understand they would prefer us but only if we get Champions League.
25 Jan 2024 19:21:54
would be a very lucrative deal for the club im sure.
25 Jan 2024 19:30:53
Lets be honest that is not going to happen this season.
25 Jan 2024 19:46:35
I’m not sure why it wouldn’t happen this season and I can’t believe believe that any of there would be just built upon this season. I think it will a deal done with the club that has the best vision an a management that listens to it’s sponsors needs.
25 Jan 2024 21:04:11
Tom
It pains me to say it but Spurs have a better stadium, are better run financially, are now above us on revenue earnt and on the playing field, play as a team where every player knows what's needed.
If I was investing at this point in time, I know where my money would go.
25 Jan 2024 21:38:49
Bill, I haven’t got a clue what criteria “jordan” will use to decide a future partner. Apparently there preferred club will be based in London.
Obviously the spuds have a better ground. I would dispute they are better managed.
I personally don’t believe a brand like “Jordan” look at a one season club on field performance. I would think it would be based on a clubs global profile and its vision for the future. We also have a twenty year history of winning trophies, a fantastic youth set up, along with a ridiculously successful womens team. I think our academy and women’s team rich history give us a massive advantage, as I’m sure that the “Jordan” (Nike) brand see that group as being entities they want to be associated with.
We also owners who are trying there best to demonstrate they want that winning attitude to continue.
Looking at it from the outside I would disappointed that a CFC couldn’t sell our club and its achievements over any other London based club.
26 Jan 2024 09:27:39
I suppose tine will tell.
26 Jan 2024 11:14:56
Chelsea do have the last decade on spurs that gives them the edge but take of the blue tinted glasses Tom. Spurs are absolutely better run than us at this point in time. Unequivocally.
26 Jan 2024 13:03:44
Standard, why do insist on making statements as if they are” fact”when it’s just your opinion and clearly people are entitled to a different opinion. Using the word “unequivocally” doesn’t make it a fact.
You have now said that both Liverpool and Spurs are better “managed” than Chelsea. Give me some facts to support that view and please not “only” the ins and outs of players. For your guide there is more to management than transfers.
26 Jan 2024 15:37:51
Bill, the last time I looked and I admit that was about a year ago the largest premiership team debt was Spurs. I think it was over £850m.
Probably because of the takeover of our club we were carrying no debt. It was reported that two other premiership clubs carried no debt and one other club in Europe.
Of cousre those reports may well have been incorrect or just inaccurate.
26 Jan 2024 16:08:37
Bill, I should have added, I’m definitely not saying debt is a bad thing or a sign that a club is poorly managed.
I’m not in a position to make any such judgement.
26 Jan 2024 16:56:45
Companies/ Brands won’t spend millions on sponsorship deals unless they get exposure at the highest level: for football that is the Champions League.
26 Jan 2024 17:28:22
My guess would be a brand/ sponsor will look at the performances of any clubs first team over a period of years. As I already said my guess is they will look at our current global brand that is based on a 20 year winning history along with an assessment of potential future success.
As I’ve also said, the WHOLE club will be evaluated by any brand/ sponsor. That will obviously include the academy and women’s team.
Any decent sales salesmen ought to be able to put a positive spin on our clubs winning history and future.
26 Jan 2024 19:26:21
Tom, yes you’ve already made that point.
26 Jan 2024 20:43:35
Teams who haven’t qualified for the Champions league for many seasons over the last twenty plays years seemed to have done ok picking up brands/ sponsors for large fees.
I seem to remember a poster say that we have qualified for the champions league 17 times in the last 25 years. I think he also said that was more than any other premiership club. We have won more trophies than any other English club in the last twenty years. I also think the poster mentioned that spurs had only qualified for the Champs league 7 times and won the league cup 15 yeaes ago. I think that’s there only trophy in twenty plus years.
If the choice is just for a London team I would be very disappointed if it wasn’t us.
26 Jan 2024 23:06:55
Tom, you always challenge posters to provide evidence for their assertions. Who are these other teams who have not qualified for CL who have done OK? What is OK? You have repeated yourself: so I will too. Not qualifying for the CL has consequences; loss of prestige; circa £70 million loss of revenue; competiveness for sponsorship deals and the ability to attract players. As I said not qualifying for one season is not a disaster but if it becomes a habit…….
26 Jan 2024 23:34:48
Jimbo, yes you are poster repeating yourself. Of course not qualifying has consequences and that applies to all clubs not just Chelsea. The comparisons was with Spurs and as far as I know they didn’t qualify for the Champions league last season and haven’t so far this season.
Utd didn’t qualify for Champions League but got and retained sponsors/ brands.
