How are we supposed to make profit on these players if we’ve already massively overpaid for many of them.
No one’s gonna pay close to what we paid for Enzo. Very best case scenario would be recouping most of the figure if he turns out to be world class.
Plus we literally just had a fire sale where the manager publicly said we don’t want some of our own players, killing whatever little negotiation power we had.
Enzo was bought relatively early doors when Boehly appeared to have a bigger say at the club. He wasn't bought as a young player to sell on for profit. Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) he was bought as a player to play in the side and make us better. The intention was there at least.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 20 minutes ago
Enzo was bought relatively early doors when Boehly appeared to have a bigger say at the club. He wasn't bought as a young player to sell on for profit. Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) he was bought as a player to play in the side and make us better. The intention was there at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...hows that looking
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 20 minutes ago
Enzo was bought relatively early doors when Boehly appeared to have a bigger say at the club. He wasn't bought as a young player to sell on for profit. Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) he was bought as a player to play in the side and make us better. The intention was there at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...hows that looking
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crap so far, just like the performance of this ownership.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 20 minutes ago
Enzo was bought relatively early doors when Boehly appeared to have a bigger say at the club. He wasn't bought as a young player to sell on for profit. Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) he was bought as a player to play in the side and make us better. The intention was there at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...hows that looking
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crap so far, just like the performance of this ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's our club in a current nutshell
To Clearlake Capital successful might mean making a continued profit from young players bought in and then sold on. While maintaining us as nothing more than a top six side. Or even less.
--------------------------------------------------
Don't get this argument, never have when it comes to Clearlake's intentions.
They don't want us to become a selling club, if they did they wouldn't (a) buy first team players in this volume & (b) pay over the odds for players like they have done - it doesn't make sense. You buy low, sell high (low risk). Not buy high (high risk), sell higher.
Way I see it their goal, and it's typical hedge fund stuff, is to make us more valuable overall & flip the entire club at the most opportune time. To do that, we NEED to be a good team! It's why they're p!ssed at Boehly. They trusted him to do this & he failed, we got remarkably worse in a very short space of time.
The danger with Clearlake, beyond them being generally clueless, is they wouldn't give af who bought us when they choose to sell so long as they make their profit. Boehly might (key word - might) actually care who succeeded him if he were the owner.
Whilst I always believed our successful period would be cyclical, I never thought it would end this way by a process of an uncontrollable global event followed by a period or continuous self harm.
For what it is worth,
I believe the issue is that the depth of the current business model & its part in the football strategy.
Lets call it money ball.
Both camps are investment/ venture capitalist, not footballing specialist.
They are accountant led, they look at an ideal world in terms of numbers, not the nuanced difficulties & practicalities of guiding and operating a top flight elite football club.
The emiraties at City, do not get involved in the football, all they do is structure the clubs finance and commercial business operations providing the finance to operate & the buying and selling of players.
Their actions do not fully effect the footballing structure.
In our case this ownership have taken the club to point where the club cannot progress unless it uses the clubs footballing assets to stay a float.
Something which is an ongoing issue as well.
They have asset stripped and used the pure profit income to stay within FFP , whilst adopting a poorly thought scatter gun approach to assembling a whole new player pool.
Something which is clearly not in step with creating a managers squad.
Until they change this method it is unlikely to result in the consistency required to achieve a credible top four competitive side/ club.
Personally i reckon out of playing pool we have 31+ loanees 5+ we have about 18/ 20 players who are worth keeping to build a credible side.
The rest ( bar maybe Enzo & Mudryk) will gradually move after they are 2/3 seasons into their contracts as their amortization will be manageable & their wages are not super high.
I think we are in for another period of sustained transition, if whoever takes over doesnt change the business/ football strategy method they may well totally fail over a 2/4 year period and be forced to sell.
Something like that imo
I just want us to beat Bournemouth
Im going for the win, defo
Im also looking forward to some of the ridiculous places we are going in the conference on Thursdays...ðŸ¤
all the noise from the board will be silenced once enzo gets going,
we look ,les better than we did immediate under poch with an actual style of play and an insane amount of depth
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
Im also looking forward to some of the ridiculous places we are going in the conference on Thursdays...ðŸ¤
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are you going to head out for any?
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 15 hours, 54 minutes ago
To Clearlake Capital successful might mean making a continued profit from young players bought in and then sold on. While maintaining us as nothing more than a top six side. Or even less.
--------------------------------------------------
Don't get this argument, never have when it comes to Clearlake's intentions.
