Todd Boehly, Bedad Eghbali and the (new) Chelsea Board

[Max Fowler]

Kicking off a conversation around the new owners.

I have largely been in support of Boehly and thought he came across well in interviews - liked his experience etc.

At this moment I am very concerned about their lack of understanding of football and the impact(s) it has had on our club:

1. The sacking of Tuchel and hiring of Potter
2. Current interference in on-field decisions - including picking Aubameyang (or not) and the immediate playing of all of our new players by Potter.
3. The decision to go further down the line with the Potter project

At this moment in time - it seems like they have picked a yes man - someone who they can "collaborate with" to the extent of influencing on-field decisions.

Why do you think they fell out with Tuchel in the first place? Because he refused to allow them to influence who he would play?

The more the days go by the more the evidence points to the board having a level of influence that is unheard of in any other club.

All the while they seem to know nothing about football. And yet we are trusting them to (re-) build the foundations of our club?

Thoughts? Do we need to start pushing back on the new owners already and voicing our dissent?

[Bob Singleton]

I'm in no way being an apologist for Potter here, but...

1. Re sacking of Tuchel: I was sad to see him go, but it was also clear that -after having gone through hell with injuries, sanctions, change of ownership, divorce and possibly other things too - Tuchel was in need of a break of some sort. I don't know about others here, but to me he looked like a shell-shocked soldier toward the end.

2. New players: At the time the likes of Felix, Enzo, Mudryk etc were arriving, the likes of Pulisic, Sterling, Kovacic, Kante, etc were on the treatment table. It wasn't a case of "I'd better play with my new toys or else daddy will be unhappy"; Potter had little choice (and in the case of Felix and Enzo, they were clearly upgrades on any player - fit or not - that we had in the squad anyway)

3. The Potter Project: I can see where the new owners are coming from. There's no point saying you want stability and a long-term vision if you then sack a second manager within six months or so of taking ownership of the club. Of course part of the problem is the message it sends out... 'we don't care how cr*p you are, your job's safe'  😔

[chara]

Thoughts only...not in response to questions more a follow on.

Conflicting messages from SB....on one hand a huge influx of (hopefully) qualified back room staff. On the other hand much media reporting showing Todd and Co in a very bad light.

As for the Media...hard to see past an "agenda" and unfortunately we are presented with less than straightforward accounts of anything that may or may not be going on at Chelsea.

I haven't read the Mrs Silva tweet but if true it reveals far more than pages and pages of media mischief.

I find it hard to believe that hard headed business men who have put their money where etc would actually pay a huge salary to someone and then try to do the job themselves...if that is what is happening then we truly are in deep do do.

Bottom line is GP isn't succeeding and the worrying thing is none of us seem to be able to see any signs that he on the right track or will ever be.

[Michael Tucker]

28 minutes ago, chara said:

Bottom line is GP isn't succeeding and the worrying thing is none of us seem to be able to see any signs that he on the right track or will ever be.

This.

When GP gives his press conferences he comes across like a complete dill. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

[thevelourfog]

I worry a bit that they seem to see themselves as radicals, as "disruptors", as playing some kind of 4D chess game that everyone else is too stuck in parochial orthodoxy to understand ... When, objectively and tangibly, what they are doing is making pretty bloody reckless decisions. About operational functions, player recruitment, finances, organisational structure ... 

They will see things, and not without merit, as being a tear-down and build-up project. They will see everything they've done as pulling off a plaster, feeling intense pain quickly rather than more manageable pain over years. And perhaps they will be proven right. But that doesn't change that the pain is intense, and really I think they should have made fewer changes so quickly.

[Ham]

3 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

I worry a bit that they seem to see themselves as radicals, as "disruptors", as playing some kind of 4D chess game that everyone else is too stuck in parochial orthodoxy to understand ... When, objectively and tangibly, what they are doing is making pretty bloody reckless decisions. About operational functions, player recruitment, finances, organisational structure ... 

They will see things, and not without merit, as being a tear-down and build-up project. They will see everything they've done as pulling off a plaster, feeling intense pain quickly rather than more manageable pain over years. And perhaps they will be proven right. But that doesn't change that the pain is intense, and really I think they should have made fewer changes so quickly.

Ultimately though, these players are underperforming. That's a fact. 

[thevelourfog]

27 minutes ago, Ham said:

Ultimately though, these players are underperforming. That's a fact. 

I'm not following how this relates to my post about our owners.

[Mark Kelly]

9 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

I'm in no way being an apologist for Potter here, but...

1. Re sacking of Tuchel: I was sad to see him go, but it was also clear that -after having gone through hell with injuries, sanctions, change of ownership, divorce and possibly other things too - Tuchel was in need of a break of some sort. I don't know about others here, but to me he looked like a shell-shocked soldier toward the end.

