Jose Mourinho

MonsterCookie

bad2dabone wrote: »

He didn't do too bad, won the European competition that yiz were in, qualified for the CL.
Not bad eh?

That's what I would have thought alright. I mean, it seems to be all about trophies when we talk about Jose but not Rafa...go figure.

grumpymunster

bad2dabone wrote: »

Of course, if the new guy is let spend it
But United have put a few hundred mill into their side with questionable success.
Anyhow back to Jose I think the points made earlier about his high pressure siege mentality style contributing to the current issues at Chelsea are spot on.
But I also think that he's very aware of his growing reputation as a two or three season manager and he'll want that cycle to end. It remains to be seen if the oligarch will pull the trigger on him. I dunno if he will sack him, I think he might well guide him a chance

As a Chelsea fan I really hope he keeps his position he is a winner, I do think you have a point on the 2/3 year thing but I don't see it in anyone's interest that he is sacked.
Maybe he should cool things a bit and let Holland take the after match interviews for a while, I think that is within the rules. Jose has to take the Friday press conference though they can be very entertaining

gosplan

grumpymunster wrote: »

Ultimately it is the football authorities fault. There is more to "Respect" than a badge on shirts. First respect has to be earned it is not given. Second if criticising an official is against the rules then every example should be penalised. Third players crowding refs should be heavily punished. Fourth Players shouting at refs should be heavily punished. Fifth refs should have to explain their actions, football is fast they make mistakes and players try and push the rules cheat what ever. But in most professions you have to answer for your actions referees should.

If the FA, UEFA, FIFA wanted to end this they would - they choose not to.

Let's cut to the quick all managers do it some get away with it far more than others but none should.

That would be fair, and that is all you want a level playing field no more.

It's really not. They could do better bit Jose is on the perma-warpath. It's all down to him. He just needs to stop picking fights.

The football authorities, the Madrid old guard, the Spanish press, the Italian press.

There's a common denominator.

monkey9

grumpymunster wrote: »

Perhaps perhaps not not wanting to slag a man who just lost his job but if a new managers signings didn't work out like Liverpools recent ones or a lot of the Spurs ones from the Bale money then support and money is quick to go.

These things are transient and difficult to predict, but in general yes they should be fine.

Now back to the thread I think the main song from the Lego movie is about Jose. Everything is awesome .........

Chelsea's sudden flush twelve years ago has promoted them from the big Millwall into the big boys league. Arsenal will have created that money organically to spend and they will have plenty to spend. Arsenal are and will always be a bigger draw than Chelsea. This will be the difference. When it comes down to it, the great players will choose Arsenal over Chelsea.

One of the all time great managers.

Bit of a boor with the press, maybe mean to some players. But then again Ferguson simply refused to talk to a section of the press for having the cheek to mildly criticise his policy of showing players the door if they didn't appoint his son as agent. Success blinds a lot of analysis.

monkey9

monkey9 wrote: »

Chelsea's sudden flush twelve years ago has promoted them from the big Millwall into the big boys league. Arsenal will have created that money organically to spend and they will have plenty to spend. Arsenal are and will always be a bigger draw than Chelsea. This will be the difference. When it comes down to it, the great players will choose Arsenal over Chelsea.

I'm afraid Chelsea left Arsenal behind them a decade ago.

bad2dabone

monkey9 wrote: »

When it comes down to it, the great players will choose Arsenal over Chelsea.

That's false, the great players will choose who can Pay the most and who can offer them the best chance of success.

Chelsea currently have the edge on those I feel

bad2dabone

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm afraid Chelsea left Arsenal behind them a decade ago.

Well this is the kind of nonsense that inflames threads

gosplan

Since when was this about Arsenal anyway.

OP said fed up of Mourinho antics.

MonsterCookie

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm afraid Chelsea left Arsenal behind them a decade ago.

Not really, no.

http://www.totalsportek.com/money/richest-football-clubs/

Doesn't take a genius to figure out why Chelsea and city are up there.

cadaliac

bad2dabone wrote: »

Well this is the kind of nonsense that inflames threads

What - spouting about club A being better than Club B?
In a soccer forum, in a Jose Mourinho thread?

