Is Maureen Seriously Pissed-off?

mike65

Loads of reports/speculation about Jose and Peter Kenyon not seeing eye to eye about the recent transfer dealings.

Chelsea consider legal action after reports of Mourinho-Kenyan row
16:12 Saturday September 2nd 2006

Chelsea are in discussion with lawyers after reports of a bust-up between manager Jose Mourinho and chief executive Peter Kenyon.

It has been suggested that the pair fell out after William Gallas joined Arsenal as part of the move which saw Ashley Cole move to Stamford Bridge.

It was claimed that Mourinho wanted the French international to rot in the Chelsea reserves this season.

However, the club insists the pair still have a strong relationship

here

Jose Mourinho was reportedly involved in a 'furious' bust-up with Chelski chief executive Peter Kenyon over William Gallas' move to Arsenal in a swap deal for Ashley Cole.

According to The Daily Mirror, Mourinho felt 'undermined by Kenyon's decision to allow Gallas to join their bitter Premiership rivals against his wishes' and 'was unhappy at the way he believes the French defender bullied Chelsea into letting him go.'

The rows were reputedly so heated that they put 'Mourinho's long-term future at Chelsea in serious doubt.'

Gallas went AWOL during the summer after growing disenchanted with life at Stamford Bridge. While Kenyon believes that the capture of Cole in return for Gallas plus £5m represents a coup on Chelski's behalf, Mourinho was palpably less enthused by Gallas's departure on the same day that Robert Huth's move to Middlesbrough was finally sanctioned.

An injury to either John Terry or Ricardo Carvalho would leave the Premiership champions severely stretched in the centre of defence, and Mourinho's mood is unlikely to have been improved by the realisation that not only has Gallas' arrival solved Arsenal's defensive crisis but his proposed partnership with Kolo Toure is set to be one of the most formidable in the league.

According to The Daily Mail, Mourinho and Kenyon had several rows throughout the day as the midnight transfer deadline loomed on Thursday.

The paper claims that 'Mourinho did not want Huth to be sold before Cole was signed, and the pair also clashed over the proposed sale of Wayne Bridge to Newcastle. Bridge believed Chelsea had agreed to sell him after talks with Kenyon, but Mourinho wanted to keep him as cover for Cole.'

Anything in this beyond a dissagreement? Or is Kenyon in league with Roman with the latter willing to see Mourinho leave if neccessary?

Mike.

el rabitos

chelsea are where they are because of mourinho, they would be stupid to ever do anything to rock the boat with him

bigger and better teams have been far less succesfull than chelsea

futuredeath

chelsea are where they are because of roman.

el rabitos

does roman manage the team?

could roman manage a good but average porto to the champions league?

could rick parry guide an averge liverpool to the champions league?

no

Huggles

Chelsea are where they are because of Romans Millions

The Muppet

Mourinho is not the type of person to allow himself be publically ridiculed,I don't believe he would be happy to have Kenyon interfere with his team. I would not be surprised to see Mourinho walk particulaly if a few results were to go against him. As i said in another post recently it might be worth a flutter to back him to be the first managerial casulty of this season.

valor

Chelsea are where they are because of BOTH Abromovich and Mourinho

RE*AC*TOR

I stand by my assertion, that with the amount of stolen russian money being spent, Graeme Souness could have taken Chelsea to where they are.

El Rabitos - Rick Parry doesn't own Liverpool. David Moores does. Liverpool don't spend the kind of money Chelsea have. In fact, no one does, not even Real Madrid.

el rabitos

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I stand by my assertion, that with the amount of stolen russian money being spent, Graeme Souness could have taken Chelsea to where they are.

El Rabitos - Rick Parry doesn't own Liverpool. David Moores does. Liverpool don't spend the kind of money Chelsea have. In fact, no one does, not even Real Madrid.

i'm aware of who owns the club i support

greame souness and his uselessness (sorry jiven turkey) are for another thread

ranieri couldnt win the league for chelsea

milan have spent massive amounts of money in the 90's, davids, baggio, weah, kluivert were all on the same team for godsake, as ive said, better teams have won less

real madrid have never let money be an issue either, theyve had awsome talent and massive money at their dissposel and have produced wasters over the years

give mourinho credit, its him behind chelseas success, the money and talent at his disposel are far more than he actually needs in order to have a team that could win the premiership. he's the best motivator around and the best manager around for building a team unity, imo.

evilhomer

TheGooner wrote:

Chelsea are where they are because of Romans Millions

Chelsea would have gotten where they are now eventually with Morunhio as manager, without the masses of money they have been able to spend.

