Sexyfootball
Legend
- Messages
- 15,518
- Reaction score
- 14,619
G
Guest
Guest
I watched a video from Paul Jennings about his complaints on the Chelsea ownership
This is my personal opinion on it and the general situation
As always, I think my ideas are pretty solid and thought out but i'm really sh*t at explaining them like a professional writer or communicator would
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there is a mismatch between the styles of Maresca and Stewart/Winstanley.
I think back to last season, with the huge injury crisis (statistically worst in the league). Pochettino never really had the luxury that Maresca has had of a stable lineup. He had to adapt, switch tactics, make do with what was available on the day and be flexible.
Maresca is the opposite, he's rigid, he's specific about which type of player is good for which role in his system. Specific role players (like Neto) fit whereas versatile attackers (like Nkunku) don't. It actually helped us settle down early season and was partly responsible for the strong start as every player knew their role well. But now we are seeing the problems with that rigidness.
If Maresca has Man City's like recruitment (finding players specific to his system), they'd (manager and sporting directors) would combine better. If Maresca had the flexibility and tactical adaptiveness (of a Pochettino), he'd probably be much better at working with the players that aren't exact fits for his specific system and they (management and sporting directors) would combine better. But it seems like you have a club that where the parts (manager and sporting directors) are pulling in different directions.
As for whose to blame for this mismatch, it's the sporting directors that chose to fire Pochetino and hire Maresca. I want to be clear, I don't think the idea of what the sporting directors are up is fundamentally bad. I think in many ways it's actually genius. The problem is that they've hired the wrong style of manager (rigid systematic as opposed to flexibile) for that style and they've just tried to do way too much too early, causing huge dead weight loss (with players like Chilwell doing nothing when they should be contributing) in the process.
Honestly I think we were better off under Pochetino. I really think he would have, given the new off-season signing and far better injury record, have taken this team further (perhaps after a slower start).
This is my personal opinion on it and the general situation
As always, I think my ideas are pretty solid and thought out but i'm really sh*t at explaining them like a professional writer or communicator would
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there is a mismatch between the styles of Maresca and Stewart/Winstanley.
I think back to last season, with the huge injury crisis (statistically worst in the league). Pochettino never really had the luxury that Maresca has had of a stable lineup. He had to adapt, switch tactics, make do with what was available on the day and be flexible.
Maresca is the opposite, he's rigid, he's specific about which type of player is good for which role in his system. Specific role players (like Neto) fit whereas versatile attackers (like Nkunku) don't. It actually helped us settle down early season and was partly responsible for the strong start as every player knew their role well. But now we are seeing the problems with that rigidness.
If Maresca has Man City's like recruitment (finding players specific to his system), they'd (manager and sporting directors) would combine better. If Maresca had the flexibility and tactical adaptiveness (of a Pochettino), he'd probably be much better at working with the players that aren't exact fits for his specific system and they (management and sporting directors) would combine better. But it seems like you have a club that where the parts (manager and sporting directors) are pulling in different directions.
As for whose to blame for this mismatch, it's the sporting directors that chose to fire Pochetino and hire Maresca. I want to be clear, I don't think the idea of what the sporting directors are up is fundamentally bad. I think in many ways it's actually genius. The problem is that they've hired the wrong style of manager (rigid systematic as opposed to flexibile) for that style and they've just tried to do way too much too early, causing huge dead weight loss (with players like Chilwell doing nothing when they should be contributing) in the process.
Honestly I think we were better off under Pochetino. I really think he would have, given the new off-season signing and far better injury record, have taken this team further (perhaps after a slower start).
nonotnowjim
Members AF
- Messages
- 7,897
- Reaction score
- 6,508
I don’t disagree about the inflexibility of Maresca - or have the same concerns about the sporting directors as many on here do.
I don’t agree about Poch. He was too passive. Too spursy. Not enough grit or apparent determination. To see him sat, seemingly without a care in the world, as the team shipped goal after goal, was hard to stomach.
I quite like a lot about maresca. I like his candid public lines (at times). But the way he has mismanaged the squad, essentially separating it into 4 (untouchables, back ups, c team, bomb squad) is awful. The way he has treated certain players is disgusting. The way he has indulges others - despite no indication they are anywhere near good enough is sackable.
He needs to change - urgently. That starts with picking his best players, and finding a system that suits the top talent we have (Enzo, Caicedo, James, Palmer and nkunku) and dropping those underperforming (Sanchez, Jackson).
