Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)

The thing is they are replacing these older players with much younger ones, and they are locked up for 7 years. Obviously it is a risk/reward strategy that will pay off if these players come good, or be a problem if they don't. If they do come good and need to sell at any point they'll be able to cash in big time to other big teams. Plus they can keep selling academy products.

Meanwhile they have a young team that will grow together and if they realise their potential could be formidable.

I hate to say it, but this could turn out very well for them.
 
Well, I'm not completely convinced about the whole team, but their midfield will be far faster, more dynamic and more skilful than ours, so we could really do with finding a way to bypass it when we play them.
 
Ever since the beginning i liked Boehly's ambition(never posted about this before on this forum). I find the "Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea" idea almost laughable.

He's buying young, (very)talented players, tying them up to long contracts(6+ years) - infamous amortisation accounting trick to bypass the FFP. But, what's important, from what i've seen, he's not giving them huge wages. So, if they turn out mediocre/flop, the can still sell them to midtable, relegation fodder PL clubs and recoup some of the money because the wages are not astronomical, like we(United) give them usually, often undeservedly. If these young players turn up to be really good/world class, they will just restructure their contracts and give them much bigger wages, deservedly so.

Also, Russian criminal Roman Abramovich injected billions into that club for years and created the best academy in the country(and arguably the world). Famous loan armies. After Abramovich was sanctioned last year, Jamie Carragher explained it briefly in a Sky Sport show with Neville how that academy used to work - buying talented kids from all over the country and offering their parents "scouting" jobs(basically additional money) so they would have the best academy. Carragher was, hilariously cut off in post production for saying that but you can still find footage(he would've been sued for saying that if Abramovich wasn't sanctioned and expelled from UK).

That academy, which was built by money stolen from Russian people(Abramovich) is still the best and Boehly will exploit it to the maximum. Money generated from selling academy products helps massively with FFP, we all probably know that here - it's all profit on the books. They will be able to continue that insane money spending spree endlessly, as a consequence of that.

Boehly is also looking into multi-club ownership model, which is also pretty smart, of course. Dumping loanees into these feeder clubs and let them develop. Buying cheap talent from all over the world and also let them develop there. Emulating the CIty Football Group model to some extent. In addition, Boehly(Clearlake Capital) seems well connected with Saudi's PIF(Clearlake manages some of their money), so he could sometimes ask for a "favor" and dump some bad contracts into Saudi League, like he did recently with multiple players.

So, in conclusion, no - Boehly is not going to ruin Chelsea and that idea needs to stop. It's a very ambitious project and i like what he's doing. He's a bit crazy(mostly in a positive way), brave, very ambitious and crafty, probably smart businessman(based on his exploitation of various loopholes so far). Chelsea struck gold, once again, 20 years later after that Russian criminal bought the club and injected billions into it.

Chelsea, along with City and Newcastle is going to become the main "player/boss" in this league very soon. If we(Manchester United) don't escape soon from the Glazer Apocalypse/Tragedy era, we're going to be left in the dust, remembered only in the history books.
 
BerryBerryShrew said:
City: Definitely would. They have already lost Gundogan and are trying to replace him with Paqueta, who isn't as good as either Enzo or Caicedo. KdB is fit as often as Martial is. Rodri is admittedly class, but Chelsea's is better on paper.

Real: Wouldn't even trade their second string midfield for Chelsea's. Best midfield in the world in terms of quality, experience, depth, and potential.

Bayern: If we're classifying Musiala as part of the midfield 3, then it's a tough one. Musiala & Kimmich v Enzo & Caicedo.

Barca: Similar to Bayern. Pedri and FdJ are brilliant, but their third man (Gavi) has as much to prove as Lavia does.
Click to expand...

Disagree about Bayern. Kimmich and Goretzka fundamentally don't work as a pair, hence why they're now being linked to the likes of Wilfried Ndidi.
 
philippexyz said:
Ever since the beginning i liked Boehly's ambition(never posted about this before on this forum). I find the "Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea" idea almost laughable.