It just would have taken longer.

Morunhio has proven, with Porto that he can create a team of world beaters even with very little money. He won three portuguese titles, a UEFA Cup and a Champions league back to back. Hardly a poor manager.

Roman Abramovich just accelerated the process, of course they wouldn't have Morunhio without Abramovich's money, but lets just say they had gotten him anyway. They would still have had one of the shrewdest managers in world football.

kinaldo

Is it just my imagination or does JM appear to have aged about 15 years in his time at Chelsea? Working for Abramovich must be a lot of pressure so at least Kenyon doesn't have his hair to lose.

Mourinho is a good manager but if he fails to win the CL this year I think Roman Abramovich will dispense with him. I don't think the style of football Mourinho's team play has endeared him to many, which is surely something Abramovich would expect given the money he's injected into the team.

The only thing better than winning is winning with style, ala Barca / Madrid. Seemingly this is the only thing Abramovich cannot buy.

kinaldo

el rabitos wrote:

real madrid have never let money be an issue either, theyve had awsome talent and massive money at their dissposel and have produced wasters over the years

True to an extent but they also produced some great teams that won 3 Champions Leagues in 5 seasons not so long ago. Barca could be on the verge of something similar. (sorry way off topic)

gustavo

el rabitos wrote:

ranieri couldnt win the league for chelsea
.

Hardly fair , under Ranieri when Abramovich came he had Gronkjaer rather than Robben , Melchiot rather than Ferraira and an aging Desailly rather than Carvalho

Chucky the tree

According to the Daily Mirror

Superdub2

el rabitos wrote:

chelsea are where they are because of mourinho, they would be stupid to ever do anything to rock the boat with him

bigger and better teams have been far less succesfull than chelsea

chelsea are equally indebted to Mourinho and Abramovich, as for big clubs, while not technically being a big club they have one of the biggest budgets in world football and that statement doesnt apply

Superdub2

evilhomer wrote:

Chelsea would have gotten where they are now eventually with Morunhio as manager, without the masses of money they have been able to spend.

.

that is complete rubbish, Chelsea were not even close to being champions before Abrahamovich but Porto have been a big team in portugal for a while and while i think JM did a great job i think he got lucky in the champions league with Porto and i doubt they wud have repeated it.

If abrahamovich had not come they wudnt have won the league full stop because Jose would have never took the job and even if he did he wudnt have been able to pick and choose his players

Bateman

Superdub2 wrote:

i doubt they wud have repeated it.

How many teams have "repeated" winning the CL with the same players/management team?

Winning the CL = greatness. You don't have to "repeat" it to attain greatness.

The Muppet

Chelsea would have been bankrupt by now but for Romans Money (or someone elses money). Murinho would be managing Real Or Barca or some other top european team but for Romans money , he would most certainly not be managing Chelsea. It was Ranerie's buys that first won the league for Chelsea, they were likely to win it no matter who tha manager was (within reason).

futuredeath

ranieri before romans billions brought to club to the chamions league,
after roman came he bought a few and began to challenge and build,
didnt get a chance to finish what he started but mourinho did get to use what he had built plus more money and world stars to win the last 2 league's and his 1 carling cup.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

Chelsea would have been bankrupt by now but for Romans Money (or someone elses money). Murinho would be managing Real Or Barca or some other top european team but for Romans money , he would most certainly not be managing Chelsea. It was Ranerie's buys that first won the league for Chelsea, they were likely to win it no matter who tha manager was (within reason).

Pure speculation tbh. Ranieri was in charge when Roman bought the club. Wha did he win? SFA. Jose has brought a winning mentality to Stamford bridge, that has been his biggest contribution.

Yes, Romans billions have made a huge difference to the managers ability to bring in players as he see's fit. However, it could also be argued that arguably Chelsea's two best players are John Terry and Frank Lampard. One was a youtth team member and the other was bought before th arrival of Roman's money.

