youlots

Well if Kalou was bought as a replacement for either of those three it makes his performances too date not just "rubbish" but abject rubbish I would have thought. No, on second thoughts that's too harsh - I'll save abject rubbish for Sheva. In all honesty I think Duff was, after those 2 injuries, not the same livewire and I think in retrospect he's performances up north have proved that. Last I heard he's still injured! As for Robben, well, great player on his day (especially as a sub I always thought) but as far as managing him (like managing stray cats I would have thought!). As for Eidur, I can never believe we sold him (he was my favourite all time chelsea player after Ossie) and if that was Jose well f**k him is all I can say. Anyway Kalou may prove me wrong yet. I hope he does but I just can't see it.

Qaz are you forgetting the "pre-story" as to how Roman got rich? Or should that be an irrelevant to us that Chels, technically, is owned by what Mr & Mrs Vlad and Svetlana Russia used to own (but were either too stupid, too desperate or, too afraid, too keep)? I mean when you think about it, our recent successes are pretty much a Syriana aren't they? Not that there's anything wrong with that in my book in circumstances where Chelsea silverware is concerned. It just occurred to me though that if you're going to keep spinning the company line it may important (just occasionally mind you) to reveal the whole story.

Well G4 I seem to recall that during the off season and after the Galaxy game I think (albeit I'm relying on recollection) I expressed the view that Kalou was rubbish to which you replied that it was far too early or premature to make a call on Kalou to which I responded that if that was the case I would defer to your judgment until later. I'm now making the call. What say you? Still too early to make the call? Need the rest of the season?

Callista - Mourinho was either sacked or constructively dismissed: "parting by mutual consent" has and always will be the legal euphemism for either. Given that Jose's hands were effectively tied in the transfer market during the close season it may have been the case that Jose wanted to walk then but in the absence of clauses in his contract giving him carte blanche in his transfer dealings and that clause being expressly mentioned in any termination clause in the contract that Jose could rely on, IMO Jose would have been advised by his cohorts not to "rock the boat" regarding his emasculated position prior to the commencement of the season due to reasons of anticipatory breach. Further, and IMO, I think what happened at the penultimate meeting was that Ambramovich et al may have sought to vary the contract (and further emasculate Jose's decision making power) or just plain sacked him under the existing provisions of the contract. Otherwise I agree with you take.

Agree with Octville's 1, 2 & 3. 4. - too early to tell. 5. - no one's untouchable albeit that those mentioned (save for Kalou) would be automatic picks in anyone's book at present I would have thought. As for Kalou, well, what does one say?!? So far his early season form is about as good as his pre-season form. ie. dreadful but given that I don't rate him and never have, then at least his current form is, well, consistent. And hey, in my book you can never get enough of that. Then again perhaps my comments on Kalou are still "premature". Over to you G4.

Forzby - quality & apt post mun! Lofty - killer LP that.

Typical really. In my book it was a 50-50 challenge and no more. Not even deserving of a yellow (whereas I think Joe's effort in the 2nd half probably deserved crimson) Anyway of more interest will be to see what matches Dean get over the next few weeks given he's been card happy all season apparently.

For Christ sakes Qaz have you ever actually read a player's contract? I seriously doubt it because if you had you would know that there are provisions in same that seriosuly control what a player's dealings with the media are. Simply put, admissions (apart from reading from a script that the club has prepared for you) made by players as to current events within a club are either selectively but anonomously leaked by the player who has developed a relationship with a press figure or never made in the first place because of sanction. Moreover, one of the usual terms of a player's contract stipulates that the player will at all times acknowledge and warrant the authority of the manager and coaching staff from time to time in respect to matters that pertain to management and the club and termination clauses can usually if not always be triggered by press admissions that can damage the club or impeach its authority. Players these days are as much ambassadors for the club as out and out footballers and their agents are always at pains to inform them that they must toe the line at all times as their current and future (shortish) careers and livelihoods will be jeopardised by indiscretions with the press. For example, when you read "statements" from Riccy and Kalou that were "put out" in recent days and very shortly after Jose was sacked I trust that you weren't confused that those comments were anything but damage control statements authored by Kenyon's office were you? Perhaps you were. In which case what can I say?!?

