Selling our manager retrospectively for 17 mill is a good deal by Blue Co's standards.

51 minutes ago, C3blue said:

So true, that slipped by me. Makes a mockery of the self righteous outrage nobody wants the chaos of changing mid season, they’ve sacked a few ain’t they as well as sh*tting on our so called sister club with a manager who was never good enough.

Meresca doing what he did does change things but doesn’t really change what they did and how badly they handled it.

However as has been said we have definitely IMHO upgraded manager and if a tweak in strategy comes with it then maybe it was all worth it🤞

And the fact that this lot plunged the club itself into continuous chaos the day they walked through the door!! The lack of self awareness is off the scale !!

10 minutes ago, OTL said:

Selling our manager retrospectively for 17 mill is a good deal by Blue Co's standards.

Perhaps it's a new strategy, get in a manager from lower league and sell em on for a profit?? . 😂

4 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Perhaps it's a new strategy, get in a manager from lower league and sell em on for a profit?? . 😂

The summer window looks like tragedy ready to unfold with players leaving who we wish to retain and players staying that we wish to sell. Paying over the odds for prospects and selling last years prospects at a loss.

With the sporting directors busily analysing data on every 18 year old footballer on the planet while Alonso seeks a discussion with every player and ex player over the age of 30 who will answer the phone.

Edited Tuesday at 20:251 day by OTL

2 minutes ago, dermott said:

The CheeseMeister summed it up. Plus there's a first time for everything. When was the last time you heard of BluCo hiring a proper, serious manager?

What does city offer Maresca that we can't?

More money? Highly unlikely. We saw many manager going around between top club in pl. Conte, Mourinho, poch, avb, Benitez. Top pl club can afford these type of manager salary.

Better player? Better project? Yes.

But usually manager is very reluctant to leave their current project because they have spent time/effort building/training their squad. But not sure this is true for Chelsea. All of us know that squad building is done by our SD and there is no continuation of the squad. We kept selling and buying many player every season.

17 hours ago, terraloon said:

Maresca was quite happy to sign a long term deal when he moved from Leicester. He knew the backroom structure, he knew the input others would have when it came to player availability and player trading and despite all that he signed a very long term deal.

He clearly was miffed when the club stated that they wouldn’t sign a replacement for Colwill but he still had significant cover in that position. We can all say things like Disassi is crap or Tosin is rubbish but there were players available and on the pay roll.

But all that in reality is insignificant because what we know now as fact is that City made an illegal approach. All clubs make those un sanctioned approaches but it’s what happened from that point that is why all this has blown up. Most players and or managers despite obligations to report such approaches would just keep quiet. But no.

Armed with the kudos of knowing that City were looking at him he mistakenly thought that delivered him a massive barging chip and he intended to use that to get an improved deal and changing level of input akin to what it appears that Alonso has negotiated.

I reflect back to those comments about a terrible 48 hours. Here we had an individual who thought he was in control of the situation . Alas for him he wasn’t immediately given an improved deal and told to wait so his next preference would probably to be sacked but again no meaning he was put back in his box and he then wrongly thinking if he just walked that would be the end of it.

I am not naive enough to think there is any loyalty or indeed we as a club are post RA squeaky clean but for us to force City to apologise is one thing and indeed to get City to stump up so cash isn’t really that much of an issue it’s the fact that he has had to grovel and pay clearly suggests to me that he went way too far.

What is the issue for him agreeing a longer contract in the first place? Can't recall any manager who doesn't want it, longer contract means better security and the mindset for all managers is longer contract means more pay out if things don't work out. It's a pretty basic strategy for insurance.

His complain about Chelsea is just an excuse used as justification for him leaving while in fact without the offer, he would have stayed. You don't actually believe if things were rosy at Chelsea then he would have rejected city, do you?

I think an employee getting big headed when he got another offer on the table is pretty common thing. We can agree he doesn't deserve to demand anything based on his limited quality but he got a legit bargaining chip because if his demand is not met then he would just be somewhere else. Btw, I think that demand is smokescreen because he wanted to leave anyway.

How do you reckon other managers in his position would or should do if they want to leave? You know that maresca could have played a stinker until the end of the season forcing the blueco to sack him right? It's not like he has to join city immediately, he got the time. That's why he reported the city approach and resigned is better than he keeping it quiet and play a stinker to get the sack.

18 hours ago, GarnachoCheese said:

If it was legal and something that happens all the time neither City or Maresca wouldn't agree to a confidential settlement.

