The Managerial Merry Go Round™

[huss9]

47 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Eye of the beholder like you say - I was born in ‘82 - but Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham were London’s biggest to most people.  After that - it was much of a muchness -  Chelsea have always had decent gates which would put them ahead of the others, but they didn’t have much of a history.

Sheff Wed?

Aye thats the one!

[cubaricho]

6 hours ago, SUPERTOON said:

 

To me this is the perfect example of why the idiots on here clamoring for Iraola could not be further from reality. Chelsea ffs. He fits them so perfectly. He should never be a Newcastle manager.  

[r0cafella]

19 minutes ago, cubaricho said:

To me this is the perfect example of why the idiots on here clamoring for Iraola could not be further from reality. Chelsea ffs. He fits them so perfectly. He should never be a Newcastle manager.  

Didn't see much of a clamour honestly, most I saw were skeptical that his high intensity style would cause issues when European footballs were included. 

 

Also Chelsea are a basket case with 5 sporting directors they aren't as appealing as they once were. they are also a financial ticking time bomb.  

[Wallsendmag]

30 minutes ago, cubaricho said:

To me this is the perfect example of why the idiots on here clamoring for Iraola could not be further from reality. Chelsea ffs. He fits them so perfectly. He should never be a Newcastle manager.  

 

Explain how he fits them so perfectly..

[TheBrownBottle]

8 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Didn't see much of a clamour honestly, most I saw were skeptical that his high intensity style would cause issues when European footballs were included. 

 

Also Chelsea are a basket case with 5 sporting directors they aren't as appealing as they once were. they are also a financial ticking time bomb.  

Agreed - if Iraola was appointed, we’d be immediately asking him to change his style of play.  The intended style of play really should be a key decision when a DoF appoints a head coach. 

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Agreed - if Iraola was appointed, we’d be immediately asking him to change his style of play.  The intended style of play really should be a key decision when a DoF appoints a head coach. 

I mean I'm not sure I agree with the premise of high intensity play isn't possible playing two games a week personally. Other clubs manage it. 

 

That being said, I do concur with your point about the DOF being the one to have a philosophy and inprint it across the club. 

[TheBrownBottle]

12 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

I mean I'm not sure I agree with the premise of high intensity play isn't possible playing two games a week personally. Other clubs manage it. 

 

That being said, I do concur with your point about the DOF being the one to have a philosophy and inprint it across the club. 

Yes, I agree generally re pressing - but our squad-building has been poor in regard to implementing it in our chosen style of play.  In fact, it’s been a right mess for some time  

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yes, I agree generally re pressing - but our squad-building has been poor in regard to implementing it in our chosen style of play.  In fact, it’s been a right mess for some time  

I think our biggest flaw recruitment wise is our lack of understanding of value for money. We have so many expensive players ...

 

I've mentioned before that I suspect we have a player power issue and the way the wage bill is managed also points to that imo. We need to understand that a player cost is made of transfer fee + salary + agent fees and that should be seen as a package. If you have to pay a free agent 250k per week it can obviously be better than paying 55m elanga plus his 100k per week  

 

Anyways change is obviously coming but I will be skeptical about how much can actually change given our current structure. I've said for a long time we have structural issues. 

[Sima]

Been bugging me who Bein Jacobs looks like and it has finally clicked.

 

Fucking LinkedIn Homelander.  Prick.

[The College Dropout]

10 hours ago, TRon said:

 

 

We were a top 3 team when they were a top 8 team before that. 

People make this claim that Chelsea were nothing before abramovic.  When they won several trophies and qualified for the CL twice in the 5-6 years before he bought the club.  
 

Sure their long term history wasn’t amazing. But it was a club that had tasted recent success.  Like proper success more than us these last 4-5 years, more than us under SBR.  

[bobbydazzla]

Chelsea's trophies and league finishing positions in the pre-Abramovic years and after NUFC became a PL side.

