15 minutes 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 both have 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 that they've given their current managers?

The point is that the board should be looking for a long term solution that would bring success.

But it looks like their standard is a manager that needs to win the PL twice in a row in order to show that he might be the right man, that is a problem. It's very unlikely that we will see that.

We had managers that won the league in their first season, Pep and Klopp didn't do that but they were given all the time and space to do their job and it paid off.

The board didn't want to fully back Conte, not even after he won the league - if he doesn't win he's not good enough for us and if he wins it means that we already had the best team so whatever new player he wants it means that he's just exaggerating... This is why we're not stable at the moment.

Edited February 2, 20215 yr by Gol15

40 minutes ago, Imran_CFC said:

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.

Just to clarify, and I'm not saying Matt Law has 0 credibility or has no sources. 

But he's also got some information wrong, Costa/Oscar bust up, that was denied by all the players, and the recent reports from him that Rudiger and Kovacic were pushing for Lampard out, again, the players came out and denied that, Azpilicueta also. If those rumours about Rudi and Azpi were true, no way would Azpi jump to Rudigers defence like that, he would still be livid over Frank getting the sack. 

4 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Just to clarify, and I'm not saying Matt Law has 0 credibility or has no sources. 

But he's also got some information wrong, Costa/Oscar bust up, that was denied by all the players, and the recent reports from him that Rudiger and Kovacic were pushing for Lampard out, again, the players came out and denied that, Azpilicueta also. If those rumours about Rudi and Azpi were true, no way would Azpi jump to Rudigers defence like that, he would still be livid over Frank getting the sack. 

I am not saying his word is gospel etc. Just stating what he said on the Podcast

In my view he is someone who was pro-Lampard (a lot more then the Athletic-Liam Twomey), based on listening to him he clearly has a inside source someone who informed him of the meeting between Frank and the board hence he broke the news.

In my view he is as credible as anyone in the current world of reporting.

2 minutes ago, Imran_CFC said:

I am not saying his word is gospel etc. Just stating what he said on the Podcast

In my view he is someone who was pro-Lampard (a lot more then the Athletic-Liam Twomey), based on listening to him he clearly has a inside source someone who informed him of the meeting between Frank and the board hence he broke the news.

In my view he is as credible as anyone in the current world of reporting.

He gets some things right, but he was also pushing the rumours about Rudiger and Kovacic being the reason that Frank got the sack, the players all denied that and to be honest it sounds like bollocks especially after Azpi came out and defended Rudiger publicly. No way would he defend Rudiger if the rumours were true, if you had a fight with someone, an actual physical alteration for the sake of your mate and boss who you respect, and later on he got the sack because of it, the last thing you would do is defend that bloke you had a fight with on social media the way he did. 

 

3 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

The board didn't want to fully back Conte, 

We spent more in Conte's second season than we did this, that excuse for him is getting a bit old!

6 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

The point is that the board should be looking for a long term solution that would bring success.

Yep, and if we were looking for results at absolutely any cost we'd have appointed Allegri.

You are right in a sense, strong results are expected, ofcourse they are given how well resourced the managers are. Tuchel is inheriting a strong squad of players, has the best academy in the world (in terms of depth of talent) available to him and if rumours are to be believed we may be adding Haaland and Upamecano to the tribe in the summer (those two alone would require a similar outlay to the summer just gone). No board in the world won't expect strong results after providing those resources.

If we look back at all Roman sackings the only one's that weren't done with results and performances in the gutter were Ranieri and Avram, the only time we've had promising building season's but erratic results were Mou 2.0, Sarri and Lampard and all were retained for a second season (one decided against it ofcourse but we wanted to keep him).

He'll probably have to get results better than the latter two especially purely because we've got better players but I think his tenure direction will go down to squad evolution (and personal behaviour) as much as "you win X or Z or that's it", so I guess to summarize, do I think a 68 point season, a league cup and 4th at the skin of his teeth will get him the sack? Yes probably. Do I think an 86 point season (losing out to an inhuman City or Liverpool effort) with a strong CL run would get him the sack? No I don't.

