Chelsea Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2016

Lukker-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iBAAww3KwI

efb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BScjmL76rMI

Christ, what a pair of bellends

GavRedKing

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What's the rule for the stadium ban - is he allowed phone contact with the bench, or is it complete ban on communication?

Complete ban, although a similar ban against Bayern Munich, allegedly seen him climb into a laundry basket and deliver prematch and half timeteam talks, although thats never been confirmed.

There was a picture or pictures though of Rui Faria wearing a wolly hat on the bench and pieces of paper going back and forth between him and then assistant Steve Clarke about the game, again, allegedly Faria had an ear piece or blue tooth headset and was in communication with Jose, which is likely IMO.

Jose was banned from the 2nd leg too and UEFA was also convinced Faria had an ear piece so he was frisked before taking his place on the bench for the 2nd leg, only after he was sent to do the pre-match press conference by Chelsea.

grumpymunster

efb wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BScjmL76rMI

Christ, what a pair of bellends

Why - did you actually listen to them.

I suspect not.

peteeeed

https://twitter.com/cesc4official/status/661467560907579392


https://twitter.com/cesc4official/status/661467659096203264


https://twitter.com/cesc4official/status/661467708215713792

grumpymunster

Well either that makes total s***e of the secret footballer report or there is some serious back tracking going on. Thing is if its true I cant see that he club have any option but to back Jose and get shot of the player / players in question, otherwise we just fall back into the normal "JT is really the manager of the club" BS.

GavRedKing

The secret footballer never names who it is, there was just guess work, the main candidates of it being Matic, Cesc or Hazard.

I'd prefer if Cesc came out and performed though, all the twitter babble in the world means feck all if we dont beat Kiev and Stoke.

grumpymunster

GavRedKing wrote: »

The secret footballer never names who it is, there was just guess work, the main candidates of it being Matic, Cesc or Hazard.

I'd prefer if Cesc came out and performed though, all the twitter babble in the world means feck all if we dont beat Kiev and Stoke.

Dont know about that Gav this is pretty conclusive

I’m told that Cesc Fabregas is the leader of that mini-revolt. And as a player, you do things like this when you know you are in the right.
Read more at http://www.thesecretfootballer.com/articles/tsf-diary/29129/chelsea-players-revolt-yet-still-stubborn-jose-mourinho-wont-back-down/#1QBDzYQgFIOA8Tw9.99

Page two of the item.

Lukker-

GavRedKing wrote: »

The secret footballer never names who it is, there was just guess work, the main candidates of it being Matic, Cesc or Hazard.

I'd prefer if Cesc came out and performed though, all the twitter babble in the world means feck all if we dont beat Kiev and Stoke.

He said yesterday Fabregas was leading the mini revolt.

peteeeed

it should be renamed 'the bitter footballer '

GavRedKing

I must have missed that

I only read the article once and mustnt have been paying attention ha.

GavRedKing

So whats the going to happen tomorrow night?

Does RLC, Cesc, Mikel, Matic or Ramires start in CM?
Who starts in the back line?
Does Hazard start?
Will we get 3pts?

GavRedKing

Also, we're now in November, the tradiontal month where Chelsea are absolute tripe.

It surely cant get worse can it?

We've got Kiev, Stoke, Norwich and Spurs in November.

efb

grumpymunster wrote: »

Why - did you actually listen to them.

I suspect not.

The woman was treated disgracefully by Chelsea and Jose, she is entitled to her good name and redress. They are blaming her for putting pressure on Chelsea! Are you ok with victim blaming???

efb

peteeeed wrote: »

https://twitter.com/cesc4official/status/661467560907579392


https://twitter.com/cesc4official/status/661467659096203264


https://twitter.com/cesc4official/status/661467708215713792

I wonder was he assisted with that statement...

Richard Hillman

Fabregas couldn't lead a plug let alone a dressing room revolt. He probably sits around making bitchy, passive agressive comments.

It wouldn't surprise me at all of he did a Bruce Jenner after he retires.

hots

efb wrote: »

Are you ok with victim blaming???

Would ya stop, he asked what the problem was with the video.

efb

hots wrote: »

Would ya stop, he asked what the problem was with the video.

