Mourinho possibly gone?

MrJoeSoap

A bit of both but he still won two leagues and two European trophies in two seasons in charge, as well as a cup. It can hardly be doubted that he's one of the best managers going, the fact that he took over a team with a bottomless pit of money is his only downfall, because no matter what he achieved there he was never going to be respected in the same way as someone working on a budget.

Looks like he can buy his own team now...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/7004780.stm

jobonar

MrJoeSoap wrote:

A bit of both but he still won two leagues and two European trophies in two seasons in charge, as well as a cup. It can hardly be doubted that he's one of the best managers going, the fact that he took over a team with a bottomless pit of money is his only downfall, because no matter what he achieved there he was never going to be respected in the same way as someone working on a budget.

Looks like he can buy his own team now...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/7004780.stm

:eek: Thats some pay off!

shatners basoon

Necromomicon wrote:

Absolutely bonkers.

RA has his puppet in charge now, but will he play heart-racing, exciting football? Who has he managed before actually?

Crazy stuff.

From the CFC site

In the management team that has taken charge of the first team from today, Chelsea has appointed two men with contrasting but rich football backgrounds.

Avram Grant has a wealth of experience, both in domestic and international football, with a rich coaching career in both club and international football.

He replaces José Mourinho as manager after being recruited during the summer as the club's director of football, joining us from Portsmouth, where he had held the same role.

Prior to his appointment at Fratton Park, Grant was manager of the Israeli national team, narrowly missing qualification for the 2006 World Cup after guiding the team unbeaten through a difficult qualifying group that included eventual qualifiers France and Switzerland.

The 52-year-old began his senior coaching career at Hapoel Petach Tikva, his home town club, leading the side to an unexpected second-placed finish in the 1990/91 season, and capturing two Toto cups during his stay there.

This success was duly noted by Maccabi Tel Aviv, where he won the Israeli championship in his first season, 13 points clear of their nearest rivals. The side also lost in the final of the Israeli cup, denying Grant a famous double.

The cup did arrive in 1994, preceding a second championship in 1995, before Grant decided to move to rivals Hapoel Haifa for one disappointing spell, finishing fourth in the Israeli championship.

By 1997, he had returned to Tel Aviv, and captured one more Toto Cup, the equivalent of the League Cup, in 1999, before taking up the coach's role at Maccabi Haifa, in 2000.

It was there that Grant had most success in club football. In two years, he led the team to two league championships, as well as the 2002 Toto Cup, consolation for defeat in the national cup competition final the same year, which would have made an historic treble.

Grant's credentials are also highlighted by the emergence of talents such as Yossi Benayoun and Aiyegbeni Yakubu during his stewardship, and the success of the side he built becoming the first Israeli team to reach the group stages of the Champions League in 2002/3 following his departure for the national team role.

Appointed at the age of 46, Grant is the youngest man ever to manage Israel's national team, and achieved some superb results, making him the country's most successful manager of all time.

With a raw and inexperienced squad, he led Israel unbeaten through qualifying for the 2006 World Cup, just missing out on qualification for Germany behind France and Switzerland. Israel won four and drew six of the ten qualifiers.

His overall record at Israel, was winning 14, drawing 13 and losing six of his 33 games in charge.

Grant announced he would not be renewing his contract with Israel, and was duly appointed as Portsmouth's director of football in June 2006, working alongside manager Harry Redknapp in a successful season down on the south coast.

He made the move to Stamford Bridge in July of this year, initially as director of football, before the announcement today.

Steve Clarke represents the ultimate in continuity within the club having worked under the last nine Chelsea managers either as a player, scout, coach or assistant manager.

José Mourinho promoted him from youth team coach to one of his assistants when our former manager took the job in 2004. Clarke provided both a deep knowledge of the club and the Premier League.

As a player, he moved to Stamford Bridge from Scottish football in 1987 and went on to become the fifth highest appearance maker in Chelsea history, mostly playing at right-back, or in later seasons, in central defence.

Clarke's loyalty through some lean years was rewarded when in his final years as a player, he won the FA Cup, League Cup and European Cup Winners' Cup. He was voted our Player of the Year in 1994 and was a Scottish international.

Although he didn't know it at the time, his final match was the triumphant 1998 Cup Winners' Cup Final against Stuttgart in Stockholm. Early the next season he took up an offer from our former manager Ruud Gullit to join him at Newcastle United in coaching role.

Clarke remained at St. James' Park after Gullit's departure, was briefly caretaker manager and then worked under Bobby Robson until leaving in 2000.