He's buying young, (very)talented players, tying them up to long contracts(6+ years) - infamous amortisation accounting trick to bypass the FFP. But, what's important, from what i've seen, he's not giving them huge wages. So, if they turn out mediocre/flop, the can still sell them to midtable, relegation fodder PL clubs and recoup some of the money because the wages are not astronomical, like we(United) give them usually, often undeservedly. If these young players turn up to be really good/world class, they will just restructure their contracts and give them much bigger wages, deservedly so.

Also, Russian criminal Roman Abramovich injected billions into that club for years and created the best academy in the country(and arguably the world). Famous loan armies. After Abramovich was sanctioned last year, Jamie Carragher explained it briefly in a Sky Sport show with Neville how that academy used to work - buying talented kids from all over the country and offering their parents "scouting" jobs(basically additional money) so they would have the best academy. Carragher was, hilariously cut off in post production for saying that but you can still find footage(he would've been sued for saying that if Abramovich wasn't sanctioned and expelled from UK).

That academy, which was built by money stolen from Russian people(Abramovich) is still the best and Boehly will exploit it to the maximum. Money generated from selling academy products helps massively with FFP, we all probably know that here - it's all profit on the books. They will be able to continue that insane money spending spree endlessly, as a consequence of that.

Boehly is also looking into multi-club ownership model, which is also pretty smart, of course. Dumping loanees into these feeder clubs and let them develop. Buying cheap talent from all over the world and also let them develop there. Emulating the CIty Football Group model to some extent. In addition, Boehly(Clearlake Capital) seems well connected with Saudi's PIF(Clearlake manages some of their money), so he could sometimes ask for a "favor" and dump some bad contracts into Saudi League, like he did recently with multiple players.

So, in conclusion, no - Boehly is not going to ruin Chelsea and that idea needs to stop. It's a very ambitious project and i like what he's doing. He's a bit crazy(mostly in a positive way), brave, very ambitious and crafty, probably smart businessman(based on his exploitation of various loopholes so far). Chelsea struck gold, once again, 20 years later after that Russian criminal bought the club and injected billions into it.

Chelsea, along with City and Newcastle is going to become the main "player/boss" in this league very soon. If we(Manchester United) don't escape soon from the Glazer Apocalypse/Tragedy era, we're going to be left in the dust, remembered only in the history books.
Click to expand...

Even if one accepts these arguments (and personally I don't think the finances or FFP side of this is necessarily the huge problem a lot of people seem to think it is), that doesn't account for what I would consider the most obvious objection to his approach, which is this: Is a constant flood of incomings and outgoings a good way to build and maintain a competitive and title-contending team? That's not just about having enough good players, it's also about having the patience to let the team gel and develop a collective character, which is hard to do if you're constantly making a lot of changes.
 
philippexyz said:
Ever since the beginning i liked Boehly's ambition(never posted about this before on this forum). I find the "Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea" idea almost laughable.

He's buying young, (very)talented players, tying them up to long contracts(6+ years) - infamous amortisation accounting trick to bypass the FFP. But, what's important, from what i've seen, he's not giving them huge wages. So, if they turn out mediocre/flop, the can still sell them to midtable, relegation fodder PL clubs and recoup some of the money because the wages are not astronomical, like we(United) give them usually, often undeservedly. If these young players turn up to be really good/world class, they will just restructure their contracts and give them much bigger wages, deservedly so.

Also, Russian criminal Roman Abramovich injected billions into that club for years and created the best academy in the country(and arguably the world). Famous loan armies. After Abramovich was sanctioned last year, Jamie Carragher explained it briefly in a Sky Sport show with Neville how that academy used to work - buying talented kids from all over the country and offering their parents "scouting" jobs(basically additional money) so they would have the best academy. Carragher was, hilariously cut off in post production for saying that but you can still find footage(he would've been sued for saying that if Abramovich wasn't sanctioned and expelled from UK).

That academy, which was built by money stolen from Russian people(Abramovich) is still the best and Boehly will exploit it to the maximum. Money generated from selling academy products helps massively with FFP, we all probably know that here - it's all profit on the books. They will be able to continue that insane money spending spree endlessly, as a consequence of that.

