Many fans believe the root cause of our present malaise is the club’s disregard of authority within the game, citing a state of affairs that has gone on unchecked under the ownership of Roman Abramovich and is now well and truly embodied in the attitude of our current manager. This belief, primarily born of frustration over poor results since the start of the season, reflects the dissatisfaction that has run deep in the fan base for some time and the purpose of my questioning the validity of it is to try to get to the very heart of the matter - are we really anywhere near as bad as we are portrayed - and if so, how can the situation be rectified? Shelving to the point of simple reference all the recent tangential stuff, the Eva’s, the Eden’s, the Branna’s, the De Bruyne’s and all the presumptive balderdash surrounding them, my starting point is authority itself, the levels of which within the game, as I see them, being as follows:- 

 

UEFA(the overlord organisation), the FA (the English governing body) the PGMOB (the referees governing body) and Sky TV (the major paymaster of the game in this country), the latter seen more as authoritarian in the strictest sense of the word, but nevertheless powerful and undoubtedly playing a prominent part in proceedings as far as our club is concerned. UEFA might also seem an odd inclusion, but this organisation had a significant role to play in shaping the early-day, anti-authority perception of CFC and has continued in the same vein ever since. So, taking each in turn and with apologies in advance for the overall length of this post, let me start with...

 

UEFA

 

“Abramovich has parked his tanks on our lawn… and he’s firing 50 pound notes at us.” 

 

Delivered as a joke, but meant as an insult, so said Arsenal’s vice-chairman David Dein way back in 2003 - metaphorical warmongering with the Russian enemy and proof positive that Chelsea had arrived. An invitation to join the G14 group of the continent's elite clubs had just been received by us and Dein was fearful that Roman’s immense personal wealth would break the mould of European football. Nowadays a comment such as this would [should] bring instant rebuke from Herman Ouseley on behalf of émigrés everywhere, but back then the only consideration was whether Dein spoke with his Arse [hat on] or on behalf of UEFA, as he was their Club Competition Committee and Executive Committee member at the time. Brazen conflict of interest ignored, much in the same way David Gill’s was as chief executive of ManU [appointed 2003] and vice-chairman of the now defunct G-14, Chelsea’s challenge to authority was duly declared to be purely financial and aggressive in intent. This view soon became representative of  UEFA as a whole and the mud has stuck from that moment on. Influentially, Chelsea have never had such representation, either before or since these two departed from their Premiership clubs, and it is against this backdrop that our subsequent main breach with UEFA authority - adherence to FFP rules - has to be considered. 

 

In short, pressure from within may well have skewed UEFA’s judgement on us from the off, creating the perception that we were unfairly buying our way to the top, dismissive of authority, somehow in breach of unwritten rules [as they then were] and unethical in every way other than an illegal one. The later arrival of the Abu Dhabi boys at Man City only served to teeter this point to very the brink of legislation, then over it into FFP territory, although whilst we were never deemed in breach of anything, they copped a transfer embargo, fell foul of a series of awful CL group draws, and now find themselves facing a fine for the fans repetitious booing of the UEFA anthem - a more obvious show of disdain for authority you could not wish to see. So, in the European grandee scheme of things, are we really anywhere near as bad as we are portrayed?              

  

The Football Association - it may seem as if we have been at loggerheads with this monolith for ever and a day, but the real deterioration in relationship only set in after the FA decided to offset increasing criticism of it [as archaic and out of touch] by adopting a currying favour policy on almost every controversial issue going. Hence their ready acceptance of the media perception that we had become the bad boys of British football (without a scintilla of evidence to back up the preconception) cutting a dour and ruthless swathe through the game in our relentless quest for trophies and not caring a jot for authority in the process. Ridiculous though this appears to be in hindsight, the portrayal was readily accepted as lifelike by the FA, effectively becoming our passport photo, and it is now the custom, each time the media questions our baggage, for them to insist upon it being opened and aired in public, whereas other clubs are systematically waved through - nothing to declare, nothing to see here.

 

And the FA curry favour concept didn’t stop there. Kick It Out became the biggest, colour coordinated elephant in their boardroom and, not unnaturally, it’s proved impossible to embrace, though not for the want of both David Bernstein and Greg Dyke’s trying. JT’s England career was cut down in its prime by Bernstein’s weapon of choice, a double-edged sword of balance of probability racism and worldwide discernment of the stigma attached when the blade was driven home - Fabio Capello was so appalled by the heinous act he couldn’t even bring himself to stay around to look at the aftermath. And now Jose suffers similar thrusts from Dyke over Carneiro, except [with delicious irony] these can be parried by the FA’s own defensive shield, the legal system being feared this time, as opposed to totally ignored in the Bernstein era. 