Yes. I think its quite obvious you're a Maresca fan, not a Chelsea fan. Started supporting the day i was born. Dad started supporting in the 60's. So on and so on.

why are you bringing your dad into this? lol Okay, I'll add in your dad's time into your account for the duration being a Chelsea fan.

Anyway, back on maresca, before the city approach, did you want to keep him? If yes then your outrage is understandable because sentimentally is equivalent like getting dumb in relationship. But if you already wanted him gone then how do you think it should be done ideally in your preferred way?

13 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

It's more like a case of finally breaking up with the most boring girlfriend ever and you find out later that she cheated on you before the breakup. You're glad it's over, but at the same time, what a bitch.

it seems like you still have feeling for her despite her shortcoming because if not then what stopping you from breaking up with her long before she cheat?

A better analogy would be a husband who has been bitching his wife all the time but can't afford the divorce but when the wife found a way to grant his wish, the husband still bitching about it.

Depending on where individual stand on this, your analogy is maybe true in your case and my analogy is not necessarily directed at you.

What is the issue for him agreeing a longer contract in the first place? Can't recall any manager who doesn't want it, longer contract means better security and the mindset for all managers is longer contract means more pay out if things don't work out. It's a pretty basic strategy for insurance.

1 hour ago, BolaBall said:

His complain about Chelsea is just an excuse used as justification for him leaving while in fact without the offer, he would have stayed. You don't actually believe if things were rosy at Chelsea then he would have rejected city, do you?

I think an employee getting big headed when he got another offer on the table is pretty common thing. We can agree he doesn't deserve to demand anything based on his limited quality but he got a legit bargaining chip because if his demand is not met then he would just be somewhere else. Btw, I think that demand is smokescreen because he wanted to leave anyway.

How do you reckon other managers in his position would or should do if they want to leave? You know that maresca could have played a stinker until the end of the season forcing the blueco to sack him right? It's not like he has to join city immediately, he got the time. That's why he reported the city approach and resigned is better than he keeping it quiet and play a stinker to get the sack.

There is absolutely no issue with him signing a long term contract but the point made was he was under contract and he signed it willingly and in the full knowledge of the structure at the club. Yes it’s insurance but a contract is commitment by two parties not just one.Should one of those parties unilaterally break the contract there is a price to pay and as we see time after time that’s usually the club.

Contracts in football are not the basic employment of contract you or me would be offered they go far further in that competitors ,and City clearly are one ,can’t approach you , can’t speak to you if the intention is induce you to break your contract and you aren’t allowed to engage with unless there is permission.

But it doesn’t just end with the contract because once employed with a PL club the HC/ manager has to adhere to a code of contact with the PL.

The fact that something else would possibly put something on the table maybe common in the big wide world but in football City did what probably most clubs did is sound out an individual as a first step before following process. Yes it’s tapping up, yes it’s rogue but let’s be realistic that we and probably every club adopt fact finding before approaching the current “ employer”

I very much doubt that City went as far as offering him the job during those initial contacts when Pep was just a few weeks into his new two year deal and even if Pep had said he wanted out come the end of 25/26 I would imagine that the City hierarchy would have thrown everything at him, Pep, to try and convince him to stay but they no doubt wanted a plan b

You saying him asking for a new contract was a smokescreen not quite sure how that works because what would have been his play had they agreed to one ? No the bargaining chip was the approach not an offer of a contract. That bargaining chip almost certainly wasn’t the hand winner he thought it was.

When he left he did so because he had been called out. At that point he was either going to be sacked, stop sulking and honour his contract or he in the extreme had to resign.

The resignation must have horrified city. My belief is that had he given City the thumbs up they would have officially approached the club. But from that point on they were complicit. They had no defence should we make a complaint and now if Pep were to leave should they appoint Maresca they would have to pay and pay dearly what I suspect was the surprise was the fact that the club went after Maresca.

2 hours ago, BolaBall said:

why are you bringing your dad into this? lol Okay, I'll add in your dad's time into your account for the duration being a Chelsea fan.

Anyway, back on maresca, before the city approach, did you want to keep him? If yes then your outrage is understandable because sentimentally is equivalent like getting dumb in relationship. But if you already wanted him gone then how do you think it should be done ideally in your preferred way?

Just trying to explain football how supporting a club works. Surprisingly, its not possible to support a club before you're born.

I never wanted him hired in the first place. That doesn't mean we should be happy when someone insults and disrespects the club.

53 minutes ago, terraloon said:

What is the issue for him agreeing a longer contract in the first place? Can't recall any manager who doesn't want it, longer contract means better security and the mindset for all managers is longer contract means more pay out if things don't work out. It's a pretty basic strategy for insurance.