Boehly is also looking into multi-club ownership model, which is also pretty smart, of course. Dumping loanees into these feeder clubs and let them develop. Buying cheap talent from all over the world and also let them develop there. Emulating the CIty Football Group model to some extent. In addition, Boehly(Clearlake Capital) seems well connected with Saudi's PIF(Clearlake manages some of their money), so he could sometimes ask for a "favor" and dump some bad contracts into Saudi League, like he did recently with multiple players.

So, in conclusion, no - Boehly is not going to ruin Chelsea and that idea needs to stop. It's a very ambitious project and i like what he's doing. He's a bit crazy(mostly in a positive way), brave, very ambitious and crafty, probably smart businessman(based on his exploitation of various loopholes so far). Chelsea struck gold, once again, 20 years later after that Russian criminal bought the club and injected billions into it.

Chelsea, along with City and Newcastle is going to become the main "player/boss" in this league very soon. If we(Manchester United) don't escape soon from the Glazer Apocalypse/Tragedy era, we're going to be left in the dust, remembered only in the history books.
Click to expand...
This is such an overly positive spin on Bohley, you come across as a Chelsea fan. The we (Manchester United) part looks so out of place.
 
BerryBerryShrew said:
City: Definitely would. They have already lost Gundogan and are trying to replace him with Paqueta, who isn't as good as either Enzo or Caicedo. KdB is fit as often as Martial is. Rodri is admittedly class, but Chelsea's is better on paper.

Real: Wouldn't even trade their second string midfield for Chelsea's. Best midfield in the world in terms of quality, experience, depth, and potential.

Bayern: If we're classifying Musiala as part of the midfield 3, then it's a tough one. Musiala & Kimmich v Enzo & Caicedo.

Barca: Similar to Bayern. Pedri and FdJ are brilliant, but their third man (Gavi) has as much to prove as Lavia does.
Click to expand...
If Gundo is a massive loss to City he's a massive gain for Barca (on paper)

City can move Silva back into midfield and then its better than anything Chelsea have
 
GlasgowCeltic said:
If Gundo is a massive loss to City he's a massive gain for Barca (on paper)

City can move Silva back into midfield and then its better than anything Chelsea have
Click to expand...

Comparisons with City are a fool's errand anyways since Stones plays as a midfielder more than anyone they have save Rodri.

Agreed with you though that they aren't swapping Rodri / KdB / Bernardo for Enzo / Caicedo / Lavia.
 
BerryBerryShrew said:
City: Definitely would. They have already lost Gundogan and are trying to replace him with Paqueta, who isn't as good as either Enzo or Caicedo. KdB is fit as often as Martial is. Rodri is admittedly class, but Chelsea's is better on paper.

Real: Wouldn't even trade their second string midfield for Chelsea's. Best midfield in the world in terms of quality, experience, depth, and potential.

Bayern: If we're classifying Musiala as part of the midfield 3, then it's a tough one. Musiala & Kimmich v Enzo & Caicedo.

Barca: Similar to Bayern. Pedri and FdJ are brilliant, but their third man (Gavi) has as much to prove as Lavia does.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% re City. KDB at the top of his game is indeed top notch as is Rodri but as you say KDBs injuries are now common place when you then-drill down the likes of Kovacic are decent as we know but he isn’t close to KDB infull flow
Powderfinger said:
Good post (in a series of good posts).

I also don't think it is obvious that Chelsea have bought these players with a clear footballing vision in mind, beyond something generic like "Lets snap up a lot of young, talented players and let them grow together."

There are obvious benefits to doing that but the game has moved in a way where its just not enough to buy lots of talented players, because a team with lots of equally or even somewhat less talented players that fit together better and a manager with a stronger footballing vision for how to put those pieces together will kill you. Managers like Pep and Klopp, and now Arteta and perhaps Ten Hag, have a really clear sense of exactly the kind of football that they want to play in order to create a side capable of consistently dominating matches but also reacting to many different kinds of situations within a match, and from that they derive a clear sense of the physical, tactical, and technical qualities that players in each position need to have, as well as the composite qualities they want in the squad. That kind of vision should ideally be in place prior to spending a lot of money.