 

Conclusion: they won 4 x more trophies than NUFC so were far more successful in that sense. But in terms of the league the two teams weren't far apart.

 

FA Cup 1997, 2000

League Cup 1997

Cup Winners Cup 1998

 

1992–93: 11th

1993–94: 14th

1994–95: 11th

1995–96: 11th

1996–97: 6th

1997–98: 4th

1998–99: 3rd

1999–00: 5th

2000–01: 6th

2001–02: 6th

2002–03: 4th

 

 

Edited April 23 by bobbydazzla

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Poyet the cunt

[bobbydazzla]

From the BBC.

 

Further evidence was provided by team news leaks around both legs of their Champions League last-16 tie against Paris St-Germain, which sources say originated from within the dressing room. A leak before Rosenior's final match at Brighton remarkably seemed to come from Cucurella's barber.

 

[leffe186]

29 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

People make this claim that Chelsea were nothing before abramovic.  When they won several trophies and qualified for the CL twice in the 5-6 years before he bought the club.  
 

Sure their long term history wasn’t amazing. But it was a club that had tasted recent success.  Like proper success more than us these last 4-5 years, more than us under SBR.  

In the years just before Abramovich Bates had basically thrown money at Chelsea on and off the pitch and had overreached. They were losing money hand over fist. They weren’t nothing and were far more successful than they had been at any time during my lifetime - top 6 five seasons in a row after years of finishing in the bottom half - but it was built on sand and we were waiting for it to all come crashing down. Then Abramovich came in and spent an unprecedented amount of money from Russia’s his own pockets.

 

I feel like we do this on a regular basis. Someone pops up to point out that actually they were fairly successful at the end under Bates, then someone else qualifies that by pointing out it was achieved unsustainably and then Abramovich coming in was a complete game-changer. For Chelsea and the rest of us. 

 

I’ve said ad nauseam that Abramovich was the point when football was broken for me personally, and IMO was the key step in breaking football in this country and Europe. Ken Bates - who it absolutely bears repeating was willing to install electric fences in the grounds and areas I personally stood in - and that little period of top six finishes pales into insignificance next to what happened next.

[Fak]

6 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

From the BBC.

 

Further evidence was provided by team news leaks around both legs of their Champions League last-16 tie against Paris St-Germain, which sources say originated from within the dressing room. A leak before Rosenior's final match at Brighton remarkably seemed to come from Cucurella's barber.

 

 

Team hair-mony must have been at an all time low.

[SteV]

6 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

From the BBC.

 

Further evidence was provided by team news leaks around both legs of their Champions League last-16 tie against Paris St-Germain, which sources say originated from within the dressing room. A leak before Rosenior's final match at Brighton remarkably seemed to come from Cucurella's barber.

 

He’s definitely got a hairdresser rather a barber.

[Fak]

1 minute ago, SteV said:

He’s definitely got a hairdresser rather a barber.

 

Either way hope the new manager is given time to get his players to gel.

[bobbydazzla]

1 minute ago, Fak said:

 

Team hair-mony must have been at an all time low.

 

Feels like that's a perm-anent problem at Chelsea

[TRon]

35 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

People make this claim that Chelsea were nothing before abramovic.  When they won several trophies and qualified for the CL twice in the 5-6 years before he bought the club.  
 

Sure their long term history wasn’t amazing. But it was a club that had tasted recent success.  Like proper success more than us these last 4-5 years, more than us under SBR.  

 

But is anyone making the claim Chelsea were nothing? They were a big club like we were, but definitely not one of the elite like Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal who were dominating football in the last few decades. It was Abramovich's bilions which transformed them into the best team in England and rocketed them into a worldwide glory team. 

 

Actually would be interesting to see if they drop back down to their former status once the money runs out. I don't know how their SCR costs stack up, but their ground is on the smaller side which tells it's own story, and without an owner throwing in and endless supply of foreign funds, do they have enough history to maintain a global fanbase?