 

FA authority issues with CFC also abound at the other [infancy] end of the scale of International football, the sniper party line being that our club has manipulated the current loan system to the detriment of home grown youngsters, their chances of playing first team football with us hampered by too many financially acquired and favoured imports. Of course, Chelsea isn’t the only high profile club cornering the youth market in this way, it’s just that our methods are seen as more excessive and less productive than the others. In truth, our development policy, at every stage except the last, is an example to all and the FA has been so late in coming to this particular party it’s now struggling for a role to play. St George’s Park National Football Centre may have become the Temporary Rest Home for the [little bit] Older(ly) English player who has either slipped through a big four net or been thrown back for being too small talent-wise, but can blame for this and all the rest seriously be lain at anyone’s door other than the FA’s? 

 

The PGMOB  

 

“Arguments with referees we have had for a wee while.”

 

Guarded understatement from Pat Nevin on Chelsea TV last week, yet the underlying sentiment was there for all to see in his face and in his subsequent, quite brilliant, analysis of Kevin Friend’s severe carding of Chelsea players compared to the leniency shown to the opposition. Many of us will recall the footlights-liking and far from fanciful free Graham Poll being the classic example of centre stage-stealing officialdom at its worst. Others have followed suit, most recently Mark Clattenburg, with his bestowal of unbelievable patronage on Lucas Leiva, thereby beggaring the belief of Chelsea fans and astounding Nemanja Matic less than a week after he received exactly the opposite treatment. Misuse of authority such as this has become the norm for us and is a curse on the modern game, but, be it Friend or Foy, Dean or Mr Bean, in a profession where accountability only applies to those you have authority over, even the incompetent can be king and he soon becomes a discriminatory kingmaker in his own right. 

 

Yet this does not explain the singling out of Chelsea as the continual taker of a challenge to authority rap and its relative deservedness, if indeed you believe the club has been targeted in the first place. Nor does it ring true when you take into account the club’s long run of success, which has self-evidently been achieved despite the perceived albatross around our neck. My conclusion is that the club’s reputation became a cross it has had to bear from the moment David Dein’s nightmare scenario turned into reality - the winning of back-to-back titles under Jose - and any debate on the justification for it has long since been dismissed as the paranoia of the privileged, the arena cluttered by swings and roundabouts theorists and hobbyhorse accusers portraying Chelsea fans as glory-hunting ingrates who should just accept without complaint that their team is more anarchic, ill-disciplined and unruly than the rest put together.

 

Indeed, to a certain extent, that’s exactly what the club has grown to accept over the years and it is only when a passionate manager is in charge, one who is as fiercely opposed to such acquiescence as Jose is, that open discussion on the unfairness of it all resurfaces at press conferences and post match interviews, inevitably fuelled by constant media clamour for controversy. Sadly, in the PGMOB’s unaccountable world, such open discussion is either non-existent, replaced by cautious managerial platitude, or is off-guarded, one-sided and [selectively] ruled to be bringing the game into disrepute. Caught up and pigeonholed as were are in this over-protected scheme of things, are we really anywhere near as bad as we are portrayed?                          

         

Sky TV

 

Put this selfsame question to anybody on Sky’s sports or news channels and you will receive an unequivocally corporate answer in the affirmative. It was ever thus, or has been ever since Roman arrived on the scene and it became obvious that under his ownership the club would be a genuine threat to the Premiership’s status quo. A picture had to be painted of CFC, but it was never going to be a pretty one and a couple of titles later, the threat duly executed, we were cast in our villainous role. However,  it was to be ITV’s coverage of our Champions League clash with Liverpool that signalled the way for Sky to go. How dared we disturb a national heritage beloved by the masses? How could Jose dispute the Garcia goal? How naff was it (according to Clive Tyldesley) to wave plastic flags, especially when Liverpool put so much time and effort into their own and sung so loudly when they waved them on their ’special nights’ at Anfield?

 

Sky took note, particularly the fact that an audience of millions [something they could only dream of] seemingly lapped up this claptrap, and a template for treatment of future Chelsea games emerged that’s still in situ today. From co-commentator to studio expert analyser, from co-presenter to Saturday Soccer old pro game-watcher, there is a complete dearth of ex-Chelsea player representation on Sky. Neville, Henry, Redknapp, Carragher, Smith, Quinn, Provan, Thompson, Nicholas, Merson, LeTissier, Yorke, McInally, Cottee, Gale, not one of them wore the Chelsea shirt in their day and none of them give the club as much as the time of day now, with perhaps Gary Neville being a notable exception. Scott Minto came closest, only to be hived off to La Liga for a spell, before returning to front Sky’s current monopoly of Championship games, unenviable saturation a poor substitute for the loss of the Champions League to BT, akin to watching Lionel Messi being replaced by Charlie Austin, and you still have to pay the same amount for the privilege.