G
Guest
Guest
Did the journalist really mistake Sancho for Mudryk? 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/soccer/chelsea-news-enzo-maresca-slams-mykhailo-mudryk-after-half-time-substitution/ar-AA1ppDmX?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/soccer/chelsea-news-enzo-maresca-slams-mykhailo-mudryk-after-half-time-substitution/ar-AA1ppDmX?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1
SydneyChelsea
A Touchable
- Messages
- 6,695
- Reaction score
- 4,925
Just another minor quibble with your calculations here @Qaz - players only count as a profit for FFP/PSR if their sale value exceeds their book value (amortised fee + yearly wage) at the time. He won't count as £28m to spend, if that's what you are thinking.
For KDH, he was reportedly signed for £35.4m + £4m/year in wages, meaning each year his book value reduces by £9m. It's important to know that the signing was effective 2 July 2024, meaning his value counts for the 2024-25 season onwards, In Year 1, the end of this season, his book value will be £26.4m, meaning we need at least that much to break-even for FFP/PSR purposes.
However, the £5m we received for Michael Golding further offsets KDH making his effective book value £21.4m until 30 June 2025. Which means that as long as we get something north of £21.4m prior to 30 June, we can claim an FFP profit. If we sell after 1 July, we can't offset his fee by £5m, but his book value is only £17.4m at the end of the season meaning even more scope for an FFP "profit".
It's why selling clubs will want to do business prior to 30 June, to bank the whole fee and offset the last season's transfer spending; buying clubs will want deals to conclude post 1 July so that they only have to sell a player for their next year's book value if it doesn't work out.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
Question to everyone:
Many years ago on this forum I made the argument that given Mateja Kežman was sold for more money than he was bought (and he was on lowish wages), that constituted a successful transfer.
Another forum member (I don't remember who), argued he was brought to be a first team player but wasn't good enough, and therefore was a failed transfer (no matter the cheap fee).
Where do you guys sit on this?
and bringing this argument to the current day, if Felix and Disasi (players bought under the current sporting directors) were to leave at a profit, would they be considered successful transfers despite ultimately not being good enough to play in Chelsea's injury-free best eleven?
Many years ago on this forum I made the argument that given Mateja Kežman was sold for more money than he was bought (and he was on lowish wages), that constituted a successful transfer.
Another forum member (I don't remember who), argued he was brought to be a first team player but wasn't good enough, and therefore was a failed transfer (no matter the cheap fee).
Where do you guys sit on this?
and bringing this argument to the current day, if Felix and Disasi (players bought under the current sporting directors) were to leave at a profit, would they be considered successful transfers despite ultimately not being good enough to play in Chelsea's injury-free best eleven?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 19,227
- Reaction score
- 8,826
Being honest Qaz, I've never bought into the figures and wages talk much! It isn't our money and player sales don't go into our bank accounts, nor do we get a slice of any wages that players get! I never could understand why some people punch the air when they find we got a great deal on a player or that we ship out a player for a high price! It's weird to me!
To fans, it's what they do on the pitch! There aren't any trophies for a good player on a low wage! That said, it does annoy me on wage caps as a supporter because that then hinders players currently in the team or any potential good player that we could get! But again, the finances are completely out of our hands anyway!
To fans, it's what they do on the pitch! There aren't any trophies for a good player on a low wage! That said, it does annoy me on wage caps as a supporter because that then hinders players currently in the team or any potential good player that we could get! But again, the finances are completely out of our hands anyway!
- Messages
- 19,227
- Reaction score
- 8,826
Only on their record of signing well or not! I have a very big opinion of Stewart/Winstanley cause they are mudding our club!
Also, with things like Marina and the Hazard sale. How Eden signed another contract to get the club good money when he knew he was going after a year and how Marina put the deal in place where Chelsea would benefit from Real Madrid (with a payment even when he retired from football); that is shrewd business! But I don't get any of that 115million!