They don't want us to become a selling club, if they did they wouldn't (a) buy first team players in this volume & (b) pay over the odds for players like they have done - it doesn't make sense. You buy low, sell high (low risk). Not buy high (high risk), sell higher.
Way I see it their goal, and it's typical hedge fund stuff, is to make us more valuable overall & flip the entire club at the most opportune time. To do that, we NEED to be a good team! It's why they're p!ssed at Boehly. They trusted him to do this & he failed, we got remarkably worse in a very short space of time.
The danger with Clearlake, beyond them being generally clueless, is they wouldn't give af who bought us when they choose to sell so long as they make their profit. Boehly might (key word - might) actually care who succeeded him if he were the owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure I agree with your original premise. We have become a selling club as well as buying high. Not necessarily in terms of our most important players (although gallagher was on imo).
But they are selling assets of the club on an unprecedented sale (even if some are to other parts of their own business).
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 15 hours, 54 minutes ago
To Clearlake Capital successful might mean making a continued profit from young players bought in and then sold on. While maintaining us as nothing more than a top six side. Or even less.
--------------------------------------------------
Don't get this argument, never have when it comes to Clearlake's intentions.
They don't want us to become a selling club, if they did they wouldn't (a) buy first team players in this volume & (b) pay over the odds for players like they have done - it doesn't make sense. You buy low, sell high (low risk). Not buy high (high risk), sell higher.
Way I see it their goal, and it's typical hedge fund stuff, is to make us more valuable overall & flip the entire club at the most opportune time. To do that, we NEED to be a good team! It's why they're p!ssed at Boehly. They trusted him to do this & he failed, we got remarkably worse in a very short space of time.
The danger with Clearlake, beyond them being generally clueless, is they wouldn't give af who bought us when they choose to sell so long as they make their profit. Boehly might (key word - might) actually care who succeeded him if he were the owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure I agree with your original premise. We have become a selling club as well as buying high. Not necessarily in terms of our most important players (although gallagher was on imo).
But they are selling assets of the club on an unprecedented sale (even if some are to other parts of their own business).
-------------------------------------------------------
That's not being a selling club in the standard football sense though, with the implications of sacrificing a consistently competitive team for quick cash injections. They're selling players in order to buy more, not reap the profits of those individual sales.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5753020/2024/09/09/chelsea-clearlake-boehly-fallout/
We are a selling club in the sense that we are no longer good enough and have too little available money to hold on to all the players we want to. Not in the sense that we've been trying to make a profit from players we've bought to develop in the first team.
We are a trading club in the sense that we aggressively hoard children with a view to cashing in on them to fund more shltty first team purchases.
If the owners are trying to profit from player development and sales then they're doing it really stupidly.
comment by Filip Jorgensen = Season Saved (U6489)
posted 4 minutes ago
We are a selling club in the sense that we are no longer good enough and have too little available money to hold on to all the players we want to. Not in the sense that we've been trying to make a profit from players we've bought to develop in the first team.
We are a trading club in the sense that we aggressively hoard children with a view to cashing in on them to fund more shltty first team purchases.
If the owners are trying to profit from player development and sales then they're doing it really stupidly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i think its a myth that the players we have in the first team are bad
we have a very good first team, its just needs putting together
The first team can’t be that good if Sanchez is a starter
comment by Filip Jorgensen = Season Saved (U6489)
posted 24 minutes ago
We are a selling club in the sense that we are no longer good enough and have too little available money to hold on to all the players we want to. Not in the sense that we've been trying to make a profit from players we've bought to develop in the first team.
We are a trading club in the sense that we aggressively hoard children with a view to cashing in on them to fund more shltty first team purchases.
If the owners are trying to profit from player development and sales then they're doing it really stupidly.
-----------------------------------------------
Yeah trading club is a more accurate description. It's selling with the intention of improvement, not profits.
We could become a selling club if Clearlake wanted/changed direction. But at this point that would still require a marked improvement in performances, only Palmer would have serious takers right now, and a more relaxed approach to the market - i.e. more faith put in the youngsters (to sell later) than buying players like Neto, Felix & Sancho.
comment by CSTP (U1453)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The first team can’t be that good if Sanchez is a starter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was surprised to see Sanchez on the bench for Spain this past weekend. I guess it’s not just Chelsea management who sees promise there.