 

This was how the future must have looked to Murdoch's powerbrokers on losing out in the bidding process and, Sky Bet or otherwise, the situation was not improved by it looking [Premiership] odds-on a repeat performance by the title holders. How much better it would be to fill the midweek CL void with Chelsea crash-and-burn stories and, low and behold, they have arrived to order and in their droves. Little wonder there is no sign of contra-view on authority matters, for even though it clearly does, Chelsea are always in breach of it, there is no debate to be had, and if there was one, there is nobody in the studio wanting to put our side of events anyway. And the situation will worsen, for as yet Sky have been unable to revel in it completely, having missed out to BT on the coverage of key games. Next Saturday’s game at Stoke is their chance to ramp up the regression and they are bound to grab it gleefully. Expect Sparky to back Jose to the hilt in the press conference, then prepare his side tank into us under the tolerant gaze of a referee and his assistants specifically chosen for the task. All too predictable, I’m afraid, but are we really anywhere near as bad as we are going to be portrayed at the end of yet another ninety minutes of torment?

 

By now it will have become obvious to every Shed-Ender that my oft-repeated question has been a rhetorical one from start to finish. Sadly, every organ of authority covered will remain intact and firmly entrenched in its own splendid isolation, irrespective of the eventual outcome for Jose, but as I write this concluding paragraph there are definite fears for his safety and in all the contrived mayhem that’s surrounding the club he may well be sacrificed at the high altar of outraged authority. Quite frankly, anything can happen in the Premiership these days, especially when bar for absurdity within the game can so easily be raised to the height of impossibility, as evidenced on another thread where someone is actually treating a Garry Richardson ’impeccable source’ as gospel truth rather than merely the ramblings of a silly little man constantly craving attention.                 

.

 

Edited November 2, 201510 yr by Dorset

a superb snapshot dorset.

Another great post from Dorset

Never apologise for the length of your post..ahem

 

With regard to Refs, I always maintain that worst kind of bad reffing is not so much the big jaw dropping decisions, step forward Tom Henning Ovrebo, but when Refs let things go in games for one team, but penalise the other side.

 

 

The QPR game when JT was revealed to be worse than Pol Pot, springs to mind, forget us being down to 9 men, it was the constant fouls and offsides that QPR got away with, culminating in Ferdinand elbowing our Captain in the head, only for Foy to give a free kick against us. It may seem trivial but those constant decisions are the worst kind of reffing, rather than making a genuine mistake imo.

 

Against Liverpool on Saturday, squeaky Owen was glad that Clattenburg "let the game flow" by not being card happy, its a shame we couldn't say the same, when down to 9 men a few years ago against ManU, he reduced us to 9 by wrongly booking Torres for diving and sending him off, when it was clear to anyone with a hole in their arse, that Evans had clipped him. Oh and just to add insult to injury little pea scored an offside goal and came over to the enraged Chelsea fans to celebrate, nearly causing a riot.

 

We do benefit from Refereeing decisions, as against West Brom, but Steve Clarke got a nice letter from the refs association, apologising for the mistake I'm not sure if that is a common occurrence or one reserved for teams who get a bad decision when playing Us.

 

The FA are bafflingly inconsistent, except when it comes to punishing us. UEFA called us the enemies of Football, SKY played the Drogba "it's a f*cking disgrace" clip twice, just in case anyone missed it the first time, and then of course all anyone was talking about was Drogba's "foul mouthed rant" (clearly they never have a lip reader trained on Rooney during a game) and Ovrebo's ineptitude was glossed over. The fact that we had likeable Hiddink in charge didn't seem to make a jot of difference, so all those blaming Mourinho for our treatment, might want to consider that.

 

Don't even get me started on what happened to Cech and Cudiccini that night at Reading, and the subsequent sh*t storm around Mourinho's emotional and misrepresented post match interview.

 

The shame of it is, we can do very little about it, other than to come on here and moan.

Edited November 3, 201510 yr by SHELLY

 

 

The shame of it is, we can do very little about it, other than to come on here and moan.

 

Discontent from outside the fan base is beginning to surface, Shelly, as evidenced this morning by former Chelsea FC Ladies manager, Tony Farmer, challenging Garry Richardson to either name his ‘source’ or name the player concerned. He wont, of course, but Farmer’s mocking of the aptly-named ‘Alan Partridge of journalism’ is nevertheless well worth a read, as it puts him firmly in his place - right at the bottom of any ability or credibility scale - and it will receive a lot of media coverage… 

 

“After tonight’s Chelsea victory over Dynamo Kiev I have a question for BBC’s Radio Garry Richardson. Which of those 14 first team players would ‘rather lose than win’?