G
Guest
Guest
Posted this in the Maresca thread but figured i'd put it here as well (see below)
I've been meaning for around a month now to say that I personally think Pochettino is a better manager than Maresca. A month ago that would have a controversial view, now it's not and I don't get my "contrarian buzz" from saying it (I like p*ss*ng people off with contrarian thinking sometimes)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember back to the old days on the old CSR forum when Abraomovich was one/two seasons into his Chelsea reign and a commenter made (poorly) the argument that we were better off under Bates and proceeded to cherry pick all the successful (incoming) transfers of the previous 12 months as ones we would have made under Bates and put all the unsucessful/bad transfers (and there were many) as Roman and then say "we could have spent x millions less and had an equal/better team" which is techically correct with perfect hindsight but ridiculous in reality.
Well guess what, I am going to do almost the same thing (but being aware of it I hopefully won't fall into the same traps of cherry picking with the benefit of hindsight), of doing an alternative history.
My alternative history is: What if Pochettino had gotten his way, wasn't sacked and the sporting directors (who sacked him were instead subservient to him as in giving him what he wanted).
Doing so I came up with the alternative history
1. We kept Gallagher (who Pochettino said multiple times he wanted to keep). We get 1x Gallagher but lose €42.00m transfer incomings
2. We don't buy Felix. We lose Felix but gain €52.00m in money we could have spent elsewhere. Net them out, we keep Gallagher + 10million but don't get Felix. I don't think Pochettino would have really wanted Felix and definitely wouldn't have traded Gallagher for Felix so I think this is a reasonable (non-cherry picked altnerate history thesis).
3. With Gallagher at the club and no Maresca, there probably wouldn't have been the drive (or need) to buy Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall from Leicester City for €35.40m. The deal was made partly to convince Leicester to give us Maresca, to bail them out of their own FFP/PSR issues and to help us Michael Golding. I don't think it would have happened if we hadn't brought Maresca to the club.
4. Michael Golding isn't sold the other way for 5million and that revenue is lost as he was never worth that and was just make-weight in the KDH deal.
5. Stirling isn't loaned out to rival Arsenal with us paying over half his wages as while clearly not a good buy from us, Pochettino could work with him and Maresca for tactical reasons it seems cannot. Undoing this would lead to us funding his full wage but keeping the player.
6. Keeping Stirling means we probably don't buy Neto. This would save €60.00m in transfer fees and with Stirling staying to fill the role.
7, Chilwell would have been an important part of a Pochettino team (if he stayed fit which I admit is an assumption).
8. Chalobah (our best defender last season) would never have been loaned out and would have been here the whole season. We lose whatever half season wages Crystal Palace were covering but gain Chalobah for the first half of the year.
9. Possibly, maybe, we MIGHT have not gotten Tosin in on a free transfer if we had kept Chalobah as it might have been decided we had enough CBs already. That would be a loss as I actually think he's been decent and well worth it on a free transfer.
As for things that don't change
I still think we probably still would have bought Sancho, Jorgensen, Penders, Anselmino, Veiga and Guiu. I think probably we would have sold Maatson (who Pochettino just didn't rate), Lewis Hall (unfortunately), Lukaku, Hutchinson and Angelo.
Sancho I really do think has been an opportunistic bargain for us and his recent poor form is because he isn't receiving the ball early enough or with enough support (having to always dribble 1v2) vs a lack of ability. And as for Lewis Hall, this one kind of kills me as I think he's now showing at Newcastle he's a really good player and we bluntly f*cked up selling him for just €33.00m. I would love to make the argument that Pochettino (if he had the choice) would have kept him, but I don't know. But I think selling him makes even less sense in a Maresca (inverted wingback) system than a Pochettino (traditional wingback's) one and it was just a really poor decision.
Overall not buying Neto, Felix or KDH saves us €147.4m (all figures from transfermarkt https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631) but not selling Gallagher and Golding means €47m less imcomings. Players wise, we lose Neto, Felix and KDH but gain Gallagher, Stirling, Chilwell and half a Chalobah.
I think our squad would be of comparible overall quality (just less suited to Maresca which is fine as he wouldn't be the manager in this alternative history scenario), but would have had an additional €100.4m to spend. Which probably would have gone on a striker but I don't want to speculate on that as I think that would be too "cherry pickey". BUT.............that kind of cash would have gotten us an Osimhen.
Now onto Maresca vs Pochettino. I think Pochettino is a better manager. He's more adaptable, versatile where Maresca is far more specific about player roles and unable to fit players (like Chilwell or Nkunku) who don't fit his specific player roles. I don't think Maresca had he been manager last season, given the generationally bad injury crisis we suffered, would have gotten the 6th place finish (with an xG/xPTS that would have had us in 5th) that Poch got. And I beleive even with the current squad, Poch would have us doing better this season than Maresca is. But if you did do these alternative history transfers, I think we'd be in a much stronger position this year.
