Chelsea looking at buying SPFL Club

[RandomGuy.]

9 minutes ago, scottmcleanscontacts said:

Going further on Tam's question -

Tell me that Liam Craig, Muzz, Liam Gordon, Spoony don't give a f**k?

There's always going to be players that don't give a f**k, but I think as a club, particularly over the last 10/15 years, we've been lucky to have players who did/do give a f**k about this club. The same can't be said (largely speaking) about the squads in the decade or so before.

In theory though, those players would still be at the club.

[Valentino Bolognese]

2 minutes ago, scottmcleanscontacts said:

Going further on Tam's question -

Tell me that Liam Craig, Muzz, Liam Gordon, Spoony don't give a f**k?

There's always going to be players that don't give a f**k, but I think as a club, particularly over the last 10/15 years, we've been lucky to have players who did/do give a f**k about this club. The same can't be said (largely speaking) about the squads in the decade or so before.

I don't buy for one second that has anything to do with the ownership, in terms of 'giving a f**k'. 

My lad has grown up a Saints fan and probably dreams about playing for them but wouldn't know Steve Brown if passed him in the street. 

If players are loyal to a club it's geography, family history, club culture, habit etc that matters. Yes some of these players (all of which bar Gordon have played at other clubs at some stage) will 'play for the jersey' but surely that's more about the management not the owners. 

Also as far as investment goes then that would all be part of the deal structure. We might get a fancy new scoreboard and card machines at the pie stalls. 

I would resist any move to mess around with the half time draw. Dragging spangled fans out of hospitality to do keepy-uppies for general entertainment is the heart and soul of our club. 

[tree house tam]

Liam played for Hearts 

 

Spangled is a great word.

Edited March 8, 2020 by tree house tam

[scottmcleanscontacts]

I don't buy for one second that has anything to do with the ownership, in terms of 'giving a f**k'. 
My lad has grown up a Saints fan and probably dreams about playing for them but wouldn't know Steve Brown if passed him in the street. 
If players are loyal to a club it's geography, family history, club culture, habit etc that matters. Yes some of these players (all of which bar Gordon have played at other clubs at some stage) will 'play for the jersey' but surely that's more about the management not the owners. 
Also as far as investment goes then that would all be part of the deal structure. We might get a fancy new scoreboard and card machines at the pie stalls. 
I would resist any move to mess around with the half time draw. Dragging spangled fans out of hospitality to do keepy-uppies for general entertainment is the heart and soul of our club. 

I never even mentioned the ownership but any takeover by another football club would inevitably change the way the club is run. I happen to think that in many ways that's no bad thing.

It doesn't however change my thoughts that on the pitch there would probably be a disconnect.

[scottmcleanscontacts]

In theory though, those players would still be at the club.

Theory? What theory? I'm not saying these players were Saints fan boys or anything like it. I'm merely saying that they give a f**k. I'm not stupid enough to think that players care about my club as much as I do but there's quite obviously been a large amount of players over the last few years who care about the club they are playing for. That doesn't mean they need to stay for life.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, scottmcleanscontacts said:

Theory? What theory? I'm not saying these players were Saints fan boys or anything like it. I'm merely saying that they give a f**k. I'm not stupid enough to think that players care about my club as much as I do but there's quite obviously been a large amount of players over the last few years who care about the club they are playing for. That doesn't mean they need to stay for life.

The "plan" Chelsea, apparently, have is to sell their young players to an already settled club.

If we were this club, then all theyd be doing is selling 5/6 reserves/youngsters to Saints, with every deal having hefty sell on clauses, and buy back options. The players you've listed will still be at the club, their plan isnt to sell an entire squad and ship their entire U19 set up into the first team. I daresay theyd want the club to remain playing at the highest possible level.

[Valentino Bolognese]

14 minutes ago, scottmcleanscontacts said:

I never even mentioned the ownership but any takeover by another football club would inevitably change the way the club is run. I happen to think that in many ways that's no bad thing.

It doesn't however change my thoughts that on the pitch there would probably be a disconnect.

But ownership is exactly what we're talking about?

I agree, it all depends how deep they wanted to get involved. On one side it's all the benefits of arms-length ownership where the club is largely run autonomously and remotely, with the only playing involvement being, by mutual consent, some good loanees we have to give game time to. 

On the other side, if they want to rename the ground Stamford Bridge North, flood the team with 19yo trialists and start charging £50 a ticket etc etc then that would be bad. 

