Don't see him lasting long with that attitude.
Boehly is going to ruin Chelsea (hopefully)
- Thread starter UnitedSofa
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Don't see him lasting long with that attitude.
Enzo won't be the push over Chelsea might have thought he'd be, that's part of the reason I thought he'd get sacked pretty quickly.
I think every Leicester fan had the same 3 thoughts when he left.
1. He'll be gone by Christmas
2. Chilwell is done at Chelsea under Enzo
3. At least we won't be a stubborn as Burnley were under Kompany, which has already shown to be true when we started taking long goal kicks Monday night.
Enzo got pissed off here last January when we couldn't get the Stefano Sensi deal done if Chelsea don't give him what he needs he won't be quiet about it
I think every Leicester fan had the same 3 thoughts when he left.
1. He'll be gone by Christmas
2. Chilwell is done at Chelsea under Enzo
3. At least we won't be a stubborn as Burnley were under Kompany, which has already shown to be true when we started taking long goal kicks Monday night.
Enzo got pissed off here last January when we couldn't get the Stefano Sensi deal done if Chelsea don't give him what he needs he won't be quiet about it
Let's wait for the resident Chelsea fans to tell us why Enzo is playing 5D chess and how they'll win the light quadruple.
If this is all just a way to show the club has assets worth billions because they have 40 players on 10 year contracts then the end game has to be Boehly selling up in a few years.
The ultimate money exercise...the chaotic mess it leaves behind will be glorious.
The ultimate money exercise...the chaotic mess it leaves behind will be glorious.
He can publicly declare the players are unwanted, and Chelsea will still sell players at a premium. That's just how they roll
They act like an NFL team thinking they can sign and cut players without there being any issues.
It's such a weird strategy that it's hard to figure out exactly what his goal is because it feels like he's trying to have his cake while eating it too. On one hand, he's signed a bunch of young players to long term deals which would suggest that he's a patient owner and is willing to wait for his investment to bear fruit when the players develop. On the other hand, he's fired numerous managers, signed all sorts of players , isolated others, and created a musical chairs situation with his talent, and that obviously suggests that he wants and expects to win NOW.
I think he thought he'd be challenging city by now or even quicker. He's got ownership stakes in the lakers and dodgers. And you can do complete roster turnover in those sports and it doesn't really matter that much for a few different reasons. He's probably beginning to realize that it doesn't work that easily in the PL.
If this is what disrupting socca' looks like, then I think a lot of clubs are going to stick to the good old ways.
Gary Neville asked the question on MNF "what do Chelsea know that the other clubs don't?" and it got me thinking...does Boehly, an American, foresee 'soccer' becoming similar to NFL, whereby players don't move for fees, they move at the end of their contracts?
I have wondered for a while why more players, especially top players, haven't cottoned on to the fact that they're undervaluing themselves by allowing themselves to be "sold". If every player followed the Mbappe model, the player and their agent would be much better off because they could demand their usual market value in salary + huge signing bonus because there is no transfer fee.
Maybe, and it's just a theory, Boehly thinks more players will go down that route and he'll have a stable of 42+ players on long term contracts to choose from...not having to worry about his players moving on for free each time?
I have wondered for a while why more players, especially top players, haven't cottoned on to the fact that they're undervaluing themselves by allowing themselves to be "sold". If every player followed the Mbappe model, the player and their agent would be much better off because they could demand their usual market value in salary + huge signing bonus because there is no transfer fee.
Maybe, and it's just a theory, Boehly thinks more players will go down that route and he'll have a stable of 42+ players on long term contracts to choose from...not having to worry about his players moving on for free each time?
Me neither I think it’s a pretty low life attitude, any of the privileged 21 now know if the wind changes they’ll be treated very badly.
He's not got the tact to be successful at the top level.
Doesn’t look like it, for someone with not much experience or track record I think he’s towing the line.
This is a big part of it. The whole basis for their approach is to entice young players ideally still on their first professional contract with lifelong financial security over many years (albeit on fairly low wages relative to the rest of the league), hope that some of them magically develop into top talents and/or the trend of continually rising transfer fees continue, and ultimately add the best players to the first team with no threat of them leaving on frees whilst the others are traded like appreciating stocks.
The truth is he hasn't foreseen feck all and even if what you're saying was going to happen it would take 10, 20, 30 years to break the current model and reshape the global market.
Mourinho says hi.
How is the view in Turkey?
Pep has very publicly fallen out with players far better than Raheem Sterling though...? Including Raheem Sterling 3 years ago when he was a lot better than he is now.
Yes, you're right. I'm sure Maresca will prove to be as capable of working through issues as Pep is.
His inability to adapt his tactics has nothing to do with his successful times, when he was abrasive, brutal to his players and even publicly called them out.
His most public issues and falling out came after his most successful periods.
You can get away with pretty much anything if you are successful. If you don’t deliver results then you end up in Turkey.