My alternative history is obviously full of assumptions and as much as i've tried not to, some hindsight cherry-picking. But I think it's a strong argument that we would have been better off if we'd just stuck with Pochettino.
I've been meaning for around a month now to say that I personally think Pochettino is a better manager than Maresca. A month ago that would have a controversial view, now it's not and I don't get my "contrarian buzz" from saying it (I like p*ss*ng people off with contrarian thinking sometimes
)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember back to the old days on the old CSR forum when Abraomovich was one/two seasons into his Chelsea reign and a commenter made (poorly) the argument that we were better off under Bates and proceeded to cherry pick all the successful (incoming) transfers of the previous 12 months as ones we would have made under Bates and put all the unsucessful/bad transfers (and there were many) as Roman and then say "we could have spent x millions less and had an equal/better team" which is techically correct with perfect hindsight but ridiculous in reality.
Well guess what, I am going to do almost the same thing
(but being aware of it I hopefully won't fall into the same traps of cherry picking with the benefit of hindsight), of doing an alternative history.My alternative history is: What if Pochettino had gotten his way, wasn't sacked and the sporting directors (who sacked him were instead subservient to him as in giving him what he wanted).
Doing so I came up with the alternative history
1. We kept Gallagher (who Pochettino said multiple times he wanted to keep). We get 1x Gallagher but lose €42.00m transfer incomings
2. We don't buy Felix. We lose Felix but gain €52.00m in money we could have spent elsewhere. Net them out, we keep Gallagher + 10million but don't get Felix. I don't think Pochettino would have really wanted Felix and definitely wouldn't have traded Gallagher for Felix so I think this is a reasonable (non-cherry picked altnerate history thesis).
3. With Gallagher at the club and no Maresca, there probably wouldn't have been the drive (or need) to buy Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall from Leicester City for €35.40m. The deal was made partly to convince Leicester to give us Maresca, to bail them out of their own FFP/PSR issues and to help us Michael Golding. I don't think it would have happened if we hadn't brought Maresca to the club.
4. Michael Golding isn't sold the other way for 5million and that revenue is lost as he was never worth that and was just make-weight in the KDH deal.
5. Stirling isn't loaned out to rival Arsenal with us paying over half his wages as while clearly not a good buy from us, Pochettino could work with him and Maresca for tactical reasons it seems cannot. Undoing this would lead to us funding his full wage but keeping the player.
6. Keeping Stirling means we probably don't buy Neto. This would save €60.00m in transfer fees and with Stirling staying to fill the role.
7, Chilwell would have been an important part of a Pochettino team (if he stayed fit which I admit is an assumption).
8. Chalobah (our best defender last season) would never have been loaned out and would have been here the whole season. We lose whatever half season wages Crystal Palace were covering but gain Chalobah for the first half of the year.
9. Possibly, maybe, we MIGHT have not gotten Tosin in on a free transfer if we had kept Chalobah as it might have been decided we had enough CBs already. That would be a loss as I actually think he's been decent and well worth it on a free transfer.
As for things that don't change
I still think we probably still would have bought Sancho, Jorgensen, Penders, Anselmino, Veiga and Guiu. I think probably we would have sold Maatson (who Pochettino just didn't rate), Lewis Hall (unfortunately), Lukaku, Hutchinson and Angelo.
Sancho I really do think has been an opportunistic bargain for us and his recent poor form is because he isn't receiving the ball early enough or with enough support (having to always dribble 1v2) vs a lack of ability. And as for Lewis Hall, this one kind of kills me as I think he's now showing at Newcastle he's a really good player and we bluntly f*cked up selling him for just €33.00m. I would love to make the argument that Pochettino (if he had the choice) would have kept him, but I don't know. But I think selling him makes even less sense in a Maresca (inverted wingback) system than a Pochettino (traditional wingback's) one and it was just a really poor decision.
Overall not buying Neto, Felix or KDH saves us €147.4m (all figures from transfermarkt https://www.transfermarkt.com/fc-chelsea/alletransfers/verein/631) but not selling Gallagher and Golding means €47m less imcomings. Players wise, we lose Neto, Felix and KDH but gain Gallagher, Stirling, Chilwell and half a Chalobah.