They were victim blaming, if you don't see that as a problem, then you wouldn't have a problem with the video.

Do you think its ok

hullaballoo

I might get on to Fàbregas' dear old auntie and find out whether he's leading plugs or revolts so.

Christ.

efb

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Fabregas couldn't lead a plug let alone a dressing room revolt. He probably sits around making bitchy, passive agressive comments.

It wouldn't surprise me at all of he did a Bruce Jenner after he retires.

GavRedKing

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Fabregas couldn't lead a plug let alone a dressing room revolt. He probably sits around making bitchy, passive agressive comments.

It wouldn't surprise me at all of he did a Bruce Jenner after he retires.

Thanks for the insight and wisodm, I'm enlighted by your comments.

Do you have a newsletter we could sign up too?

GavRedKing

hullaballoo wrote: »

I might get on to Fàbregas' dear old auntie and find out whether he's leading plugs or revolts so.

Christ.

What if hes plugging the revolt?

grumpymunster

hots wrote: »

Would ya stop, he asked what the problem was with the video.

The pretend outrage brigade in full flow it seems. Also seems some people hear what they want not what is said.

Still we are easy meat at the moment and some people love to kick when you are down

efb

grumpymunster wrote: »

The pretend outrage brigade in full flow it seems. Also seems some people hear what they want not what is said.

Still we are easy meat at the moment and some people love to kick when you are down

Listen this isn't a petty anti Chelsea thing, I've defended ye enough on the Arsenal thread. Its the sheer victim blaming and bullying in the work place which i have issue with, a sensitive subject for me at the mo.

So, don't think for a second this is just a cheap dig at chelsea- I did only refer to the guys in the video, not the club.

Jose's comments of late have been beyond the pale though

duploelabs

efb wrote: »

Jose's comments of late have been beyond the pale though

what exact comments are you referring to?

efb

duploelabs wrote: »

what exact comments are you referring to?

Do they need spelling out????

duploelabs

efb wrote: »

Do they need spelling out????

Give me the direct quotes and then they can be taken on face value rather than editorialising them

efb

duploelabs wrote: »

Give me the direct quotes and then they can be taken on face value rather than editorialising them

If you can't understand which ones they were I'm not going to spend my time Spelling it out to you

duploelabs

efb wrote: »

If you can't understand which ones they were I'm not going to spend my time Spelling it out to you

The whole point of putting out an argument/debate/discussion is to list your references, to ignore this is to make said point completely invalid.

efb

duploelabs wrote: »

The whole point of putting out an argument/debate/discussion is to list your references, to ignore this is to make said point completely invalid.

Ignoring the Mourinho but· the remainder still stands do you agree?

grumpymunster

efb wrote: »

Listen this isn't a petty anti Chelsea thing, I've defended ye enough on the Arsenal thread. Its the sheer victim blaming and bullying in the work place which i have issue with, a sensitive subject for me at the mo.

So, don't think for a second this is just a cheap dig at chelsea- I did only refer to the guys in the video, not the club.

Jose's comments of late have been beyond the pale though

I maintain you did not listen to the video and its clear you did not.

They state clearly she won and she was right
They state clearly she is entitled to her compensation
They state clearly pretty much the world and their dog supports her

So she settles with the club and then launches an action against Jose and it is this they are questioning. They also state clearly (and apologise even as they know others will have differing views) that they are looking at this from a Chelsea perspective and that others will look at it from her perspective. So as I read it they agree she was wronged they agree she deserved compensation which the club have agreed to but they now think having settled that she is being vindictive. The thing is after agreeing a package with the club and now going after Jose could well impact on her future prospects. How many times does she want to prove her former employers wrong?

All of this they are clear about and they are fully entitled to their view which they put forward in a quite rational way. Their points about Capello and TSF are also well made for me being a Chelsea fan.

So I sympathise if you or someone you know in the work place are having issues (no messing I really do you go to work to earn money not to be abused). But your argument here is absurd and for me is just another in a long list of anti Chelsea BS that is prevalent.