2. New players: At the time the likes of Felix, Enzo, Mudryk etc were arriving, the likes of Pulisic, Sterling, Kovacic, Kante, etc were on the treatment table. It wasn't a case of "I'd better play with my new toys or else daddy will be unhappy"; Potter had little choice (and in the case of Felix and Enzo, they were clearly upgrades on any player - fit or not - that we had in the squad anyway)

3. The Potter Project: I can see where the new owners are coming from. There's no point saying you want stability and a long-term vision if you then sack a second manager within six months or so of taking ownership of the club. Of course part of the problem is the message it sends out... 'we don't care how cr*p you are, your job's safe'  😔

Exactly.

And the theory that Potter is having to get decisions regarding the squad rubber stamped by Boehly is absolute nonsense.  It's perfectly obvious that Potter was simply explaining his decision making to the board .

They may have asked but it's more than likely that Mr Emotional intelligence thought it was the prudent thing to do.

Edited February 21, 2023 by Mark Kelly

[Ham]

42 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

I'm not following how this relates to my post about our owners.

If the team was performing nobody would be discussing the failings of the owners. 

[Holymoly]

I think we're clutching at straws if we now start blaming the owners. First it was the players not pulling their weight, then it was the manager not being up to the job and now it's all the owners fault. Let's not forget the owners, of whom without them we could quite possibly no longer be in existance as a club.

I think it's laudible that Boehly and Clearlake are prepared to give everyone some time to bed in. We were singing their praises a month ago when we watched the steady stream of new young players arriving at the club. I suggest some of us be careful what we wish for by wanting all change. Let's not forget Chelsea FC is effectively an entirely new club since August. New owners, new coaching staff, new players, new tea lady for all I know. Some of us need to chill the heck out. You've blamed the players, blamed the manager and now we seem to be blaming the owners. What next? You may as well start blaming the match day supporters for the shite atmousphere we generate at Stamford Bridge. Maybe if we started sounding a bit more like the Dortmund fans rather than a slow day at Aldi the players may get a bit more motivated to play for us.

[FrankLampard8]

12 minutes ago, Holymoly said:

I think we're clutching at straws if we now start blaming the owners. First it was the players not pulling their weight, then it was the manager not being up to the job and now it's all the owners fault. Let's not forget the owners, of whom without them we could quite possibly no longer be in existance as a club.

I think it's laudible that Boehly and Clearlake are prepared to give everyone some time to bed in. We were singing their praises a month ago when we watched the steady stream of new young players arriving at the club. I suggest some of us be careful what we wish for by wanting all change. Let's not forget Chelsea FC is effectively an entirely new club since August. New owners, new coaching staff, new players, new tea lady for all I know. Some of us need to chill the heck out. You've blamed the players, blamed the manager and now we seem to be blaming the owners. What next? You may as well start blaming the match day supporters for the shite atmousphere we generate at Stamford Bridge. Maybe if we started sounding a bit more like the Dortmund fans rather than a slow day at Aldi the players may get a bit more motivated to play for us.

I often think it must be underwhelming coming from some of these European clubs with raucous atmospheres to then play at a lot of the atmospheres in the Premier League. Don't get me wrong, the Bridge gets rocking when it wants to but it's increasingly rare in my opinion.

I live in Suffolk now and Ipswich Town have a group of supporters who have taken upon themselves to improve the atmosphere at the ground. Think the Crystal Palace Holmesdale Fanatics but maybe on a smaller scale and probably more organic. The results have been quite remarkable in terms of match day experience. They all sit together behind the goal in their equivalent of the shed, sing songs, wave flags and organise displays/tifos. It's never going to be Dortmund but for that level of football it is quite something and I think their players enjoy and respond to it.

I often wish we could get something like this going at Chelsea because it is sorely needed and frankly a lot of fun... but it will never happen because of the amount of tourists at the games now and fans that are well hard and so "pwopa Chels" that they'd never be seen joining in with anything like that. 

Edited February 21, 2023 by FrankLampard8

[Max Fowler]

10 minutes ago, Holymoly said:

I think we're clutching at straws if we now start blaming the owners. First it was the players not pulling their weight, then it was the manager not being up to the job and now it's all the owners fault. Let's not forget the owners, of whom without them we could quite possibly no longer be in existance as a club.