Liverpool, the same.
Arsenal, the same,
The Spuds, the same.
It was YOU that used the phrase “only if we get Champions League”.
27 Jan 2024 03:41:19
Sorry Tom, do I really need to explain it. liverpoil and spurs have lower wage bills than us and have spent less money, and earn more money than us. I'll compare here over the last 5 years
Chelsea
Net spend : 673 Million pounds for 4th, 4th, 3rd, 12th and 9th (current)
Wage expenditure : 128m
Revenue 504m
Spurs
Net spend : 461 million pounds for 6th, 7th, 4th, 8th and 5th (current)
Wage expenditure : 91m
Revenue 541m
Liverpool
Net Spend : 218 million pounds for Champions, 3rd, 2nd, 5th and 1st (current)
Wage expenditure : 134m
Revenue : 582m
We have history on our side with trophies but it's also expected you win more trophies if you spend more money. Objectively, spurs and Liverpool at this point in time are better run than us. I can't believe that's even up for debate.
27 Jan 2024 08:47:53
Standard. I can’t believe you think it’s not up for debate. Maybe a red and white tinted glasses thing!
I appreciate the figures you have produced to support your argument but in the same way I said substantial debt isn’t a bad thing or that a club is poorly managed, I assumed the same would apply to other monetary metrics.
As you correctly say in my opinion there is an expectation that if you spend more you should win more. If that is the case then the simple way to judge success (not management) would be to divide nett spend over a period of time against trophies won.
You have chosen to use a five year period for your financial comparative. Obviously Spurs have won nothing, I’m not sure but I think Liverpool have won three pots and we I think have won three.
Of course we could use the same equation, nett spend per trophy over a twenty year period. I seem to remember reading we have won 23 trophies over that period I think Liverpool was 11 and the Spuds 1.
For balance it could be argued that both the scousers and spuds have had significant spends other than players. The spuds obviously built a fantastic new stadium and the scousers spent a significant amount on there training ground plus had a huge stadium upgrade. Those choices don’t definitively mean they are better managed.
I have tried to make my point as balanced as I can. I’m not sure there is an accurate way of measuring success. Maybe it is nett spend for every trophy won? While over the last twenty years that would probably support the Chelsea owners having been good managers, I think that is far to simplistic but from a supporter’s perspective I haven’t seen a better way of measuring management.
“I can’t believe that's even up for debate”.
27 Jan 2024 12:54:06
Tom, over tge last 20, we've been better managed. However, under the new owners, we've absolutely been worse managed. That's what I'm stating is crazy to even debate. Would you really disagree with that? I think I'd struggle to find many who do.
27 Jan 2024 13:39:28
You may think it’s “crazy even to debate” as if your opinion is in some way correct or superior to other opinions but I would suggest your use of dismissive language does not make you correct. In fact it just makes you sound condescending.
If you are so DESPERATE to comare our current owners to clubs like Liverpool then do it factually.
How many years did it take the current owners of Liverpool to win a trophy? I’m only guessing but as they always seemed to be in the depths of gloom I would think it was probably several years.
I’m not sure the current owners of Spurs have EVER won a trophy as I’m not sure who the owner was 15 years ago but in your eyes they are better managed.
I’m sure there is some numerate clever clog poster that can tell us why each trophy has cost each club over the last twenty years. As I’ve stated that may well be a reasonable way of measuring successful management for fans but it wouldn’t match my personal criteria. There are lots of things going on at clubs besides the success or failure of any first team. They all need to tested and measured before any conclusion can be made about a management team.
FGS try and be a bit balanced and if you are determined to make comparisons then compare like for like.
Our new owners bought a club that in my opinion was overdue a complete overhaul. I personally think they have tried to do to much to quickly but that’s a totally different issue. That was roughly 18 months ago and you have already written them off. Truly amazing!
27 Jan 2024 16:57:06
I seem to remember that FSG had the fans on their backs during the early period of their tenure.
I beleive like Tom, we needed a complete overhaul and a number of high quality youngsters have been brought in and I believe we will have a top quality team for a number of years to come
I think where it went wrong was not bringing in an experienced ST and CB.
Going forward once we get the ST and CB needed, there will only be minor tweaking.
27 Jan 2024 17:19:50
Bill, I do seem to remember that early period of ownership wasn’t full of joy. I have said I’m not sure how long it was before they won a trophy under there management/ ownership.
I repeat, I don’t think the spuds management / ownerhip have ever won a trophy. ?
We all got spoilt when Roman took over and it was an instant success but that is rare.
27 Jan 2024 23:08:26
Read again Tom. Context is hard to achieve through text but you seem to misunderstand entirely every single time.