You even hate City?!? What for?!?

Are the responses enough for you Qaz or do want more? Contribution and support doesn't always equate with money mate. Just like "history" doesn't always equate with silverware and a man shouldn't be judged by the size of his wallet. Your agenda setting with these reactionary polls (which reveal more about you than anything else) are starting to smell a bit.

Well said Jack. I move that "...a proper football club, somewhere...............foot and mouth disease" should go in the memorable quotes section.

It's fair to say that it was a lot worse than any of us imagined. And I reckon a lot of that must have occurred - it all starts to make sense - especially when you watch that cringeworthy press conference the other day with Grant, Kenyon etc. Jesus. Liam you were right when a few months ago you questioned why Jose would have the werewithal and self respect to stay after Ambramovich appointed Grant given all of the previous undermining that had been going on. I guess Jose just wanted to give it one more shot because of his love for the club and the players. Chels is owned and run by a foolish underhanded russian oligarch and his pimps. I was in shock and denial there for a few days - now I've moved full on into anger.

From (gasp!) a decent Liverpool gentleman on a recent Guardian blog comes this: As a Liverpool supporter, I regret that Benitez did not have the style & dignity to to publicly applaud "The Special One" and offer his support and encouragement for his future - it takes a small man to bear a grudge. While I love to support my chosen club, I always admired both Wenger & Mourinho for what they brought to the game and, win or lose, I looked forward to the games between Chelsea & Liverpool, home or away. I was in Stamford Bridge last season to see Droghba score that wonder goal and was taken by the passion of the Chelsea support. But, at no time in or around the ground did I feel uncomfortable, even wearing my red gear in the Chelsea shop. And while the media concentrated on the on the odd things that JM said from time to time, I always felt his after match analysis was even and fair. He called it as he saw it and several times he commented that the opposition played better etc etc. And that Champions League goal ....... he just might have been right on that one but, he got over it, Benitez has'nt yet

So now its self admonishment and self censorship G4. Just makes me even thirstier G4.

Well let's see enrico (or is it henry or Liam's poodle), if that's what you want I think we can accommodate you. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, a few on here might want to join you for a drink as well.

First, no one could seriously criticise anyone for questioning anything Jose has said or done in the past whether that be football related, formations, player selection, buys, sells, strategy, tactical, man/team management etc. Its all up for grabs and all up for discussion - otherwise it would be a pretty lousy forum. On the other hand, no one likes a smart ass - that's not just football mate, that's life. Not always, but at times, you seem to take things very personally when someone on here disagrees with your point of view or admonishes you. You also seem fond of the selective comeback. That, of course, is your choice and your way. And I can understand the byronesque obsession the likes of you and Pauly et al have and the way you feel football should be played. Its noble. But 95% of the time it won't win you silverware and it won't win you respect on the park. You may think I'm an old tosser who wouldn't know sh*t from shinola (your are on record as saying you don't care for me which is fine) and you may honestly hold the view that Chels future is uncertain but I think you'll find in 20 years when you look back through the years that no one who cam after Jose ever bested him as a manager of our great club. But then patience comes with the years - you'll learn that in time.

Grace under fire. He had 'em spellbound. I reckon he could have spoken to them for hours and no-one would have left. The press are going to miss him as much as us - if he's ever far from their thoughts that is.

Your views on Jose are a matter of record G4. No one round here, least of all Brit and me, will forget them for a very long time if ever. You were slagging Mourinho from before half way through last season. Some of us had the temerity, even the gall, to defend him occasionally and for our trouble we were tarred as sycophants or Jose's mafia and even in circumstances where we all know the man had faults, was human and sometimes was guilty of overeaction or hyperbole but hey he is a latin and you take the good with the bad and there was a lot more good, even unique, than there was bad. And yet when this is brought up you always throw the switch to vaudeville and accuse posters (who's only fault is a modicum of loyalty) of being "hysterical". I think your "borderline" mate but hey your only 20 so maybe you'll mellow a bit. And we can forgive you a bit for your age and your frequent impertinance.