Really?

FlawedGenius

Didnt want the Chavskii job in the first place hence his excitement on his first presser when he came back, Id well believe he cried when he didnt get the United job he was the only man to replace Fergie.
Think hes waiting around on Van Gaal to be sacked to take up the biggest job in football and replicate his hero by dominating England amd Europe again with them

MonsterCookie

MonsterCookie wrote: »

Not really, no.

http://www.totalsportek.com/money/richest-football-clubs/

Doesn't take a genius to figure out why Chelsea and city are up there.

I kinda meant out on the field.

I recall Arsenall going on some run of was it 8 or 9 seasons without a trophy.

Meanwhile, over at Chelsea, they were racking up a nice haul.

MonsterCookie

Deleted User wrote: »

I kinda meant out on the field.

I recall Arsenall going on some run of was it 8 or 9 seasons without a trophy.

Meanwhile, over at Chelsea, they were racking up a nice haul.

Yeah I know. And while that barren spell was very frustrating for us Arsenal fans, only time will tell if the investment was worth it.

In the meantime, back in this thread...Jose is still a dick!

Chelsea fans shouldn't forget how lucky they are to gave such a rich sugar daddy. It's a bit like the scumbag lotto winner looking down on everybody else because they can't afford to drive around in a brand new Merc every year...

cadaliac

MonsterCookie wrote: »

Yeah I know. And while that barren spell was very frustrating for us Arsenal fans, only time will tell if the investment was worth it.

In the meantime, back in this thread...Jose is still a dick!

Chelsea fans shouldn't forget how lucky they are to gave such a rich sugar daddy. It's a bit like the scumbag lotto winner looking down on everybody else because they can't afford to drive around in a brand new Merc every year...

You know, I'd say you are more of a Chelsea hater than a Jose hater - correct?
In any case - that is just a special quote. Well done. You have shown the real reason why you are posting in this thread.

gosplan

I'm a huge Arsenal fan but don't buy that there's any superiority. We sacrificed a decade to be owned by an Uzbeki oligarch and an American sports capitalist.

Going back, I'd take Roman in a shot. He even carries himself well never commenting or getting involved.

I don't mind Chelsea too much. Can't stand Jose, Costa or Terry. Rest are grand.

symbolic

gosplan wrote: »

I'm a huge Arsenal fan but don't buy that there's any superiority..

There is.

gosplan

symbolic wrote: »

There is.

Sorry, any JUSTIFIED superiority.

In ownership and structure.

Good Lord, I don't like Chelsea, but the desperate efforts to somehow claim that Arsenal are superior based on notions of class or ownership are laughable.

Oh for the good old days when few knew or cared about ownership or shirt sales or club worth and measured everything by trophies. In which case, in the past decade, Chelsea have as a matter of fact left Arsenal behind. Not that I'd criticise Wenger, he is a great manager and deserves credit for keeping his club in touch with the 3 massive spenders.

Kirby

Indeed. I'm always amused and baffled by fans playing one upmanship with regards their owners, "history" and class. Each club is a money making machine owned by millionaires. The idea that they are in any way different in that regards is folly.

Each club thinks they are a special flower, who do things the "right" way and have the best fans ever. It's just mental gymnastics. All part of the same machine.

grumpymunster

monkey9 wrote: »

Chelsea's sudden flush twelve years ago has promoted them from the big Millwall into the big boys league. Arsenal will have created that money organically to spend and they will have plenty to spend. Arsenal are and will always be a bigger draw than Chelsea. This will be the difference. When it comes down to it, the great players will choose Arsenal over Chelsea.

You seem to have the same history block as many on here suggest you hit the books old boy. In the domestic context Arsenal have a better record than Chelsea on the European stage Arsenal do not hold a candle to Chelsea. Funny thing is regardless of how much money you think Arsenal will have to spend in the future you will most likely never have more European trophies than Chelsea.

