This is based on the assumption that Costa would've wanted to join Chelsea if Chelsea made an offer. This is something we just don't know. Maybe Costa didn't want to join Chelsea or Shaktar didn't want to sell Costa to Chelsea. Or maybe Costa had already agreed to join Bayern, so even if Shaktar would've been willing to sell him to us, they couldn't because they'd already agreed to sell him to Bayern.

 

Or... Maybe Chelsea thought they'd get another player, but didn't and then went for Pedro because he was available.

 

I don't believe that Chelsea were sleeping until the very end of the transfer window, then panicked and bought Pedro because they hadn't tried to sign anyone and then suddenly realised that they needed to sign someone. I think it's far more plausible to assume that Chelsea had been negotiating for other players and Pedro was the one that they got in the end.

 

Well, of course you don't. Because you don't want to accept that Emenalo did anything wrong - for whatever reason. 

 

Look, there is usually no smoke without fire. And the only strong rumour I can remember was Stones - while Vidal and Costa joined Bayern. Bayern won the Bundesliga, too. Bayern went to the semi finals in the Champions League in a far more convincing fashion than we ever did. And yet they made their move. That's ambition!

 

Marquinhos, Pogba and Pedro only became relevant very, very late in the window. Throughout the summer Mourinho came out repeatedly and said he was happy with the squad in a mood so melancholic that we can only infer that he didn't speak his own words.

 

For me it is evident - Emenalo argued the squad was good enough. The board/Abramovich trusted him and capped Mourinho's transfer requests. 6 months later we're done for at least two seasons. What other option is there but to sack the one responsible for transfers? Emenalo embarrassed this club. 

Edited November 21, 201510 yr by PythonLu

Reading through some of these posts are unbelievable. On one hand Emanalo is to blame for openly trying to sign stones (although there is no real evidence of this). On the other hand he's being blamed for not signing 2 players that went to Bayern (yet again we don't know what goes on behind the scenes). Very strange that Emanalo is being used as a scapegoat. If we were riding high this conversation wouldn't be in progress.

Its not strange at all. The three most recognized figures at the club when it comes to our transfer dealings are Mourinho, Emenalo and Abramovich. One is amobg the greatest managers in the world and a club legend, one is a an owner that elevated us to one of the best clubs in Europe, while the third is a rather unknown figure that rose to a position of influence under rather dodgy circumstances. Its a hell of a lot easier for fans to blame Emenalo who nobody knows much about really, hes pretty much the prototypical scapegoat

Well, of course you don't. Because you don't want to accept that Emenalo did anything wrong - for whatever reason. 

 

Look, there is usually no smoke without fire. And the only strong rumour I can remember was Stones - while Vidal and Costa joined Bayern. Bayern won the Bundesliga, too. Bayern went to the semi finals in the Champions League in a far more convincing fashion than we ever did. And yet they made their move. That's ambition!

 

Marquinhos, Pogba and Pedro only became relevant very, very late in the window. Throughout the summer Mourinho came out repeatedly and said he was happy with the squad in a mood so melancholic that we can only infer that he didn't speak his own words.

 

For me it is evident - Emenalo argued the squad was good enough. The board/Abramovich trusted him and capped Mourinho's transfer requests. 6 months later we're done for at least two seasons. What other option is there but to sack the one responsible for transfers? Emenalo embarrassed this club. 

Lots of assumptions and guess work in your thesis, that doesn't mean you are wrong but I don't feel it is fair to hang draw and quarter some one over assumptions of what has gone on behind closed doors. 

Kennedy and Traore aren't good enough (yet), while Pedro, well, could be better.

 

We have no real basis to claim Traore isn't there yet. You are forming an opinion based on Mourinho's stubbornness.

We have no real basis to claim Traore isn't there yet. You are forming an opinion based on Mourinho's stubbornness.

 

While you are forming one based on, well, nothing. Chose for yourself which one is better.

While you are forming one based on, well, nothing. Chose for yourself which one is better.

 

I'm not saying he's there yet. Nor am I saying he isn't. Neither of us have anything to form an opinion on.

 

In the case of Kenedy we've at least seen him half a dozen times. Even then it obviously too early to have a set opinion.

 

At best we know Traore was a pretty darn good finisher in Holland last season. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited November 21, 201510 yr by Jon Stakes

Yes, we didn't get Rooney and finished third..... but if we had a proper striker that season, we'd of won the title. So I would say there is a correlation, SAF would agree.