There is absolutely no issue with him signing a long term contract but the point made was he was under contract and he signed it willingly and in the full knowledge of the structure at the club. Yes it’s insurance but a contract is commitment by two parties not just one.Should one of those parties unilaterally break the contract there is a price to pay and as we see time after time that’s usually the club.

Contracts in football are not the basic employment of contract you or me would be offered they go far further in that competitors ,and City clearly are one ,can’t approach you , can’t speak to you if the intention is induce you to break your contract and you aren’t allowed to engage with unless there is permission.

But it doesn’t just end with the contract because once employed with a PL club the HC/ manager has to adhere to a code of contact with the PL.

The fact that something else would possibly put something on the table maybe common in the big wide world but in football City did what probably most clubs did is sound out an individual as a first step before following process. Yes it’s tapping up, yes it’s rogue but let’s be realistic that we and probably every club adopt fact finding before approaching the current “ employer”

I very much doubt that City went as far as offering him the job during those initial contacts when Pep was just a few weeks into his new two year deal and even if Pep had said he wanted out come the end of 25/26 I would imagine that the City hierarchy would have thrown everything at him, Pep, to try and convince him to stay but they no doubt wanted a plan b

You saying him asking for a new contract was a smokescreen not quite sure how that works because what would have been his play had they agreed to one ? No the bargaining chip was the approach not an offer of a contract. That bargaining chip almost certainly wasn’t the hand winner he thought it was.

When he left he did so because he had been called out. At that point he was either going to be sacked, stop sulking and honour his contract or he in the extreme had to resign.

The resignation must have horrified city. My belief is that had he given City the thumbs up they would have officially approached the club. But from that point on they were complicit. They had no defence should we make a complaint and now if Pep were to leave should they appoint Maresca they would have to pay and pay dearly what I suspect was the surprise was the fact that the club went after Maresca.

I agree with all of this but particularly the last part. I am genuinely shocked that City didn't back away from this after the way Maresca conducted himself especially in a period when so many managers would become available. THe fact that they have persevered regardless and paid compensation to do so cannot help but lead to thoughts of some complicity on City's part, with Maresca himself, and perhaps were caught between a rock and a hard place if they were fearful of some sort of whistleblowing from EM. Either way not the most salubrious beginnings to a relationship. You're welcome to each other!

1 hour ago, GarnachoCheese said:

Just trying to explain football how supporting a club works. Surprisingly, its not possible to support a club before you're born.

I never wanted him hired in the first place. That doesn't mean we should be happy when someone insults and disrespects the club.

But he did get hired and results were not that good, a more competent manager would have got more out of the team so we wanted him gone but we don't want to pay.. I see city approach as the solution there but perhaps you have a better more ideal solution?

Btw, what are these insults and disrespects of the club that you mentioned? was it about his 'worst 48 hours' presscon? or was it about he entertain city approach while still under contract? or something else? Do tell cause I might have missed them.

1 hour ago, terraloon said:

What is the issue for him agreeing a longer contract in the first place? Can't recall any manager who doesn't want it, longer contract means better security and the mindset for all managers is longer contract means more pay out if things don't work out. It's a pretty basic strategy for insurance.

There is absolutely no issue with him signing a long term contract but the point made was he was under contract and he signed it willingly and in the full knowledge of the structure at the club. Yes it’s insurance but a contract is commitment by two parties not just one.Should one of those parties unilaterally break the contract there is a price to pay and as we see time after time that’s usually the club.

Contracts in football are not the basic employment of contract you or me would be offered they go far further in that competitors ,and City clearly are one ,can’t approach you , can’t speak to you if the intention is induce you to break your contract and you aren’t allowed to engage with unless there is permission.

But it doesn’t just end with the contract because once employed with a PL club the HC/ manager has to adhere to a code of contact with the PL.

The fact that something else would possibly put something on the table maybe common in the big wide world but in football City did what probably most clubs did is sound out an individual as a first step before following process. Yes it’s tapping up, yes it’s rogue but let’s be realistic that we and probably every club adopt fact finding before approaching the current “ employer”

I very much doubt that City went as far as offering him the job during those initial contacts when Pep was just a few weeks into his new two year deal and even if Pep had said he wanted out come the end of 25/26 I would imagine that the City hierarchy would have thrown everything at him, Pep, to try and convince him to stay but they no doubt wanted a plan b

You saying him asking for a new contract was a smokescreen not quite sure how that works because what would have been his play had they agreed to one ? No the bargaining chip was the approach not an offer of a contract. That bargaining chip almost certainly wasn’t the hand winner he thought it was.