In pure cash terms we're be a rounding error on Chelsea's books, so I suspect that if it were us (and let's face it we're solvent, have solid infrastructure, a good coaching team/manager, play in the top division and we're up for sale, so a lot of boxes ticked) they'd be inclined to largely leave us alone, operationally, and concerns could be worked into a deal agreement. 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Valentino Bolognese

[Alert Mongoose]

St Johnstone’s knickers have gone down quicker than Gillian Taylforth’s nearing a lay-by.

[tree house tam]

2 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

St Johnstone’s knickers have gone down quicker than Gillian Taylforth’s nearing a lay-by.

Apart from when we play you boys obviously. 

[craigkillie]

It's incredibly naive to think that Chelsea wouldn't also be wielding significant power in terms of how "their" club was run. They would at the very least be expecting their players to be in the team most weeks, so if they wanted to develop a central midfielder or two then the likes of Craig, Davidson, McCann or Wotherspoon would find their game time limited regardless of how well they played.

This would be a terrible idea for any self-respecting Scottish club - you're basically voluntarily agreeing to being a second rate reserve team.

[gannonball]

1 hour ago, tree house tam said:

Jody has already set it up, its us.

The Chelsea Tractors has a nice ring to it.

[Valentino Bolognese]

4 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

St Johnstone’s knickers have gone down quicker than Gillian Taylforth’s nearing a lay-by.

Our owners were in the press last week begging for someone to buy us. 

This is not news. 

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

It's incredibly naive to think that Chelsea wouldn't also be wielding significant power in terms of how "their" club was run. They would at the very least be expecting their players to be in the team most weeks, so if they wanted to develop a central midfielder or two then the likes of Craig, Davidson, McCann or Wotherspoon would find their game time limited regardless of how well they played.

This would be a terrible idea for any self-respecting Scottish club - you're basically voluntarily agreeing to being a second rate reserve team.

It would depend entirely on the quality of player you're getting (but the quality of ones that have come up here before is very low).

[Old Pack]

Plenty room for the big yacht to berth.

[Hawkeye the Gnu]

8 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

St Johnstone’s knickers have gone down quicker than Gillian Taylforth’s nearing a lay-by.

I thought it was her face that was getting stuffed at the time, if the rumours were correct.

[Derry Alli]

10 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

St Johnstone’s knickers have gone down quicker than Gillian Taylforth’s nearing a lay-by.

You seem surprised. Look how slutty they get for the Old Firm who are a drop in the ocean compared to Chelsea. 

[Valentino Bolognese]

2 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

It's incredibly naive to think that Chelsea wouldn't also be wielding significant power in terms of how "their" club was run. They would at the very least be expecting their players to be in the team most weeks, so if they wanted to develop a central midfielder or two then the likes of Craig, Davidson, McCann or Wotherspoon would find their game time limited regardless of how well they played.

This would be a terrible idea for any self-respecting Scottish club - you're basically voluntarily agreeing to being a second rate reserve team.

They would also own Craig, Davidson, McCann and Wotherspoon. Would they play inferior players because 'head office' tells them to? Maybe. That's where the strength of local management comes into it. 

However I absolutely agree that they would want a say on the playing side, and the worry would be having a puppet manager installed. IME I've seen many flavours of group ownership and levels of operations intervention but by and large group 'help' increases over time, sometimes for the best but always with an erosion of local identity. 

Goes to the heart of 'what is a football club' and whether who owns or manages it makes any real difference. 

[Valentino Bolognese]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye the Gnu said:

I thought it was her face that was getting stuffed at the time, if the rumours were correct.

No idea. It's hard to keep up with such bang up to date cultural references. 

[scottmcleanscontacts]

I don’t know what I’m reading here, are Tam and Co out for a bit of Sunday morning fishing? If so they’ve caught a live one here. 
 
Ignoring the fact that Chelsea are one of the most racist, right wing clubs on the British Isles, no self-respecting football fan would want to be another clubs Colt side.
There would be a massive turnover of players, club legends would be a thing of the past, the management would be handicapped in who they could play, you’d have small, rotund bald men in flat caps coming up to watch us now and again. The club would have no soul.
The arguments for it are like something used in that debater segment on AVFTT. 

Well, there's always the fact that I hate Chelsea with a passion.

Still don't like the idea regardless. It's all obviously hypothetical anyway.

[The Saintee]

I, for one, welcome our new Stamford Bridge Oligarch overlords.