No doubt I am a bell end as well or whatever you called them couldn't give a monkeys to be honest.

efb

Mourinho branded his medical staff 'impulsive and naive' as treating Hazard meant Chelsea would be temporarily down to nine men - Thibaut Courtois had already been sent off. 'Whether you are a kit man, doctor or secretary on the bench you have to understand the game,' Mourinho said.

This was wrong and inappropriate and undermined her professional authority

efb

grumpymunster wrote: »

I maintain you did not listen to the video and its clear you did not.

They state clearly she won and she was right
They state clearly she is entitled to her compensation
They state clearly pretty much the world and their dog supports her

So she settles with the club and then launches an action against Jose and it is this they are questioning. They also state clearly (and apologise even as they know others will have differing views) that they are looking at this from a Chelsea perspective and that others will look at it from her perspective. So as I read it they agree she was wronged they agree she deserved compensation which the club have agreed to but they now think having settled that she is being vindictive. The thing is after agreeing a package with the club and now going after Jose could well impact on her future prospects. How many times does she want to prove her former employers wrong?

All of this they are clear about and they are fully entitled to their view which they put forward in a quite rational way. Their points about Capello and TSF are also well made for me being a Chelsea fan.

So I sympathise if you or someone you know in the work place are having issues (no messing I really do you go to work to earn money not to be abused). But your argument here is absurd and for me is just another in a long list of anti Chelsea BS that is prevalent.

No doubt I am a bell end as well or whatever you called them couldn't give a monkeys to be honest.

Im looking at it from a legal perspective, she was defamed and publicly ridiculed by Jose, as well as being effectively sacked by Chelsea FC. She is entitled to redress for both, calling her vindictive is victim blaming.

I am not calling you a bell end.

efb

grumpymunster wrote: »

I maintain you did not listen to the video and its clear you did not.

They state clearly she won and she was right
They state clearly she is entitled to her compensation
They state clearly pretty much the world and their dog supports her

So she settles with the club and then launches an action against Jose and it is this they are questioning. They also state clearly (and apologise even as they know others will have differing views) that they are looking at this from a Chelsea perspective and that others will look at it from her perspective. So as I read it they agree she was wronged they agree she deserved compensation which the club have agreed to but they now think having settled that she is being vindictive. The thing is after agreeing a package with the club and now going after Jose could well impact on her future prospects. How many times does she want to prove her former employers wrong?

All of this they are clear about and they are fully entitled to their view which they put forward in a quite rational way. Their points about Capello and TSF are also well made for me being a Chelsea fan.

So I sympathise if you or someone you know in the work place are having issues (no messing I really do you go to work to earn money not to be abused). But your argument here is absurd and for me is just another in a long list of anti Chelsea BS that is prevalent.

No doubt I am a bell end as well or whatever you called them couldn't give a monkeys to be honest.

How is it clear I didn't listen to it all btw??? How did you jump to that conclusion???

efb

duploelabs wrote: »

The whole point of putting out an argument/debate/discussion is to list your references, to ignore this is to make said point completely invalid.

I am aware of that, in a debate you don't need to references things that are known in the public domain, but I gave you the quotes

grumpymunster

Just when you thought it couldnt get any worse IVAN'S BACK....................

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3301648/Branislav-Ivanovic-returns-Chelsea-training-pressure-Jose-Mourinho-prepares-crunch-Champions-League-clash-against-Dynamo-Kiev.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

I think I might have found out our problem though is though, scroll down to the third photo from the end. Why are they practising a line out they are supposed to be playing soccer for Gods sake. And having played a bit in the distant past Costa will never make a hooker, there is only one in the line out preparing to lift. The call seems all wrong.

Maybe if we concentrate on soccer we can do something?????

grumpymunster

efb wrote: »

Mourinho branded his medical staff 'impulsive and naive' as treating Hazard meant Chelsea would be temporarily down to nine men - Thibaut Courtois had already been sent off. 'Whether you are a kit man, doctor or secretary on the bench you have to understand the game,' Mourinho said.

This was wrong and inappropriate and undermined her professional authority

No one has denied that on here that I know of. Jose should have apologised but the statement should not have been made in public. The club agreed a compensation package for this. I would assume there was internal discipline taken against Jose.