I don't think Chelsea's squad has been amassed this way at all. There have been seven different cooks in the kitchen and at no point have they had a manager with the tactical nous and vision to really understand what is needed to compete at the highest level in terms of style of football and then translate that into requirements for specific positions and then recruitment strategy. I'm sure they have good recruitment people and data analysts and everything else that every big club has now. And of course they probably had some broad unifying ideas like "We need to get more athletic" or whatever. But without the overarching footballing vision its hard to make it work.
Click to expand...

Chelsea for several years ( and that was prior to Bohley shipping up ) have worked toward something called Vision 30. There Is no doubt that recruiting players from that was supplemented by way of Bohleys knee jerk signings but to be fair to him Tuchel was very much in the loop re the summer 22 signings

Historically managers were just that most European clubs have for a while looked on head coaches as in the main just that and whilst the current incumbent would no doubt have input the staff in the background such as director of football are the main shakers and players when it comes to transfers.
 
BerryBerryShrew said:
City: Definitely would. They have already lost Gundogan and are trying to replace him with Paqueta, who isn't as good as either Enzo or Caicedo. KdB is fit as often as Martial is. Rodri is admittedly class, but Chelsea's is better on paper.

Real: Wouldn't even trade their second string midfield for Chelsea's. Best midfield in the world in terms of quality, experience, depth, and potential.

Bayern: If we're classifying Musiala as part of the midfield 3, then it's a tough one. Musiala & Kimmich v Enzo & Caicedo.

Barca: Similar to Bayern. Pedri and FdJ are brilliant, but their third man (Gavi) has as much to prove as Lavia does.
Click to expand...

If it's up to me, right now I'd take the City midfield over Chelsea's 100 out of 100 times, thank you very much. Maybe come back to that when they've actually played a few games together. Until they have, it means squat how they look on paper.
 
GlasgowCeltic said:
If Gundo is a massive loss to City he's a massive gain for Barca (on paper)

City can move Silva back into midfield and then its better than anything Chelsea have
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly.

I think people really underestimate the importance of experience in midfield. You don't want experience to the point that the players have lost their legs of course. But the primary allure of Enzo and Caicedo is their potential, given that they are both already quite good at 21 and have the skill set to get better. Neither is on the level of the truly top class midfielders at this point, because midfield is so much about decision making with and without the ball, tactical nous, and understanding different game situations. Rodri, for example, is in a totally different class to Caicedo right now in terms of his demonstrated ability to dominate big matches both in possession and out of possession and keep up a high level 50 matches a year. And you are exactly right that Bernardo Silva is currently a better midfielder than Enzo, I don't have any doubt about that at all. In 2-3 years this picture could be different and that's why these players cost > 100m each.
 
justsomebloke said:
Even if one accepts these arguments (and personally I don't think the finances or FFP side of this is necessarily the huge problem a lot of people seem to think it is), that doesn't account for what I would consider the most obvious objection to his approach, which is this: Is a constant flood of incomings and outgoings a good way to build and maintain a competitive and title-contending team? That's not just about having enough good players, it's also about having the patience to let the team gel and develop a collective character, which is hard to do if you're constantly making a lot of changes.
Click to expand...

Not sure you can take too much from the 22/23 season an awful lot of things had to happen and happen in a matter of weeks. Where I think Bohley has impressed is the fact that he has been prepared to act very quickly when clearly things are wrong and no matter how much time there wouldn’t be any improvement .

I very much doubt that we will see anywhere near the amount of incomings again over such a short period of time . Yes it’s inevitable that some of the signings will fail but the potential ceilings of some of these players is extremely high
 
terraloo said:
Not sure you can take too much from the 22/23 season an awful lot of things had to happen and happen in a matter of weeks. Where I think Bohley has impressed is the fact that he has been prepared to act very quickly when clearly things are wrong and no matter how much time there wouldn’t be any improvement .