He first accepted a scouting post back at Stamford Bridge and then the youth team job before Mourinho upgraded him to work with his first team.

His work out of the spotlight has played a major part in the six pieces of silverware that have been won in the previous three years. He is 44 years of age.

The first game in charge for the Grant and Clarke will be on Sunday as we meet Manchester United at Old Trafford.

Pepe LeFrits

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

They are the Man United of the Portuguese league, are they not?

Regardless, he won the UEFA Cup and Champions League in successive seasons with a Portuguese side.......

kronsington

i just love watching this whole thing unfold, i have always despised chelsea, even before roman and jose came along. i feel sympathy for mourinho, he's a football man and a winner, and while there is no doubt he acted the prick many, many times, he brought something fresh and made the league a hell of a lot more interesting. it appears he has been shafted by those ***** behind the scenes, he's too good for the club. lets see how the **** like "Lamps" and "JT" get on now...

chelsea should look at thier rivals and try conduct themselves with at least a smidgen of dignity and respect

PHB

He bought well and got them performing, players like Carvalho and Deco win you CL's, and he had them. They were not some minnows or something.

event

redspider wrote:

Abramovich probably would be as well save for the fact that he is a Putin-insider now and has paid Putin off, at least 75m dollars, for protection.

can you back that up with proof?

growler

event wrote:

can you back that up with proof?

lol of course not. .... its just common knowledge (in his head / the conspiracy forum)


don't let reality get in the way of redspiders interpretation of the world.

Mr Alan

growler; i always thought that it was fairly commonly accepted that RA was/is bent as a fiddlers elbow?

growler

pretty much every russian who made his / her money in those times did it through their connections etc. how they went about this may not be squeaky clean, ethical, according to western financial regulations, but russian assets were there for the taking, he knew the right people and ended up a wealthy man. He has been charged with some crimes but has never been convicted of any.

redspider seems to think he can make all kinds of unsubstantiated allegations about RA, which I doubt he can ever back up

Mr Alan

so he is dodgy . . . thats all i needed to know . . . cheers

growler

millersangel wrote:

so he is dodgy . . . thats all i needed to know . . . cheers

shane86

PHB wrote:

He bought well and got them performing, players like Carvalho and Deco win you CL's, and he had them. They were not some minnows or something.

And your point is? Its not as if Fergie replaced his team with the late 90s squad of Drogheda Utd and brought them to treble victory. There are great managers but also great teams- its not as if Fergie could have gotten as much if he had been tied to a much less financially less profitable/spendable club is it. I believe he could have done a treble with Liverpool, Leeds (back way back when), Arsenal, Chelsea and maybe another. I dont believe he could have done it with Southampton, C Palace or B City. Its a combination of good management and plenty of cash to build the team.

KdjaCL

shane86 wrote:

Its a combination of good management and plenty of cash to build the team.

Nowt to do with cash a good manager finds players via a system. Case in points

Wenger spent 12 million on Reyes great player but only in a certain system. he got fabregas for pennies.

Mourinho bought Glen Johnson for 6 million and ehhh.

Man utd paid 12 million for Ronaldo but got Giggs for free.

if a club is set up right the manager should never spend more than a million on a player and thats only as compensation. They should find these players easly and sign them, spending 20 million on a player is confirming your club failed to find them 3 years ago.


kdjac

Vokes

KdjaCL, I think Johnson was a Raineri buy

shane86

Ronaldo and Giggs are pretty seperate. Giggs was playing in either Wales or England (cant recall how they caught him but either way he was within a few hundred miles of the Man U scouts radar). Ronaldo was abroad, huge difference.


Fair enough but imo a good manager needs an even better scouting staff. If a good scout can recommend a lad for pennies who 7 years on from youth academy is the teams top striker, yes, its good of the manager to have given him the task, but the scout got him, the manager cant go to every league 3 game every weekend looking for the next 14 year old Owen and Rooney.

leninbenjamin

SSN had earlier that Chelsea are trying to include a couple of clauses in the severance package. one is that Mourinho never speaks to the press about his departure, the other is that Mourinho is not to manage in the premiership again.

Jose should tell them to **** off and write a tell all book about all the **** that went on. he'd probably make up the balance from it that way anyway.

shatners basoon

leninbenjamin wrote:

Jose should tell them to **** off and write a tell all book about all the **** that went on. he'd probably make up the balance from it that way anyway.