19 minutes ago, Slojo said:

He gets some things right, but he was also pushing the rumours about Rudiger and Kovacic being the reason that Frank got the sack, the players all denied that and to be honest it sounds like bollocks especially after Azpi came out and defended Rudiger publicly. No way would he defend Rudiger if the rumours were true, if you had a fight with someone, an actual physical alteration for the sake of your mate and boss who you respect, and later on he got the sack because of it, the last thing you would do is defend that bloke you had a fight with on social media the way he did. 

 

He didn't mention anything during the podcast and pretty much put it down to standard disagreements during team meetings and training. Matt Law reported a training ground argument between Rudiger and Azpi which is pretty standard at a training session (According to Matt Law), however a number of different media outlets ran with it and sensationalized it. I don't think its Matt Law reporting incorrectly but all the piggybacking outlets who made a mountain out of a molehill.

What was stated on we aint got no history:

One of the many things Rüdiger has been accused of doing behind the scenes was bullying the youth players, which stemmed largely from reports such as the one by the Telegraph’s Matt Law about a training ground argument involving Rüdiger and someone else, with César Azpilicueta stepping in as one would expect from the club captain. Usually, this wouldn’t be anything too out of the ordinary for a team in a bad moment, especially involving a player who’s never been shy about telling it how it is, even in public, but in the echo chamber of Twitter, this was amplified beyond reason, twisted into something far more sinister, with far too many “influencers” influencing the easily influenced, and not in a good way.

 

 

Tuchel seems quite likable, for a German.

36 minutes ago, Argo said:

We spent more in Conte's second season than we did this, that excuse for him is getting a bit old!

That still doesn't address the point that the board simply did what they wanted to do for the most of it and not what Conte wanted for his squad.

We did spend more in Conte's second season compared to his first but we also sold more players in his second season as well. At that time Conte was actually trying to rebuild the team, during his time our legends like TJ and Ivanovic left the team...

Our net transfer spending that second season with Conte was around 70m. He would have replaced D.Costa with Lukaku and we wouldn't have sold Matic so easy and to a direct rival if the board had asked Conte about it. Inter has been a shadow of themselves before Conte and now they are competing for the league title once again.

Allegri didn't get the PSG job simply because he wanted a huge salary. But if Tuchel doesn't deliver Allegri might be the next one in line... IMO even Tuchel should get more time if we really want him to be our manager.

Edited February 2, 20215 yr by Gol15

31 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

That still doesn't address the point that the board simply did what they wanted to do for the most of it and not what Conte wanted for his squad.

We did spend more in Conte's second season compared to his first but we also sold more players in his second season as well. At that time Conte was actually trying to rebuild the team, during his time our legends like TJ and Ivanovic left the team...

Our net transfer spending that second season with Conte was around 70m. He would have replaced D.Costa with Lukaku and we wouldn't have sold Matic so easy and to a direct rival if the board had asked Conte about it. Inter has been a shadow of themselves before Conte and now they are competing for the league title once again.

Allegri didn't get the PSG job simply because he wanted a huge salary. But if Tuchel doesn't deliver Allegri might be the next one in line... IMO even Tuchel should get more time if we really want him to be our manager.

Robbie was sacked 6 months after a CL win when we were 4 points off the top, that strongly suggests if not confirms they look deeper than results.

He may wanted to have kept Matic, the same summer Pochettino wanted to keep Walker but didn't spend all season acting like a shoolchild which brings me neatly onto my next point. If we're going to talk net spend, what's the excuse for finishing below teams with around 1/4 of our netspend (Spurs) and just short of 1/7 (Liverpool)?

1 minute ago, Argo said:

Robbie was sacked 6 months after a CL win when we were 4 points off the top, that strongly suggests if not confirms they look deeper than results.

