Turmoil at the Bridge

No i don't doubt for a second they have spent the money on the youth development but it is immediate success which has Scholari has found out that the club desires. Wenger has been very lucky to get away with winning nothing for years but trying to develop the youngsters but I bet a lot of fans ain't happy that they ain't won nothing over Emirates.

Yep. You said it Morbs. Think Clarke was the biggest loss, he was a bond between players and manager and a Chelsea man at heart. Think he feels perhaps a bit overlooked and wanted to step out and start carving a name for himself.
 
Phil got what he came for. His pension. Twas obvious straight away that if was only there for the money.

If the blues dont do everything possible to get Hiddink they really are as chaotic as they look.
 
Phil got what he came for. His pension. Twas obvious straight away that if was only there for the money.

If the blues dont do everything possible to get Hiddink they really are as chaotic as they look.
 
I put my application in today, sent to Peter Kenyon. I'm sure any contacts on here will put a good word in?

Re the academy - why has Scott Sinclair not been given a run? The immediacy of results required at some where like Chelsea is why. Same at Liverpool, in a few years Carra & Steve G will be gone and it will be a scouse free team.

But to be fair, you bring in a few kids, your not going to win the title = sacked!

Altho annoyingly United are bringing the brothers da silva through who appear more than handy (altho far from local)
 
Re the academy - why has Scott Sinclair not been given a run?
Sinclair, Sahar, Stoch, Mancienne, Cork, Di Santo... there are a bunch of youngsters, British and others, that seem to have great potential. I'm really not sure why they aren't being brough through. Instead we just keep sending them out on short-term loan.

If the team were playing well enough in general, you could bring them in against the Watfords and Ipswichs. After the Burnsley embarassment, that didn't seem like an option.
 
And work at Chelsea at the weekends, and now and again during the week. :lol:

Abramovich pays his wages for Russia no ?? :confused: So he should do as his employer says :lol:
Gus took Australia to the World Cup while coaching PSV so it's not unheard of.

Russia have just 2 internationals between now and the end of the season - Azerbaijan & Lichtenstein. Not the sternest tests, and both during the same international break.
 
Best one I've heard all day is...

What have Chelsea and Kathy Beale from Eastenders got in common???

They both ****ed Phil and Grant...

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

(heard it apart 3 times though so starting to wear a bit thin)
 
basically chelsea need somebody to build them an footballing empire, that is how you become a great club. but built from football wealth not from money. (see busby, shankly, wenger). one where the values of the club are instilled at every level and that is the basis of everything. for liverpool it was pass and move and hardwork. for busby and wenger it was youth investment. mourinho could have done it, but there is only so long you can go on with the type of morality his sides showed.

hiddink is one of the few true world class managers in the world. he is in another league to people like scolari or rijkaard, but he is not gonna stick around for years.
 
The problem with Chelsea is they come in and threw their money at everyone which don't get me wrong saved West Ham at the time. However it did not make them any friends. The old fans were pushed out for corporate people and day trippers and helmets who have banners saying Scholari out. The club tapped up just about everyone from any club with blatant disreguard for the rule book.

Chelsea fans/players alike act like spoilt kids and throw their toys out the pram when they don't get their own way. Players storm off to Roman if they ain't getting a game, he get's rid of the manager when third in table, last 16 champions league etc etc. Fans ain't happy with their world cup winning manager and so they all cry don't want him no more we want that teams manager. Scholari never got the funds that Mourinho had.

Chelsea need to get over themselves and realise they may have the money but they are not a footballing giant, yet. They bought success too early and should have built more slowly but a lot of clubs have benefited from Chelsea's spending. Too many players happy to go there and take mega bucks for doing sod all. A manager then has the problem - 'How do you motivate a millionaire?' Look at was it Winston Bogarde who sat there and no-one even knew he was still at the club and he then he did refuse to play as he did not want to get injured. Priceless.

I am sure Roman will soon get fed up with it too, and now he has a new bit of fluff on the firm he is going to spend less time worrying about sulky footballers like Drogba and think funk this. Another subject is Drogba's appalling attitude but the geezer is a grade A penis.

Most supporters up and down the country will be glad to see Chelsea get their comeuppance. You just hope other clubs learn from it as City could be next. Villa I think are perfect example of doing it quietly and without fuss. Look at Everton who have spent no money at all really and are still up there. As Grego said you build the empire slowly. Rome wasn't built in a day as they say.
 
with so much money sloshing around these days, it will take a brave chairman to stick with a manager who will have a long term vision for the club.

the price of failure and the pressure that comes with it are so great now, most clubs are looking for a quick fix.

the only people are getting anything out of the current situation are the players and their agents.
 
with so much money sloshing around these days, it will take a brave chairman to stick with a manager who will have a long term vision for the club.

the price of failure and the pressure that comes with it are so great now, most clubs are looking for a quick fix.

the only people are getting anything out of the current situation are the players and their agents.

that's fair enough, but it's not going to give you long term success. mourinho could have done a fergie at chelsea.
 
that's fair enough, but it's not going to give you long term success. mourinho could have done a fergie at chelsea.

Alright there's a foriegn multi-millionaire there who's toes he could have sucked, but how would that, or writing kids books about a friendly little helicopter have helped the team's performance?
 
that's fair enough, but it's not going to give you long term success. mourinho could have done a fergie at chelsea.


he could have, but he clashed with Roman. only one winner in that outcome.

plus there are only 5 trophies up for grabs each season. he cant expect chelsea to win everything
 
Alright there's a foriegn multi-millionaire there who's toes he could have sucked, but how would that, or writing kids books about a friendly little helicopter have helped the team's performance?


blimey jose has let himself go abit aint he.
 
Look at was it Winston Bogarde who sat there and no-one even knew he was still at the club and he then he did refuse to play as he did not want to get injured. Priceless.
Bogarde was brought in pre-Abramovich.

I am sure Roman will soon get fed up with it too
You are wrong on this point, MWG.

But I personally agree with you that a lot of mistakes were made in the build-up of Chelsea, mainly in that first year. The plan, attitude and execution are getting progressively better (aside from the manager issue) but maybe it would have been better had this all been built from the bottom up instead of the top down.

Another problem is, there aren't a lot of Fergies and Wengers out there. I mean guys who have settled in to their clubs and are long term. Maybe Moyes and O'Neill in England, Ancelloti in Italy. Can't think of others off the top of my head.
 
Back
Top