But I do agree with your point. Our best teams always had a strong spine - Cech, Terry, Carvalho, Essien, Makelele, Lampard, Ballack, Drogba. Admittedly we have young players and they are improving, but our spine just seems a bit flimsy compared to those teams.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 5 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
Im also looking forward to some of the ridiculous places we are going in the conference on Thursdays...ðŸ¤
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are you going to head out for any?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly unlikely mate....I don't even go to the Bridge these days
comment by BlueJ2 (U4630)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
comment by CSTP (U1453)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The first team can’t be that good if Sanchez is a starter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was surprised to see Sanchez on the bench for Spain this past weekend. I guess it’s not just Chelsea management who sees promise there.
But I do agree with your point. Our best teams always had a strong spine - Cech, Terry, Carvalho, Essien, Makelele, Lampard, Ballack, Drogba. Admittedly we have young players and they are improving, but our spine just seems a bit flimsy compared to those teams.
--------------------------------------------------
Enzo, Caicedo, Palmer & Jackson is s spine of sorts, all four always started worthwhile games when fit. It's broken but it's a spine none the less
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BlueJ2 (U4630)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
comment by CSTP (U1453)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The first team can’t be that good if Sanchez is a starter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was surprised to see Sanchez on the bench for Spain this past weekend. I guess it’s not just Chelsea management who sees promise there.
But I do agree with your point. Our best teams always had a strong spine - Cech, Terry, Carvalho, Essien, Makelele, Lampard, Ballack, Drogba. Admittedly we have young players and they are improving, but our spine just seems a bit flimsy compared to those teams.
--------------------------------------------------
Enzo, Caicedo, Palmer & Jackson is s spine of sorts, all four always started worthwhile games when fit. It's broken but it's a spine none the less
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I do see potential there. Plus Fofana and Colwill - if they can build a good partnership together. And I really rate Lavia. Fingers crossed.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Haven
Page 61786 of 62017
61787 | 61788 | 61789 | 61790 | 61791
posted on 8/9/24
How are we supposed to make profit on these players if we’ve already massively overpaid for many of them.
No one’s gonna pay close to what we paid for Enzo. Very best case scenario would be recouping most of the figure if he turns out to be world class.
Plus we literally just had a fire sale where the manager publicly said we don’t want some of our own players, killing whatever little negotiation power we had.
posted on 8/9/24
Enzo was bought relatively early doors when Boehly appeared to have a bigger say at the club. He wasn't bought as a young player to sell on for profit. Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) he was bought as a player to play in the side and make us better. The intention was there at least.
posted on 8/9/24
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 20 minutes ago
Enzo was bought relatively early doors when Boehly appeared to have a bigger say at the club. He wasn't bought as a young player to sell on for profit. Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) he was bought as a player to play in the side and make us better. The intention was there at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...hows that looking
posted on 8/9/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 20 minutes ago
Enzo was bought relatively early doors when Boehly appeared to have a bigger say at the club. He wasn't bought as a young player to sell on for profit. Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) he was bought as a player to play in the side and make us better. The intention was there at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...hows that looking
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crap so far, just like the performance of this ownership.
posted on 8/9/24
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 20 minutes ago
Enzo was bought relatively early doors when Boehly appeared to have a bigger say at the club. He wasn't bought as a young player to sell on for profit. Rightly or wrongly (probably wrongly) he was bought as a player to play in the side and make us better. The intention was there at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...hows that looking
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Crap so far, just like the performance of this ownership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's our club in a current nutshell
posted on 8/9/24
To Clearlake Capital successful might mean making a continued profit from young players bought in and then sold on. While maintaining us as nothing more than a top six side. Or even less.
--------------------------------------------------
Don't get this argument, never have when it comes to Clearlake's intentions.
They don't want us to become a selling club, if they did they wouldn't (a) buy first team players in this volume & (b) pay over the odds for players like they have done - it doesn't make sense. You buy low, sell high (low risk). Not buy high (high risk), sell higher.
Way I see it their goal, and it's typical hedge fund stuff, is to make us more valuable overall & flip the entire club at the most opportune time. To do that, we NEED to be a good team! It's why they're p!ssed at Boehly. They trusted him to do this & he failed, we got remarkably worse in a very short space of time.
The danger with Clearlake, beyond them being generally clueless, is they wouldn't give af who bought us when they choose to sell so long as they make their profit. Boehly might (key word - might) actually care who succeeded him if he were the owner.
posted on 8/9/24
Whilst I always believed our successful period would be cyclical, I never thought it would end this way by a process of an uncontrollable global event followed by a period or continuous self harm.
posted on 9/9/24
posted on 9/9/24
For what it is worth,
I believe the issue is that the depth of the current business model & its part in the football strategy.
