Anyone who thinks Frank got it because no other managers wanted it is an idiot. There will have been experienced managers queuing up to take that job. The Club/Roman decided to give it to an inexperienced Frank Lampard for whatever reasons then sacked him, partially because he didnt have the experience to get out of a slump. 

3 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Personally I didn't get that impression, I don't know what his wages were or clauses etc. 

But when does a manager jump ship after a year in the job after winning a trophy? Especially from here? Besides an Interim like Hiddink, it doesn't happen. Sarri like many others, saw a sinking ship and bolted. Hazard leaving, Transfer ban, no top gaffer wanted to touch this job. Under any other circumstances do you genuinely believe the club gives Frank the job? I don't. 

Believe me when I say this, I fully believed in the Lampard project, even though I was very pessimistic with his arrival. I think he did a great job in his first season, but ultimately I think the club made the right decision, just like they did with Di Matteo, the circumstances are quite similar. 

Sarri left because Juventus came calling. Nothing to do with jumping a sinking ship. 

He didn't ever really take to being at Chelsea, the fans didn't ever warm to him and by most accounts a lot of the players didn't either. Finding his training sessions overly monotomous and dull. 

Transfer ban or not Chelsea (with or without Hazard) are one of the biggest clubs in world football. If we wanted to appoint a big name manager we could have. 

Lampard was a consious choice by the club and a change of tact. It's no coincidence that Lampard has been one of a number of big clubs turning to former players with little experience getting the job in recent seasons (OGS, Arteta, Pirlo being other recent examples). 

Hazard gone, injuries galore, transfer ban? Come on, no top gaffer wanted to touch us last season, that's not a stupid opinion. The job at the time appeared impossible to take, Frank coming in was great for the youngsters and it seemed to really help with the progress of the season, it's possible he's kickstarted our success bringing in the likes of James, Abraham, Mount then Pulisic. 

We chose Frank because of his familiarity with the club, and with it being very rare circumstances at the time. I don't know why he got 3 years but I don't think that's something you can fixate on because we don't know the full details of that contract. Wasn't Robbie also given 3 years? And he was on the chopping block ASAP as soon as things took a bad turn. 

Without a transfer ban and losing Hazard all in the same season, Frank doesn't get that job, someone else would've had it or Sarri probably would've stayed on for another year. 

Just now, ForeverCarefree said:

Sarri left because Juventus came calling. Nothing to do with jumping a sinking ship. 

He didn't ever really take to being at Chelsea, the fans didn't ever warm to him and by most accounts a lot of the players didn't either. Finding his training sessions overly monotomous and dull. 

Transfer ban or not Chelsea (with or without Hazard) are one of the biggest clubs in world football. If we wanted to appoint a big name manager we could have. 

Lampard was a consious choice by the club and a change of tact. It's no coincidence that Lampard has been one of a number of big clubs turning to former players with little experience getting the job in recent seasons (OGS, Arteta, Pirlo being other recent examples). 

A bit of both then sure, Juventus came knocking and he saw an opportunity to jump ship. 

Come on, he can't exactly have been looking forward to next season, having a transfer ban and losing your star player who did just about everything for us. Hazard was massive here, I was sh*tting a brick after he left, luckily the young players stepped up. 

But either way, the club has acted, they've made their opinion clear on the Lampard situation. I don't subscribe to the theory that it was due to social media pressure, it's because they had little faith that Lampard could turn it around, our club is already harsh as it is, it doesn't help when you've got little managerial experience to back it up. 

3 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Maybe, but I don't think the board listen to the fans that much. They still hired Benitez despite all the protests. Jose, Conte, Ancelotti, Sarri, they all had terrible slumps and they were given more time. 

Only Jose had a big slump though. And he didn't recover from it so maybe that history also played a role for Lampard not getting more time, the board could have thought in hindsight that it was wrong not to get involved there which in turn wouldn't have done any favors to Frankie...

Sarri's slump and Conte's slump wasn't that big, with Sarri we had a few weeks outside of top 4 and we were mostly still around top 5-6.

Conte was doing fine for the first half of the season and then we fell outside of top 4 and couldn't go up but we were never top 9-10.

Ancelotti's sacking was stupid if you ask me, the board at the time had 0 patience, we were 2nd in the league and he was sacked, it's not comparable...

4 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Hazard gone, injuries galore, transfer ban? Come on, no top gaffer wanted to touch us last season, that's not a stupid opinion.

