Question

[Kev123]

So Chelsea FC are saying Avram Grant is going to be our permanent manager. For most supporters the problem with Grant is due to his past experience. It seems quite reasonable to expect someone to have an reasonably impressive CV, which Avram doesn't, if called upon to manage a club with Champions League winner aspirations, like Chelsea. Most people's explanation of our sudden drop in standards is A)Either Roman is calling all the shots and appointing his cronies B)The Board has simply gone nuts C)Its all Peter Kenyon's/Frank Arnesen's fault.

To be honest I don't see any of these as being a realistic possibility. Roman is not stupid, I repeat this time and time again, but some people just insist on assuming that he is. Admittedly that goofy expression he wears all the time does not do him any favours, but you don't get to be where he is today by being ignorant, which is what so many people accuse him of being. So with all that in mind, I was thinking there must be some other explanation as to why Roman would appoint Grant on a "Permanent" basis.

What if Chelsea knew that there were no adequate managerial replacements immediately available, so we were stuck on a temporary basis with Stevie Clarke or Avram. Now by appointing Clarke it would have been no more than a temporary option, until we found another replacement, as it seems Clarke will be on his bike and everybody knows it. So they throw A.Grant in there, until Hiddink or one of the million other managers we are linked to is available. The club gets stability, as far as everyone knows Grant is there long term, so the players have to learn to live with it and start concentrating on winning things, rather than being all up in the air wondering who is coming, who is going, and if they will even have a future when their new manager arrives. Make sense? Got this all in my head but having a hard time writing it

If Grant f**ks up, or dosen't impress, he goes when Hiddink or someone else is available. If he does well, then nobody has a hard time seeing him stay. In the meantime the club gets some stability where it counts, with the players. Just seems a better option to me than saying alright Terry, Drogba, Lamps, this is Grant, he'll be in charge for a few months till we find someone better, so don't give him a hard time alright? Don't think we would get much done that way

[Chippy]

I said a few times before Jose went that Roman was no fool and both of these men are born winners, It never stood up in my argument that two such winners would learn to

put up with each other for the sake of what they both like to do (win).

what you say though is true, we know everyone likes to think of Roman as a kid with a toy but its his toy after all with the money he has put in if he thinks we can play better football

under Grant or whoever, its his choice.

He is not a football man but that shouldn't mean he has no knowledge of the game and I would imagine he took a lot of advice before all this happened.

people like Harry Redknap and Arsene Wenger have said decent things about Grant and he has done ok so far.

all the talk of managers coming in, player unrest and poor body language or dampened goal celebrations dont really help his or our cause, which at the end of the day is the same.