We would not have signed Salah for £15m had kdb stayed. So we would have loss around extra £2m, hardly going to make a massive difference.

 

That's entirely possible. I'm not saying I'm right and I think ultimately Jose wanted a certain type of player in his side. When you look at that team it was built around Fabregas and Hazard being the two primary playmakers, with Oscar and Willian supporting that work. Unfortunately last summer we really didn't go about strengthening the squad to continue this style of football, so I absolutely understand people going back over the De Bruyne deal. I just think of all the things this club did over the last few seasons, it's not really one of the bigger factors in why we are where we are now.

 

Difference being that Azpilicueta was already a first team member under Rafa, had plenty of games under his belt to build an understanding with his teammates so making his way back into the team was considerably easier compared to KDB.

 

He was a first-team player at right-back but wasn't Ashley Cole Mourinho's first-choice left-back at the start of the 2013-14 season?

 

Coming in to a whole new position under a new coach, in a new system is a fantastic achievement. 

I seem to remember De Bruyne got a terrible injury pre-season when his knee bent the wrong way. I think it was in Indonesia. He has also been out with long injury this season. If he turns out to be injury prone, selling could prove to be a shrewd move. 

 

That's not correct, Andy North.

 so I absolutely understand people going back over the De Bruyne deal.  

 

That is not the reason, ShedEnder91.

Between signing for Chelsea in January 2012 and making his competitive debut in August 2013, Kevin De Bruyne had four separate head coaches at this club.

Yep.

 

And the most of them, very happy with him.

Something else that is odd is that Kevin says he was convinced to stay at the club in the summer of 2013 despite there being good offers on the table from Dortmund and Atletico. He says Jose told him he was a good player and wanted him to stay, and it's not until January (four days after we sign Matic for a virtually identical fee) that we actually sell him.

 

Even then, if you believe Kristof Terreur, Mourinho advised the board to not sell De Bruyne. 

 

It's a weird one.

That is an amazing mistake, ShedEnder91.

 

Advising the board not to sell him.

And give him just 137 minutes in different games.

Firstly I actually am sceptical of the validity of this article. It doesn't really ring true to me. But that's by the by.

There is the rumour that Jose didn't want to sell De Bruyne from Kristof Terreur and he told the board that. Given the board's transfer dealings over the last couple of seasons the idea that we'd sell De Bruyne to cover the cost of signing Matic, who was integral to us winning the league, isn't that far-fetched is it? Maybe we need to spread the blame for this one.

Jose never says he wants to sell a player. Mata. De Bruyne. Lukaku. Schurrle. Etc etc. He alway says he wants to keep them.

It's easy to see this for what it is- trying to keep the value of a saleable asset high.

The proof is in his actions. How much did they play. How often in their position? Did Jose ultimately acquiesce to a sale? How did he speak about the player before but more importantly after the sale?

I read a stat saying de Bruyne got 136 league minutes under Jose. I haven't double checked that, but I was shocked. It is the equivalent of one and a half games of football.

And bear in mind his position is one of the most typically rotated / subbed so the opportunities for minutes would be higher than second choice keeper for example.

The thing with the whole De Bruyne thing is what Richard P mentioned above. People might not remember but Azpilicueta wasn't being included in the first-team either at the start of that season but both got chances in the Swindon game and one took it. Now I'm sure we all wish the club hadn't sold him but I think that there was something else going on that limited De Bruyne's chances. Ultimately he just wanted to play and he got his way. I think he said a loan or sale wasn't important, he just wanted to be on the pitch.

As above, he could have expected more chances than a second choice defender simply because attacking midfielders usually get more chances to get off the bench than second choice defenders.

You've got to congratulate azpilicueta for changing Jose's mind, but a manager needs to recognise the personalities he's dealing with and adjust accordingly. It's the old rocket up the backside or arm around the shoulder.

Clearly Jose got that wrong, because de Bruyne left after very few opportunities, and he left as a direct consequence of that lack of opportunities. At the time he didn't seem at all bothered. Obviously now it's an embarrassment for him and a shame for us.

Mourinho saying he didnt want to sell him after he started banging them in for City is just BS to me. When we sold him he went out of his way telling anyone who eould listen that he wasnt "Chelsea quality", that he wasnt practising the way he should and that he was better suited for a smaller club. You dont put someone in the stands for four months if you think they are good players and you want to develop them to be regular starters.

Players like KdB dont fit into the way Mourinho likes his side to play and to be honest thats neither José or DeBruynes fault. I was pisses when it happened, but it is what it is. Neither will ever be back at the club so it doesnt make much difference either way whos at "fault"

That's not correct, Andy North.