I very much doubt that we will see anywhere near the amount of incomings again over such a short period of time . Yes it’s inevitable that some of the signings will fail but the potential ceilings of some of these players is extremely high
Click to expand...

I'm not taking anything from the 22/23 season. I'm taking that from how I think team building in football works. I thought that prior to 22/23, and I still think it. Although 22/23 Chelsea certainly gave no cause to revise that view.

So far, there's not much sign of things slowing down, is there. Otherwise, I can only repeat that it's not simply a question of bringing in good players and then things will happen. Also, it's not often that nothing much is "clearly wrong" with a football squad, especially if you never allow it to gel and develop, so that's kind of a treacherous and self-confirming assumption you have there.

Not convinced so far, but I'm not convinced it'll continue to crash and burn either. We'll see.
 
It would have been funny if Pep would have jumped ship and built another team with another billion to spend, just for the lulz.
 
Seems to be more and more reports appearing about Reece James being out for months. It's such a shame, because even when given time to properly recover, issues pop up again.

Buying Malo Gusto for a pretty reasonable price in January looks more sensible by the day, but I'm instantly reminded of some of the takes when we signed him.

Absolutely braindead doesn't do it justice for some of them. Questioning Chelsea for wanting a second right back in the squad going forwards (which is a perfectly normal thing regardless), and deriding the club for wanting to provide cover for a player with this kind of injury record.
 
Dumbstar said:
Come on Gusto, be shit so Caicedo players RB for the next 4 months. :lol:
Click to expand...
Gusto will be fine mate. There are lots of options before we play caicedo in wb/rb position. In fact some fans wanted gusto to start ahead of Reece and wanted Reece to play in midfield at least until he gets to speed.

He is very good. Last season his attacking stats better than most right backs in the world.And he is monster defensively.
 
Duffman2 said:
I have background in finance, so I have done some analysis on United and Chelsea's transfer and its impact on our financials, both this year but importantly going forward. As you know, the transfer fee is amortised over the length of the contract, or starting this year, at a maximum of 5 years (UEFA rules). For transfer fees etc, I have used Transfermarkt as the source of truth, which reports transfer in euros, so all the analysis is in euros. All the numbers are estimates based on my analysis.

Looking at Manchester United, we currently have €544m in net intangible assets from transfers that will be spread out as a cost over the coming 5 years. See next few years schedule below, names are players who will be fully amortised:
2023/24: €170m
2024/25: €159m (Wan Bissaka)
2025/26: 107m (Maguire, Bruno, Varane, Amad, Donny)
2026/27: €69m (Casemiro, Sancho, Malacia)
2027/28: €38m
2028/29: €0m

As you can see, our costs will in 2025/26 and 2026/27 fall rapidly due the us finalising the amortisation of several key players. This should free up considerable capital for us to deploy in the transfermarket (250m in 25/26!) without increasing our annualised costs. So using the 5 year contracts that are common to United, we will have high amortisation costs for the next 2 years, but then we will be able to go heavy in the market again without increasing our costs.

Coming back to Chelsea their amortisation schedule looks like this:
2023/24: €223m
2024/25: €203m
2025/26: €180m
2026/27: €157m
2027/28: €143m
2028/29: €51m

If they would have signed them all on 5 years contract (really only affects last year) the scheduel wold have been:

2023/24: €250m
2024/25: €234m
2025/26: €211m
2026/27: €188m
2027/28: €77m
2028/29: 0m

Hence, the mastery of Chelsea's transfer plan over the past 3 windows, could spell trouble for them in the future as they will be hamstrung with high amortisation costs for years to come. While Chelsea have built up a dream midfield, they might struggle to have the funds to fix their attackers and defenders + goalkeeper unless they continue to find one-off sales that are profitable.

I could share a more detailed graph, but I as a newbie, I dont have the rights to do so yet.
Click to expand...
You need to schedule wages for each club for the next x years and then show total costs ie wages plus amortisation to give a fairer picture.
 