Should everyone hold their nerve and Jose survive we will add to the total of that there is no doubt.

grumpymunster

Kirby wrote: »

Indeed. I'm always amused and baffled by fans playing one upmanship with regards their owners, "history" and class. Each club is a money making machine owned by millionaires. The idea that they are in any way different in that regards is folly.

Each club thinks they are a special flower, who do things the "right" way and have the best fans ever. It's just mental gymnastics. All part of the same machine.

I have been trying to get an answer to the whole class thing for ages now. It keeps getting sprouted that Jose and Chelsea are classless what does that mean exactly.

I remember many moons ago on the Munsterfans website there was much nashing of teeth when it was suggested that Munster Rugby was a brand and not a club.

It may not coincide with peoples cozy feeling of the local club but major sides that are capable of winning the major national and international trophies are fully fledged international brands moving and working on an international stage. They train behind closed doors, the players and officials have limited interaction with local communities and when they do it is normally stage managed. That said they provide a release and excitement that we need and indeed crave and in an increasingly PC society allows us to give off steam which is great.

At the end of the day its a business though and Jose makes headlines and that sells shirts. Stamford Bridge (whilst not huge is a respectable 42,000 capacity) has been sold out for every league match at least for years now the model works obviously.

symbolic

grumpymunster wrote: »

I have been trying to get an answer to the whole class thing for ages now.

How do you define class?

grumpymunster

symbolic wrote: »

How do you define class?

I have no idea for me it is (class) an outdated concept but I am curious as to what Chelsea and Jose being classless actually means.

Under the traditional definition of class I am working class as I have to work to eat and pay my bills. But pretty much everyone falls under that description and I am pretty sure it does apply to Chelsea and Jose as such.

Panthro

symbolic wrote: »

How do you define class?

You're asking someone for their definition of "class" , even though you've quoted them as saying " I have been trying to get an answer to the whole class thing for ages now."

grumpymunster

Panthro wrote: »

You're asking someone for their definition of "class" , even though you've quoted them as saying " I have been trying to get an answer to the whole class thing for ages now."

Panthro you should know far better than to try and apply logic :rolleyes: its absolutely wasted.

symbolic

Panthro wrote: »

You're asking someone for their definition of "class" , even though you've quoted them as saying " I have been trying to get an answer to the whole class thing for ages now."

I thought he had an opinion on what class was but didn't see how it applied to Jose. Apologies!

I didn't realise he didn't know what people meant when they said, x person has a bit of class about them.

symbolic

grumpymunster wrote: »

Panthro you should know far better than to try and apply logic :rolleyes: its absolutely wasted.

See, I am trying to discuss this with you. Was going to try and help you understand where people were coming from. Then you put me down.

Some people would say, thats not very classy.

JustTheOne

symbolic wrote: »

I thought he had an opinion on what class was but didn't see how it applied to Jose. Apologies!

I didn't realise he didn't know what people meant when they said, x person has a bit of class about them.

He knows when someone says the have a bit of class about them exactly what it means.

It's just another deflection.


class


A person who is poised, graceful, mature, or exudes any of these qualities in dress, mannerism, language, and everyday life. Possesses excellent self-control, is gentle, soothing, and unoffensive.

Also used to refer to people or styles from the past; when copied, general impression of others upon seeing them is "classy", a reference to all things classic or that have class.
1. She was the epitome of class in the way she carried and presented herself.

2. They all agreed that the man who paid unwavering attention to his escort and stayed by her side all night had an unprecedented amount of class.

grumpymunster

symbolic wrote: »

I thought he had an opinion on what class was but didn't see how it applied to Jose. Apologies!

I didn't realise he didn't know what people meant when they said, x person has a bit of class about them.

And what EXACTLY does that mean is it in the adjective form you speak? If so how does it apply? If not what does it mean.

grumpymunster

symbolic wrote: »

I thought he had an opinion on what class was but didn't see how it applied to Jose. Apologies!

