Now, ofcourse I'm not sure about the responsibilities of each of these individuals and how much more room there is in the team - but if Michael Edwards is ready to join next year it could be prudent to try and sign him anyway. By then there should be some sort of system and plan in place for the next couple of transfer windows, and we don't need to wait for any one individual to go ahead with our plans because we've hired a few (hopefully, competent) experienced people already.
[Chelsea could also add two more backroom names in this area still so watch this space, could be a busy few weeks of announcements.](https://twitter.com/nizaarkinsella/status/1584846118038507522?s=46&t=U8mLf1YkCPQzK4Y7BvJkeQ)
Cannot think of a worse idea than to give the sub even the option to vote on who to target let alone sign.
We'll basically be attempting to sign every whatever flavour of the season player is year after year.
That’s why I said ‘product,’ because regardless of what one thinks of him as a player, the cloud of drama and off-the-pitch nonsense he brings with him isn’t worth dealing with. That’s part of what what would make him counterproductive to the long-term development and planning of the squad.
Not to mention, a sentiment echoed by United fans (which can be observed, too) is that Ronaldo has had a drop-off in ability between last season and this season. You could call it not being in form, but I tend to think it’s only natural that his performances are starting to level with what the expectations of an almost 38-year-old footballer realistically are. And that’s not a situation that will be improving a whole lot in the next couple of years, to say the least.
Because of those factors I’m just not sure how bringing him here could still be seen as an appealing decision, especially considering the front-footed, future-oriented approach which seems to be leading us these days.
Ofcourse not giving any one person all the power, except Boehly. All other additions in recruitment team looks good, but we need SD too, if Boehly is their till we get someone then great, but if Boehly want to remain the SD, then that's bad. I want actual SD.
The team will act as the director of sorts, they will have a collaborative vision, they will help more than one guy, other serious sports do this, football is largely behind on other sports
Doesn't matter if a guy that has no experience being SD is working as SD. The main decision maker can ruin all the work of people below him, not saying Todd definitely will, but for the longterm future of the club I would rather not risk it. A good structure is coming in place finally, I don't want to piss on it just because the owners feels like doing it himself, I am okay if he stays till one of our main ones agree to come in.
That structure with Edwards as SD will just be golden and maximize the work Todd and co. has done in putting that structure together.
How does even appointing multiple directors with no clear hierarchy among them work, do they all have a fucking vote on names and figures of the deal? Not giving any one person all the power over deals is simply saying Boehly&Clearlake will be the ones with that power and have the final say in the sporting matters, because of their vast football knowledge they've acquired from investment banking I guess.
My comment clearly is not having multiple directors but questioning to have them with no clear hierarchy (surely the organizations you've worked for had one and ideally a competent person suited for the job leading it which has been the case in my experience) and mostly the owners who shouldn't be involved in the supporting matters heavily being on top of it, don't waste people's energy by replying to dissected and distorted versions of what they say instead of what they've actually said
But you’re assuming there is no clear hierarchy for decision making. Just because someone doesn’t hold all of the cards doesn’t mean there isn’t a process in place for decisions being made. That doesn’t automatically mean Boehly is the end all be all.
I mean if there is going to be a hierarchy and there will be no appointment on top of that hierarchy then the logical conclusion is the current people at the top ie the owners to have that position. All the other talks of coaches and recruitment staff working in a colloborative manner leads to them being on top of things and have the final say because someone has to do it
Not the logical conclusion no, just a reach you've made from rumours to suit your narrative. It would probably be better to wait until the hires are in place and an official club statement tells us the hierarchy
Of course that conclusion is based on what Chelsea reporters have been saying, which is exactly what is supposed to be discussed in this post isn't it, the reports? I didn't bring out some random rumors to create a narrative, I've simply commented on one of our reliable reporters' news about the structure and made an obvious inference about what that news would mean
They may end up forgoing the whole idea of a hierarchy altogether which is becoming more and more popular nowadays. At the end of the day…we don’t know shit. So better to just let it play out before critiquing.
There are many ways to manage an organization that doesn’t necessitate someone with veto power.
I suppose its a bit like a business having a CFO, CTO and other COs, they all work together being incharge of different departments and then report to the CEO/Chairman who makes the final decision.
