Chelsea Discussion

[Cicero]

Quote

 

Clearlake have agreed not to sell their majority stake before 2032. Boehly and Wyss always wanted minority ownership. Clearlake co-founder Behdad Eghbali has been an active voice throughout and is a big football fan. In addition, the new owners will commit £1.75b in further investment for the benefit of the club. This includes investments in the Academy, Stamford Bridge, the Women's Team and Kingsmeadow and continued funding for the Chelsea foundation. Measures negotiated included barring Boehly/Wyss from paying dividends and prohibiting the sale of shares in the club for 10 years on top of agreeing to strict limits of the level of debt, similar to the Glazer family's controversial ownership of Manchester United. 

Can genuinely say we've picked the best of the lot. Boehly's vision in sports is exactly what this club needs (self sufficiency, effective scouting) and I believe he and Tuchel will see eye to eye in a lot of things. This 'anti glazer' clause that was included also provides a lot of reassurance. 

 

[Waylander]

That was a disappointing end of match today.

We should have scored several more and 6 mins et was shocking for me.

Wolves also had chances yet at 2-0 with 78 mins to go we should have finished as the winner.

I heard claims players minds are on moves rather than the opposition that may be a factor.

Surprisingly Lukaku was better and for once I agree he should have got a better supply.

 

[Carnivore Chris]

On 04/05/2022 at 13:45, Bluewolf said:

If Chelsea has not been sold by then, it would automatically be barred from competing in next season's Premier League. 

There is always the European Super league 

 

On a serious note, it's sad to see any club die, whoever they are. Hopefully that doesn't happen. But this must worry Chelsea. Even with a new owner, you don't know if that owner is suitable. Roman was one of the better ones, love him or loathe him.

 

 

[Spike]

7 hours ago, Danny said:

Ineos wanted Chelsea to have the same stature as Bayern, Real Madrid, Man Utd etc. Only one club in London that has the possibility of that and it’s Arsenal, regardless of how many titles Chelsea have bought for them

That's your age talking. You grew up when Arsenal were a force, a cool club with superstar players and a superstar manager. Ask the Gen Zer and they'd say Arsenal are a rung below, nestled next to Tottenham, closer to West Ham than Chelsea, Liverpool, United, and City.

[Bluewolf]

33 minutes ago, Carnivore Chris said:

There is always the European Super league 

 

On a serious note, it's sad to see any club die, whoever they are. Hopefully that doesn't happen. But this must worry Chelsea. Even with a new owner, you don't know if that owner is suitable. Roman was one of the better ones, love him or loathe him.

 

 

Now the new ownership has been sorted we can only hope it's a model that is workable and continues to allow us to challenge for Trophies but we will have to see how that works out, either way it removes all doubt about our survival not that it was realistically going to to see us fold, that was just a daft hope from a few idiots living under rocks.... 

As for Abramovich we loved him of course.. best part of 20 years as owner and continued success, that when most thought he would get bored with the club after only a couple of years.. All change now though, I expect us to take a little step back for a while while we re-group and then hopefully forward again.. 

[Danny]

4 hours ago, Spike said:

That's your age talking. You grew up when Arsenal were a force, a cool club with superstar players and a superstar manager. Ask the Gen Zer and they'd say Arsenal are a rung below, nestled next to Tottenham, closer to West Ham than Chelsea, Liverpool, United, and City.

Not really. Arsenal for pretty much all of their existence have been a top club, consistently winning league titles and FA Cups. They have won 13 league titles, most FA Cups in the country, they have a bigger stadium than Chelsea and a bigger fanbase. They have been on a title drought now yes, but for Arsenal all it takes is one manager in the way of a Klopp, Wenger, Ferguson etc to come in, wrap up multiple league titles and domestically you have a club on par with United and Liverpool.

Chelsea atm are miles off of that, look how much money they've spent since Abramovic has come in just to get their title tally up to half of what Arsenal's is.

And even then, if Chelsea were to go on and beat Arsenal's record, powerhouses like Man Utd, Liverpool, Barcelona etc are held that highly out of a respect for the work they've put in to get to that position. For Chelsea there is no work, that respect doesn't exist, they can carry on being the most powerful club in London but they will never be the biggest. Chelsea lack prestige, clubs like Arsenal have it in abundance even if they don't have the financial power over Chelsea atm.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Danny

[Spike]

29 minutes ago, Danny said:

Not really. Arsenal for pretty much all of their existence have been a top club, consistently winning league titles and FA Cups. They have won 13 league titles, most FA Cups in the country, they have a bigger stadium than Chelsea and a bigger fanbase. They have been on a title drought now yes, but for Arsenal all it takes is one manager in the way of a Klopp, Wenger, Ferguson etc to come in, wrap up multiple league titles and domestically you have a club on par with United and Liverpool.