I didn't realise he didn't know what people meant when they said, x person has a bit of class about them.

symbolic wrote: »

See, I am trying to discuss this with you. Was going to try and help you understand where people were coming from. Then you put me down.

Some people would say, thats not very classy.

No you are not trying to discuss this at all, to say someone has no class is a senseless and totally non-descriptive statement I am curious what it is suppose to mean.

My vocabulary is reasonably extensive and I understand the word "class" in many forms, but then I apply logic to its meaning.

symbolic

grumpymunster wrote: »

No you are not trying to discuss this at all.

I was actually. So now I am a liar.

Good lord.

cowboyBuilder

I thought threads like this were banned ?

grumpymunster

JustTheOne wrote: »

He knows when someone says the have a bit of class about them exactly what it means.

It's just another deflection.


class


A person who is poised, graceful, mature, or exudes any of these qualities in dress, mannerism, language, and everyday life. Possesses excellent self-control, is gentle, soothing, and unoffensive.

Also used to refer to people or styles from the past; when copied, general impression of others upon seeing them is "classy", a reference to all things classic or that have class.
1. She was the epitome of class in the way she carried and presented herself.

2. They all agreed that the man who paid unwavering attention to his escort and stayed by her side all night had an unprecedented amount of class.

I can cut and paste from wiki or the urban dictionary as good as the next man how does it apply to an entity like Chelsea?

Does a person failing on just one count mean they are classless?

What does it mean in modern society?

As a devout christian, married for over 25 years, caring father, well known for charity works, educated university graduate, suave, fluent in 5 languages, wealthy and successful Jose is a better man than most.

You asked me what my definition is. Its quite easy my definition of classless in the sense used here is jealousy.

grumpymunster

symbolic wrote: »

I was actually. So now I am a liar.

Good lord.

Didn't use that word nor would I as I do not know you, but I think you are looking for a reaction which you are not going to get.

symbolic

grumpymunster wrote: »

Didn't use that word nor would I as I do not know you, but I think you are looking for a reaction which you are not going to get.

And again I feel you're attacking me.

I was just trying to chat to you.

Pro. F

grumpymunster wrote: »

I have been trying to get an answer to the whole class thing for ages now. It keeps getting sprouted that Jose and Chelsea are classless what does that mean exactly.

I remember many moons ago on the Munsterfans website there was much nashing of teeth when it was suggested that Munster Rugby was a brand and not a club.

It may not coincide with peoples cozy feeling of the local club but major sides that are capable of winning the major national and international trophies are fully fledged international brands moving and working on an international stage. They train behind closed doors, the players and officials have limited interaction with local communities and when they do it is normally stage managed. That said they provide a release and excitement that we need and indeed crave and in an increasingly PC society allows us to give off steam which is great.

At the end of the day its a business though and Jose makes headlines and that sells shirts. Stamford Bridge (whilst not huge is a respectable 42,000 capacity) has been sold out for every league match at least for years now the model works obviously.

I'd agree that there aren't likely to be any useful answers to the question of which clubs have more or less class. But you are clearly deluding yourself into believing that we can't see whether or not Jose himself is lacking in class.

You say that you've been trying to get an answer to the whole class thing for ages now, but in reality when posters have given you direct answers (like Rarnes1 did) you've ignored them and you've ridiculously tried to pretend that you can't even understand what people mean by using the words class/classless in this context.

Why not just admit that Mourinho is classless? He's a great manager, but he lacks class - what would be the problem with admitting that to yourself?

grumpymunster

rarnes1 wrote: »

Eye gouging an opponent. Hardly something a regular person does to an opponent


Class is probably the wrong word. The correct word is a lot stronger but probably isn't allowed

Pro. F wrote: »

I'd agree that there aren't likely to be any useful answers to the question of which clubs have more or less class. But you are clearly deluding yourself into believing that we can't see whether or not Jose himself is lacking in class.

You say that you've been trying to get an answer to the whole class thing for ages now, but in reality when posters have given you direct answers (like Rarnes1 did) you've ignored them and you've ridiculously tried to pretend that you can't even understand what people mean by using the words class/classless in this context.