Yes it is, or do you think no manager ever goes into a club with problems? Man Utd were a shambles, Jose went there. Liverpool were a shambles, Klopp chose to go there. Barcelona were a shambles, still get managers they want. Italian clubs are all over the place and continually get managers. If we had offered the job to any number of managers then the majority would have took it, other than ones ingrained at top clubs. 

Just now, Gol15 said:

Only Jose had a big slump though. And he didn't recover from it so maybe that history also played a role for Lampard not getting more time, the board could have thought in hindsight that it was wrong not to get involved there which in turn wouldn't have done any favors to Frankie...

Sarri's slump and Conte's slump wasn't that big, with Sarri we had a few weeks outside of top 4 and we were mostly still around top 5-6.

Conte was doing fine for the first half of the season and then we fell outside of top 4 and couldn't go up but we were never top 9-10.

Ancelotti's sacking was stupid if you ask me, the board at the time had 0 patience, we were 2nd in the league and he was sacked, it's not comparable...

Not exactly, Sarri really struggled around December-January time, that 6-0 thrashing to City comes to mind. 

Conte in his next season struggled around the same period, when we lost 4-1 to Watford and Bakayoko was having an absolute mare. 

Carlo in his 2nd season at one point was outside the top 4, for Chelsea that was practically unheard of at the time and Spurs looked like they were going to steal our spot. We luckily hit a good run of form with about 10 games left and somehow finished 2nd that season, but I remember it looking very grim at the fact that we could be finishing behind Spurs and coming 5th. 

10 minutes ago, dkw said:

Anyone who thinks Frank got it because no other managers wanted it is an idiot. There will have been experienced managers queuing up to take that job. The Club/Roman decided to give it to an inexperienced Frank Lampard for whatever reasons then sacked him, partially because he didnt have the experience to get out of a slump. 

Yup

Frank got it because it gave the fan base a lift, because he knew the club, because we needed a manager who would embed the youth.

He was a success on those fronts. He left when it was clear to the board that he wouldn't be able to accomplish our next goals. Which was challenge for the title. 

Just now, dkw said:

Yes it is, or do you think no manager ever goes into a club with problems? Man Utd were a shambles, Jose went there. Liverpool were a shambles, Klopp chose to go there. Barcelona were a shambles, still get managers they want. Italian clubs are all over the place and continually get managers. If we had offered the job to any number of managers then the majority would have took it, other than ones ingrained at top clubs. 

A transfer ban is massive though, none of them were in the state we were in last season. Losing Hazard then a transfer ban on top of it? That's massive, not to mention RLC out for god knows how long, Kante injured, Rudiger injured. Willian and Pedro a year older and at the time we had no striker to boot but Giroud and an unproven Tammy Abraham. 

United or Liverpool weren't in that position. 

Just now, Slojo said:

Not exactly, Sarri really struggled around December-January time, that 6-0 thrashing to City comes to mind. 

Conte in his next season struggled around the same period, when we lost 4-1 to Watford and Bakayoko was having an absolute mare. 

Carlo in his 2nd season at one point was outside the top 4, for Chelsea that was practically unheard of at the time and Spurs looked like they were going to steal our spot. We luckily hit a good run of form with about 10 games left and somehow finished 2nd that season, but I remember it looking very grim at the fact that we could be finishing behind Spurs and coming 5th. 

The fact remains that under Sarri we never went below top 5-6 in the league, the slump was maybe 2 week.

Conte was doing fine till around January came and we were top 5 from that point on till the rest of the season.

This isn't really a slump like we had this season because we were around top 9-10 at some point.

I didn't agree with Ancelotti's sacking back then and I won't do it now, we finished 2nd and only lost to Man United in the CL at the time when they were very very dominating. We were worse the very next season without Ancelotti.

Just now, Gol15 said:

The fact remains that under Sarri we never went below top 5-6 in the league, the slump was maybe 2 week.

Conte was doing fine till around January came and we were top 5 from that point on till the rest of the season.

This isn't really a slump like we had this season because we were around top 9-10 at some point.

I didn't agree with Ancelotti's sacking back then and I won't do it now, we finished 2nd and only lost to Man United in the CL at the time when they were very very dominating. We were worse the very next season without Ancelotti.

I don't agree with either of their sackings besides Conte (only due to his behaviour), I was beyond gutted when Carlo got sacked, I thought it was disgusting actually. But if you look at the results in those periods I mentioned, they were definitely slumps. 