Chelsea atm are miles off of that, look how much money they've spent since Abramovic has come in just to get their title tally up to half of what Arsenal's is.

And even then, if Chelsea were to go on and beat Arsenal's record, powerhouses like Man Utd, Liverpool, Barcelona etc are held that highly out of a respect for the work they've put in to get to that position. For Chelsea there is no work, that respect doesn't exist, they can carry on being the most powerful club in London but they will never be the biggest. Chelsea lack prestige, clubs like Arsenal have it in abundance even if they don't have the financial power over Chelsea atm.

None of that matters and you know it. The only thing that matters is marketing, and Chelsea are more marketed and currently more famous than Arsenal. Trust me from an international angle on this one mate, I’ve been everywhere man and I’ll tell you Chelsea gets waaay more attention. I get your angle as a Pom and looking at the landscape of Lundin but we can’t pretend it is the ‘English’ league when it is an International league based in England and Wales.

You know I don’t buy into the ‘earned it’ nonsense, so for me personally I don’t know why you’d bring it up. If we were talking in 1962, I might agree with you. Right time, right place, during the rapid monetisation of the sport. The players and staff still had to work to win it, 

[OrangeKhrush]

Chelsea need a new back line, those defenders running into each other, falling over on any contact and going all Dracula in that they can't deal with crosses is comical.

 

 

[Waylander]

Arsenal last won the league in 2001 they have had a lot of cup success since and have a much larger stadium than Chelsea.

Since 2001 Chelsea have won the League 3 times and Champions League twice additionally their women's teams are very successful too.

Would also think Chelsea are a much more international brand than Arsenal.

It could change, Arteta certainly has some decent young players that could turn things around if better players to support them can be found.

 

[RandoEFC+]

11 hours ago, Danny said:

Man Utd, Liverpool, Barcelona etc are held that highly out of a respect for the work they've put in to get to that position.

This is ancient history now though. Man Utd are where they are because of what they used to do a decade or more ago now. A big club by default and not through competence or hard work. You and I could have been running that club the past decade and they'd still be one of the biggest in the world.

I have no problem with pointing out the financial doping which has made Chelsea and Man City elite clubs but you can only sneer at it to a limited extent once you acknowledge that it's the only way to interrupt the monopoly that the established giants secured when that's the way the sport moved.

[Waylander]

Utd is interesting for several seasons now they have achieved very little yet their international support base remains in place.

No signs yet they are on the way back, though with a new dawn of Erik Ten Hag that might change.

 

[Danny]

12 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

This is ancient history now though. Man Utd are where they are because of what they used to do a decade or more ago now. A big club by default and not through competence or hard work. You and I could have been running that club the past decade and they'd still be one of the biggest in the world.

I have no problem with pointing out the financial doping which has made Chelsea and Man City elite clubs but you can only sneer at it to a limited extent once you acknowledge that it's the only way to interrupt the monopoly that the established giants secured when that's the way the sport moved.

Look at Liverpool mate, no title for 30 odd years but still an institution. Football heritage shall we say, Chelsea lack it, regardless of how much they might win due to whatever billionaires money

[RandoEFC+]

13 minutes ago, Danny said:

Look at Liverpool mate, no title for 30 odd years but still an institution. Football heritage shall we say, Chelsea lack it, regardless of how much they might win due to whatever billionaires money

All of these clubs established themselves at some point and went from not having football heritage to having it. There was a time where there were many ways of doing that. That time has passed. The only way to become an elite club now if you aren't already is financial doping. If there were more "legitimate" ways of doing it then I'd be more full throated in my criticism of Chelsea and City's methodology but there isn't. Unless those clubs fall away, we'll eventually have to accept their success in the 2000s and 2010s and 2020s as football heritage in itself.

[Danny]

1 minute ago, RandoEFC said:

All of these clubs established themselves at some point and went from not having football heritage to having it. There was a time where there were many ways of doing that. That time has passed. The only way to become an elite club now if you aren't already is financial doping. If there were more "legitimate" ways of doing it then I'd be more full throated in my criticism of Chelsea and City's methodology but there isn't. Unless those clubs fall away, we'll eventually have to accept their success in the 2000s and 2010s and 2020s as football heritage in itself.

