roberto de matteo sacked

[TCIB]

 

[blue rebel]

According to Guillem Balague RA has been in touch with both Pep and Raffa since last year. Pep has refused to cut short his sabbatical, so will not take the job and talks with Raffa broke down. Whatever the problem with Raffa was must have been sorted if they are talking again. I think any manager who agrees to work under RA should make sure they have a large compensation clause in their contracts.

 

[Matt the Giant]

Obviously Roman would prefer Pep to anbyone else, but do your eally think Guardioal would be interested in thaking that job? Such a complete contrast to what he was used to in Barcelona. Would Pep really function under Roman's way of doing things?

I think Pep will choose top go to a club where he feels it's HIS way which matters, where he will be guaranteed time and financial back-up if required. He will look for a well structured club, from youth level up to senior.

Can Roman and Chelsea really offer him that?

The fact that they will appoint their new manager already later today suggests it will be either Harry or Raffa.

Would anyone of them accept taking the position on a short contract, as a temporary solution until Pep potentially takes their place?

Whoever it is who gets the job, will be yet another puppet under Roman's hands.

 

[intheknow!]

It's the way Russians operate I suppose. A man who went from being an orphan to one of the richest men on the planet in a country like Russia is obviously going to be ruthless, heartless bastard.

I think the only manager who truly fits Chelsea is Mourinho.


Don't know if this is connected but Drogba has asked FIFA to approve an emergency loan switch:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2236225/Didier-Drogba-rejoin-Chelsea-emergency-loan.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -loan.html</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/21/didier-drogba-fifa-china-loan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... china-loan</a>

 

[allan harper]

It's predicted that by 2025 you'll be no more than a six feet away from an ex Chelsea manager.

 

[Josh Blue]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theshedend.com/topic/22064-fans-anti-abramovich-protest-on-sunday/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theshedend.com/topic/22064-f ... on-sunday/</a> worth a read

 

[Anonymous]

On the face of it your argument certainly holds water and I'm certainly not of the view that managers should be 'given more' time as a matter of course, as many so called experts seem to believe, but I think Chelsea had an opportunity to build a force within the English game which could have cast a shadow over the rest of the league for a decade and beyond, especially with united's current financial restrictions. They have certainly failed in that regard, as their league performance in the last few seasons bears out.

It remains to be seen what the state of play will be in a few years, but I suspect you may change your view when it is us, not Chelsea, that have built an enduring legacy based on a long term vision rather than a series of reactive and short term impulses.

It all depends upon what your expectations are and how you view the manager's role in success on the field. I'm sure that Roman would argue that the most important tool any manager requires are the best players, and if he gets them (which most managers simply don't) he must deliver season in and season out. I realise it's not a popular way of running a club in England, but it's a reality I fully understand and respect.

There's a lot of people who argue that sacking Mourinho was the dumbest thing Roman ever did - but it wasn't if Mourinho wasn't prepared to work under the parameters set by the guy paying his wages.

Grand ideas of long term visions and enduring legacies are nice - but frankly - things rarely if ever work out like that. Wenger and Ferguson are the exceptions rather than the rule and as such it's IMO unrealistic to try and recreate a model like that using the manager as the root of the vision. The Barcelona model of attaching yourselves to a footballing philosophy from the youth teams upwards is far more important. Having the right coaches at those levels. Having the right director of football making sure that players are being developed in the right way so they can be integrated into the squad. Having a manager who understands the importance of integrating those players into the first team squad and remaining competitive.

Also not being reactive as owners can be hugely detrimental to the club. The key is knowing when to stick and when to twist. Our owners sacked Hughes mid season because they needed to be reactive at the time based on their expectations. The same applies to any manager who comes through the door.

Roman takes a hell of a lot of stick but as I said in my original reply to you, the trophy haul he has and the amount of success he squeezed out of the team which Mourinho and him built speaks volumes in my opinion.

 

[mat]

One thing it will guarentee is a chelsea win on Sunday....

 

[waspish]

If I was Pep I'd tell Abramovitch to shove it where the sun don't shine you Megalomaniac KUNT!

 

[taconinja]

On the face of it your argument certainly holds water and I'm certainly not of the view that managers should be 'given more' time as a matter of course, as many so called experts seem to believe, but I think Chelsea had an opportunity to build a force within the English game which could have cast a shadow over the rest of the league for a decade and beyond, especially with united's current financial restrictions. They have certainly failed in that regard, as their league performance in the last few seasons bears out.

It remains to be seen what the state of play will be in a few years, but I suspect you may change your view when it is us, not Chelsea, that have built an enduring legacy based on a long term vision rather than a series of reactive and short term impulses.

It all depends upon what your expectations are and how you view the manager's role in success on the field. I'm sure that Roman would argue that the most important tool any manager requires are the best players, and if he gets them (which most managers simply don't) he must deliver season in and season out. I realise it's not a popular way of running a club in England, but it's a reality I fully understand and respect.

There's a lot of people who argue that sacking Mourinho was the dumbest thing Roman ever did - but it wasn't if Mourinho wasn't prepared to work under the parameters set by the guy paying his wages.

Grand ideas of long term visions and enduring legacies are nice - but frankly - things rarely if ever work out like that. Wenger and Ferguson are the exceptions rather than the rule and as such it's IMO unrealistic to try and recreate a model like that using the manager as the root of the vision. The Barcelona model of attaching yourselves to a footballing philosophy from the youth teams upwards is far more important. Having the right coaches at those levels. Having the right director of football making sure that players are being developed in the right way so they can be integrated into the squad. Having a manager who understands the importance of integrating those players into the first team squad and remaining competitive.

Also not being reactive as owners can be hugely detrimental to the club. The key is knowing when to stick and when to twist. Our owners sacked Hughes mid season because they needed to be reactive at the time based on their expectations. The same applies to any manager who comes through the door.

Roman takes a hell of a lot of stick but as I said in my original reply to you, the trophy haul he has and the amount of success he squeezed out of the team which Mourinho and him built speaks volumes in my opinion.

There's a difference though between being right to let go of Di Matteo (He is) and his overall long-term strategy. Chelsea had the best squad in the premier league and the best manager in the world and the funds to make sure that squad was continually reinforced as well as building up the academy. But the owner meddles too much. He lost the best manager in the world (and I will not apologize for that opinion to anyone) because he kept both insisting on buying players the manager said weren't good enough and insisting on interfering with the manager's squad selections in regards to those player to the point of trying to alter the starting squad list (from Chelsea ITKs) as well as never getting the academy situation right. You keep pointing to the trophies as vindication of Abramovich, but isn't that also vindication of the managers he hired? I think it's an indication that in the beginning of his term as owner, he had the right advice and the right approach, but he's lost his way. If an owner has to continually replace the managers who keep winning him trophies at some point you have to consider whether the problem lies with the managers. Perhaps it does, but pointing at a trophy cabinet isn't a very good defense considering that same thing can be done for the managers.