 

…. come on [now], your silence is deafening. Has your attempt to destabilise Chelsea backfired? Have you forgotten who the player was? Has your ‘reliable source’ done you up like a kipper? Please do let us know, after all you are a ‘respectable’ journalist and a ‘respectable’ journalist would always check their sources. A ‘respectable’ journalist would never report an unsubstantiated story. A ‘respectable’ journalist would never mislead the public. So now, after tonight’s performance making your story look very unlikely, surely to maintain any credibility you have left, if you won’t name the player [at least] name the source. 

 

It surely cannot be right that a journalist working for the BBC, the same BBC that survives on tax payers money, yes my money and the money of 1000’s of other tax paying Chelsea supporters can make unsubstantiated claims and then pretend nothing happened. You have to be accountable.

 

[Then again] maybe, just maybe, we should be thanking you,. Although nothing can be counted on this season, just maybe your attempt to totally divide, destabilise and destroy morale in the dressing room has had the opposite effect and actually brought the group even closer and more determined than ever to shut up ‘respectable’ journalists like yourself.

 

So Garry, enjoy your next visit to the Bridge, I’m sure you will be given a very warm welcome by 40,000 True Blues. And who knows, if your story turns out to be untrue, which unless you name the player or source is going to be hard for you to prove, they may even sing you a song… sacked in the morning, you’re getting sacked in the morning.”

 

Interestingly, Richardson has not appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme since he came out with his revelatory exclusive, though no doubt he will turn up like the proverbial bad penny before the Stoke game. In the meantime, to use a typically Beebish way of hyping up innuendo, we have asked Mr Richardson to comment but [as yet] he has not responded.    

Great post Dorset.

SHELLY, that I know of Mike Riley has apologized twice for officiating. To Wigan Athletic (Martinez) and WBA (Clarke). Both times the teams had lost to Chelsea. Apparently a ref apologized to us after a game once, but I'd prefer an official one from the head of the PGMOB.

We all read the sports sections. I think we can all form our own opinions. I think that we are somewhat easy to dislike, football fans ( maybe even people) love a villain to dislike, Chelsea probably has the smallest make believe ratio of fans to prestige/publicity (or certainly so a decade ago) compared to the "most talked about" clubs. Personal biases in a environment aside, as stated by Dorset(and I looked into this back in last season's campaign days so I know he is correct in his assessment ), that is ridden with ex-pros of an "enemy", it makes easy financial sense to go after our club. It generates the clicks that drive ad revenue for the organization and it's an easy write for any of the "journalists" that'll get still get readers and comments.... but not against them or the paper/media outlet.

I think it (that pantomime villian media business model) was tried with MUFC/SAF but that the combination of a safely secured SAF and a huge fan base ( you appeal to the masses, not alienate, if you want their viewership) made it too difficult. Banned the bloody BBC didn't he? I also suspect that was a driver of SAF's earlier retirement that never happened (early/mid 2000's). It's certainly worked at Chelsea and, to echo Dorset again, for all the cries of us needing stability it's them calling loudest for another push on the managerial carousel.

Any wonder why officials would rather miss a call in Chelsea's favour than give them a poor one? They are called out in the media for the latter, and in essence rebuked by their boss publicly too at times, yet for the former not much of anything.

For example, people don't even remember the game two seasons ago against Sunderland when Mike Dean literally took the 3 points out of the lads hands and gave them to Sunderland. I could write another paragraph on that game including the half dozen or so major decisions (penalties called and missed, even a good goal disallowed for the same reason we should of gotten a penalty we didnt) that all went against us and the fact that if we won (and deserved too) and beat LFC the next game (and we did) then we would of actually controlled the title destiny that season. That could of been enough to push on and beat Norwich (drew 0-0) to claim the title. It's a recalled as the team bottling it (and they should have been better but still would of been enough with a decent ref or even a mildly poor one) without any recall of the Overbo-esque officiating that decided the match more than either side of players.

I am glad I am not the only one seeing this stuff by the Head of States in European footie & by the International Football media.Don't forget after CFC won The European Cup, Blatter was disgusted & wanted to change the Finals, so PKs couldn't decide the outcome. All of the aforementioned are involved in the current affairs of CFC & are in Glee w/ the current results of the club. However, I have a feeling that this campaign will backfire as I am noticing All of CFC & the Players coming closer together. In fact, this assists Jose's "us against the World" mentality. I love it & I hope this will catapult CFC to even further glory, knowing it will be 14 vs 11 in most matches.

Edited November 5, 201510 yr by robdog