Your right it was against a Malaysian XI and he was fit by the begining of the season. He was out for two months of this season and while I wouldn't wish injuries on  any player the injury he suffered was another knee injury. I still think three quarters of a season in the premier league is too soon to confirm he is the real deal at this level.

Firstly I actually am sceptical of the validity of this article. It doesn't really ring true to me. But that's by the by.

Jose never says he wants to sell a player. Mata. De Bruyne. Lukaku. Schurrle. Etc etc. He alway says he wants to keep them.

It's easy to see this for what it is- trying to keep the value of a saleable asset high.

The proof is in his actions. How much did they play. How often in their position? Did Jose ultimately acquiesce to a sale? How did he speak about the player before but more importantly after the sale?

I read a stat saying de Bruyne got 136 league minutes under Jose. I haven't double checked that, but I was shocked. It is the equivalent of one and a half games of football.

And bear in mind his position is one of the most typically rotated / subbed so the opportunities for minutes would be higher than second choice keeper for example.

 

It's entirely possible that Jose did just say that to keep his value high.

 

On the other hand I'd have thought his price would've been just as high, or possibly higher in the summer of 2013 coming off the back of an exceptionally good season for Werder Bremen in Germany. I can only go by what I see and hear just like everyone else.

 

Terreur is someone I'd usually believe when it comes to the Belgian players to be honest and Kevin is the one who said that Jose convinced him to stay in the summer of 2013. Now maybe that was so he could use him, or maybe it's so that he could keep him until January and then sell him. 

No problem, Andy North.

 

I remember he was in a good shape for playing the final against Bayern. The best Chelsea player at that time.

 

 

I believe he is.

He did it already in Germany.

He was a first-team player at right-back but wasn't Ashley Cole Mourinho's first-choice left-back at the start of the 2013-14 season?

 

Coming in to a whole new position under a new coach, in a new system is a fantastic achievement. 

It is a fantastic achievement, made easier when you are already familiar with the players around you. 

Even when he was given opportunities by Mourinho he did well:

 

 

 

 

Clearly just wasn't liked by Mourinho

Terreur is someone I'd usually believe when it comes to the Belgian players to be honest and Kevin is the one who said that Jose convinced him to stay in the summer of 2013. Now maybe that was so he could use him, or maybe it's so that he could keep him until January and then sell him.

if you look at de Bruyne and Jose's quotes after he left it is clear he decided he didn't fancy him when they were working together.

Do you think 136 league minutes in half a season for an attacking midfielder was enough of a opportunity?

Do you think it suggests the manager thought he was an important player or essential to keep?

What do the following quotes suggest to you about how highly he was valued?

Jose:

With De Bruyne, if you have a player knocking on your door and crying every day he wants to leave, you have to make a decision. At that time, Chelsea did well.

If De Bruyne stayed here, not happy and not motivated, and we'd sold him after a year, we'd have got less - 50 per cent less than we sold him for.

But, if he was at Chelsea and not at Wolfsburg, he wouldn't have reached this level. It was like a wall, a block.

He was not ready to compete. He was an upset kid, training very bad.

He always said he had trained well in his life, but he needs motivation to train well by playing every game."

De Bruyne:

"He [Mourinho] called in all the attacking midfielders. He showed us the stats of his six players - assists, goals, passing percentage, key passes, dribbles. He wanted to prove I didn't perform on the level of the others.

"I simply answered him: 'Sorry, that's not logical. I've played less games than the others. How can you compare me to the others?' That was just not fair in my eyes.

"There was talk that I didn't train too much, stories I couldn't defend myself against as the sessions were always behind closed doors.

"People who know me, know it's not the truth. A few months later, I was a key player at Wolfsburg and I played a good World Cup. Who's right then? I just like to play football. Put me on a bench and I will feel bad.

"Mourinho told me he wasn't keen to let me go, even not on a loan - 'you're a good player'. But what could I do more?

"After his press conference in Bucharest I even started training harder, even on my days off. But my situation never changed. That's why I asked him in a friendly way: ‘Please let me go.’

"Chelsea wanted to loan me out, even wanted me to stay, but I had enough of it. I wanted to leave."

You asked if the blame for de Bruyne leaving should be shared. My answer: emphatically no. That's with hindsight, as I accepted. This isn't about being smarter than Jose. It's just an open and shut case of him getting it wrong.