When he left he did so because he had been called out. At that point he was either going to be sacked, stop sulking and honour his contract or he in the extreme had to resign.

The resignation must have horrified city. My belief is that had he given City the thumbs up they would have officially approached the club. But from that point on they were complicit. They had no defence should we make a complaint and now if Pep were to leave should they appoint Maresca they would have to pay and pay dearly what I suspect was the surprise was the fact that the club went after Maresca.

Okay, you acknowledge that tapping up is a common practice so should be no argument there, right? However, in maresca case, you deduce it's not a simple tapping up but something like just an informal way of sounding him out without any concrete promise to hire him? just very casual chit chat? It was then maresca who forced city hand by resigning so that city got scared and acted out?

How maresca even dare to resign (forfeiting the money in his remaining contract and possibly penalty fine) if city never giving him assurance in the first place? It's a big amount of money involved there, I don't think he would be that bold to make such gamble. City could just back away since it's not much of a tapping up case if it's just a casual talk.

45 minutes ago, BolaBall said:

But he did get hired and results were not that good, a more competent manager would have got more out of the team so we wanted him gone but we don't want to pay.. I see city approach as the solution there but perhaps you have a better more ideal solution?

Btw, what are these insults and disrespects of the club that you mentioned? was it about his 'worst 48 hours' presscon? or was it about he entertain city approach while still under contract? or something else? Do tell cause I might have missed them.

You might be happy to accept someone disrespecting the club, but no one else is. Were you happy with Mutu doing drugs and getting banned and ultimately owing the club money or were you annoyed that someone the club had invested so much money in could show such a complete lack of respect to the club?

The disrespect is openly meeting with a rival club while leading Chelsea on a 7 game winless run.

Well I'm glad he's gone however it happened, I really can't be upset about it or the way it happened. Chelsea have accepted compensation for the move with no complaints. A big part of why we wanted Maresca was precisely because of his Citeh connection and his relationship with Pep. f**k knows why Citeh want him, but thank God they do, otherwise he would still be here and boring us to death

When they sacked Tuchel during the early part of the season we went straight out and nabbed Potter from Brighton, and then took their backroom staff.

When Maresca left we went straight out and nabbed Rosenior from Strasbourg.

We don't care what happens to other clubs because of our actions and neither should we, just as other clubs don't give a f**k what happens to us .

51 minutes ago, GarnachoCheese said:

You might be happy to accept someone disrespecting the club, but no one else is. Were you happy with Mutu doing drugs and getting banned and ultimately owing the club money or were you annoyed that someone the club had invested so much money in could show such a complete lack of respect to the club?

The disrespect is openly meeting with a rival club while leading Chelsea on a 7 game winless run.

I'm glad he flirted and met with City. If he hadn't, he would still be here

13 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

We don't care what happens to other clubs because of our actions and neither should we, just as other clubs don't give a f**k what happens to us .

Why would you care about any club other than Chelsea? I don't really understand this reasoning.

West Ham got relegated and i couldn't care less. If Chelsea got relegated, i'd be devastated. If a manager disrespects another club, i'd laugh. If our manager disrespects us we have every right to think he's a twat.

5 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Well I'm glad he's gone however it happened, I really can't be upset about it or the way it happened. Chelsea have accepted compensation for the move with no complaints. A big part of why we wanted Maresca was precisely because of his Citeh connection and his relationship with Pep. f**k knows why Citeh want him, but thank God they do, otherwise he would still be here and boring us to death

When they sacked Tuchel during the early part of the season we went straight out and nabbed Potter from Brighton, and then took their backroom staff.

When Maresca left we went straight out and nabbed Rosenior from Strasbourg.

We don't care what happens to other clubs because of our actions and neither should we, just as other clubs don't give a f**k what happens to us .

This. All of this is normal stuff. The only part that is upnormmal is that this happen between two top 8 club in PL.

Not many manager will be willing to leave their team unless the other party offer something much more.

11 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

This. All of this is normal stuff. The only part that is upnormmal is that this happen between two top 8 club in PL.

Not many manager will be willing to leave their team unless the other party offer something much more.

How many managers get held personally liable and end up owing their previous club compensation and having to issue and apology?

This isn't just a run of the mill club buys out manager.

51 minutes ago, BolaBall said:

Okay, you acknowledge that tapping up is a common practice so should be no argument there, right? However, in maresca case, you deduce it's not a simple tapping up but something like just an informal way of sounding him out without any concrete promise to hire him? just very casual chit chat? It was then maresca who forced city hand by resigning so that city got scared and acted out?