2 minutes ago, Slojo said:

A bit of both then sure, Juventus came knocking and he saw an opportunity to jump ship. 

Come on, he can't exactly have been looking forward to next season, having a transfer ban and losing your star player who did just about everything for us. Hazard was massive here, I was sh*tting a brick after he left, luckily the young players stepped up. 

But either way, the club has acted, they've made their opinion clear on the Lampard situation. I don't subscribe to the theory that it was due to social media pressure, it's because they had little faith that Lampard could turn it around, our club is already harsh as it is, it doesn't help when you've got little managerial experience to back it up. 

It was a possibility we could be handed a transfer ban when Sarri came in and it was already a likelyhood Hazard was in his final year, he only made it public after the cup final.  The Pulisic signing in the January was an insurance against both the ban and Hazard leaving. Sarri wouldn't have been blind to either of those things.

With Sarri I really do think there was a mutal parting of ways. He wasn't particually happy at Chelsea and we weren't particuarly happy with him being in charge. 

Lampard's departure wasn't prompted by social media, agreed (not an argument I've made so maybe you're referencing a wider point others have made?). However, with no fans in the stadium social media would become the main barometer for the club to guage the fans feelings. 

As I said in a previous post, personally, I think sacking Lampard was bottling on what the club knew they were signing up for by appointing an inexperienced coach in first place. 

3 minutes ago, Slojo said:

A transfer ban is massive though, none of them were in the state we were in last season. Losing Hazard then a transfer ban on top of it? That's massive, not to mention RLC out for god knows how long, Kante injured, Rudiger injured. Willian and Pedro a year older and at the time we had no striker to boot but Giroud and an unproven Tammy Abraham. 

United or Liverpool weren't in that position. 

We also still had a very good squad, paid massive wages for managers, would then soon have a transfer ban lifted and that season was almost basically a free go at it for whichever manager came in. Loads of top class managers would have loved that position, its as close to a win-win as you could get.

1 minute ago, Gol15 said:

 

I didn't agree with Ancelotti's sacking back then and I won't do it now, we finished 2nd and only lost to Man United in the CL at the time when they were very very dominating. We were worse the very next season without Ancelotti.

The reason Ancelotti got sacked was CL performance, he was appointed due to his pedigree in that competition and said himself in his first presser the CL was the aim.

He was brought in to get us that holy grail and not only failed to do it but didn't even match the best efforts of our previous manager's in that competition, so he was always going to be in a bit of trouble despite good domestic results.

Just now, ForeverCarefree said:

It was a possibility we could be handed a transfer ban when Sarri came in and it was already a likelyhood Hazard was in his final year, he only made it public after the cup final.  The Pulisic signing in the January was an insurance against both the ban and Hazard leaving. Sarri wouldn't have been blind to either of those things.

With Sarri I really do think there was a mutal parting of ways. He wasn't particually happy at Chelsea and we weren't particuarly happy with him being in charge. 

Lampard's departure wasn't prompted by social media, agreed (not an argument I've made so maybe you're referencing a wider point others have made?). However, with no fans in the stadium social media would become the main barometer for the club to guage the fans feelings. 

As I said in a previous post, personally, I think sacking Lampard was bottling on what the club knew they were signing up for by appointing an inexperienced coach in first place. 

I do agree with this. 

Personally though, I do think nobody wanted to touch this job around last season. Only 2 pundits out of about 60 had us in the top 4 on their predictions, all our rivals were taking the piss and has us pegged for a midtable finish. Absolutely grim times, but that's also what made last season so good, expected little and got quite a lot. 

To refer to your last point, that's why I think this sacking has many similarities to the Di Matteo sacking. The club were never going to have a lot of patience with Lampard anyway, unfortunately for him, they were happy to have him at the time, but weren't happy to give him time when things got rough. Personally, I can understand the decision, and I do agree with it, as harsh as it is. 

1 minute ago, Slojo said:

I don't agree with either of their sackings besides Conte (only due to his behaviour), I was beyond gutted when Carlo got sacked, I thought it was disgusting actually. But if you look at the results in those periods I mentioned, they were definitely slumps. 

Sarri left for Juventus and Conte was leaving in one way or another. Yes there were bad periods but not as bad as we had it this season.

Jose's last season should be the one most comparable, that one might have influenced the board to react sooner this time around, maybe the board thought that they shouldn't have left Jose finish the season in hindsight and that only made it harder for Lampard. I also think that it's possible that the fact that the club isn't getting money when the stadium is empty might also influenced the decision to not give Lampard more time.