Btw, Everton didn't want to sell Rooney, Fellaini, Lescott, Arteta, Rodwell...well you get my point, right?

 

 

Speaking of that season when we finished 3rd, lukaku is a proper striker along with mata as proper playmaker.. we won the league with the massive help of costa and cesc and these 2 type of similar players to luk/mata, it could well be the answer but jose chose to alienate them and eventually leading them to go.. had he spare half the faith that he had with costa/cesc on luk/mata, title could have been won indeed.. 

 

Regarding rooney, he never really indicated that he wanted to leave, he just wanted a pay rise..

 

regarding stones, it seems like everton is a selling club in your mindset and no way we couldn't get him, right? how much do you reckon we need to pay? 

Lukaku was getting minutes under Jose before he left.

At 20 he didn't want to fight for a place in the starting XI of a top four team but instead chose to join a team where he would play every week.

That was a career decision by Lukaku, don't think we can blame Jose for that one.

what minute? 10 minutes here and there? everyone wants to play every week so don't think that could be used as an excuse.. do you think costa would come if he's told he's not going to start most games? Luk was maybe a youngster but a pretty good one, at least better than what we had at that time.. For jose to make such a poor judgement call on not keeping faith with him, it's his fault.. he just doesn't trust youngster and failed to see what's best for the club.. nobody is going to blame jose for not giving chance to lukaku if we have peak drogba/torres but we didn't...

Well, of course you don't. Because you don't want to accept that Emenalo did anything wrong - for whatever reason.

 

No, that's not the reason. The reason is because I don't know enough of what happens at the club or during player negotiations (and neither does the majority of people on this forum) to say for certain who is to blame. If Emenalo is the one to blame, then he should pay the price, but at the moment I don't think there's enough proof one way or another to pin it on any single person at the club. I understand people want a scapegoat, though...

 

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/douglas-costa-i-can-achieve-everything-i-want-chelsea-mourinho-best#:Pvs0JKZqqTL4oA

 

Quote: 'I’d be really interested in moving to Chelsea'

 

That was published in March. A lot can happen in a few months. And if a player is asked by a journalist if he wants to join a big club, how many of them would say they're not interested? It's better to keep doors open as you never know which clubs end up making a bid for you.

Lukaku was getting minutes under Jose before he left.

At 20 he didn't want to fight for a place in the starting XI of a top four team but instead chose to join a team where he would play every week.

That was a career decision by Lukaku, don't think we can blame Jose for that one.

It depends how you communicate with the player and what kind of perspective is offered to him?

I guess he was rightly pissed of that Eto'o and Drogba were bought which basically meant that he'd have to fight harder for a chance to play some minutes as a sub. If that is the perspective of a young promising player who had proven that he can play in the PL, then you can also view it as a player being forced to leave the club because it was the sensible thing to do for him. If that is the usual option which is offered to the player: stay and fight for every f#+## minute as a sub with no reassurances wharsoever then most promising young players will try to leave our club for good.

Edited November 22, 201510 yr by Uxanga

It depends how you communicate with the player and what kind of perspective is offered to him?

I guess he was rightly pissed of that Eto'o and Drogba were bought which basically meant that he'd have to fight harder for a chance to play some minutes as a sub. If that is the perspective of a young promising player who had proven that he can play in the PL, then you can also view it as a player being forced to leave the club because it was the sensible thing to do for him.

He missed a pen against Bayern in the super cup and had a sulk and asked for a loan move if my memory serves me right. What a sh*t peno it was as well. Not sure he was mentally strong at the time maybe it was he's age

Lukaku was getting minutes under Jose before he left.

At 20 he didn't want to fight for a place in the starting XI of a top four team but instead chose to join a team where he would play every week.

That was a career decision by Lukaku, don't think we can blame Jose for that one.

Exactly yet people forget that and bring up other players for standing for it either, yet those players they make comparisons with are much older and proven. Lukaku was a youngster with potential when he came here, he didn't seem to want to wait or fight therefore he was sold.

That's the point with young players. They won't always act maturely. You can't always expect to get a Varane or a C. Ronaldo or a Luke Shaw who are 100% professionals even at that age. Sometimes it's the manager's job to inspire them appropriately.