The contributing factor in all of this, has been the decline of Manu and Arsenal. Chelsea cannot be blamed for the fact tha Viera left, Keane got sacked, Giggs got old or Bergkamp retired. Manu and Arsenal just could not keep up, simple as.


It's actually quite ignorant to believe the hype about Chelsea buying any league. If it just a case of economics, Newcastle would have been the dominant force in the 80's and Real would have claimed their 14th title in a row last year.

kinaldo

I think Ranieri's Chelsea signings were better than Mourinho's (Lampard, Duff, Gallas, Robben, Cole and Makalele to name a few). JM may be a better manager but he's not very good in the transfer market.

dcarroll

Does anyone think that Chelsea would have won the title twice in a row if Ken Bates stayed but hired Mourinho as manager?
Didn't think so

el rabitos

dcarroll wrote:

Does anyone think that Chelsea would have won the title twice in a row if Ken Bates stayed but hired Mourinho as manager?
Didn't think so

twice in a row? maybe not

would they have won it at least once, more than likely

Nalz

el rabitos wrote:

would they have won it at least once, more than likely

NO way is it more than likely. Mourinho Porto feats were extremely lucky. Easy run-in in the CL. Toughest Team they faced was United, whom where robbed at home by a muppet of a linesman (the person Mourinho can thank for his now Chelsea career). United would had won that game in OT 2-0 only for that situation. Lucky goal thanks to a poor United keeper and defence to see them through.

I wont take it all away from the man, he did well the previous year (even though the Uefa cup is nothing to go by, Middlesbro' territory).

But to say Mourinho would do a really good job at a not so wealthy Chelsea would not be more than likely. He'd need a lot of luck, a lot of time, and a lot of patience. I dont think he has the latter IMO

Gangsta

el rabitos wrote:

twice in a row? maybe not

would they have won it at least once, more than likely

with the squad they had? Haha not a chance.

el rabitos

Trilla wrote:

NO way is it more than likely. Mourinho Porto feats were extremely lucky. Easy run-in in the CL. Toughest Team they faced was United, whom where robbed at home by a muppet of a linesman (the person Mourinho can thank for his now Chelsea career). United would had won that game in OT 2-0 only for that situation. Lucky goal thanks to a poor United keeper and defence to see them through.

I wont take it all away from the man, he did well the previous year (even though the Uefa cup is nothing to go by, Middlesbro' territory).

But to say Mourinho would do a really good job at a not so wealthy Chelsea would not be more than likely. He'd need a lot of luck, a lot of time, and a lot of patience. I dont think he has the latter IMO

bitter much?

Nalz

el rabitos wrote:

bitter much?

off topic?

el rabitos

your opinion is off topic in that his average porto team beat a superior united team and that seems to affect ur opinion of the man

its all praise with a "but" following it

if ever there was a manager that needs little funds to get the most out of a team its mourinho, him and o'neil have that aspect of managing down to an art.

The Muppet

kinaldo wrote:

I think Ranieri's Chelsea signings were better than Mourinho's (Lampard, Duff, Gallas, Robben, Cole and Makalele to name a few). JM may be a better manager but he's not very good in the transfer market.

Thats true assuming the players being purchased are mourinho's choice . There is some doubt over that with Kenyon going over his head in the Cole deal and Romans son playing real life championship manager ,choosing some of their summer arrivals.

eirebhoy

el rabitos wrote:

your opinion is off topic in that his average porto team beat a superior united team and that seems to affect ur opinion of the man

its all praise with a "but" following it

if ever there was a manager that needs little funds to get the most out of a team its mourinho, him and o'neil have that aspect of managing down to an art.

7 of that Porto team that won the UEFA cup and CL were in the Portugal squad for the last world cup. I wouldn't say they were an average team.

astrofool

They also ended up having alot of money spent on most of their players when selling them, and most if not all having successful careers beyond Porto, bit like the Ajax team in the 90's.

Look at it this way, the difference between the Pool and Porto winning teams was that most of the pool players that moved on have gone downhill for little money. Would Mourinho have won the CL with that squad? And if the CL, why not the PL, which pool have still not won.