There could be more factors than just the fact that Lampard didn't have much experience, that's all I'm saying.

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

We also still had a very good squad, paid massive wages for managers, would then soon have a transfer ban lifted and that season was almost basically a free go at it for whichever manager came in. Loads of top class managers would have loved that position, its as close to a win-win as you could get.

I'm not as optimistic as you were then lmao

Everyone has us pegged for a midtable finish that season, that summer window was absolutely grim. I was excited at the prospect of seeing some youth players but that doesn't translate to success, it's a lot of pressure. This is why I maintain the fact that what Frank did last season, was a great job, I'll never take that away from him. 

3 minutes ago, Argo said:

The reason Ancelotti got sacked was CL performance, he was appointed due to his pedigree in that competition and said himself in his first presser the CL was the aim.

He was brought in to get us that holy grail and not only failed to do it but didn't even match the best efforts of our previous manager's in that competition, so he was always going to be in a bit of trouble despite good domestic results.

The problem is that we lost to Man United, at the time when they were really dominating. The previous season we lost to Inter that won everything that year.

3 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

Sarri left for Juventus and Conte was leaving in one way or another. Yes there were bad periods but not as bad as we had it this season.

Jose's last season should be the one most comparable, that one might have influenced the board to react sooner this time around, maybe the board thought that they shouldn't have left Jose finish the season in hindsight and that only made it harder for Lampard. I also think that it's possible that the fact that the club isn't getting money when the stadium is empty might also influenced the decision to not give Lampard more time.

There could be more factors than just the fact that Lampard didn't have much experience, that's all I'm saying.

I can't completely remember but I'm pretty certain we had no wins in November under Carlo, and December wasn't much better. We lost 3-0 to Sunderland at home and another bunch of shocking results. And I'm sure under Conte in his 2nd stint we had like certain amount of weeks without a win. 

57 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Well that's where you're going wrong. I'm sorry but Lampard being a club legend should be irrelevant when it comes to his role as manager, or at the very least a tiny bit relevant. What matters is that he's capable of doing his job and he's making good progress. Unfortunately for him, he hit a big snag and he had no bargaining power to buy himself more time because of his lack of experience and past accomplishments. 

People need to see this from the boards perspective not just see this as a fan. Lampard being a legend has nothing to do with his managerial ability, it shouldn't be viewed that way. We're a club, there's millions of pounds at stake, we can't hinder progress and waste money for the sake of giving a legend more time just because he's a legend, that makes no sense from a business point of view.

Other managers have had more time while being in a similar slump, the reason they got more time is because they had more credibility. Are we harsh as a club? Absolutely, there's criticism to be handed out, but I'm not going to draw the line now because they sacked a manager who's only previous experience was a year at Derby. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it's true, people need to look at it from the Boards perspective. 

by the same token from this fan,seems to me Frank was only short term for the board.

keep fan base onside,if it works happy days if  not sack him.

let's hope Frank returns one day to be a success

Just thought I'll paste this from the other thread as it seems relevant:

Another appearance from Matt Law on the London is Blue Podcast, some of the highlights from him during the Podcast:

• His understanding was that maybe the board will give him some additional time but possibly due to developments with Tuchel they decided to act and get rid of Frank.
• Contrary to standard belief the board was not happy with Frank finishing 4th & felt he should've been challenging
• Frank was on a 2 year contract not 3, Frank mentioned contract talks before the Tottenham game however everyone was puzzled as to why he is talking contracts when he has 18 months left realistically he only had 6 months left.
• Frank wanted player exits and a slimmer squad but the club were happy with the size of the squad and were not in a rush to get rid of the senior players.
• Some players were unhappy with limited game time, mentioned Alonso not happy and Frank was sympathetic towards him. Reason for being unhappy was Alonso was not even able to take part in practice games in preferred position due to him being 3rd choice and Chilwell and Emerson taking LB spots in training games.
• Standard disagreements nothing too malicious, players just voicing disagreements in team meetings etc.
• Feeling around the club was that a number of people were not happy with Frank from day 1
• Frank was a PR appointment, fanbase was split after the Sarri reign and with the transfer ban and Hazard leaving they needed a win. Club felt appointing Frank would be a good PR move and would unite the fanbase and bring optimism, plan was always to bring in someone more experienced.
• Good move from the board to keep Joe Edwards around, he has worked with the youth ever since they were 14, Joe is rated very highly amongst the club and could be a future Manager in the mold of Brendan Rodgers.
• Frank would have been fired even if he finished top 4 and won the FA Cup this season.
• He feels Franks sacking was the 2nd most harshest signing of the Roman era behind Ancelotti
• Kante is not happy with the consistent Manager changes and will not be against a move. Has lost a lot of friends through transfers, was very close to Costa & Hazard. Sarri played him through injury and this has taken its toll and now his injuries are more serious and more frequent.
• Tuchel wanted the Chelsea role in 2017 when Conte was threatening to walk, Chelsea were advised against Tuchel due to his profile and history of board disagreements.
• Tuchel made himself available again before Sarri was appointed and once again the board went with an alternative option in Sarri.
• Tuchels aim is titles and the board may be setting him up to fail with offering an 18 month contract and asking for him to get the team challenging immediately.
• Chelsea's board are unrealistic and stuck in the past, the short term model does not work and the landscape has changed. City, Liverpool and Leicester have proven that you need a long term plan to succeed. Chelsea no longer have established world class players who can manage themselves and they cannot just splash the cash as everyone has money. They havent challenged for the title since winning it and haven't been serious contenders in the CL since Mourinho's first year, more significant changes are required then purely a managerial change.