Interesting little segment on the bbc that outlines pretty neatly where the ffp stuff is at. Kinda feels like if they are not there or there abouts by the end of this season they will be in a spot of bother, of course thats if they adhere to ffp: www.bbc.com/sport/av/football/66583699
 
What's been happening to Chelsea over the past 18 months/2 years is fascinating. Brighton just look a far better team. Incredible
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Boehly is the best thing that's happened to Brighton. He keeps giving them loads of money and they get better and better..(Brighton that is)
Click to expand...
They're going to be building him a statue soon. Keeps showering them with gold
 
Adnan said:
Click to expand...

The swiss ramble might be wrong here but i would be surprised if their this wrong.

If its even vaguely correct it just backs up the idea that Todd and co just dont care and are willfully ignoring it. Still cant wrap my head around the reason, just all seems a bit a needless.

That 105m line the PL has mooted to set for point deductions seems very high, thought serious penalties would kick in before that. Fully expect Chelsea to pull a bunch of financial tricks out the bag to try and mitigate this.

Im starting to come round to the idea that maybe Todd is a spurs manchurian candidate.
 
Marauder1 said:
The swiss ramble might be wrong here but i would be surprised if their this wrong.

If its even vaguely correct it just backs up the idea that Todd and co just dont care and are willfully ignoring it. Still cant wrap my head around the reason, just all seems a bit a needless.

That 105m line the PL has mooted to set for point deductions seems very high, thought serious penalties would kick in before that. Fully expect Chelsea to pull a bunch of financial tricks out the bag to try and mitigate this.

Im starting to come round to the idea that maybe Todd is a spurs manchurian candidate.
Click to expand...
Maybe he just knows that his Saudi connections will bail him out? He gambles on getting the team back into the CL this season and then he can sell a player or two for an out of market price to balance the books?
 
RoyH1 said:
Maybe he just knows that his Saudi connections will bail him out? He gambles on getting the team back into the CL this season and then he can sell a player or two for an out of market price to balance the books?
Click to expand...
It’s a shit gamble for a team who finished 12th last season. It’s beyond irresponsible. They’d be lucky to even get top 6 imo
 
RoyH1 said:
Maybe he just knows that his Saudi connections will bail him out? He gambles on getting the team back into the CL this season and then he can sell a player or two for an out of market price to balance the books?
Click to expand...
Looks like there will be have to be sales but there will also be purchases unless they are ridiculously lucky and most of these purchases, including Poch, work out. Like @cyberman said top 6 let alone top 4 is hardly a shoe in for them this year, where they end up in the next few years is anyones guess.
 
Adnan said:
Click to expand...


Saying Chelsea owners have overseen a 550m and 150m net spend in a complete squad overhaul across 2 seasons; 100m of which was for loan/mc system players. The squad they inherited was in no way capable of challenging for any titles consistently. It just doesn't sound as sexy when you add context...
 
UsualSuspect said:
Saying Chelsea owners have overseen a 550m and 150m net spend in a complete squad overhaul across 2 seasons; 100m of which was for loan/mc system players. The squad they inherited was in no way capable of challenging for any titles consistently. It just doesn't sound as sexy when you add context...
Click to expand...

You keep telling yourself that.
 
UsualSuspect said:
Saying Chelsea owners have overseen a 550m and 150m net spend in a complete squad overhaul across 2 seasons; 100m of which was for loan/mc system players. The squad they inherited was in no way capable of challenging for any titles consistently. It just doesn't sound as sexy when you add context...
Click to expand...

I remember when I used to use the 'n' word freely around here. Almost got banned.
 
UsualSuspect said:
Saying Chelsea owners have overseen a 550m and 150m net spend in a complete squad overhaul across 2 seasons; 100m of which was for loan/mc system players. The squad they inherited was in no way capable of challenging for any titles consistently. It just doesn't sound as sexy when you add context...
Click to expand...

How can you type 550m and 150m net spend (which remains above half a billion even if you do math gymnastics with your loanees) across just 2 seasons and call that type of context mitigating circumstances, without bursting out in laughter yourself. With such a high player turnover the agent fees will be through the roof as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.