How maresca even dare to resign (forfeiting the money in his remaining contract and possibly penalty fine) if city never giving him assurance in the first place? It's a big amount of money involved there, I don't think he would be that bold to make such gamble. City could just back away since it's not much of a tapping up case if it's just a casual talk.

You misunderstand. I don’t say tapping up shouldn’t happen I said it did.

Do you really believe that what a club wants a player or in this instance a manager the first time that the individual would hear about it is when a formal approach is made ? If you do then sorry you are incredibly naive.

The fact that city did approach an under contract manager to see the lie of the land isn’t really a surprise or unusual but from that point their preferred choice one that going into 26/27 would be Pep.

Quite likely City knew when those approaches were made that Pep wanted to be off come seasons end but if you read all the statements Meresca wasn’t being offered the HC post they wanted him “ To return to City in a” Transitional Senior Coaching Capacity “

18 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

This. All of this is normal stuff. The only part that is upnormmal is that this happen between two top 8 club in PL.

Not many manager will be willing to leave their team unless the other party offer something much more.

18 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

This. All of this is normal stuff. The only part that is upnormmal is that this happen between two top 8 club in PL.

Not many manager will be willing to leave their team unless the other party offer something much more.

Up to the point he resigned then it was normal but once he admitted the approach that changed things, once he tried to us that approach to his advantage and the fact that he resigned moved it way from being normal

Tend to think that the whole initial appointment had red flags given that there was a clause in the contract stating that EM had to notify Chelsea if he was approached by City, kind of suggests that they were half expecting an approach at some point along the line maybe the length of contract was in their minds some kind of insurance policy against that happening/ really don't know but all a bit strange.

Was personally never taken with his style of football on the entertainment front, nor his refusal to try something new for weeks on end when what he was going with clearly wasn't working. Can never see his style of football working with anything but an already elite group of players but whether they would enjoy playing that type of micromanaged "football by numbers" who knows. I do think that EM engineered his own exit given the City interest hence the outburst that the club didn't support him for Atlanta game (injured players etc?)

Any way at the end of the day personally wasn't sad to see him go despite the CL and WCC successes, don't in anyway agree that he was the sole reason for our disastrous final league position, in my book that goes down to Blue and their decision to replace him with LR lol.

Yes was certainly disruptive but we still had the opportunity to finish top 4. beating Villa should have been a springboard to push on with a real attempt at achieving that goal having narrowed the points gap and with some decent fixtures to come so no excuses in my book.

18 hours ago, GarnachoCheese said:

You might be happy to accept someone disrespecting the club, but no one else is. Were you happy with Mutu doing drugs and getting banned and ultimately owing the club money or were you annoyed that someone the club had invested so much money in could show such a complete lack of respect to the club?

The disrespect is openly meeting with a rival club while leading Chelsea on a 7 game winless run.

So you think he should not meet city at all and keep leading Chelsea on a winless run? because had he stayed, results unlikely to get much better. Or you think he should meet city in secret? How should the whole situation unfold ideally in your mind? Remember that you want him gone and not paying a dime. For that to happen, there is a need for a taker and the meeting needed to take place somehow somewhere.

On Mutu case, wait until you found out his petulant entitled response to the fine he got saying the punishment should be just him doing a public service work in, of all places, his own country. Very convenient for him, what a genuine prick. Btw, what does mutu case have anything to do with this?

18 hours ago, terraloon said:

You misunderstand. I don’t say tapping up shouldn’t happen I said it did.

Do you really believe that what a club wants a player or in this instance a manager the first time that the individual would hear about it is when a formal approach is made ? If you do then sorry you are incredibly naive.

The fact that city did approach an under contract manager to see the lie of the land isn’t really a surprise or unusual but from that point their preferred choice one that going into 26/27 would be Pep.

Quite likely City knew when those approaches were made that Pep wanted to be off come seasons end but if you read all the statements Meresca wasn’t being offered the HC post they wanted him “ To return to City in a” Transitional Senior Coaching Capacity “

Your sequential timeline is a bit vague. According to you, the initial meeting was nothing concrete because city still had pep in mind but then when did the meeting get serious that prompted maresca to resign? It's naive to think maresca resigned on his own without the backing from city.

14 minutes ago, BolaBall said:

Your sequential timeline is a bit vague. According to you, the initial meeting was nothing concrete because city still had pep in mind but then when did the meeting get serious that prompted maresca to resign? It's naive to think maresca resigned on his own without the backing from city.

Try reading the statements from City and Maresca