He may wanted to have kept Matic, the same summer Pochettino wanted to keep Walker but didn't spend all season acting like a shoolchild which brings me neatly onto my next point. If we're going to talk net spend, what's the excuse for finishing below teams with around 1/4 of our netspend (Spurs) and just short of 1/7 (Liverpool)?

Spurs didn't go under a rebuild like we did, they had a system with 1 manager already for 3-4 years. There is a possibility that Conte would have been sacked even if he was the nicest person ever, after finishing top 5 and winning the FA Cup. Spurs wouldn't have sacked their manager after that kind of a season, they were a more stable club and they became more regularly a top 4 team because of it.

Conte wasn't given what he wanted after he won the league, why would he be patient when he knows that the club thinks that they can get a guy just like him every year?

You think that this model is going to work forever but the fact is that it was easier in the early 2000's to just splash the cash and get something out of it. The ripple effect of that carried our ambitions but it wasn't any epic manager that won us the CL in the end, we just had a good enough team. That won't happen again, a good enough team isn't enough anymore.

The only reason why Liverpool has such little net spent is because they sold Coutinho for a really overblown price and at the time when he wasn't even that essential for Klopp's tactics anyway - they lost nothing but gained the funds to strengthen their weaker spots.

We gave up on some people that truly loved being a part of the club just because the board thinks that we should be fighting for the title every year and when we do that it's still not enough because then the board feels that we should be also playing semi-finals of the CL almost every year too. This is why Pep chose Man City over us.

If the board is to be consistent with this pattern it would mean that even if Tuchel finishes top 4 this season it won't really matter much at all if he doesn't win anything the next season - he will be sacked because the board feels that we should be winning the league and what not... That has been the pattern.

 

5 hours 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.

Frank got a high profile gig and got sacked before everyone agreed he failed. His reputation is not just in tact, but it's higher than it was before we appointed him. 

He had the opportunity to succeed, but he failed. It's not the boards fault he failed, nor franks. He just wasn't ready for the job. Both him and the board are responsible for that decision. But the best thing that happened for frank is he got sacked.

4 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Frank got a high profile gig and got sacked before everyone agreed he failed. His reputation is not just in tact, but it's higher than it was before we appointed him. 

And that's exactly why we will keep attracting managers, we offer a big chance of silverware with next to no risk of reputation damage if things go wrong. If anything like you say the stigma attached towards us enhances reputations.

I would be amazed if Lampard's next job isn't much higher profile than Arteta and Ole's next gigs.

44 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Frank got a high profile gig and got sacked before everyone agreed he failed. His reputation is not just in tact, but it's higher than it was before we appointed him. 

He had the opportunity to succeed, but he failed. It's not the boards fault he failed, nor franks. He just wasn't ready for the job. Both him and the board are responsible for that decision. But the best thing that happened for frank is he got sacked.

 

Very well said. It could gotten worse and ugly.

 

6 hours ago, Imran_CFC said:

with far too many “influencers” influencing the easily influenced, and not in a good way.

I had to read that twice cause I've been drinking and I'm under the influence.😁

Well lots of discussion since I last checked in but very little about Tuchel. I suspect Matt Law has one good source and hears once side of the story. Liam Twomey's views turned out to be more accurate in this instance.

So far I like what I see of Tuchel. He did get the sack at PSG and cut a fairly forlorn figure sitting on their touchline with his leg in a cast.

He hasn't won that many trophies so far. You might have thought PSG was his best chance but I think managing PSG would be far harder than Chelsea.

Chelsea is actually his biggest opportunity. We have a great squad, and relatively youthful,  but not one dominated by one or two mega stars. We have a great history in recent times of being competitive other than in the Champions League.

I am hopeful but probably misguided in thinking that Tuchel and the Chelsea may turn out as well as Klopp and Liverpuddle.