Thanks for the answer - fair play to you - sorry if I offended you. All I know are that the majority of supporters I know a pretty f**kin upset at the moment at how this whole episode unfolded. All I'm saying is that given those circumstances its usually better to let everybody have their say and to let time do its work. For better or worse Jose's gone and some need time to stomach it. Part of that is to let people grieve, question, rant, insult, even celebrate if that's what they want to do etc. etc. And it pisses me off when it can seem that some want to control or inhibit, or put a stop to that process. Tha's all I'm saying.

Jimboola you mean the other thread where you keep rabbiting "don't believe the hype"? The censorial line you keep spitting out ad nauseum in regards to what people should and should not read, believe, weigh up and think about regarding what is one of the more momentous chapters in the history of Chels, is usually reflective of toeing the company line/managing damage control etc. Why don't you just shut up for awhile and let posters have their say on what they feel and think regarding this episode. By the way mate, how old are you and how long have you been following Chels?

Rejecting this story as having any truth simply because it is the Mail would be the same as accepting everthing it has alleged as implictly true. The thing is though, there are quite a few direct quotes in there from named sources - not just paraphrasing from indirect sources. Moreover, it would be relatively easy I'd imagine to confirm when Grant applied for/was granted his full ticket. It seems to me that regardless of whether all of the "reportage" is wholly accurate, the allegations in the story are consistent with the theory that is gaining ascendancy relatively quickly that at the first meeting between the gang of three and Jose the other night (and as is usually the case as these things go) he was asked to resign. Jose would have known that to do so without some undertaking from the board that his compensation package would be unaffected and that he be paid out it in total, would be sheer madness because it could later be treated as an admission by him that he was not "ready, willing and able" to perform his contractual obligations (and therefore could be treated by the board as an anticpatory breach of contract). Accordingly, IMO the usual compromise was reached whereby their is a parting by way of "mutual consent", the usual PR statement is put out to this effect so as not to effect the transition process and there would be an agreement in-principle that the Deed of Release (to be executed between the parties in the coming days) would contain the usual reasonable restraint clause (ie. that Jose could not manage another PL club this season or even be brought on as an advisor to any PL club). What has all this legal gibberish got to do with the thread say you? Well, simply this, and no suprises I'm with Brit on this one: Ambramovich had told his closest cohorts (including Grant) that he would strike as soon as we had a run of less than positive results. That is it was a matter of when not if, and the earlier the better. I'm now of the view that bringing in Grant and openly letting the media know that you were having discussions with Goofy's brother/agent prior to the transfer window closing was merely part of the process of letting Jose know that bit by bit he was being undermined. Now why didn't Ambramovich and his cohorts do (in retrospect) the decent thing and just sack Jose at the end of last season? Because they wanted Jose to share the blame as much as possible (ie. a short string of average results) so as to feather the inevitable fall-out that the sacking was going to cause.

I think that says more about you Jimboola than Jose. Don't you think? I mean on another recent thread you slam Frisk for daring to voice an opinion on Jose's management style but you then echo Frisk's recent comments with that rather lame offering. It naturally follows from your comment on Jose being "silly" that notwithstanding he was effectively hamstrung, that you think he should have just shut up and got on with it. Alternately, he could leave and be paid out an attractive sum with some semblance of dignity and achievement that no other manager will likely ever achieve at this club. And that's "silly" is it? Tell us all Jimboola, what would you have done in the circumstances?

Spot on Backbiter. He was either sacked or it was a constructive dismissal for the reasons cited by you. And it is simply unbelievable that Ambramovich and his cohorts engineered a situation whereby a manager as successful as Jose in the last 3 years finally felt so emasculated and disempowered that he had no alternative but to leave. Ambramovitch is a fool; after falling for the 3 card trick of having "talkies" with Goofy's brother/agent recently, is any one of us really surprised at how this was handled/turned out?

Nice post/epitaph Dorset. So Phillip you told us so did you? Can't seem to remember that. But if you did, my what a striking and apt comparison. I mean Mourinho wore out his welcome at Porto before he joined us didn't he? and at every preceding club before that didn't he? And he's jumped from english team to english team hasn't he? Tosser.

We'll be merging with Spurs next.