Edited February 2, 20215 yr by Imran_CFC

Yeah, it’s becoming clear that hiring Frank was purely a PR stunt. It’s beginning to look like Frank never had a chance to be here for long term, he was purely a stopgap to get the fans on board. 

Really disappointed that the Chelsea board could even contemplate treating a club legend like this.

Absolutely classless.

3 minutes ago, dansubrosa said:

Yeah, it’s becoming clear that hiring Frank was purely a PR stunt. It’s beginning to look like Frank never had a chance to be here for long term, he was purely a stopgap to get the fans on board. 

Really disappointed that the Chelsea board could even contemplate treating a club legend like this.

Absolutely classless.

I refuse to take that view. Think about Frank. One of the most intelligent persons you can find in football. He knew 100% what he jumped into. If you say the board or club have treated Frank badly you insult Frank's intelligence. He would probably say that himself. 

You can see non-Chelsea fans go on about how they treated Frank. Don't let that get under your skin. That is people who know next to nothing about Chelsea, nor are they interested. They just look things from outside and remember the old thing that this filthy rich Russian oligarch just bought Chelsea and everything is shady about us. In reality we are one of the best ran football clubs in the world. We have a history that tells us changing a manager quick, results in championships and cups. I am not saying this is the truth. This just is the reality.

30 minutes ago, Imran_CFC said:

• City, Liverpool and Leicester have proven that you need a long term plan to succeed. Chelsea no longer have established world class players who can manage themselves and they cannot just splash the cash as everyone has money. They havent challenged for the title since winning it and haven't been serious contenders in the CL since Mourinho's first year, more significant changes are required then purely a managerial change.

Liverpool and Leicester are also proof you need to keep going until you find the suitable medium/long term guy. Both adopted a hire and fire until they find the right man for them policy and both have been richly rewarded. Bayern change once managers stagnate yet keep winning.

I'll put it another way, do you think the respective clubs would be at the level they are today if they gave Kenny Dalgish and Nigel Pearson the time and money to build that they've given their current managers?

Edited February 2, 20215 yr by Argo

1 minute ago, Argo said:

Liverpool and Leicester are also proof you need to keep going until you find the suitable medium/long term guy. Both adopted a hire and fire until they find the right man for them policy and have both been richly rewarded. 

I'll put it another way, do you think the respective clubs would be at the level they are today if they gave Kenny Dalgish and Nigel Pearson the time and money to build instead of who they've currently got?

Nigel Pearson was sacked mainly due to internal disagreements with the board rather then his performance as a coach but I get your point.

The above is mainly Matt Law's statements on the podcast rather then me putting my view forward.

In my view I felt Lampard ticked a lot of boxes I want in a Manager such as someone who wants to be here and will take Chelsea's long term welfare in mind in his decision making & he is someone who is a fan and feels the same way I do after a Chelsea win. He could've done a Klopp or Guardiola here but the board got rid of him too soon in my view.

I understand your stance and a number of other people who wanted him out and I think its one of those where we as fans need to agree to disagree and get behind Tuchel. The question now is do the board need to change their stance on short termism and put the trust in an appointment such as Tuchel, some fans seem to believe lets continue changing Managers and the success will come but in my view we need to look at someone's capability and put the trust in them to get us challenging again consistently and not dump them after a rough spell.