She had an argument, the club decided to settle, she won so how many times does she want to win?

GavRedKing

I feel sorry for Jon Fearn, that poor bas*ard went through the very same treatment but wasnt backed to the hilt by anyone looking to take a swipe at the club.

Poor Jon even took his new role on board and continued to work at Chelsea when requested.

IMO, if this was two male medics it had happened too this wouldnt even be an issue, the claims of sexism were a good laugh a few weeks ago and it all hinged on lip reading experts assuming something was said.

Eva, is probably the most recognisable team doctors around but when she was getting abused by pretty much every set of idiot fans up and down the country as a Chelsea medic, it didnt make the papers as sexist insults by opposition fans, she leaves Chelsea and suddenly shes haven affairs with senior players and Jose is sexist after the treatment of her, even though both herself and Fearn got the same treatment and both were asked to conintue their duties.

You couldnt make it up, well you could and it has been by the jurnos.

grumpymunster

efb wrote: »

I am aware of that, in a debate you don't need to references things that are known in the public domain, but I gave you the quotes

Actually you didn't and you ALWAYS have to reference. If you don't its your opinion only and the weight which may be brought to bear by referencing is lost.

efb

grumpymunster wrote: »

No one has denied that on here that I know of. Jose should have apologised but the statement should not have been made in public. The club agreed a compensation package for this. I would assume there was internal discipline taken against Jose.

She had an argument, the club decided to settle, she won so how many times does she want to win?

Two separate issues here, dismissal and defamation

Do you still think I didn't watch the video? Are you going to retract that statement???

efb

efb wrote: »

Mourinho branded his medical staff 'impulsive and naive' as treating Hazard meant Chelsea would be temporarily down to nine men - Thibaut Courtois had already been sent off. 'Whether you are a kit man, doctor or secretary on the bench you have to understand the game,' Mourinho said.

This was wrong and inappropriate and undermined her professional authority

what is that then grumpy master???

Quotes are in, quotation marks.

efb

intelligent discussion indeed.

hots

efb wrote: »

Im looking at it from a legal perspective, she was defamed and publicly ridiculed by Jose, as well as being effectively sacked by Chelsea FC. She is entitled to redress for both, calling her vindictive is victim blaming.

I am not calling you a bell end.

She was no more sacked by Chelsea, like Jon Fearn she was asked to do different duties. People do different things in work all of the time.

efb

hots wrote: »

She was no more sacked by Chelsea, like Jon Fearn she was asked to do different duties. People do different things in work all of the time.

look up Constructive Dismissal. She was effectively sacked, Chelsea agreed and paid out.

hots

efb wrote: »

look up Constructive Dismissal. She was effectively sacked, Chelsea agreed and paid out.

Sure go on "constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment."

How does different duties = hostile work environment.

GavRedKing

Eva took it upon herself not to return as she clearly felt she couldnt work at Chelsea.

Good luck to her in whatever she does afterwards and this will all be forgotten anyway in a few weeks.

She was also never sacked.

efb

hots wrote: »

Sure go on "constructive termination, occurs when an employee resigns as a result of the employer creating a hostile work environment."

How does different duties = hostile work environment.

demeaning tasks below their pay grade is one.

efb

GavRedKing wrote: »

Eva took it upon herself not to return as she clearly felt she couldnt work at Chelsea.

Good luck to her in whatever she does afterwards and this will all be forgotten anyway in a few weeks.

She was also never sacked.

Why did Chelsea pay out then??? It was, in effect, constructive dismissal.

Yeah my degree is useful at last...

hots

efb wrote: »

demeaning tasks below their pay grade is one.

Oh noes, the doctor is asked to doctor somewhere different. Like the many other club doctors/physios they do work at the training ground, stadium, hospital etc etc. I'm not aware of her pay grade but I've no reason to suspect she's paid any differently to any of the other physios/doctors, are you?

hots

efb wrote: »

Why did Chelsea pay out then??? It was, in effect, constructive dismissal.

Yeah my degree is useful at last...

People pay out all the time for many reasons, often to try and put an issue to bed as quickly as possible.