Lets call it money ball.
Both camps are investment/ venture capitalist, not footballing specialist.
They are accountant led, they look at an ideal world in terms of numbers, not the nuanced difficulties & practicalities of guiding and operating a top flight elite football club.
The emiraties at City, do not get involved in the football, all they do is structure the clubs finance and commercial business operations providing the finance to operate & the buying and selling of players.
Their actions do not fully effect the footballing structure.
In our case this ownership have taken the club to point where the club cannot progress unless it uses the clubs footballing assets to stay a float.
Something which is an ongoing issue as well.
They have asset stripped and used the pure profit income to stay within FFP , whilst adopting a poorly thought scatter gun approach to assembling a whole new player pool.
Something which is clearly not in step with creating a managers squad.
Until they change this method it is unlikely to result in the consistency required to achieve a credible top four competitive side/ club.
Personally i reckon out of playing pool we have 31+ loanees 5+ we have about 18/ 20 players who are worth keeping to build a credible side.
The rest ( bar maybe Enzo & Mudryk) will gradually move after they are 2/3 seasons into their contracts as their amortization will be manageable & their wages are not super high.
I think we are in for another period of sustained transition, if whoever takes over doesnt change the business/ football strategy method they may well totally fail over a 2/4 year period and be forced to sell.
Something like that imo
posted on 9/9/24
I just want us to beat Bournemouth
posted on 9/9/24
Im going for the win, defo
posted on 9/9/24
Im also looking forward to some of the ridiculous places we are going in the conference on Thursdays...ðŸ¤
posted on 9/9/24
all the noise from the board will be silenced once enzo gets going,
we look ,les better than we did immediate under poch with an actual style of play and an insane amount of depth
posted on 9/9/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
Im also looking forward to some of the ridiculous places we are going in the conference on Thursdays...ðŸ¤
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are you going to head out for any?
posted on 9/9/24
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 15 hours, 54 minutes ago
To Clearlake Capital successful might mean making a continued profit from young players bought in and then sold on. While maintaining us as nothing more than a top six side. Or even less.
--------------------------------------------------
Don't get this argument, never have when it comes to Clearlake's intentions.
They don't want us to become a selling club, if they did they wouldn't (a) buy first team players in this volume & (b) pay over the odds for players like they have done - it doesn't make sense. You buy low, sell high (low risk). Not buy high (high risk), sell higher.
Way I see it their goal, and it's typical hedge fund stuff, is to make us more valuable overall & flip the entire club at the most opportune time. To do that, we NEED to be a good team! It's why they're p!ssed at Boehly. They trusted him to do this & he failed, we got remarkably worse in a very short space of time.
The danger with Clearlake, beyond them being generally clueless, is they wouldn't give af who bought us when they choose to sell so long as they make their profit. Boehly might (key word - might) actually care who succeeded him if he were the owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure I agree with your original premise. We have become a selling club as well as buying high. Not necessarily in terms of our most important players (although gallagher was on imo).
But they are selling assets of the club on an unprecedented sale (even if some are to other parts of their own business).
posted on 9/9/24
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 15 hours, 54 minutes ago
To Clearlake Capital successful might mean making a continued profit from young players bought in and then sold on. While maintaining us as nothing more than a top six side. Or even less.
--------------------------------------------------
Don't get this argument, never have when it comes to Clearlake's intentions.
They don't want us to become a selling club, if they did they wouldn't (a) buy first team players in this volume & (b) pay over the odds for players like they have done - it doesn't make sense. You buy low, sell high (low risk). Not buy high (high risk), sell higher.
Way I see it their goal, and it's typical hedge fund stuff, is to make us more valuable overall & flip the entire club at the most opportune time. To do that, we NEED to be a good team! It's why they're p!ssed at Boehly. They trusted him to do this & he failed, we got remarkably worse in a very short space of time.
The danger with Clearlake, beyond them being generally clueless, is they wouldn't give af who bought us when they choose to sell so long as they make their profit. Boehly might (key word - might) actually care who succeeded him if he were the owner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure I agree with your original premise. We have become a selling club as well as buying high. Not necessarily in terms of our most important players (although gallagher was on imo).
But they are selling assets of the club on an unprecedented sale (even if some are to other parts of their own business).
