[Albion] Chelsea: "A supercharged Brighton"

[GT49er]

Are you under the impression that they've changed their minds? You should listen to one or two of their hilarious podcasts following the Arsenal defeat, or spend a few minutes on YouTube. They are absolutely furious with Maresca and I've not heard a single person defend him.

Essentially he's only doing what Poch or Potter were doing. Chelsea might as well have saved themselves a shed-load (no pun intended) of money and stayed with poch or Potter - with either they'd be pretty much where they are now, and, if with Potter, probably more cohesive with more of an identity; as was showed at Brighton, given time Potter's projects can come good.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Committing to pay players like Mudryk a £100k PW for another 6 years is an interesting definition of future proofing

Sanchez even more so. If Mudryk is found guilty of drug taking, then he'll be in breach of his contract which doubtless has a gross misconduct clause relating to drug use, as is standard practice. They'll be able to cancel his contract and dismiss him without notice.

No footballer, however, has a contract which specifies the club can cancel it if the player turns out to have feet shaped like 50p pieces and hands with an acute allergic reaction to leather footballs, so yes, they're stuck with big bad Bob on seventy odd grand a week for the next seven years, because no English clubs will want him and the only Spanish teams who might take a punt won't be able to pay those sort of wages.

Tony Bloom pulling that one off was Keyser Soze levels of trickery.

 

[trueblue]

Couldn't be bothered to read the article but the phrase 'supercharged Brighton' makes no sense whatsoever. If by 'supercharged' they mean throwing loads of money at emulating our system and doing it better, what utter bollocks. The entire point of that system is to avoid spending a fortune. Surely the only advantage spending billions gives them is the opportunity to trawl in comparatively vast numbers of players - but you can't play them all, if you don't play them they don't increase in value by anywhere near as much and for each one that prospers you need to offset all the money wasted.

Chelsea have been hoovering up some of the world's best talent for decades in the hope of striking lucky and mostly farming them out. No-hopers like Salah and De Bruyne, for instance. The two differences I can see now are a) they would like that to be their main modus operandi rather than signing proven talent and b) they are, for the most part, hilariously shit.

 

[Anger]

Couldn't be bothered to read the article but the phrase 'supercharged Brighton' makes no sense whatsoever. If by 'supercharged' they mean throwing loads of money at emulating our system and doing it better, what utter bollocks. The entire point of that system is to avoid spending a fortune. Surely the only advantage spending billions gives them is the opportunity to trawl in comparatively vast numbers of players - but you can't play them all, if you don't play them they don't increase in value by anywhere near as much and for each one that prospers you need to offset all the money wasted.

Chelsea have been hoovering up some of the world's best talent for decades in the hope of striking lucky and mostly farming them out. No-hopers like Salah and De Bruyne, for instance. The two differences I can see now are a) they would like that to be their main modus operandi rather than signing proven talent and b) they are, for the most part, hilariously shit.

One thing I’ve learned over the years is that you never interrupt someone when they are in the middle of making a mistake.

Let them keep going I say.

 

[West Upper Seagull]

Whilst I loathe Chelsea and everything they stand for, in one sense their model is not too dissimilar to ours - in other words, putting a huge amount of effort in to identifying and developing young talent.

The key difference is that they don’t actually identify and develop young talent - they just buy the young talent that we or other clubs have identified and developed !

 

[Justice]

Essentially he's only doing what Poch or Potter were doing. Chelsea might as well have saved themselves a shed-load (no pun intended) of money and stayed with poch or Potter - with either they'd be pretty much where they are now, and, if with Potter, probably more cohesive with more of an identity; as was showed at Brighton, given time Potter's projects can come good.

Why would an apparent top level coach need loads of time? I’ve read this crock of shit so many times. Our own FH took some flak and half a season to get us firing he didn’t need three seasons.

 

[Justice]

….

 

[dstanman]

What they can't replicate is the way we are able to develop players to maximise their potential and to be part of the club.

 

[GT49er]

Why would an apparent top level coach need loads of time? I’ve read this crock of shit so many times. Our own FH took some flak and half a season to get us firing he didn’t need three seasons.

The crock of shit was that many of the most successful managers of all time to time - and needed it - to build their projects. Busby, Shankly, Ferguson, Wenger, Pep - all crocks of shit rather than top level coaches were they?
And FH, like RDZ before him, benefitted hugely from inheriting a set up that was anything but a crock of shit. Chelsea in 2022 was.

 

[Professor Plum]

Why would an apparent top level coach need loads of time? I’ve read this crock of shit so many times. Our own FH took some flak and half a season to get us firing he didn’t need three seasons.

Most good coaches need time to assemble or at least supplement and develop a squad of players capable of playing the way he wants them to. Some are lucky in inheriting a very strong group eg Slot at Liverpool and arguably Fabian Hürzeler too. All recent Chelsea coaches have been hamstrung by having their most capable players sold without their agreement, and a large bunch of dubious kids brought in. I don’t want to sound too sympathetic to them as it’s an enjoyable spectacle to outsiders. But it’s hard to see any coach turn that bunch of misfits into a cohesive unit in the short term. If Maresca clings on for another year or two I’m sure he’ll achieve something but that’s unlikely to happen. Chelsea and their fans don’t do patience.

 

[Justice]

The crock of shit was that many of the most successful managers of all time to time - and needed it - to build their projects. Busby, Shankly, Ferguson, Wenger, Pep - all crocks of shit rather than top level coaches were they?
And FH, like RDZ before him, benefitted hugely from inheriting a set up that was anything but a crock of shit. Chelsea in 2022 was.

I think my point has been missed let me rephrase how does anyone know Potter will be successful at PL level given time? It seems to be a myth of peddled by some Brighton fans. This isn’t an anti Potter agenda it just something that has never been proven.

 

[trueblue]

I suppose the one advantage they do have is that they should be able to retain the best players rather than having to move them on. In that sense, their eventual profit would come from on-field success, rather than sales. Persuading the best players to stick around long enough in a restless environment will hopefully be the problem.

 

[ozzygull]

It’s a bollox article. Chelsea buy players just so others can’t. Brighton buy players with a plan, we buy players that are needed to fit in to our system, and to fill the gaps when players needs to be replaced. Not just a random collection.

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

It’s a bollox article. Chelsea buy players just so others can’t. Brighton buy players with a plan, we buy players that are needed to fit in to our system, and to fill the gaps when players needs to be replaced. Not just a random collection.

Unless they can play in goal, as a 10 or wingers. We want all the wingers.

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

I think my point has been missed let me rephrase how does anyone know Potter will be successful at PL level given time? It seems to be a myth of peddled by some Brighton fans. This isn’t an anti Potter agenda it just something that has never been proven.

We were relegation candidates when he arrived and poised for a European spot (in 5th IIRC) when he left. Of course the squad improved over that time so the real genius behind any of our improvement was Bloom & co. But that genius gave Potter time even when the first two seasons were not great.

So, given time, Potter was successful and if this isn't evidence what would you accept?