Currently, we're worse managed and I don't really see how that's up for debate. We've spent a billion pounds and we're in 8th. We sacked a champions league winning coach by paying him out, spent 20 million to buy potter from Brighton, sacked him and paid him out too. Brought in lampard and finished 12th. Then, we failed to sign a striker (the market is hard so that's understandable), missed out on a player who'd be a gamechanger (rice) and were now in 9th.
That's not writing them off, that's not supporting another team or whatever, that's jusy being honest. Good news is they clearly care and I do believe they will turn it around as long as they learn from there numerous mistakes.
In that time, spurs have risen above us in revenue and in stature, though almost certainly only temporarily.
Liverpoil have been the second greatest premier league team ever.
I'm not talking about 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago, I'm talking about now. And if your really trying to say we've been better managed I think you need to sit back and think about it mate. No problem being a mega fan but come on your irrationality is a bit too out there lol.
27 Jan 2024 23:16:48
Tom
I agree Spurs have only won one trophy and that was against us.
I'm looking at all aspects, and I think all round, they are a stable club, that's not to say we won't be in a year or two so it will depend when Nike/ Jordan want to invest.
28 Jan 2024 06:49:23
Standard, its no me who has used the term “unequivocally” or the phrase “you can’t believe it up for debate” or “your just being honest” or “crazy even to debate” or “irrationally”.
28 Jan 2024 07:50:47
I’m sorry I sent that post a bit early.
Apparently Liverpool are now “the second best team EVER. ” Plus Spurs have now risen above us in “stature. ”
Spurs are at this moment in time collecting more revenue than us They have only won a single trophy in over twenty years, didn’t qualify for Europe last season but now have more “stature” than us? That statement seems bizarre to me.
While your never ending references to a player who now plays for the gooners is boorish, it’s also inaccurate to say “we missed out on him, ” as far as I know we never bid for him. Liverpool did miss out on Lavia and Caicedo because supposedly they did for them two players.
As far as signing goal scorer is concerned, I truly believe the club thought they had signed at least one, he unfortunately has been injured. Should they spent more and bought another one? With hindsight, yes.
The current owners of Liverpool didn’t get there first team performing or winning trophies for several seasons. The current spuds management I don’t think have ever won anything.
Also, your total focus on judging the qualities of a management team is on the first team. There is more to managing a club than the performance is a men’s first team. On all other performance metrics I would suggest we are superior to Spurs or Liverpool.
Management in my opinion, should be judged over a period of time. Have our current owners made mistakes, yes. The management of most clubs make mistakes so nothing unusual there.
Using your narrow argument if we finish (unlikely) above the spuds our management should the quality as superior to there’s. That conclusion would in my opinion would also be wrong.
Fans generally judge a team/ club solely on its first team performance and the trophies it has won and while I “personally” think that measurement is to narrow it’s just the way it is. On that measurement we have been the most successfully managed club for years.
Your dislike for our current management is just your opinion. I think you dislike is based on far to short a time and only considers the men’s first team performance at a small moment in time.
Your dismissal of my argument as being “blue tinted” or “irrational” or because I’m a “mega” fan is disappointing but not surprising as you think the subject is “not for debate. ”
In the same way I judge a player over time I will judge our new owners over time.
28 Jan 2024 08:00:56
Bill, as far as I know it’s just a rumour that Jordan/ Nike are choosing between us and the spuds.
This is probably just me but I would be astonished if they make a decision based on a small period of time.
I would think this but I do think we have a far stronger brand history and global stature than Spurs.
My guess would be that any successful bidder will have to sell a vision of its entire club. This will inlude the past, present and future. I think we have a strong product to sell and I promise that is just my business head speaking.
28 Jan 2024 11:28:30
Tom
As always there are several excellent and accurate points you make.
Like you I'm sure that in a season or two, we will be a force to be reckoned with again indeed we are already putting a consistent run together which would be much better with an experienced striker and CB.
I take your point that it was thought that we had already signed one however even last season he was injured for most of that one in Germany.
I still can't get my head round why we as a club have so many long term injuries.
28 Jan 2024 11:54:12
Bill, Our ongoing injury tally is a concern but it’s been a season that a lot of clubs have suffered with what seems like a long lists of injuries.
I do wonder if there should be a review/ investigation on the types of injuries, when in the season the majority of injuries occur and how many games/ mins a player is being asked to play.
28 Jan 2024 14:22:13
It would be interesting at the end of the season if there will be a list of injuries each team had including more than one injury to players ie James Gusto etc.
Chelsea Rumours
Chelsea Rumours 3
Chelsea Rumours Archives