-------------------------------------------------------
That's not being a selling club in the standard football sense though, with the implications of sacrificing a consistently competitive team for quick cash injections. They're selling players in order to buy more, not reap the profits of those individual sales.
posted on 9/9/24
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5753020/2024/09/09/chelsea-clearlake-boehly-fallout/
posted on 9/9/24
We are a selling club in the sense that we are no longer good enough and have too little available money to hold on to all the players we want to. Not in the sense that we've been trying to make a profit from players we've bought to develop in the first team.
We are a trading club in the sense that we aggressively hoard children with a view to cashing in on them to fund more shltty first team purchases.
If the owners are trying to profit from player development and sales then they're doing it really stupidly.
posted on 9/9/24
comment by Filip Jorgensen = Season Saved (U6489)
posted 4 minutes ago
We are a selling club in the sense that we are no longer good enough and have too little available money to hold on to all the players we want to. Not in the sense that we've been trying to make a profit from players we've bought to develop in the first team.
We are a trading club in the sense that we aggressively hoard children with a view to cashing in on them to fund more shltty first team purchases.
If the owners are trying to profit from player development and sales then they're doing it really stupidly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i think its a myth that the players we have in the first team are bad
we have a very good first team, its just needs putting together
posted on 9/9/24
The first team can’t be that good if Sanchez is a starter
posted on 9/9/24
comment by Filip Jorgensen = Season Saved (U6489)
posted 24 minutes ago
We are a selling club in the sense that we are no longer good enough and have too little available money to hold on to all the players we want to. Not in the sense that we've been trying to make a profit from players we've bought to develop in the first team.
We are a trading club in the sense that we aggressively hoard children with a view to cashing in on them to fund more shltty first team purchases.
If the owners are trying to profit from player development and sales then they're doing it really stupidly.
-----------------------------------------------
Yeah trading club is a more accurate description. It's selling with the intention of improvement, not profits.
We could become a selling club if Clearlake wanted/changed direction. But at this point that would still require a marked improvement in performances, only Palmer would have serious takers right now, and a more relaxed approach to the market - i.e. more faith put in the youngsters (to sell later) than buying players like Neto, Felix & Sancho.
posted on 9/9/24
comment by CSTP (U1453)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The first team can’t be that good if Sanchez is a starter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was surprised to see Sanchez on the bench for Spain this past weekend. I guess it’s not just Chelsea management who sees promise there.
But I do agree with your point. Our best teams always had a strong spine - Cech, Terry, Carvalho, Essien, Makelele, Lampard, Ballack, Drogba. Admittedly we have young players and they are improving, but our spine just seems a bit flimsy compared to those teams.
posted on 9/9/24
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 5 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 3 hours, 21 minutes ago
Im also looking forward to some of the ridiculous places we are going in the conference on Thursdays...ðŸ¤
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are you going to head out for any?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly unlikely mate....I don't even go to the Bridge these days
posted on 9/9/24
comment by BlueJ2 (U4630)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
comment by CSTP (U1453)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The first team can’t be that good if Sanchez is a starter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was surprised to see Sanchez on the bench for Spain this past weekend. I guess it’s not just Chelsea management who sees promise there.
But I do agree with your point. Our best teams always had a strong spine - Cech, Terry, Carvalho, Essien, Makelele, Lampard, Ballack, Drogba. Admittedly we have young players and they are improving, but our spine just seems a bit flimsy compared to those teams.
--------------------------------------------------
Enzo, Caicedo, Palmer & Jackson is s spine of sorts, all four always started worthwhile games when fit. It's broken but it's a spine none the less
posted on 9/9/24
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BlueJ2 (U4630)
posted 1 hour, 33 minutes ago
comment by CSTP (U1453)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The first team can’t be that good if Sanchez is a starter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was surprised to see Sanchez on the bench for Spain this past weekend. I guess it’s not just Chelsea management who sees promise there.
But I do agree with your point. Our best teams always had a strong spine - Cech, Terry, Carvalho, Essien, Makelele, Lampard, Ballack, Drogba. Admittedly we have young players and they are improving, but our spine just seems a bit flimsy compared to those teams.
--------------------------------------------------
Enzo, Caicedo, Palmer & Jackson is s spine of sorts, all four always started worthwhile games when fit. It's broken but it's a spine none the less
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I do see potential there. Plus Fofana and Colwill - if they can build a good partnership together. And I really rate Lavia. Fingers crossed.
Page 61786 of 62017
61787 | 61788 | 61789 | 61790 | 61791