 

[The College Dropout]

4 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

In the years just before Abramovich Bates had basically thrown money at Chelsea on and off the pitch and had overreached. They were losing money hand over fist. They weren’t nothing and were far more successful than they had been at any time during my lifetime - top 6 five seasons in a row after years of finishing in the bottom half - but it was built on sand and we were waiting for it to all come crashing down. Then Abramovich came in and spent an unprecedented amount of money from Russia’s his own pockets.

 

I feel like we do this on a regular basis. Someone pops up to point out that actually they were fairly successful at the end under Bates, then someone else qualifies that by pointing out it was achieved unsustainably and then Abramovich coming in was a complete game-changer. For Chelsea and the rest of us. 

 

I’ve said ad nauseam that Abramovich was the point when football was broken for me personally, and IMO was the key step in breaking football in this country and Europe. Ken Bates - who it absolutely bears repeating was willing to install electric fences in the grounds and areas I personally stood in - and that little period of top six finishes pales into insignificance next to what happened next.

I agree with nearly all of this and entirely with the main premise.

 

You've called that Bates period - fairly successful. That's more successful than I've ever seen Newcastle United. That would be a golden era for us. If Chelsea did all of that in 6 years and are a nothing club, what does that say of Newcastle United the last 50 years? Spurs the last 30?

 

I do agree that pales in comparison to the Abramovic era and that changed football forever. But they weren't a nothing club prior is all.

[TRon]

Again, no one said they were a nothing club. 

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

But is anyone making the claim Chelsea were nothing? They were a big club like we were, but definitely not one of the elite like Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal who were dominating football in the last few decades. It was Abramovich's bilions which transformed them into the best team in England and rocketed them into a worldwide glory team. 

 

Actually would be interesting to see if they drop back down to their former status once the money runs out. I don't know how their SCR costs stack up, but their ground is on the smaller side which tells it's own story, and without an owner throwing in and endless supply of foreign funds, do they have enough history to maintain a global fanbase?

 

You said "Chelsea were fine to accept mediocrity before they got bankrolled by Russian billions."

 

That period before Abramovic joined was a lot better than mediocre. Akin to a golden era for us. 

 

And they kind of already dropped back to what they were before. A team finishing 3rd-6th and a cup team.

 

 

Edited April 23 by The College Dropout

[TheInfiniteOdyssey]

Feel a bit bad for Rosenior honestly. Yes he's a bit David Brent at times, but it was a job that was obviously too big and much too soon for him. However, he was likely 'forced' to take it due to Chelsea's relationship with Strasbourg. He was doing pretty well over there and all that development has counted for nothing.

[leffe186]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I agree with nearly all of this and entirely with the main premise.

 

You've called that Bates period - fairly successful. That's more successful than I've ever seen Newcastle United. That would be a golden era for us. If Chelsea did all of that in 6 years and are a nothing club, what does that say of Newcastle United the last 50 years? Spurs the last 30?

 

I do agree that pales in comparison to the Abramovic era and that changed football forever. But they weren't a nothing club prior is all.

Yeah, didn’t see the original post saying they were a nothing club and missed that stage of the ritual

 

Edit: or mediocre, whatever . We’ve seen this little movie on a pretty much annual basis. Honestly it feels like it tends to be me and you playing the same roles.

 

 

Edited April 23 by leffe186

[TRon]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

You said "Chelsea were fine to accept mediocrity before they got bankrolled by Russian billions."

 

That period before Abramovic joined was a lot better than mediocre. Akin to a golden era for us. 

 

And they kind of already dropped back to what they were before. A team finishing 3rd-6th and a cup team.

 

 

 

 

 

You could argue mediocrity was the wrong term, but what I meant was they were ordinary compared to the champions league contenders they have become since Abramovic. No one seriously thought they were title winning contenders before that. Just another team hovering around the top 6.