2 hours ago, bluehaze said:

I had to read that twice cause I've been drinking and I'm under the influence.😁

I suppose this influx of influenza has greatly influenced the instinct to inebriate! 

 

 

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/chelsea-transfer-news-blues-enter-contract-discussions-with-thiago-silva-and-jorginho

Silva - seems like a no-brainer

Jorginho - for f**k's sake, sack him 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.

 

Its an interesting thought whether our model of sacking managers is now outdated. Every ideas and methods eventually get replaced by new thinking. We haven’t been favourites to win the league or CL for years now. Yes got lucky with Conte but apart from Jose’s 15/6 year, we haven’t been favourites for the top titles anymore. We’ve actually dropped down a level as more “top 4 challengers”. 
 

I do actually think stability is a myth. Only Fergie and Wenger (debatable) have sustained top level success. Most managers get 2, maybe 3 years but they’re never far from the sack. 

3 minutes ago, JM7 said:

 

• 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.

 

Its an interesting thought whether our model of sacking managers is now outdated. Every ideas and methods eventually get replaced by new thinking. We haven’t been favourites to win the league or CL for years now. Yes got lucky with Conte but apart from Jose’s 15/6 year, we haven’t been favourites for the top titles anymore. We’ve actually dropped down a level as more “top 4 challengers”. 
 

I do actually think stability is a myth. Only Fergie and Wenger (debatable) have sustained top level success. Most managers get 2, maybe 3 years but they’re never far from the sack. 

What is also changed is the level of Premier League. It is just so good in terms of player and manager quality. Last time we won the league the league was significantly lower in quality. Today we also have a ton of inexperienced youth in the side.

11 minutes ago, evissy said:

What is also changed is the level of Premier League. It is just so good in terms of player and manager quality. Last time we won the league the league was significantly lower in quality. Today we also have a ton of inexperienced youth in the side.

That’s true - it’s become a lot more competitive now. Remember when the top 4 was THE top 4? 
 

The sacking of managers seem to only lead to quick fire trophies before the inevitable slump. Should that matter?

3 hours ago, JM7 said:

That’s true - it’s become a lot more competitive now. Remember when the top 4 was THE top 4? 
 

The sacking of managers seem to only lead to quick fire trophies before the inevitable slump. Should that matter?

This is the big question. Roman and the board think this is the way to go. People also seem to think Roman does it on a whim. I don’t think he does. I follow russian ice hockey a bit and their culture is the manager is sacked pretty quickly. Not sure if it in russian culture in particular but it makes sense.

In english media especially all the pundits in basically every channel and show they seem to value the managers employment situation. Every time it is "he didn't deserve it" "he should get more time" "this is disgraceful" and so on. Look at someone like Big Sam, Bruce and managers like these they get sacked and the new job in months. That is the way it goes. SAF and Wenger were freaks and in Arsenes case was it ever sensible for the last 10 seasons...Too much is made of sacking of Chelsea managers. 

I personally would love if we found some culture of play, a manager that has time to implement his style. This is what I wished we do with Frank. We didn't.

What this "circus" gives us fans is news, excitement, disappointment, new beginnings, drama and so on. That pretty much is entertainment. I'm okay with it.

It's more competitive, but not sure that is down to enhanced player and manager quality ... some of the football on display from the top teams is pretty dreadful compared to what we have seen in previous years ... they've gone backwards as much as everyone else is improving ...

8 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

It's more competitive, but not sure that is down to enhanced player and manager quality ... some of the football on display from the top teams is pretty dreadful compared to what we have seen in previous years ... they've gone backwards as much as everyone else is improving ...

Absolutely. Only Liverpool under Klopp and City with Pep have been playing top quality football in their peak seasons. 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/55916384

4 minutes ago, evissy said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/55916384

I didn't even know Eddie Howe had left Bournemouth let alone them having a different manager.... So that just shows how in tune I am with modern football.