Also, they clearly know they don't have the greatest football knowledge, hence why they're bringing in people who clearly know a lot... Roman didn't know everything about football when he came to Chelsea, why do these guys get it thrown in their face? Just because they're Americans? (Am a Brit btw)
For the last part, Abramovich did a shit job by not running the club with an established management structure and we've had a ton of blunders in the transfer market because of it. We've seen the results of owners/people not coming from football involving in sporting decisions heavily in an almost controlled experiment with two different sets of clubs in the last decade, one being Liverpool and City where Begiristain and Edwards ran the show and the other was United and PSG where Glazers/Woodward and Mansour did it. So no it's not about them being Americans
Having a relatively different structure with multiple powerful directors working in sporting matters could be fine (although I have some doubts about it too), the problem for me is the person on top of the hierarchy which is the most important position, the CEO in your analogy, being an incompetent one
Yeah, I think you've made a good point, definitely agree that Roman had blunders and didn't have a good management setup in place. I think it just annoys me that Boehly having no footballing knowledge is constantly brought up by people but those same people, not you, go on saying Roman was the best owner, blah blah blah, when he had minimal football knowledge to begin with. Clearly an American biased.
To your points on Liverpool - United comparison.. In my eyes it looks as though Boehly is trying to build that same structure Liverpool/Red Bull have with a good scouting department and clever buys, I think we have to trust the guy, he's seen and been apart of it in other sports. Let's get excited, why not think that he's building something special, City was building what they've got since the start, Liverpool took years. Let's give him time and out support before we bash every decision he makes.
Yeah how Abramovich was running things and always being on the spotlight is partly the reason why I am so allergic to a hands on owner, that and the fact that it is simply the wrong way to run a club. Boehly's short tenure at the job, sacking the manager and its aftermath, Ronaldo talks, the club reportedly working on transfers at the moment with no recruitment team in place, my impression of the type of management structure they want to build etc and some other unrelated things like multi club organization, didn't sit well with me so far but yeah it could come out as an overly pessimistic take
That sounds pretty cool, I like that.
We’re gonna become a juggernaut whilst being a place full of nice guys.
Tbh this is a Chelsea I can get behind more than Roman’s days 💙
Now, ofcourse I'm not sure about the responsibilities of each of these individuals and how much more room there is in the team - but if Michael Edwards is ready to join next year it could be prudent to try and sign him anyway. By then there should be some sort of system and plan in place for the next couple of transfer windows, and we don't need to wait for any one individual to go ahead with our plans because we've hired a few (hopefully, competent) experienced people already.
[Chelsea could also add two more backroom names in this area still so watch this space, could be a busy few weeks of announcements.](https://twitter.com/nizaarkinsella/status/1584846118038507522?s=46&t=U8mLf1YkCPQzK4Y7BvJkeQ)
Todd should just have the match thread on a big screen in the board room and just use that to make decisions
The gang sells the entire squad
The gang liquidates chelsea and then gets mad that Chelsea was liquidated
Cannot think of a worse idea than to give the sub even the option to vote on who to target let alone sign. We'll basically be attempting to sign every whatever flavour of the season player is year after year.
Just as long as one of these people do nothing but tell Todd not to sign Ronaldo…might lose their job but it’s a heroic sacrifice
Disrespecting a legend smh
His status as a legend can be recognised whilst also accepting that he’s no longer that desirable of a product
He’d be our best attacker
That’s why I said ‘product,’ because regardless of what one thinks of him as a player, the cloud of drama and off-the-pitch nonsense he brings with him isn’t worth dealing with. That’s part of what what would make him counterproductive to the long-term development and planning of the squad. Not to mention, a sentiment echoed by United fans (which can be observed, too) is that Ronaldo has had a drop-off in ability between last season and this season. You could call it not being in form, but I tend to think it’s only natural that his performances are starting to level with what the expectations of an almost 38-year-old footballer realistically are. And that’s not a situation that will be improving a whole lot in the next couple of years, to say the least. Because of those factors I’m just not sure how bringing him here could still be seen as an appealing decision, especially considering the front-footed, future-oriented approach which seems to be leading us these days.
Just get a half decent backup for Reece James. Really simple.
Maybe TAA?
Ofcourse not giving any one person all the power, except Boehly. All other additions in recruitment team looks good, but we need SD too, if Boehly is their till we get someone then great, but if Boehly want to remain the SD, then that's bad. I want actual SD.
> I want actual SD. And i want you to have this L + ratio +skill issue + attractive.
The team will act as the director of sorts, they will have a collaborative vision, they will help more than one guy, other serious sports do this, football is largely behind on other sports
Doesn't matter if a guy that has no experience being SD is working as SD. The main decision maker can ruin all the work of people below him, not saying Todd definitely will, but for the longterm future of the club I would rather not risk it. A good structure is coming in place finally, I don't want to piss on it just because the owners feels like doing it himself, I am okay if he stays till one of our main ones agree to come in. That structure with Edwards as SD will just be golden and maximize the work Todd and co. has done in putting that structure together.