You also have to remember that Mourinho would have been off to Real or one of the big italian teams if it wasn't for Roman's millions. I think most in the game, while praising Mourinho, know it's the money that made Chelsea what they are, and even at that, they haven't won the cl (yet), and probably why Mourinho's ego won't let him stay at Chelsea for too long, he'll want to prove himself properly elsewhere.

Nalz

el rabitos wrote:

if ever there was a manager that needs little funds to get the most out of a team its mourinho, him and o'neil have that aspect of managing down to an art.

ah im not too sure about that. Granted he did well in Porto, but who did he sign at Porto? He already had Baia, Ricardo Carvalho, Costinha, Deco, Costa and Postiga at the club. I think he signed Ferrira and Valente for a few quid, and got Maniche on a free. May be your right he would have done a good job at Chelsea, but I honestly believe Arsenal still would have always been the big capital club if RA hadn't come around.

Im not fond of the man so my criticism of him may be much, but there are better managers in the transfer market. I know every move will be scrutanized (spellin!!) because of his transfer kitty, but he aint a patch on Arsene Wenger, Rafa or O Neill. I dont think he could have done a really god job at any other club other than Chelsea - simply because its dripping in Russian Gold

RE*AC*TOR

Mourinho's biggest ability is self-promotion. I am sure he is a decent motivator, but I don't think he is tactically as amazing as people think. His "achievements" at Chelsea will always have an asterisk beside them, like Dalglish with Blackburn.

ie *bought the league

Bateman

United would be bankrupt now if it weren't for all the 5 year olds in Nike factories producing all their merchandise. :rolleyes:

United would be bankrupt now if it weren't for business decisions over-riding any kind of desire to take part in the most famous club cup competition in the world.

LostinBlanch

Bateman wrote:

United would be bankrupt now if it weren't for all the 5 year olds in Nike factories producing all their merchandise. :rolleyes:

And clubs like Arsenal who also are sponsored by Nike get off scot free? rolleyes:
Of course I could also say that Liverpool are to blame for brutal child exploitation because they are sponsored by Adidas. Did you not see that front page story in the Tribune yesterday about factories producing Adidas gear in the far east exploiting their workers? Good story. Disgusting that it's happening, but then again I don't blame Liverpool or Chelsea personally, it'd be tempting but too simplistic an approach to a very complex problem. This something that all clubs and National Associations have to approach together to force Nike, Adidas etc to make sure that exploitation is eradicated. They could do it if there was the will. Now isn't that better, a possible idea for dealing with the problem. Or maybe you just want to take cheap shots at United? :rolleyes:

Bateman wrote:

United would be bankrupt now if it weren't for business decisions over-riding any kind of desire to take part in the most famous club cup competition in the world.

Ah so it was absolutely nothing to do with the political pressure from Blair saying that they should go to ensure that England would get the 2006 World Cup. Nothing to do with getting their arms twisted by FIFA and the FA to go play in that mickey mouse competition? Nothing to do with the intense media pressure to ensure that they went along as well, or be slated and blamed for losing england the world cup. The reality of it was that everything conspired to put United in a lose / lose position. The FA would not allow them to field a weakened team in the competition or accommadate them in any way, so that they could compete in Blatters mickey mouse competition, the FA cup and the premiership. So United chose to stay out of the competition, not a decision that I or other United fans wanted to see. But it was made for footballing reasons, and not financial ones. United would have made more money from competing in the FA cup as far as I'm aware. Of course United have been slated by ABUs as usual. Again Bateman you can see that it wasn't as clear cut as ABU's like to make out. But then again don't let the truth get in the way of your cheap shots at United. :rolleyes:

Edit: apologies for going off topic but I felt that I had to answer the above post.

AnCapaillMor

Agree with trilla, scruffy moaing porto person inherited a good team(also souness had killed benefica for a few years helped too) and got some good players on the cheap, yes he did well to pick them up, how many of those players have gone on for big cash? you can't say it was an average team. He still did well to win the chumps league lets not take that away from him, but milan\arsenal, both teams were on fire at the time, even chelsea themselves getting knocked out made things easier for mourinho and porto. Its unforutnate that it's Chelsea that he's winning leagues with, because the money spent will always come into it.

sprinkles

Bateman wrote:

United would be bankrupt now if it weren't for all the 5 year olds in Nike factories producing all their merchandise. :rolleyes:

United would be bankrupt now if it weren't for business decisions over-riding any kind of desire to take part in the most famous club cup competition in the world.