Why not just admit that Mourinho is classless? He's a great manager, but he lacks class - what would be the problem with admitting that to yourself?

Ah classic you refer to a poster who admits that class is probably the wrong word as a definition for something which is really intangible thank you so much I actually laughed at that.

Have a look at post 185 for what I think is a far better definition

Ah man thats classic still chuckling

Pro. F

grumpymunster wrote: »

Ah classic you refer to a poster who admits that class is probably the wrong word as a definition for something which is really intangible thank you so much I actually laughed at that.

Have a look at post 185 for what I think is a far better definition

Ah man thats classic still chuckling

He's says it's the wrong word because he needs something a lot stronger to describe Mourinho but can't use it for fear of getting infracted. So making the reasonable assumption that he's talking about words like "prat", "dickhead" and so on, you can see that what he's talking about encompasses classlessness and goes beyond it.

Here's your definition of classlessness from post 185:
"As a devout christian, married for over 25 years, caring father, well known for charity works, educated university graduate, suave, fluent in 5 languages, wealthy and successful Jose is a better man than most."

The fact that you mention his religion, marital status, education and wealth in your definition of class is utterly ridiculous. It is so obvious that you are trying to pretend that the word class in this context means something different to how everybody else uses it.

Sanity_Saviour

grumpymunster wrote: »

Ah classic you refer to a poster who admits that class is probably the wrong word as a definition for something which is really intangible thank you so much I actually laughed at that.

Have a look at post 185 for what I think is a far better definition

Ah man thats classic still chuckling

stop that you're not being the classy class man that we wish Mourinho was which somehow cheapen his talents as a football manager. He'll never win the CLASSY award of the year that is given out and cherished.

You know it's reaching at straws when "class", something that cannot be quantified or defined in terms of a football manager, is used as a parameter of a person's overall worth. How many "class" out of 10 does he have 3? 6?

I've never understand the naive yearning for moral superiority that is rife on this site.

PropJoe10

You'd have thought he'd have picked up a few lessons in grace and humility from the great Sir Bobby Robson when he was his interpreter at Barcelona years back. It's a real shame that Bobby's gentlemanly conduct never rubbed off one iota on Mourinho because the guy is a pure attention seeking bully. That rant on Sky Sports the other day was the final straw. You'd have to wonder who exactly he thinks he is, or whether he thinks everyone else in the world is stupid, bar him.

Sanity_Saviour

Pro. F wrote: »

He's says it's the wrong word because he needs something a lot stronger to describe Mourinho but can't use it for fear of getting infracted. So making the reasonable assumption that he's talking about words like "prat", "dickhead" and so on, you can see that what he's talking about encompasses classlessness and goes beyond it.

Here's your definition of classlessness from post 185:
"As a devout christian, married for over 25 years, caring father, well known for charity works, educated university graduate, suave, fluent in 5 languages, wealthy and successful Jose is a better man than most."

The fact that you mention his religion, marital status, education and wealth in your definition of class is utterly ridiculous. It is so obvious that you are trying to pretend that the word class in this context means something different to how everybody else uses it.

Hahaha I remember you now, the man who has a tantrum when other people don't follow his own bizzaro definition of words, he strikes again!

grumpymunster

Pro. F wrote: »

He's says it's the wrong word because he needs something a lot stronger to describe Mourinho but can't use it for fear of getting infracted. So making the reasonable assumption that he's talking about words like "prat", "dickhead" and so on, you can see that what he's talking about encompasses classlessness and goes beyond it.

Here's your definition of classlessness from post 185:
"As a devout christian, married for over 25 years, caring father, well known for charity works, educated university graduate, suave, fluent in 5 languages, wealthy and successful Jose is a better man than most."

The fact that you mention his religion, marital status, education and wealth in your definition of class is utterly ridiculous. It is so obvious that you are trying to pretend that the word class in this context means something different to how everybody else uses it.