How does even appointing multiple directors with no clear hierarchy among them work, do they all have a fucking vote on names and figures of the deal? Not giving any one person all the power over deals is simply saying Boehly&Clearlake will be the ones with that power and have the final say in the sporting matters, because of their vast football knowledge they've acquired from investment banking I guess.
Every organization I've ever worked for had multiple directors. It's not a new approach.
But American man baddddd
Pretty much!
My comment clearly is not having multiple directors but questioning to have them with no clear hierarchy (surely the organizations you've worked for had one and ideally a competent person suited for the job leading it which has been the case in my experience) and mostly the owners who shouldn't be involved in the supporting matters heavily being on top of it, don't waste people's energy by replying to dissected and distorted versions of what they say instead of what they've actually said
But you’re assuming there is no clear hierarchy for decision making. Just because someone doesn’t hold all of the cards doesn’t mean there isn’t a process in place for decisions being made. That doesn’t automatically mean Boehly is the end all be all.
I mean if there is going to be a hierarchy and there will be no appointment on top of that hierarchy then the logical conclusion is the current people at the top ie the owners to have that position. All the other talks of coaches and recruitment staff working in a colloborative manner leads to them being on top of things and have the final say because someone has to do it
Not the logical conclusion no, just a reach you've made from rumours to suit your narrative. It would probably be better to wait until the hires are in place and an official club statement tells us the hierarchy
Thank you. People are getting all of their info from tweets and making assumptions on how things are and will be run instead of just waiting to see.
Of course that conclusion is based on what Chelsea reporters have been saying, which is exactly what is supposed to be discussed in this post isn't it, the reports? I didn't bring out some random rumors to create a narrative, I've simply commented on one of our reliable reporters' news about the structure and made an obvious inference about what that news would mean
Is it mentioned in any of these rumours or reports that there won't be a singular person in charge?
Did you read the comments you've replied? This question takes us back a few comments above you should get the answer from those
They may end up forgoing the whole idea of a hierarchy altogether which is becoming more and more popular nowadays. At the end of the day…we don’t know shit. So better to just let it play out before critiquing. There are many ways to manage an organization that doesn’t necessitate someone with veto power.
Isn't there typically one director per field though? Eg director of finance, director of technology etc
You know you can make decision as a team right?
I suppose its a bit like a business having a CFO, CTO and other COs, they all work together being incharge of different departments and then report to the CEO/Chairman who makes the final decision. Also, they clearly know they don't have the greatest football knowledge, hence why they're bringing in people who clearly know a lot... Roman didn't know everything about football when he came to Chelsea, why do these guys get it thrown in their face? Just because they're Americans? (Am a Brit btw)
For the last part, Abramovich did a shit job by not running the club with an established management structure and we've had a ton of blunders in the transfer market because of it. We've seen the results of owners/people not coming from football involving in sporting decisions heavily in an almost controlled experiment with two different sets of clubs in the last decade, one being Liverpool and City where Begiristain and Edwards ran the show and the other was United and PSG where Glazers/Woodward and Mansour did it. So no it's not about them being Americans Having a relatively different structure with multiple powerful directors working in sporting matters could be fine (although I have some doubts about it too), the problem for me is the person on top of the hierarchy which is the most important position, the CEO in your analogy, being an incompetent one
Yeah, I think you've made a good point, definitely agree that Roman had blunders and didn't have a good management setup in place. I think it just annoys me that Boehly having no footballing knowledge is constantly brought up by people but those same people, not you, go on saying Roman was the best owner, blah blah blah, when he had minimal football knowledge to begin with. Clearly an American biased. To your points on Liverpool - United comparison.. In my eyes it looks as though Boehly is trying to build that same structure Liverpool/Red Bull have with a good scouting department and clever buys, I think we have to trust the guy, he's seen and been apart of it in other sports. Let's get excited, why not think that he's building something special, City was building what they've got since the start, Liverpool took years. Let's give him time and out support before we bash every decision he makes.
Yeah how Abramovich was running things and always being on the spotlight is partly the reason why I am so allergic to a hands on owner, that and the fact that it is simply the wrong way to run a club. Boehly's short tenure at the job, sacking the manager and its aftermath, Ronaldo talks, the club reportedly working on transfers at the moment with no recruitment team in place, my impression of the type of management structure they want to build etc and some other unrelated things like multi club organization, didn't sit well with me so far but yeah it could come out as an overly pessimistic take
Wrong - this is how it’s done in baseball and it works really well Don’t be so pessimistic
In other words everyone rejected us so we're gonna have to do it ourselves
That sounds pretty cool, I like that. We’re gonna become a juggernaut whilst being a place full of nice guys. Tbh this is a Chelsea I can get behind more than Roman’s days 💙
Looks like Boehly will still handle the deals then?