Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)

SAFMUTD said:
It's not smart or dumb it's just very risky. Its seen as dumb at the moment when the players are underperforming but if Chelsea were flying everyone would be saying that it was a genius move.

Pros: you tie potential players to long contracts so you hold control over the transfers, they can't pressure you with leaving for free in the short term.

You frozen the wages, no need for improved contracts to keep players at year 3-4.

Financially you distribute the cost in 8 years so it's amortized and allows you to play with FFP.

Cons: if the player is shit you're stuck with him for longer.

Even though you have the players on long contracts if they feel they deserve a pay raise they'll ask for it and it may create an unpleasant situation for both parts.

You may have to offer bigger wages than normally due to the length of the contract.

At the end of the line I think players have more to lose than clubs by signing these type of long contracts. The club can sell them at any point but players are stuck if they want to move they lose negotiation power.

Anyway I think it's been prohibited by fifa already so we won't see any more clubs doing it.
Click to expand...

No it's just dumb.

You don't really tie anyone to anything. If a player wants to leave, or wants better terms, or sees that other players at the club are on a better and fairer contract than them, one of two things will happen. Either they'll kick up such a fuss that you'll be forced to give them a new contract or sell them, or they'll become demoralised and won't perform to anywhere near their best and probably end up being a disruptive/negative influence. This is highly likely to happen somewhere pretty soon down the line even if the team is doing well...they're 11th.

Also, if deploying a "risky" (stupid) strategy like this, it's quite fundamentally important to do your research and really make sure you sign the right players to fit what you need over a fairly long time frame, so therefore also have a manager in place you know you trust and who can clearly identify the players (or at the very least types of players) he needs. Probably don't deploy this strategy by sacking your manager mid season, bringing in some random man from Brighton because there was no one else, and then just buying everyone who the newspapers had linked anyone with and expecting random man from Brighton to somehow sort it all out.

It's just typical yank/Ed Woodward style behaviour of failing to realise they are dealing with people and real life, and not just calculating financial figures while playing championship manager on cheat mode. I don't know if maybe in America this thing of treating your key employees like numbers that have to fit in a hole and stay there is juat an accepted/normal thing due to a cultural difference or something? Here this shite wouldn't work if you tried to pull it while running a fast food restaurant, never mind dealing with massively ego driven world famous sports athletes.

They have quire royally screwed themselves
 
Last edited:
Seeing a lot of Chelsea fans coming to the realization what it means for your club to be ran by a bunch of clueless Americans. Welcome to where we've been for the past 17 years. Enjoy your stay!
 
SAFMUTD said:
It's not smart or dumb it's just very risky. Its seen as dumb at the moment when the players are underperforming but if Chelsea were flying everyone would be saying that it was a genius move.

Pros: you tie potential players to long contracts so you hold control over the transfers, they can't pressure you with leaving for free in the short term.

You frozen the wages, no need for improved contracts to keep players at year 3-4.

Financially you distribute the cost in 8 years so it's amortized and allows you to play with FFP.

Cons: if the player is shit you're stuck with him for longer.

Even though you have the players on long contracts if they feel they deserve a pay raise they'll ask for it and it may create an unpleasant situation for both parts.

You may have to offer bigger wages than normally due to the length of the contract.

At the end of the line I think players have more to lose than clubs by signing these type of long contracts. The club can sell them at any point but players are stuck if they want to move they lose negotiation power.

Anyway I think it's been prohibited by fifa already so we won't see any more clubs doing it.
Click to expand...
Football is a business. Businesses mitigate risk as much as possible. Increasing risk as a business is dumb.

Even with players tied down to long term contracts, doesn’t mean they won’t ask for more further down the line. And if you don’t manage that situation you get a disgruntled player, who is stuck at your club probably not playing 100%. And if you want to sell that player at a profit, good luck when they aren’t performing :lol:

If this was football manager or Fifa, the risk means nothing so yeh brilliant move or poor move. It’s not.
 
Telsim said:
Seeing a lot of Chelsea fans coming to the realization what it means for your club to be ran by a bunch of clueless Americans. Welcome to where we've been for the past 17 years. Enjoy your stay!
Click to expand...
:lol:

True. Sad, but true.
 