I completely agree with you regarding the monopoly clubs at the top have and the difficulty in breaking that. I’ve also said before Chelsea and City are a symptom, not the root cause of the Premier League’s problem with money. But it doesn’t change the fact that these are sides that have built their success in a time where they have been handed money. There is so much more to football than just the present, and clubs like Bayern, Barce, Juve, Liverpool have been a force long before the introduction of the oil club. You just cannot buy that history and the feeling of what a big club is.

Arsenal have been big for decades, even if they’ve had a poor couple of decades, they’re still a footballing institution in this country. And when they next win a league title they will go back to being a dominant footballing institution. City and Chelsea don’t have that.

[RandoEFC+]

4 minutes ago, Danny said:

I completely agree with you regarding the monopoly clubs at the top have and the difficulty in breaking that. I’ve also said before Chelsea and City are a symptom, not the root cause of the Premier League’s problem with money. But it doesn’t change the fact that these are sides that have built their success in a time where they have been handed money. There is so much more to football than just the present, and clubs like Bayern, Barce, Juve, Liverpool have been a force long before the introduction of the oil club. You just cannot buy that history and the feeling of what a big club is.

Arsenal have been big for decades, even if they’ve had a poor couple of decades, they’re still a footballing institution in this country. And when they next win a league title they will go back to being a dominant footballing institution. City and Chelsea don’t have that.

My only question is this, and it isn't just for you, but are we saying that Chelsea and Man City can never and or will never have that? Say Man City are the dominant team in England for the next twenty years, then they have a dip for a decade, can they not make the same claim when they get back to the top then?

[Devil-Dick Willie]

1 hour ago, Waylander said:

Arsenal last won the league in 2001 they have had a lot of cup success since and have a much larger stadium than Chelsea.

Since 2001 Chelsea have won the League 3 times and Champions League twice additionally their women's teams are very successful too.

Would also think Chelsea are a much more international brand than Arsenal.

It could change, Arteta certainly has some decent young players that could turn things around if better players to support them can be found.

 

Didn't they win in 2004? Quite famously undefeated? 

[Devil-Dick Willie]

Come to think of it haven't chelsea won 5 times since 2001? 


Unless I'm missing something big here what the fuck kind for football fan are you? 

[Waylander]

This reminds me of my reading on ancient history and the Peloponesian War between Sparta and Athens, It went on for 40 years and eventually to win Sparta decided they would need to beat the Athenians at sea and to do this they needed better rowers and so they paid the best and then beat the Athenian navy and won the war.

Where are the big player contracts today they are not at Chelsea they are at Liverpool and Manchester Utd.

Chelsea by my count had won 8 senior UK cups (not counting Charity League or Full Members Cups etc) that makes them one of the top 15 of clubs before Abramovich. Now as several of these clubs are in the lower leagues they are no longer competitors. Chelsea won over half these cups from the mid 90's to 2000 and qualified for the Champions league before Abramovich bought the club.

Chelsea were already on the up when RA bought the club so even without his money we might have continued being a successful cup side though I doubt we would have won the league.

Now I haven't studied our competitors though wasn't there an Italian Billionaire family linked with Juventus for some time, Agnelli family.

 

[Waylander]

5 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Didn't they win in 2004? Quite famously undefeated? 

True missed that just checked on another site (?), thanks

[Spike]

AC Milan - owned by Silvio Burlesconi
Inter Milan - owned by billionaires by Pellegrini and then Moratti
Juventus - Owned by bilionaire Agnelli family since forever
Real Madrid - floated by Spanish banks
Manchester United - constant owner funding wince 1912. Several times preventing bankruptcy. Wouldn’t exist without doping, would have folded 100 years ago.
Liverpool - owned by the Moore family, one of the richest in the UK for over fifty years.
 

Bayern and Barcelona are owned by fans, but I don’t think there is a single doub today that has never taken ‘outside’ finances. In fact most of these clubs were founded by rich English people.

[Spike]

.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Spike

[Spike]

.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Spike

[Bluewolf]

13 minutes ago, Spike said:

.

 

13 minutes ago, Spike said:

.

Spit it out mate... 

[Danny]

5 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

My only question is this, and it isn't just for you, but are we saying that Chelsea and Man City can never and or will never have that? Say Man City are the dominant team in England for the next twenty years, then they have a dip for a decade, can they not make the same claim when they get back to the top then?

My answer is no, not off of the back of how they’ve got their success and will most likely keep getting it. But that’s just me

[Cicero]

Real Madrid literally built their success from the influence of a fascist dictator. Juventus built their success by 'winning the lottery' when the Agnelli family bought them in the 1920's. 

It all starts somewhere.