I think our squad would be of comparible overall quality (just less suited to Maresca which is fine as he wouldn't be the manager in this alternative history scenario), but would have had an additional €100.4m to spend. Which probably would have gone on a striker but I don't want to speculate on that as I think that would be too "cherry pickey". BUT.............that kind of cash would have gotten us an Osimhen.
Now onto Maresca vs Pochettino. I think Pochettino is a better manager. He's more adaptable, versatile where Maresca is far more specific about player roles and unable to fit players (like Chilwell or Nkunku) who don't fit his specific player roles. I don't think Maresca had he been manager last season, given the generationally bad injury crisis we suffered, would have gotten the 6th place finish (with an xG/xPTS that would have had us in 5th) that Poch got. And I beleive even with the current squad, Poch would have us doing better this season than Maresca is. But if you did do these alternative history transfers, I think we'd be in a much stronger position this year.
My alternative history is obviously full of assumptions and as much as i've tried not to, some hindsight cherry-picking. But I think it's a strong argument that we would have been better off if we'd just stuck with Pochettino.
G
Guest
Guest
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Last edited:
SydneyChelsea
A Touchable
- Messages
- 6,695
- Reaction score
- 4,925
Eh, add this to the long list of poor analyses. Gross overcomplications. In the first half of the video he says that Sancho and Madueke need to do more defending...but in the example he uses in the second half, Sancho is clearly defending! His claims that we aren't creating chances are also off the mark, because that was not the case when it was still 0-0.
Teams are gambling on the fact that we cannot finish which is why they allow our players outside the box so much space. We have no threat that they need to actually address. Teams are more than happy to let Cucurella, Gusto and Fernandez have the ball because they know that they will screw up the play. Given that most teams only want a draw at best from us, we are completely unable to take initiative unless we take the lead, and even then, we have shown how vulnerable we are at holding that. There is a cultural and mental problem there that tactics will not fix.
We are never going to get overlapping fullbacks under Maresca, especially given how poor we are defensively at the moment. Annoyingly this leaves Cucurella and Gusto as de facto playmakers. So in order for this system to work, we need a player to do something that is their weakest skill.
Teams are gambling on the fact that we cannot finish which is why they allow our players outside the box so much space. We have no threat that they need to actually address. Teams are more than happy to let Cucurella, Gusto and Fernandez have the ball because they know that they will screw up the play. Given that most teams only want a draw at best from us, we are completely unable to take initiative unless we take the lead, and even then, we have shown how vulnerable we are at holding that. There is a cultural and mental problem there that tactics will not fix.
We are never going to get overlapping fullbacks under Maresca, especially given how poor we are defensively at the moment. Annoyingly this leaves Cucurella and Gusto as de facto playmakers. So in order for this system to work, we need a player to do something that is their weakest skill.
G
Guest
Guest
G
Guest
Guest
A thought experiment for everyone
Your club (Chelsea but can be any football club you support) loses 5 games in a row (which of course would suck).
But there are 2 scenarios
1. You lose every game 1-0, scoring zero goals in 5 games
2. You lose every game 4-3
Which do you choose and why?
Your club (Chelsea but can be any football club you support) loses 5 games in a row (which of course would suck).
But there are 2 scenarios
1. You lose every game 1-0, scoring zero goals in 5 games
2. You lose every game 4-3
Which do you choose and why?
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Pinched from this video (https://youtu.be/9hEIPLu8QKs?si=vgN2VSVSZqVFlb9d)
I think this is an excellent table and really shows the well run clubs (Brentford, Brighton, etc) from the poorly run ones (us, Man Utd, etc)
There are some caveats, the main one being this is just premier league and the most successful clubs (Liverpool, Man City, etc) tend to play Champions League most years and go further in cup competitions which means they need bigger squads and better (more highly paid) players to compete in those competitions. Still, I think it's a fantastic table and explains alot.
I think this is an excellent table and really shows the well run clubs (Brentford, Brighton, etc) from the poorly run ones (us, Man Utd, etc)
There are some caveats, the main one being this is just premier league and the most successful clubs (Liverpool, Man City, etc) tend to play Champions League most years and go further in cup competitions which means they need bigger squads and better (more highly paid) players to compete in those competitions. Still, I think it's a fantastic table and explains alot.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Haha fair
The second table is the one I was interested in, the first for me is just a bit of context/flavour
Last edited: