It rather looks as if Jose used to be special, but then started to believe his own hype. If Guus won't stay, give it to the tea lady or some other low profile candidate.

 

Far from it imo. From what we've seen this season, even after he left, winning the title last season with this bunch of soft lads must rank as one of his greatest achievements.

 

Sadly from some of the dross we have left to choose from the best choice for me appears to be Sparky - he's got Stoke playing some lovely stuff (that's Stoke, the kings of Route 1) and has massively overachieved with teams in the past. Pep won't come (not that I'd be too keen) and if Poch leaves Spurs I can see him going to United. Other than that we're left with a whole bucket of meh, and a massive step down from the previous "individual".

One thing which concerns me about Hughes is his record in the transfer market while he was at Man City.

 

He has undoubtedly done great things at Stoke and unbelievably turned them into a reasonably attractive side, going from a team which had Ryan Shotton, Dean Whitehead and Matthew Etherington in it to one which featured European-level players (Bojan, Shaqiri, Diouf, Arnautovic) at very little cost. He deserves (and has received) a lot of credit for that.

 

That said, I am concerned at his ability to manage transfers at the highest level (call it 'Curbishley at West Ham syndrome'). He definitely signed some key players for City, ones that were part of the side's backbone for years (Kompany, Zabaleta, Tevez, Barry, Bellamy), but he also committed some transfer atrocities. Under his management, City paid £145m for Jô, Ben Haim, SWP, Robinho, Santa Cruz, Adebayor, Kolo Touré and Joleon Lescott.

 

A combination of that mindset and some of the stupidity our own board has been guilty of could see us saddled with expensive sh*tbags for years. Hopefully he has improved in his time away from the top, and he would be a very interesting choice considering the likely dearth of available, interested managers we haven't already sacked in the past, and considering his history with us I would welcome him with open arms, but I would certainly be wary. Maybe this alleged transfer ban might be a good thing for both parties?

One thing which concerns me about Hughes is his record in the transfer market while he was at Man City.

 

I share your concerns, but I think it's questionable how much influence Sparky actually had at City - if the board (or Brian Marwood) was calling the shots then if he's given autonomy to sign who he wants I think it's reasonable to assume Sparky could do well here.

City paid £145m for Jô, Ben Haim, SWP, Robinho, Santa Cruz, Adebayor, Kolo Touré and Joleon Lescott

 

6 of them were already experienced Premier League players. Jo and Ben Haim were obvious failures but the others, eh. SWP was better for them than he was for us. Santa Cruz had just come off a couple good years at Blackburn where Hughes bought him. Adebayor did pretty well for them in the short time he was there. (plus he gave us this epic troll) Toure had a couple of good seasons, Lescott a couple more.

 

I think Hughes has got an eye for what he wants/needs in his team. He's done an amazing job of bringing in the right players at Stoke, especially if you look at the team he inherited. My question would be can he handle the expectations for success and good football the club would have rather than his eye for spotting players. I worry he may decide 0-0 in big games is preferable to a more open game al la David Moyes. For all the talk about how he has Stoke playing good football, he does, they also revert back to parking the bus against the big teams and having the front 3 or 4 do all the attacking.

I share your concerns, but I think it's questionable how much influence Sparky actually had at City - if the board (or Brian Marwood) was calling the shots then if he's given autonomy to sign who he wants I think it's reasonable to assume Sparky could do well here.

I'm sure no manager gets to choose his players any more, certainly not here or at City. We even started playing like a team put together by a committee. 

Sparky I fear is old school, a disciple of Fergie. Might struggle with stars I think. As Zola says, "Its all about hugs and massaging egos". 

Pochettino would be a great manager. Shame we will never get him from Spuds though.

 

Conte is my favourite, his contract expires this summer too, would be free to sign for us.

 

May I ask why?

One thing which concerns me about Hughes is his record in the transfer market while he was at Man City.

 

 

 

I share your concerns, but I think it's questionable how much influence Sparky actually had at City

 

It's questionable how much say he would have over transfers at our place.

 

Roman has the final say, Emenalo influences that decision, the board have no say, and the managers just get on with it.

It's questionable how much say he would have over transfers at our place.

Emenalo influences that decision, the board have no say

Do you have proof of this?

Do you have proof of this?

 

Of course not, I don't have to prove it, it's obvious that the board and the managers have very little to do with who comes in to the club, certainly not without the backing of Roman and his council, maybe the manager gets the odd player in that he wants, but gone are the days when a manager can put together a team he can call his team.

Do you have proof of this?

http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/30/chelsea-refused-to-seal-christian-benteke-transfer-against-jose-mourinhos-wishes-report-5471294/

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/transfers/jose-mourinho-wanted-to-sign-liverpool-striker-christian-benteke-in-the-summer-telegraph/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3230709/Jose-Mourinho-reveals-signed-Papy-Djilobodji-recommendation-Chelsea-boss-admits-3m-deal-not-choice.html

Edited January 28, 201610 yr by TheChelseaBlues

http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/30/chelsea-refused-to-seal-christian-benteke-transfer-against-jose-mourinhos-wishes-report-5471294/

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/transfers/jose-mourinho-wanted-to-sign-liverpool-striker-christian-benteke-in-the-summer-telegraph/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3230709/Jose-Mourinho-reveals-signed-Papy-Djilobodji-recommendation-Chelsea-boss-admits-3m-deal-not-choice.html

 

Yes plenty of evidence that any supporter of the club- over the last several years- would know about, most of it anyway, I mean come on, do you think Mourinho hand picked Cuadrado ? or is it more likely he just went along with the transfer ?

It's questionable how much say he would have over transfers at our place.

 

Roman has the final say, Emenalo influences that decision, the board have no say, and the managers just get on with it.

 

To be honest I've always imagined it to be a combination of both.

 

The club/board identifies certain signings (e.g. most of the youth players we end up with, ranging from Courtois to Cristian Cuevas; senior players like Zhirkov who were in the works for months; the more glamorous 'marquee' signings like Hazard and Torres), probably to some extent in consultation with the manager. Then again I assume that depends on who the manager at the time is - José probably insisted on a fair amount of influence on player signings (as we all know that he would never stay quiet if he was unhappy), whereas someone like Di Matteo likely wouldn't have much say in the matter at all.

 

At the same time I also think that a manager can identify specific players (or at least a shortlist) he thinks the squad needs, and we may or may not be successful in acquiring them. Costa and Fabregas always struck me as players José pointed out, Matic, possibly Mata under AVB. Then again that can always go wrong if we fail to get the first-choice target, which is how I assume we ended up with Meireles, Eto'o and Djilobodji instead of Modric, Rooney, and Stones.

 

I do think you've got a point though. If we were to appoint Sparky I imagine the amount of weight he would have in discussions over major(ish) transfer deals would be closer to the Di Matteo end of the spectrum than the José one.

Of course not, I don't have to prove it, it's obvious that the board and the managers have very little to do with who comes in to the club, certainly not without the backing of Roman and his council, maybe the manager gets the odd player in that he wants, but gone are the days when a manager can put together a team he can call his team.

 

You pulled it out of your arse, no one here knows who makes the decisions. People have just decided that Emenalo is guilty, without proof.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/30/chelsea-refused-to-seal-christian-benteke-transfer-against-jose-mourinhos-wishes-report-5471294/

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/transfers/jose-mourinho-wanted-to-sign-liverpool-striker-christian-benteke-in-the-summer-telegraph/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3230709/Jose-Mourinho-reveals-signed-Papy-Djilobodji-recommendation-Chelsea-boss-admits-3m-deal-not-choice.html

Really? A manager not getting his preferred choice means he has no say in transfer decisions?

Of course not, I don't have to prove it, it's obvious that the board and the managers have very little to do with who comes in to the club, certainly not without the backing of Roman and his council, maybe the manager gets the odd player in that he wants, but gone are the days when a manager can put together a team he can call his team.

Miss/Mrs Marina on the Chelsea board has been rumored to close many transfer deals. There's absolutely no way the technical director ( not director of football) brings in players without the boards' endorsement.

Really? A manager not getting his preferred choice means he has no say in transfer decisions?

Im not saying he gets 0% but if he doesnt get the players he has targeted how mich say does he have? Ultimately its not the manager putting up the cash so whos telling him he cant have Benteke but he can have Falcao? That guy would seem to be the one with the most power

Ultimately its not the manager putting up the cash so whos telling him he cant have Benteke but he can have Falcao? That guy would seem to be the one with the most power

If we follow this logic then it is so all every other club has it isn't the manager signing the cheque. I believe Jose wanted Falcao (at least he showed as much publicly).

Miss/Mrs Marina on the Chelsea board has been rumored to close many transfer deals. There's absolutely no way the technical director ( not director of football) brings in players without the boards' endorsement.

 

I was under the impression that she was involved in the logistics (primarily financial) of the deals we make as opposed to identifying players.

If we follow this logic then it is so all every other club has it isn't the manager signing the cheque. I believe Jose wanted Falcao (at least he showed as much publicly).

Except every club is not like this one. At some Im sure the manager has more of a say, some probably less. We're not talking about every other club though

To be honest I've always imagined it to be a combination of both.

 

The club/board identifies certain signings (e.g. most of the youth players we end up with, ranging from Courtois to Cristian Cuevas; senior players like Zhirkov who were in the works for months; the more glamorous 'marquee' signings like Hazard and Torres), probably to some extent in consultation with the manager. Then again I assume that depends on who the manager at the time is - José probably insisted on a fair amount of influence on player signings (as we all know that he would never stay quiet if he was unhappy), whereas someone like Di Matteo likely wouldn't have much say in the matter at all.

 

At the same time I also think that a manager can identify specific players (or at least a shortlist) he thinks the squad needs, and we may or may not be successful in acquiring them. Costa and Fabregas always struck me as players José pointed out, Matic, possibly Mata under AVB. Then again that can always go wrong if we fail to get the first-choice target, which is how I assume we ended up with Meireles, Eto'o and Djilobodji instead of Modric, Rooney, and Stones.

 

I do think you've got a point though. If we were to appoint Sparky I imagine the amount of weight he would have in discussions over major(ish) transfer deals would be closer to the Di Matteo end of the spectrum than the José one.

 

Yes I agree with that, but I think the influence Mourinho had over transfers was minimal compared to the majority -if not all- of other managers in the prem. Maybe that's the reason we are getting through managers quicker than anyone else in the league, maybe if they had more control over transfers they would be able to build a better team and hold on to their job longer ?

Yes I agree with that, but I think the influence Mourinho had over transfers was minimal compared to the majority -if not all- of other managers in the prem. Maybe that's the reason we are getting through managers quicker than anyone else in the league, maybe if they had more control over transfers they would be able to build a better team and hold on to their job longer ?

I have to disagree completely- IMO jose had more control than anyone since his first spell when it comes to transfers.

 

yes- emenalo carried on with his speculative buying of young players with a view to selling them at a profit or possibly bringing them through later on.

 

but to my mind every player we signed under jose was either explicitly his choice (costa, fabregas, willian, matic and pedro for example) or players he agreed to signing (schurrle, zouma, djiobodji* etc) I think this has become an excuse created by some supporters to explain away his sacking / our poor season. don't forget the club acquiesced to him when it came to sales too. mata our two time player of the season left as well as emenalo signings that were considered important long term 'projects' like lukaku. he also ultimately decided the futures of cole, lamps and jt directly.

 

 

 jose can only complain about one thing when it comes to transfers in his second spell: that the club didn't sign him stones. and given the way he angered martinez and everton by talking about it publicly, I think he has to take some of the blame for that in any case. that isn't to say the clubs' business in the summer was well done, we should have done all of our business early. we only had one bad window in the last few years but it was a very bad window.

 

 

*obviously he was no-one's first choice but with christensen loaned out and no time left in the window he was a last minute squad filler to keep the numbers up.

 

 

 

p.s. I'm not sure whether the freedom jose enjoyed would be extended to the new manager, or indeed if the new manager would even require it. football is moving on from the old idea of managers as auteurs of the football club anyway. I think that is largely a good thing too. and in fact, this is already the norm in many if not most parts of the world and I think it is catching up in our game too.

 

p.p.s. realised I haven't really addressed your point that well.

 

I bet jose had more say than most in the league.

 

I think wenger sticks out like a sore thumb in that regard, and then you have pulis at west brom who has clearly sidelined dan ashworth's successor, pardew at palace which is still quite a traditional club in terms of structure. united are a mess and would kill for an emenalo. liverpool have the structure but poor people within it. spurs are in a similar position to us, southampton even more so. watford's operational structure is probably the most far out in the league. pellegrini has signed (i.e. personally requested) less than 50% of the players who have joined his squad in his tenure I'd (confidently) guess. everyone knows how newcastle work. this is the way its going...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/11366206/Gary-Neville-The-era-of-the-gaffer-is-over.html

 

good neville article on it actually.

Edited January 29, 201610 yr by g3.7

I was under the impression that she was involved in the logistics (primarily financial) of the deals we make as opposed to identifying players.

Yes and I meant same when I used the word 'close'.

Take from Neil Ashton:

1. Diego Simeone has slipped off Roman Abramovich's list of candidates for the Chelsea job because the Russian billionaire doesn't like the way Atletico Madrid play.

Although Simeone, who turned down Manchester United before Louis van Gaal took the job in 2014, has done an excellent job with the Spanish club, Abramovich has not taken to Atletico's style.

I have to disagree completely- IMO jose had more control than anyone since his first spell when it comes to transfers.

 

yes- emenalo carried on with his speculative buying of young players with a view to selling them at a profit or possibly bringing them through later on.

 

but to my mind every player we signed under jose was either explicitly his choice (costa, fabregas, willian, matic and pedro for example) or players he agreed to signing (schurrle, zouma, djiobodji* etc) I think this has become an excuse created by some supporters to explain away his sacking / our poor season. don't forget the club acquiesced to him when it came to sales too. mata our two time player of the season left as well as emenalo signings that were considered important long term 'projects' like lukaku. he also ultimately decided the futures of cole, lamps and jt directly.

 

 

 jose can only complain about one thing when it comes to transfers in his second spell: that the club didn't sign him stones. and given the way he angered martinez and everton by talking about it publicly, I think he has to take some of the blame for that in any case. that isn't to say the clubs' business in the summer was well done, we should have done all of our business early. we only had one bad window in the last few years but it was a very bad window.

 

 

*obviously he was no-one's first choice but with christensen loaned out and no time left in the window he was a last minute squad filler to keep the numbers up.

 

 

 

p.s. I'm not sure whether the freedom jose enjoyed would be extended to the new manager, or indeed if the new manager would even require it. football is moving on from the old idea of managers as auteurs of the football club anyway. I think that is largely a good thing too. and in fact, this is already the norm in many if not most parts of the world and I think it is catching up in our game too.

 

p.p.s. realised I haven't really addressed your point that well.

 

I bet jose had more say than most in the league.

 

I think wenger sticks out like a sore thumb in that regard, and then you have pulis at west brom who has clearly sidelined dan ashworth's successor, pardew at palace which is still quite a traditional club in terms of structure. united are a mess and would kill for an emenalo. liverpool have the structure but poor people within it. spurs are in a similar position to us, southampton even more so. watford's operational structure is probably the most far out in the league. pellegrini has signed (i.e. personally requested) less than 50% of the players who have joined his squad in his tenure I'd (confidently) guess. everyone knows how newcastle work. this is the way its going...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/11366206/Gary-Neville-The-era-of-the-gaffer-is-over.html

 

good neville article on it actually.

 

I truly believe in his second spell Mourinho had way less influence over our transfers than in his first spell. 

I truly believe in his second spell Mourinho had way less influence over our transfers than in his first spell. 

 

Sorry Coco, I have to agree with G4 - I just can't see that.

 

Why would we go out of our way to get one of the worlds best coaches back and then piss him off by not letting him be involved in what players he needed? Surely he made that a condition of coming back? It doesn't make sense but kinda does make sense to those not wanting to accept Mourinho f**ked up and are happy to blame others.

Not having a go at you, and don't get me wrong, I would rather we have no Emanalo type figure so the coach has the major say in ALL comings & goings, but it winds me up a bit when folk were happy to praise Jose for the great signings last season but when it all went pear-shaped this season, it wasn't his fault. So, we didn't get Stones - get over it and move on. 

 

As for next long term manager, I'm still undecided but don't want Hughes.