There is a reason why Jose has such a poor record with young players. Unfortunately it's because he's too intolerant of mistakes. Of the natural dips in form and intensity they have. He doesn't trust them enough. He talks the talk but in reality he rarely if ever creates an environment conducive to helping kids develop.

if you look at de Bruyne and Jose's quotes after he left it is clear he decided he didn't fancy him when they were working together.

Do you think 136 league minutes in half a season for an attacking midfielder was enough of a opportunity?

Do you think it suggests the manager thought he was an important player or essential to keep?

What do the following quotes suggest to you about how highly he was valued?

Jose:

De Bruyne:

You asked if the blame for de Bruyne leaving should be shared. My answer: emphatically no. That's with hindsight, as I accepted. This isn't about being smarter than Jose. It's just an open and shut case of him getting it wrong.

There is a reason why Jose has such a poor record with young players. Unfortunately it's because he's too intolerant of mistakes. Of the natural dips in form and intensity they have. He doesn't trust them enough. He talks the talk but in reality he rarely if ever creates an environment conducive to helping kids develop.

 

Those are some interesting quotes and again it suggests that Jose wanted to keep him around (he says he didn't want to let him go) and was perhaps (this is me guessing) looking for something more from De Bruyne. 

 

My opinion is that he wanted to keep him in the summer of 2013, started him but wanted something more from him and whatever it was, he couldn't give him that at that time. In January, it would appear he was ok with him leaving but didn't want him to leave for good, maybe hoping he could find that extra that he could give him.

 

Your point about youth might be correct, but people might say that Hazard, Oscar, Courtois and Zouma were all around the same age as De Bruyne and Jose gave them a huge amount of playing time in a title-winning season. He's a demanding coach in a demanding job and unfortunately the issue with developing youth is one that has existed at this club both with Jose as coach and without him. Again, that may be another issue where you can't lay all the blame at Jose's feet despite it being the simple answer.

 

Great post though.

Edited April 19, 201610 yr by ShedEnder91

If De Bruyne had stayed he wouldn't be the player he is today, neither would LUkaku.

People seem to forget the real idiotic move is not putting a buy back clause in these deals the way Barca to with young players they sell on that they think they could turn out to be a lot better than they are at that current time.

Sell them by all means but make sure we can bring them back, I think we've learnt our lesson though as there's one in Thorgan Hazards deal I believe.

If De Bruyne had stayed he wouldn't be the player he is today, neither would LUkaku.

People seem to forget the real idiotic move is not putting a buy back clause in these deals the way Barca to with young players they sell on that they think they could turn out to be a lot better than they are at that current time.

Sell them by all means but make sure we can bring them back, I think we've learnt our lesson though as there's one in Thorgan Hazards deal I believe.

 

If they'd stayed and sat on the bench i agree. My issue is if they had stayed and Mourinho had actually given them a run in the team they could quite easily be the player they are today in our starting 11.

If they'd stayed and sat on the bench i agree. My issue is if they had stayed and Mourinho had actually given them a run in the team they could quite easily be the player they are today in our starting 11.

 

And the flipside of that is that we might not have become Champions.

And the flipside of that is that we might not have become Champions.

 

De Bruyne would not have been a hinderance. In any way.

 

Mourinho f**ked up. Again.

De Bruyne would not have been a hinderance. In any way.

 

Mourinho f**ked up. Again.

 

I'm not saying he would, just that in any scenario changing one factor can have knock-on effects. Say for instance the move for Matic did depend on selling De Bruyne (I'm not saying it did, just suggesting it's a possibility considering our finances) then maybe we don't improve the midfield.

 

Attributing nothing but blame to Jose seems a little one-sided. Throwing the insults at him that you seem to have is just odd behaviour in my opinion.

If De Bruyne had stayed he wouldn't be the player he is today, neither would LUkaku.

People seem to forget the real idiotic move is not putting a buy back clause in these deals the way Barca to with young players they sell on that they think they could turn out to be a lot better than they are at that current time.

Sell them by all means but make sure we can bring them back, I think we've learnt our lesson though as there's one in Thorgan Hazards deal I believe.

 

 

And the flip side to this is that the price we would get for them would be significantly lower then what we would get without that deal. Few teams are interested in purchasing a player that will be off at at discount in two years time. Better to get top dollar for a player the manager doesnt see as part of the future.

And the flipside of that is that we might not have become Champions.

 

This is a more then fair point, but you could say that about any deal. And frankly, I feel its a bit like saying Torres was a good buy because we might not have won the CL without him.

This is a more then fair point, but you could say that about any deal. And frankly, I feel its a bit like saying Torres was a good buy because we might not have won the CL without him.

 

Absolutely agree.

How many trophies has he won since he left Chelsea?