Defending the ownership and why they wont sell all our best prospects

Contribution article by The Score

Chelsea’s owners are currently getting a lot of stick. Some of it is deserved, some poor decisions regarding appointments of coaching staff, trying to do too much too quickly, and a naivety around the football world, not to mention the Mason Mount situation.  

When results are bad and a beloved player could leave, there’s negativity around the club it also makes fans vulnerable to any sensational headline or scaremongering.  

It also can create wild assumptions about the ownership which in truth may not be accurate, and hide any good work they do.  

I’ve seen some fans even go on wild goose chases arguing they don’t care about winning or being competitive and just want to sell our best players. 

This is simply not true. And the best evidence for this is one of the other sports teams owned by Todd Boehly, the Dodgers. 

Todd Boehly believes the best way to make money out of sports is to have a successful team, a winning team. This in turn attracts big commercial revenue and big prize money, as well as increasing matchday revenue with improved stadium facilities. 

These respective areas generate FAR more than selling players, over a much longer period. No one who wants to make money from sports intentionally sells their best players. 

As Todd Boehly has said repeatedly, they are invested for the long term. Investment billionaires like Todd, Behdad Egbahil and Jose Feliciano of Clearlake, make money by investing and then growing the value of those investments, making their stake worth far more.  

This takes a long term approach, and selling players literally makes pennies compared to the profit which could be made by doubling or tripling the value of the football club over 10 years. 

This of course only happens if Chelsea are successful on the pitch and attract big commercial revenues and prize money, and the “Brand” becomes worth more. Selling the best players and becoming a top 6 or mid table side is not on their agenda, they know that doesn’t make them money. (If I know this, then the owners who are likely smarter than me, know this too). 

So why is Mason Mount leaving? There’s probably lots of nuance around this situation. Contract fall outs are usually failures on both sides. The owners see value as important. Maybe Chelsea have a certain value on his wages and he is demanding more, so they felt they could not meet that and haven’t offered anything, feeling there is no point, unless he compromises. After all, the club compromised on contracts for Reece James and Ben Chilwell, so they have history of compromise.

Players leave football clubs. It happens. Chelsea’s future doesn’t depend on Mason Mount being at Chelsea. It never has. Moving away from individualistic culture means building a team of top talent. Ideally Mason would be part of that, but he doesn’t have to be for it to be successful. 

As much as the sporting directors have made mistakes, as far as I’m concerned the players they signed in January are all huge prospects who have shown promise. They can clearly spot talent. Our summer targets reflect this too. Chelsea also have a lot of young midfield talent already on the books. 

So Mason’s boots won’t be empty for long.  

Using Mason’s potential exit as evidence we will sell any academy player is ridiculous. He is one player in a particular set of circumstances. 

Chelsea have extended the contracts three academy players since the new ownership came in, one of whom, Armando Broja, we got a huge financial offer for last summer. 

Chelsea have also refused multiple offers for Levi Colwill and tried to extend his contract - he’d be the easiest money maker for the club but they have repeatedly said since January he is part of the long term plans and not for sale at any price, and Pochettino is said to love him. There’s also been talk of a new deal for Lewis Hall. 

Fan paranoia and suspicion of ownership - old or new - or establishment figures has happened for years at Chelsea. But I believe these owners are ambitious, and want to win trophies consistently. From a purely financial point of view that’s how they make the most money from Chelsea.  

Another note about Todd Boehly, this involves Andrew Toles, a retired ex-Dodgers player with bi polar disorder. 

The Dodgers, who he co-owns, give him a contract every year despite him being retired, so he can claim medical insurance and get treatment for his bipolar disorder. There’s no need for them to do it, but they do. Every year. Without fail.

From a personal perspective, when my dad, a Chelsea fan since the 1950’s was near death in December last year - thankfully he survived and is still with us -  a member of the Chelsea board personally contacted me out of the blue and sent the best wishes of the whole club, which my dad appreciated tremendously. I’ve never forgotten it. 

These guys aren’t some villains with a devious plan to destroy Chelsea. They are new owners still learning football who have made some rookie errors. 

I’m confident that with Pochettino in charge and the right man running the football side (Michael Edwards anyone?), they’ll get it right and will take Chelsea back to the top. 

They want to make Chelsea financially self sufficient, able to generate huge revenues and make big profits, so we don’t need to rely on any external sugar daddy to pay for success. 

In the long run, after being close to financial ruin several times in the last 40 years, that will be very good for the club, and ensure we stay where we belong, competing at the top level.  

So whilst it’s totally understandable to be angry at Mason Mount potentially leaving and to be frustrated at results (I am, most Chelsea fans would be), it would be unwise to make this into a wider judgment on the ownership. 

Written by The Score