Excellent contribution :rolleyes:

TheMonster

LostinBlanch wrote:

And clubs like Arsenal who also are sponsored by Nike get off scot free? rolleyes:
Of course I could also say that Liverpool are to blame for brutal child exploitation because they are sponsored by Adidas. Did you not see that front page story in the Tribune yesterday about factories producing Adidas gear in the far east exploiting their workers? Good story. Disgusting that it's happening, but then again I don't blame Liverpool or Chelsea personally, it'd be tempting but too simplistic an approach to a very complex problem. This something that all clubs and National Associations have to approach together to force Nike, Adidas etc to make sure that exploitation is eradicated. They could do it if there was the will. Now isn't that better, a possible idea for dealing with the problem. Or maybe you just want to take cheap shots at United? :rolleyes:



Ah so it was absolutely nothing to do with the political pressure from Blair saying that they should go to ensure that England would get the 2006 World Cup. Nothing to do with getting their arms twisted by FIFA and the FA to go play in that mickey mouse competition? Nothing to do with the intense media pressure to ensure that they went along as well, or be slated and blamed for losing england the world cup. The reality of it was that everything conspired to put United in a lose / lose position. The FA would not allow them to field a weakened team in the competition or accommadate them in any way, so that they could compete in Blatters mickey mouse competition, the FA cup and the premiership. So United chose to stay out of the competition, not a decision that I or other United fans wanted to see. But it was made for footballing reasons, and not financial ones. United would have made more money from competing in the FA cup as far as I'm aware. Of course United have been slated by ABUs as usual. Again Bateman you can see that it wasn't as clear cut as ABU's like to make out. But then again don't let the truth get in the way of your cheap shots at United. :rolleyes:

Edit: apologies for going off topic but I felt that I had to answer the above post.

shame on you - you rose to the troll

LostinBlanch

I know I know but I couldn't resist it today.

It was either that or work :eek:

mike65

Make of this what you will

from guardian

Guus Hiddink, often touted as a replacement for Jose Mourinho when the Chelsea manager moves on, has revealed that he visited Stamford Bridge on several occasions last season, meeting the chief executive Peter Kenyon and owner Roman Abramovich. The Dutchman, currently in charge of Russia, laughed off the idea that he might take over from Mourinho, but admitted that the prospect of managing in the Premiership is appealing.

The 60-year-old, speaking in Moscow where he takes charge of his first competitive match as Russia's manager against Croatia tomorrow, met the Chelsea hierarchy for the first time late last year. He watched the champions play having been invited to discuss the possibility of becoming the Russia manager with Abramovich. Those talks prompted Hiddink to accept a two-year deal that began when he left Australia after the World Cup.


Hiddink says that he found Abramovich "a very humble and a very normal person" and said their conversation revolved around football and primarily the need to restore Russia as a power. He is still in contact with Abramovich although not on a frequent basis, denying claims that the billionaire is laying on private jets so that he can commute from Amsterdam, and sidestepping suggestions Chelsea's owner is paying his salary as national coach.

Hiddink's relationship with Abramovich will fuel speculation that he is being "parked" in Russia until the Chelsea job is available. The Dutchman responded to the theory by smiling and saying "let them suggest that". He did, however, reveal his fondness for English football and revealed he would like to manage in it. His contract with the Russian Football Federation expires in 2008, after the European Championship, and he has no plans to extend the deal.

Hiddink regularly attends matches in England, enjoys the style of play and admires the supporters' passion. He likes to arrive with fans and said that he often gets off the tube early or asks taxi drivers to stop before the stadium so that he can take in the atmosphere. Hiddink feels it is important that managers retain traditional values and believes that can only be achieved by meeting fans. "We must feel what is going on in the street," he said.

Mike.

Lex Luthor

kinaldo wrote:

Mourinho is a good manager but if he fails to win the CL this year I think Roman Abramovich will dispense with him.

Ya, that's what I'm afraid of....he'll be looking north at Rafa.

I don't think Chelsea will win the PL this year...mainly because they will focus a lot on the CL and to win 3 in a row, no matter who you are is very difficult.

Plus, I don't think they have enough cover at the back if they get an injury to Terry or Carvalho.