Telsim said:
Seeing a lot of Chelsea fans coming to the realization what it means for your club to be ran by a bunch of clueless Americans. Welcome to where we've been for the past 17 years. Enjoy your stay!
Click to expand...
Yeah. They're firmly in the denial stage
 
Since Boehly/Egbhali are accountable to shareholders of Clearlake which holds a majority in Chelsea, wouldn't it be a matter of time before these jokers get replaced themselves for gross mismanagement?
 
Telsim said:
Seeing a lot of Chelsea fans coming to the realization what it means for your club to be ran by a bunch of clueless Americans. Welcome to where we've been for the past 17 years. Enjoy your stay!
Click to expand...
Tbh they’ve already identified the need for a DoF, which our lot took 17 years to even implement anything resembling one. They’ll be fine once the have football people running the football team,
 
Chelsea had 19 points after 9 matches - afterwards they have picked up 20 points from 21 matches. They have basically had relegation form for 2/3 of the season
 
noodlehair said:
It's just typical yank/Ed Woodward style behaviour of failing to realise they are dealing with people and real life, and not just calculating financial figures while playing championship manager on cheat mode. I don't know if maybe in America this thing of treating your key employees like numbers that have to fit in a hole and stay there is juat an accepted/normal thing due to a cultural difference or something? Here this shite wouldn't work if you tried to pull it while running a fast food restaurant, never mind dealing with massively ego driven world famous sports athletes.

They have quire royally screwed themselves
Click to expand...
I watch a lot of baseball and you have hit the nail on the head about American sports and ownership. Baseball players can play for multiple teams during a season and they just accept that they are a number. Only the very top players have any power and even that is debatable.
Loyalty is virtually nil because of this. NFL and NBA are the same to a lesser extent.
Maybe Boehly is a genius but I would bet this turns into a complete disaster.
 
Todd boehly is a product of very, very loose monetary policy. In years of quantitative easing he could buy 100’s of companies with loans based on the values of his other companies. No interest rates, just keep buying.

Now that interest rates are higher for longer then expected, gents like Boehly will be put into some very difficult situation later this year because of the deminishing returns of his companies due to inflation and the increasing energy costs we will face in Q3,Q4.

He will be forced to sell chelsea before 1 jan 2025.
 
"Knows" more than Tuchel, a CL winner
Fired Tuchel
Hired Potter, bought players on long contracts like a drunk mafia, the squad have enough players to field 2 teams in one match
Fired Potter
Hired Lampard as a caretaker, a manager who was fired before Tuchel

All in less than a year. Even Woodward was not that crazy.
 
Last edited:
Solius said:
£600m spent. Shitloads more on 3 different managers. 11th in the league with less goals than games played :lol::lol:
Click to expand...
Considering how much of that cash was spent just buying attacking players it's absolutely amazing.
 
Imagine the amount of pundit chat and media coverage if we were sitting in 11th having spent that much money and sacked two managers. They should be getting absolutely slated.
 
In Rainbows said:
I knew Boehly was a fraud. I never understood why they tried to pass him off as the reason for the Dodgers success.
Click to expand...
He knows how to play the media game really well. Even now some journos are shilling for him with this shitshow at Chelsea.
 
noodlehair said:
No it's just dumb.

You don't really tie anyone to anything. If a player wants to leave, or wants better terms, or sees that other players at the club are on a better and fairer contract than them, one of two things will happen. Either they'll kick up such a fuss that you'll be forced to give them a new contract or sell them, or they'll become demoralised and won't perform to anywhere near their best and probably end up being a disruptive/negative influence. This is highly likely to happen somewhere pretty soon down the line even if the team is doing well...they're 11th.

Also, if deploying a "risky" (stupid) strategy like this, it's quite fundamentally important to do your research and really make sure you sign the right players to fit what you need over a fairly long time frame, so therefore also have a manager in place you know you trust and who can clearly identify the players (or at the very least types of players) he needs. Probably don't deploy this strategy by sacking your manager mid season, bringing in some random man from Brighton because there was no one else, and then just buying everyone who the newspapers had linked anyone with and expecting random man from Brighton to somehow sort it all out.