That's the point with young players. They won't always act maturely. You can't always expect to get a Varane or a C. Ronaldo or a Luke Shaw who are 100% professionals even at that age. Sometimes it's the manager's job to inspire them appropriately.

But he wanted to leave so Jose obliged, I think some people don't realise just because they're young they shouldn't act in a certain way, end if the day even when you're 18 you know when you're been a dick. Jose was right to sell.

But he wanted to leave so Jose obliged, I think some people don't realise just because they're young they shouldn't act in a certain way, end if the day even when you're 18 you know when you're been a dick. Jose was right to sell.

I can not believe that that's Jose's standard approach. If it were he'd not actually be a manager. It's not like Jose is a passive element who only reacts to what a player does, feels or says. Surely it's more of a interaction between a player and a manager.

I think a key factor was that it was a World Cup year, and Lukaku was expected to play a big part in Belgium's campaign in Brazil. He wanted mintues because he didnt want to miss out on a world cup spot, and that's fair enough. I think it came down to a bit of a stand off situation, and Mourinho had a tough choice to make. Keep the kid around as a prospect and someone who MAY get gametime, but may also become increasingly unhappy and disrupt the squad, or let him go on loan. From Lukaku's point of view he probably viewed it as guaranteed gametime and a world cup spot vs limited gametime and watching his friends play in a world cup. I can see it from both points of view. Maybe Mourinho felt that he could get more out of Torres than he did. Maybe he picked the wrong "horse to give milk to"

As for selling him after that, 28 million was silly money and there was no way we could reject that kind of fee.

Its a bit strange to see him gubbing off to the press now with little statements

I liked lukaku, and I was disappointed it didn't work out for him. £28m was good money for him at the time, although with hindsight we should have maybe pushed for a lower fee with a buy back clause, because I think he is turning into a top striker capable of leading the line for us.

I wouldn't compare his situation to the kdb, though as I think kdb was good enough to start at the time, and we didn't do well with the sale to wolfsburg.

Plenty more fish in the sea though.

Its a bit strange to see him gubbing off to the press now with little statements

 

Technical director now promoted to director of bul***it. Good decision, he might actually be good at this.

ROMAN AND EMENALO NEED TO REVIEW TRANSFER STRATEGY IN JANUARY

 

Chelsea's reputation as one of the Premier League's big-spenders have blinded people to the fact that the hierarchy have left Mourinho fighting with one had tied behind his back.

 

For the last two seasons, Mourinho has had the smallest squad of any of the 20 Premier League clubs. A major reason has been the decision taken at the highest level to use the loan market as a revenue stream.

 

Hence, dozens of Chelsea players are now loaned elsewhere while Mourinho has had to pick the same 18 week-after-week in four competitions. It's true the manager can be faulted with not playing enough kids but he's never been one to throw in the untested or not good enough.

 

Plenty of journeymen professionals like Victor Moses, Oriol Romeu, Marco van Ginkel and Patrick Bamford are on loan to other Premier League clubs. More like Nathaniel Chalobah are abroad.

 

Nobody is suggesting any of the names mentioned are good enough to be regular Chelsea starters. But if Matic or Hazard needed to rest or treat a minor injury for a match or two, wouldn't it be useful to have more bodies around to fill in.

 

Instead, the Chelsea players look fatigued, physically and mentally. While they and the manager must shoulder a lot of the blame, responsibility also lies further up the food chain with Roman Abramovich and technical director Michael Emenalo.

 

In addition, too often Chelsea have signed players that do not seem to meet with Mourinho's agreement. Juan Cuadrado, Mo Salah, Filipe Luis, all signed for big money and hardly used. There is a clear disconnect within the club over transfers and loans, and current results demand that it's fixed.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3360709/Are-Chelsea-good-No-not-Eden-Hazard-plans-exit-Diego-Costa-throws-toys-pram.html#ixzz3uPq4stQj 

 

 

The pittance we received in the recent Oscar deal is surely proof of Emenalo's incompetence.

10 minutes ago, PloKoon13 said:

The pittance we received in the recent Oscar deal is surely proof of Emenalo's incompetence.

Plus all that money we wasted on Kante'

I wish this guy would stop buying good players.

Don't forget that he bought useless players like Victor Moses who is not going to get anywhere being a regular Chelsea starter. 

The man is a joke.