[QUOTE="Lentwood, post: 32326843,
it got me thinking...does Boehly, an American, foresee 'soccer' becoming similar to NFL
[/QUOTE]
If they finish bottom of the league they’ll get first draft pick next year
it got me thinking...does Boehly, an American, foresee 'soccer' becoming similar to NFL
[/QUOTE]
If they finish bottom of the league they’ll get first draft pick next year
Well given that Maresca hasn't yet done anything as daft as freezing out a star striker to the point where he had to be swapped along with €46m for another star striker who would then also be subject to a falling-out a year later I'm sure you'll agree there is cause for optimism!
The point is arguing that a manger is unsuited to make it to the top level because he falls out with players is silly. This isn't to say Maresca is destined for the top level obviously - but dismissing him already on this basis is nonsense.
Seems like a solid summary. I also suspect that Boehly/Eghbali/Clearlake's goal is to put together a young talented team that won't need many more additions, then use player sales from the academy and excess squad members to continually generate revenue that will help offset the revenue losses that the club will inevitably take if they go ahead with the construction of a new stadium on the Stamford Bridge site. They have to be looking at the next 5-6 years and the long term bet of stadium redevelopment.
Is there any reason we wouldn’t try and pick up Ben Chilwell on the cheap? Profile looks just what we need for LB
He’d already won the UCL with Porto by that point.
Because he isn’t good.
I was thinking the same the other day.
Take Ericksen.
Scenario 1.
He agrees to move clubs this summer, United get 5 milion fee (max) and he gets a 2/3 year contract in 60-80k region (down from 150 he is on right now).
Scenario 2
He runs down his contract and gets paid 150k until next June. Then he moves clubs, get a signing bonus (1-2 million) and a wage closer to 100k as there is no payment to United.
I think to choice is easy
Yeah fully agreed. I think the other factor people aren't taking into account is the rumblings of another transfer ban - which re-contextualises a lot of the recent purchases.
I'm not trying to come across as someone who has swilled all of the Kool-Aid and by no means do I agree with everything or even most of what Clearlake have done - but it also seems premature to judge them when this is very obviously a long-term plan they are implementing.
It’s irrelevant. The best players will always hold the power. You think Palmer isn’t going to demand parity with the top players the in the league in two years time if he continues to improve?
I know your argument will be that Chelsea would be happy to pay it in that case, but for everyone one of those there will be five that don’t improve and they will struggle to sell. Chelsea are taking all of the risk.
Got two promising players in Nkunku and Madueke who would probably just develop if given time.
I'd even move for Madueke if I was United.
I'd even move for Madueke if I was United.
Disagree, especially given that we can’t trust either of our two first choice LBs to be fit, we’re playing Dalot out of position there and are an injury to him or Mazroui away from disaster.
This is why there are automatic base wage increases built into the contracts based on individual and team performances.
The biggest obstacle for other teams to sign players from top clubs is wages. The whole point of the approach is to make Chelsea rejects more appealing / affordable to smaller clubs who can offer wage parity and more minutes. Obviously questions remain over how appealing Chelsea castoffs are relative to comparable players from other leagues - but given that the likes of Evanilson are signing for £40m it's easy to see why a player who couldn't break in at Chelsea but is already accustomed to England would be more appealing than a 24 year old who has scored 1 in 3 for Porto and has never played outside of Brazil and Portugal.
He's very good when utilised properly. Has to have license to attack the final third; ideally you need a CB comfortable in the LCB area to help cover behind him. Excellent in the air too; vulnerable when isolated 1v1.
Injuries are obviously a concern but he'd be an asset for anyone who wants to use attacking fullbacks as long as he's not being relied upon for 2000+ minutes.
I’ve never understood their strategy for two reasons:
- You sign an 18-year-old on a ‘cheap’ long-term contract. He turns out amazing, scoring 30 in his first year. Madrid, City, and United want him. Is he going to sit quietly on the remaining 7 years? No chance. Fortunately, for Chelsea, only Cole Palmer has torn it up (and they have given him a rise)
- You sign the 11 best young players in the world. That means in three years, they will be the best team in the world - seems to be their logic, as if all young players progress in a straight line (if at all). What about other clubs who get better?
*** edit ***
Saw above that cheap contracts are good for if a player doesn't work out, because smaller clubs can afford those contracts. That's not really a basis for success. Everything seems to be an accounting idea without any understanding of how things happen in reality.
- You sign an 18-year-old on a ‘cheap’ long-term contract. He turns out amazing, scoring 30 in his first year. Madrid, City, and United want him. Is he going to sit quietly on the remaining 7 years? No chance. Fortunately, for Chelsea, only Cole Palmer has torn it up (and they have given him a rise)
- You sign the 11 best young players in the world. That means in three years, they will be the best team in the world - seems to be their logic, as if all young players progress in a straight line (if at all). What about other clubs who get better?
*** edit ***
Saw above that cheap contracts are good for if a player doesn't work out, because smaller clubs can afford those contracts. That's not really a basis for success. Everything seems to be an accounting idea without any understanding of how things happen in reality.
Last edited:
I'm guessing you don't follow chelsea much... He's basically perma injured, much like Reece James, he comes back plays a game or two and boom. He's broken.
446 days out and 100 games missed and counting.
Thanks for context, and yes I don’t follow Chelsea all that closely.