He could even use its as an excellent outlet for all of his insightful anecdotes and the like

iregk

KdjaCL wrote:

if a club is set up right the manager should never spend more than a million on a player and thats only as compensation. They should find these players easly and sign them, spending 20 million on a player is confirming your club failed to find them 3 years ago.
kdjac

Your logic is hillarious. If that was the case sure then the transfer market would not exist. Going by what your saying every single team in the premiership has failed then!

Yes Fiberglass was free but Henry, Viera, Ljundberg, Pires, Reyes I could go on. Were not so as much as Wenger succeeded he failed according to you. The problem is players mature and develop and different stages. Glen Johnson looked a very good young player and a bargain at 6 considering his age. Now he hasn't developed since and is as good as he will get. On the other token a big club looking at Drogba when he was 21 would have thought not good enough. He developed later than usual and now would they say the same?

Mitch Connor

shane86 wrote:

its not as if Fergie could have gotten as much if he had been tied to a much less financially less profitable/spendable club is it.

Aberdeen.

Won the scottish league, twice, breaking the 15 year dominence of Celtic/Rangers.

Won the cup winners cup, beating Real Madrid in the final.

growler

leninbenjamin wrote:

Jose should tell them to **** off and write a tell all book about all the **** that went on. he'd probably make up the balance from it that way anyway.

Hardly a good way to go about ever getting another job in football, who's going to hire a manager who's first act on leaving is to write a book critisizing the board / owners ?

duh

PHB

The thing is, I'm pretty sure most people in England would side with Mourinho, in terms of the manager deciding everything. It's really quite weird, it's such a British thing for clubs to be effectively run in all footballing areas by their manager.

redspider

shane86 wrote:

Considering their "is it guns, is it drugs" chant I dont think they really do.

I wasnt aware that they sang that chant, so I guess some or perhaps indeed most of them do (know that Abramovich's source of wealth is dodgy). There are some fans still in denial though, or at least trying to forget it perhaps. Some excuse it by saying they were all at it. That still doesnt mean they were not committing crimes.

growler wrote:

you've heard of Porto presumably?

Yes, but I didnt say that Jose was not a good manager: "I am not saying that Mourinho was a useless manager, far from it".

I'm still of the opinion that Abramovich's money is the main reason for Chelsea's success, not the only reason.

As for Abramovich being a Putin-man, this is well documented. If you do a bit of research you will see many published articles mentioning that.

I dont have proof of the 75m, it was mentioned in a newspaper article, in the form of an alleged yacht "present", the Sunday Times, I think, but then again I dont have proof that Osama Bin Laden was involved in Sep 11.

Redspider

iregk

kronsington wrote:

lets see how the **** like "Lamps" and "JT" get on now...

I think thats a ban is it not?

HashSlinging

LOL

Gotta love the lads on football365.!

http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_2744774,00.html

Necronomicon

HashSlinging wrote:

LOL

Gotta love the lads on football365.!

http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_2744774,00.html

That's good

MrJoeSoap

iregk wrote:

I think thats a ban is it not?

Report the post.

Mr Alan

anyone who denies RA is the main reason (as in 99% of the reason) that Chelsea are the club they are now, is absolutely deluded

Necronomicon

millersangel wrote:

anyone who denies RA is the main reason (as in 99% of the reason) that Chelsea are the club they are now, is absolutely deluded

I wouldn't go as far as 99%. Of course his money got them to where they are, but not alone. If money mattered more than the manager, then Ranieri would've delivered the Premiership during RA's first season in charge. And of course, we'll all soon see how Grant does. If he bombs, then it's further proof that you need a top-class manager to compliment the money.

Mr Alan

I'll stand by my 99%

growler

shane86 wrote:

Considering their "is it guns, is it drugs" chant I dont think they really do.
QUOTE]


Actually I'm intrigued too, I've been to every home game at the bridge for 8 years and i've never heard such a chant from chelsea?

You sure it isn't scousers you're thinking of?

Originally Posted by millersangel
anyone who denies RA is the main reason (as in 99% of the reason) that Chelsea are the club they are now, is absolutely deluded


Err. Chelsea has existed as a club for over 100 years, Abramovich has been with us for 3odd years, hardly enough time to make the club what it is today. Maybe you're confusing the "club" with current success, in which case I still disagree with you that RA was 99% responsible for our success, as has been pointed out there are plenty of clubs with money who have failed to succeed, RA lovely roubels certainly contributed to our success but was far from the only factor in it, to relegate Jose's involvement to delivering back to back titles (never mind the players) to 1% tells me you know SFA about football.

Chelsea FC as a club is bigger than any one man, and will still be there long after Abramovich, Kenyon and co.

Mitch Connor

Necromomicon wrote:

I wouldn't go as far as 99%. Of course his money got them to where they are, but not alone. If money mattered more than the manager, then Ranieri would've delivered the Premiership during RA's first season in charge. And of course, we'll all soon see how Grant does. If he bombs, then it's further proof that you need a top-class manager to compliment the money.

In fairness to Ranieri, his chelsea side came seecond to a side tht went the league season unbeaten, and he got to the CL semi final.

Mourinho's main players the first season he was in charge were arguably Cech, Terry, Robben, Duff, Cole, Makalele and Lampard. All Ranieri players. None of Mourinho's signings made much of an impact that first season, or maybe one did. Had Ranieri been given a second season with that group of players, there is every chance he would have gone that step further.

The first chelsea title success was over a United side that were crap and riddled with injuries pretty much all season, and an Arsenal side that imploded in spectacular fashion after losing to United at OT.

Also, Grants success or failure won't be down to his ability either imo - it will be down to whether he can get the players working for him, and if the reports of widespread upset at the departure of Jose and dislike of Grant are to be believed he will have a hard time getting that.

maybe not 99%, as Jose got the players working fantastically hard for him, but 75% wouldn't be pushing it.

Mitch Connor

growler wrote:

Err. Chelsea has existed as a club for over 100 years, Abramovich has been with us for 3odd years, hardly enough time to make the club what it is today. Maybe you're confusing the "club" with current success, in which case I still disagree with you that RA was 99% responsible for our success, as has been pointed out there are plenty of clubs with money who have failed to succeed, RA lovely roubels certainly contributed to our success but was far from the only factor in it, to relegate Jose's involvement to delivering back to back titles (never mind the players) to 1% tells me you know SFA about football.

Chelsea FC as a club is bigger than any one man, and will still be there long after Abramovich, Kenyon and co.

Without RA and his oodles of roubles (i like that...) Jose and the players wouldn't be there, bar Terry, Lampard and Joe Cole - and there have been strong rumours that United had agreed a deal to sign both Lampard and Terry before RA came in (meaning chelsea did not need the cash)

growler

Tauren wrote:

- and there have been strong rumours that United had agreed a deal to sign both Lampard and Terry before RA came in (meaning chelsea did not need the cash)

Did need the money I guess you mean, yeah very true, we'd be doing a Leeds now if it wasn't for that lovely dirty money.

Mr Alan

at least you can admit its dirty money so . . .

PiE

In fairness you'd be hard-pressed to find a billionaire who hadn't got some of his money through dodgy dealings.

Mitch Connor

growler wrote:

Did need the money I guess you mean, yeah very true, we'd be doing a Leeds now if it wasn't for that lovely dirty money.

no i mean did not - as in Roman buying the club and wiping the debt ment chelsea were in a stronger position financially and did not need to sell anyone.

I don't think Chelsea would have been doing a leeds, and i never said otherwise. I have always said that the assets chelsea had, such as the ground itself and the hotel (given the location) were in a sounder position then the debts indicated, but they did need investment in order to compete consistently at the highest level - you had people actively looking for investers because of this.

While i don't believe chelsea would have done a leeds without RA, if things had continued as they had been at the time, you could easily being doing a newcastle or spurs - a club with the potential and resources to 'crack' the top four and become a major player in the english league.

I don't think what I have written above is all that bad, or inaccurate (but then i wouldn't), but the tone of your post appears to suggest I have made implications that i do not believe I have done, or you are lumping me in with the "Its all down to dirty Roman and his dirty money, you'd have folded without him' crowd - which i do not believe i am a pat of.

Smegball

Romans money brought the great potential of Chelsea to a attainable chance of success, it was Mourinho that delivered the success. Mourinho's involvement cannot be ignored IMO.

Mitch Connor

Smegball wrote:

Romans money brought the great potential of Chelsea to a attainable chance of success, it was Mourinho that delivered the success. Mourinho's involvement cannot be ignored IMO.

i agree, it can't be ignored, but Roman and his money are far more important than Mourinho imo.

If Chelsea fans were permitted a choice on Sunday morning one of the :

1. Mourinho back in charge but RA and all his money gone, while demanding Chelsea repay the money he has given them as marked loans

or

2. Roman and all his money, no Mourinho.

Which would they chose?

A few idealists may chose Mourinho, but i would imagine the vast majority would want Abramovic staying around.

leninbenjamin

Smegball wrote:

Romans money brought the great potential of Chelsea to a attainable chance of success, it was Mourinho that delivered the success. Mourinho's involvement cannot be ignored IMO.

meh.... for me all this success wouldn't have happened if it weren't for Ranieri. he had the club in a very healthy footballing shape prior to the takeover, and even after RA came in all his buys, bar Glen Johnson i guess, became immensely valuable to the clubs initial success. Mourinho came in and built upon it, and probably only Mourinho could have gotten them as competative as they became, but he had a lot of his work done for him already by the tinkerman before him. so they are all just parts of the puzzle really...

Smegball

Yep, fully agree without Abramovic Chelsea will be in huge trouble!
Also I agree Roman's arrival was far more important than Mourinho's, if Roman never arrived, Mourinho would have never came in the first place.

Smegball

leninbenjamin wrote:

meh.... for me all this success wouldn't have happened if it weren't for Ranieri. he had the club in a very healthy footballing shape prior to the takeover, and even after RA came in all his buys, bar Glen Johnson i guess, became immensely valuable to the clubs initial success. Mourinho came in and built upon it, and probably only Mourinho could have gotten them as competative as they became, but he had a lot of his work done for him already by the tinkerman before him. so they are all just parts of the puzzle really...

Yeah I suppose Ranieri's buys were alot better than Mourinho's IMO, except Drogba and Essien. Cech was a great signing by Ranieri particularly, I always thought if they let Mourinho manage the players and team and let Ranieri buy the players it would be a uber super team lol.

~Rebel~

Im pretty sure all the Drogba work was done by Ranieri as well. I also definately remember links between him and chelsea back when the Drog was doing wreck in the Uefa cup with Marseille

growler

Tauren wrote:

no i mean did not - as in Roman buying the club and wiping the debt ment chelsea were in a stronger position financially and did not need to sell anyone.

I don't think Chelsea would have been doing a leeds, and i never said otherwise. I have always said that the assets chelsea had, such as the ground itself and the hotel (given the location) were in a sounder position then the debts indicated, but they did need investment in order to compete consistently at the highest level - you had people actively looking for investers because of this.

While i don't believe chelsea would have done a leeds without RA, if things had continued as they had been at the time, you could easily being doing a newcastle or spurs - a club with the potential and resources to 'crack' the top four and become a major player in the english league.

I don't think what I have written above is all that bad, or inaccurate (but then i wouldn't), but the tone of your post appears to suggest I have made implications that i do not believe I have done, or you are lumping me in with the "Its all down to dirty Roman and his dirty money, you'd have folded without him' crowd - which i do not believe i am a pat of.

I may be getting stupid in my old age, sorry if i took your point the wrong way , but explain why chelsea would have sold terry and lampard if they did not need the cash urgently? The arrival of RA negated the immediate need to sell players in order to stay afloat.

If RA or another investor had not turned up (and there were other potential buyers out there) Chelsea would have been swamped by its debt and unable to meet its interest repayments in very short order. As the club had already indebted itself (courtesy of cuddly Ken) the existing assets were already in the pawn shop window. We were, at best, 3 months away from going bust with RA stepped in, I know this from a friend who was closely involved in the sales to RA and would have no reason to mislead me.

The only saving grace for chelsea, was that the pitch itself is owned by the fans, which meant the stadium could never be sold for redevelopment without the fans agreement, otherwise it would have been the banks moving in to secure their profits.

sorry for lumping you in with anyone, even as a chelsea fan I believe that without him or another investor Chelsea would currently be doing a leeds, albeit in a nicer stadium.

leninbenjamin

growler wrote:

I may be getting stupid in my old age, sorry if i took your point the wrong way , but explain why chelsea would have sold terry and lampard if they did not need the cash urgently? The arrival of RA negated the immediate need to sell players in order to stay afloat.

ye've both been saying the same thing on that issue. just arseways.

kronsington

iregk wrote:

I think thats a ban is it not?

how so?

growler

kronsington wrote:

how so?

coz calling nice football players names is expressly forbidden ever since the great "Paul Scholes is a g***er C**t" debacle of 1845. I'd imagine.

kronsington

im sorry. i didnt mean to upset you. im sure your "nice" players and you will get through this difficult time. bet "lamps" is glad he didnt sign that contract now eh?

yabadabado

were chelsea not just a few days away from being in trouble over there dept?is this not the reason was let go coz they didn have money to sign players give new deals.

AnCapaillMor

Hope the Redknapp rumour is true, won't have to listen to his crap on skysports any more.