It's just typical yank/Ed Woodward style behaviour of failing to realise they are dealing with people and real life, and not just calculating financial figures while playing championship manager on cheat mode. I don't know if maybe in America this thing of treating your key employees like numbers that have to fit in a hole and stay there is juat an accepted/normal thing due to a cultural difference or something? Here this shite wouldn't work if you tried to pull it while running a fast food restaurant, never mind dealing with massively ego driven world famous sports athletes.

They have quire royally screwed themselves
Click to expand...
How have they royally screwed themselves?

Unless those players on 8 year contracts end up being totally unsellable which is highly unlikely they can always just sell the player and that's it. So whats the huge downside to this that I'm not seeing?
 
Sassy Colin said:
So what you're basically saying is that, if it works out it will be genius and if it doesn't it will be dumb.

Such fecking insight that is :lol:
Click to expand...
I'm saying it's how it'll be judged. Any risky move it's judged on results.

Take Sir Alex decision about playing with youngsters from class of the 92'. Everyone praise him for it afterwards obviously, but at the time they didnt. If it hadn't worked how do you think it'd be judged? as a very dumb move to get rid of senior players to introduce youngsters who weren't ready. Imagine it happening in these times, what would everyone say?
 
SAFMUTD said:
I'm saying it's how it'll be judged. Any risky move it's judged on results.

Take Sir Alex decision about playing with youngsters from class of the 92'. Everyone praise him for it afterwards obviously, but at the time they didnt. If it hadn't worked how do you think it'd be judged? as a very dumb move to get rid of senior players to introduce youngsters who weren't ready. Imagine it happening in these times, what would everyone say?
Click to expand...

So now you're comparing the genius of SAF with the shit show at Chelsea, fecking hell :wenger:

The only idiot who thought it was a bad idea was that cnut Hansen.

SAF knew exactly what he was doing.

This Chelsea lot haven't got a clue what day of the week it is, never mind how to run a football club.
 
Sassy Colin said:
So now you're comparing the genius of SAF with the shit show at Chelsea, fecking hell :wenger:

The only idiot who thought it was a bad idea was that cnut Hansen.

SAF knew exactly what he was doing.

This Chelsea lot haven't got a clue what day of the week it is, never mind how to run a football club.
Click to expand...
Like I said imagine Ten Hag trying it next season. What would it be said?

Anyway no point it keeping the discussion you made your mind about Chelsea being clueless so you're missing the point about the discussion.
 
RoyH1 said:
He knows how to play the media game really well. Even now some journos are shilling for him with this shitshow at Chelsea.
Click to expand...
He clearly doesn't as his name is getting tagged on everything even though he's at best Eghbali's second in command these days.
 
Dancfc said:
He clearly doesn't as his name is getting tagged on everything even though he's at best Eghbali's second in command these days.
Click to expand...
Well at this point in time it's impossible to cover the sun with just one finger.
 
SAFMUTD said:
How have they royally screwed themselves?

Unless those players on 8 year contracts end up being totally unsellable which is highly unlikely they can always just sell the player and that's it. So whats the huge downside to this that I'm not seeing?
Click to expand...
What happens when the player doesn't want to move because they won't get the same wage elsewhere? Chelsea have taken a lot of risks with these deals.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
What happens when the player doesn't want to move because they won't get the same wage elsewhere? Chelsea have taken a lot of risks with these deals.
Click to expand...
Well then the player must be willing to sacrifice 8 years of his playing career. Like I said how many players end up in that situation? The bast majority of players that fail can be moved on before their contracts expire.
 
SAFMUTD said:
Well then the player must be willing to sacrifice 8 years of his playing career. Like I said how many players end up in that situation? The bast majority of players that fail can be moved on before their contracts expire.
Click to expand...
I don't know how many players end up in that situation because very few players get eight year deals with pay at around £10 million a year, but saying that you can't see any issues with Chelsea's strategy due to a bunch of what-ifs and maybes isn't really selling it for me.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
I don't know how many players end up in that situation because very few players get eight year deals with pay at around £10 million a year, but saying that you can't see any issues with Chelsea's strategy due to a bunch of what-ifs and maybes isn't really selling it for me.
Click to expand...

That poster tends to post an awful lot of nonsense, so I wouldn't waste your time.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
I don't know how many players end up in that situation because very few players get eight year deals with pay at around £10 million a year
Click to expand...
Out of all the players on those contracts Enzo is the only player on anything near that, atleast as a base wage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.