I think it's laudible that Boehly and Clearlake are prepared to give everyone some time to bed in. We were singing their praises a month ago when we watched the steady stream of new young players arriving at the club. I suggest some of us be careful what we wish for by wanting all change. Let's not forget Chelsea FC is effectively an entirely new club since August. New owners, new coaching staff, new players, new tea lady for all I know. Some of us need to chill the heck out. You've blamed the players, blamed the manager and now we seem to be blaming the owners. What next? You may as well start blaming the match day supporters for the shite atmousphere we generate at Stamford Bridge. Maybe if we started sounding a bit more like the Dortmund fans rather than a slow day at Aldi the players may get a bit more motivated to play for us.

I never said wanting a change of owners. I am concerned about how deep their delusion goes with regards to football amidst news that they are taking „collaborative“ on-field decisions with Potter. 
 

We could have had many other owners, for better or worse, so the argument that they saved us doesn’t hold much water.

[Max Fowler]

24 minutes ago, Ham said:

If the team was performing nobody would be discussing the failings of the owners. 

But the owners got rid of Tuchel and hired Potter. It’s like if the owners hired my nan to manage the club and you blamed the players when it went downhill. And there are other red flags too in terms of how the club is being run - even if there were promising signs at first.

[Mark Kelly]

3 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I never said wanting a change of owners. I am concerned about how deep their delusion goes with regards to football amidst news that they are taking „collaborative“ on-field decisions with Potter. 
 

We could have had many other owners, for better or worse, so the argument that they saved us doesn’t hold much water.

Max , that it absolute nonsense , there has been no mention of "collaborative on field decisons" other than from your misunderstanding of the reporting .

GP merely explained to the board his reasoning behind the decisions to rest players and exclude Aubemayang from the Champions league squad .

Let's not make things up .

[Max Fowler]

3 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Max , that it absolute nonsense , there has been no mention of "collaborative on field decisons" other than from your misunderstanding of the reporting .

GP merely explained to the board his reasoning behind the decisions to rest players and exclude Aubemayang from the Champions league squad .

Let's not make things up .

 

Maybe I’m over-reading the word „collaboration“ then. Why do you think Boehly put 4-4-3 up on the whiteboard when Tuchel was in charge? Same „collaboration“? Why have all the new players immediately gone straight into the first XI? It’s not just because of injuries either. Boehly should be so far out of football matters he thinks our formation is 5-5-3 but it’s not our manager‘s job to explain football to him or „collaborate“ with him on on-field decisions. Top managers would never stand for that. Why does Potter remain? Because he’s willing to say yes when the board twists his arm about certain selections.

[thevelourfog]

30 minutes ago, Ham said:

If the team was performing nobody would be discussing the failings of the owners. 

If the owners hadn't made such drastic changes so quickly, the team might be performing ...

I think you're right that there wouldn't be any mass criticism of the owners. But plenty of people, myself included, were asking questions of them months ago, before Tuchel was sacked, before this disastrous form. I'm not just talking about changing the head coach, and signing loads of players. There have been sweeping changes to backroom coaching staff, to football and commercial operational staff, to the medical team, to player/coach/boardroom liaison. Was it inevitable they'd change effectively everything? Yes, and understandable. Was it prudent to do it all in just a few months? I don't think so, and think it's not possible to draw a neat line between the tumult in how and who operates the day-to-day functions of the club with the tumult on the pitch.

Does f**king up this stuff now (if you're inclined to think they've f**ked at least some of it up) mean they're useless, or idiots, or not to be trusted? I don't think so. They're new to this, and we have to expect it will take some time for them to learn. But they aren't above challenge or criticism in that time.

[Mark Kelly]

4 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

 

Maybe I’m over-reading the word „collaboration“ then. Why do you think Boehly put 4-4-3 up on the whiteboard when Tuchel was in charge? Same „collaboration“? Why have all the new players immediately gone straight into the first XI? It’s not just because of injuries either. Boehly should be so far out of football matters he thinks our formation is 5-5-3 but it’s not our manager‘s job to explain football to him or „collaborate“ with him on on-field decisions. Top managers would never stand for that. Why does Potter remain? Because he’s willing to say yes when the board twists his arm about certain selections.

That is the fault of Pys then purposefully misreporting what Matt Law wrote for imaginary internet points. Read what Matt Law said.

[Bob Singleton]

21 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

 

Maybe I’m over-reading the word „collaboration“ then. Why do you think Boehly put 4-4-3 up on the whiteboard when Tuchel was in charge? Same „collaboration“? Why have all the new players immediately gone straight into the first XI? It’s not just because of injuries either. Boehly should be so far out of football matters he thinks our formation is 5-5-3 but it’s not our manager‘s job to explain football to him or „collaborate“ with him on on-field decisions. Top managers would never stand for that. Why does Potter remain? Because he’s willing to say yes when the board twists his arm about certain selections.

I think you're starting to invent situations just in order to confirm your own bias.

Yes, it's easy to laugh at Boehly for putting 4-4-3 up on a white board. Have you never had to edit a post because of a typo... I know I have many a time! That's what that 4-4-3 is all about. And yes, starting the new players was very much down to other players being injured (that and the non-injured ones not exactly pulling up roots out on the pitch!) How many of us in the same situation as Potter wouldn't have done the same? Anything just to try something different. People here were saying 'drop Ziyech', for example. Who for, exactly? Pulisic (injured), Sterling (injured)? Or play Gallagher as a winger, perhaps?

Again, I'm not being an apologist for Potter; there are so many sticks you can beat him with it really isn't necessary for you to invent situations... and yet you do.

[McCreadie]

53 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I never said wanting a change of owners. I am concerned about how deep their delusion goes with regards to football amidst news that they are taking „collaborative“ on-field decisions with Potter. 

Utter poppycock. If you really believe they have any influence who plays and who doesn’t, you are very misguided.

[jasonb]

I never really liked us under Tuchel though he made us difficult to beat and won us trophies. He was also very good at dealing with the media especially in a difficult political situation.

It would have intriguing to see if Sterling and Aubameyang would have worked out for TT  yet the management did not see eye to eye with him and here we are. 

 

[Max Fowler]

 

47 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

That is the fault of Pys then purposefully misreporting what Matt Law wrote for imaginary internet points. Read what Matt Law said.

Well I'm sorry I've actually read the article then and I still don't like it:

"Big decisions have been taken in collaboration with the board, such as the decision to leave Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang out of the Champions League squad for the knockout stages and not selecting him for the past three league games."
 

[Max Fowler]

The board are apparently impressed by Potter's bravery at taking a 5 year 12 million a year contract:

Bravery

"While many would say that Chelsea took a bet on Potter, when they chose him to succeed Tuchel, there is recognition from within the club that he also took a risk on them. Club sources have noted that top managers and coaches do not like to take new jobs mid-season, with Marcelo Bielsa the latest example of that after turning down the Everton job.

Potter not only agreed to take over the Chelsea squad in mid-season, he also left an incredibly stable environment at Brighton, risking his reputation and immediate future in the process."

Took a risk on us? He's just got the biggest payout of his lifetime.

 

 

[Mark Kelly]

2 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

 

Well I'm sorry I've actually read the article then and I still don't like it:

"Big decisions have been taken in collaboration with the board, such as the decision to leave Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang out of the Champions League squad for the knockout stages and not selecting him for the past three league games."
 

With respect that is the polar opposite of the same article I read when it was reported in the Daily Mail where it was reported that he explained his reasoning to the board . A totally different inflection .

[Max Fowler]

People seem very defensive about the extent to which Boehly has influence or soft power over decisions. It's clear from the get go that he is a very hands on owner and I don't think it's wild speculation to worry about why Potter was hired (to be able to "collaborate" with Todd) versus why Tuchel was fired (not willing to join WhatsApp groups, have regular meetings about Ronaldo etc.) 

I don't think it's wild speculation to worry about the extent to which Boehly is making it about all about him, when he clearly doesn't know much about football.

Potter gets paid handsomely and all he has to do is listen sometimes to what Boehly has to say - how deep that runs is up for question.

I would have more faith in - give the elite manager everything he wants and lets build the culture around him. Around his ways of working. Look where Boehly's "collaborative" methods have got us so far - translating into not a jot of success on the football pitch. Excited investors with big ideas but no clue what it takes to win at elite level soccer.

 

[Mark Kelly]

5 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

People seem very defensive about the extent to which Boehly has influence or soft power over decisions. It's clear from the get go that he is a very hands on owner and I don't think it's wild speculation to worry about why Potter was hired (to be able to "collaborate" with Todd) versus why Tuchel was fired (not willing to join WhatsApp groups, have regular meetings about Ronaldo etc.) 

I don't think it's wild speculation to worry about the extent to which Boehly is making it about all about him, when he clearly doesn't know much about football.

Potter gets paid handsomely and all he has to do is listen sometimes to what Boehly has to say - how deep that runs is up for question.

I would have more faith in - give the elite manager everything he wants and lets build the culture around him. Around his ways of working. Look where Boehly's "collaborative" methods have got us so far - translating into not a jot of success on the football pitch. Excited investors with big ideas but no clue what it takes to win at elite level soccer.

 

Again Max that is absolute rubbish.

Boehly came in and immediately did everything and was super hands on because there was nobody else available at the time.

Since then he's actively employed others to do the jobs he was having to do himself.

Boehly is the face of the operation, of course he's involved, the buck literally stops with him. 

To be honest everything you write has the air of someone auditioning for the Daily Mail sports desk or talk sport where they shoot first and ask questions later!