No actually that was in response to post 180 I wanted to know exactly how one becomes classless based on the criteria that was cut and pasted from the urban dictionary. For me someone showing some of the attributes I suggested Jose has is as least a decent man. A little too passionate at times perhaps but fundamentally decent.

Still chuckling :pac::pac: absolute classic that.

grumpymunster

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

stop that you're not being the classy class man that we wish Mourinho was which somehow cheapen his talents as a football manager. He'll never win the CLASSY award of the year that is given out and cherished.

You know it's reaching at straws when "class", something that cannot be quantified or defined in terms of a football manager, is used as a parameter of a person's overall worth. How many "class" out of 10 does he have 3? 6?

I've never understand the naive yearning for moral superiority that is rife on this site.

At long last the penny has dropped my word it took long enough. So as it cannot be defined how can it apply to him or indeed anyone?

He has some very fine attributes and some unsavoury ones but he is not the anti Christ. The pretend outrage is shown to be just that again.

Pro. F

grumpymunster wrote: »

No actually that was in response to post 180 I wanted to know exactly how one becomes classless based on the criteria that was cut and pasted from the urban dictionary. For me someone showing some of the attributes I suggested Jose has is as least a decent man. A little too passionate at times perhaps but fundamentally decent.

Still chuckling :pac::pac: absolute classic that.

You said "Have a look at post 185 for what I think is a far better definition", so I took that to be your definition.

It is ridiculous to use religion, marital status, education and wealth as proof that somebody is a decent man. It's like something you'd read from the 19th century.

But let's just be honest here. You know well the difference between classy and classless behaviour. You know that a manager who draws attention to himself when he's winning is being classless. You know that a manager who gouges the eye of an opponent is being classless. You know that a manager who blames referees and medical staff when his team losses is being classless. Your trying to pretend that the word "class" cannot be understood in this context is ridiculous.

grumpymunster

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

stop that you're not being the classy class man that we wish Mourinho was which somehow cheapen his talents as a football manager. He'll never win the CLASSY award of the year that is given out and cherished.

You know it's reaching at straws when "class", something that cannot be quantified or defined in terms of a football manager, is used as a parameter of a person's overall worth. How many "class" out of 10 does he have 3? 6?

I've never understand the naive yearning for moral superiority that is rife on this site.

I am not absolutely certain I picked your post up correctly. I am sort of reading that a little differently now in that you are saying the whole concept of "class" is at best spurious which are my thoughts. If that is the case apologies.

LuckyLloyd

Is football a bastion of "class" though? As Strachan said when reacting to the Suarez bite on ITV 'there are no morals in football'. It's competitive sport soaked in money twice over. Mourinho is certainly immature and classless in his behaviour. Wasn't Ferguson though (to a lessor extent mind)? Clough was hardly a gentleman.

extra gravy

grumpymunster wrote: »

At long last the penny has dropped my word it took long enough. So as it cannot be defined how can it apply to him or indeed anyone?

He has some very fine attributes and some unsavoury ones but he is not the anti Christ. The pretend outrage is shown to be just that again.

You described him as "decent" in a previous post...how can that be quantified in terms of a football manager but class can't? You're just picking and choosing whatever attributes you like to suit your own definitions but when it's pointed out that his behaviour often lacks certain attributes, this conveniently can't be defined. You're just coming across as ridiculous at this stage.

grumpymunster

Pro. F wrote: »

You said "Have a look at post 185 for what I think is a far better definition", so I took that to be your definition.

It is ridiculous to use religion, marital status, education and wealth as proof that somebody is a decent man. It's like something you'd read from the 19th century.

But let's just be honest here. You know well the difference between classy and classless behaviour. You know that a manager who draws attention to himself when he's winning is being classless. You know that a manager who gouges the eye of an opponent is being classless. You know that a manager who blames referees and medical staff when his team losses is being classless. Your trying to pretend that the word "class" cannot be understood in this context is ridiculous.

You can of course point out where he blamed the medical team for the DRAW against Swansea. He point was not that but you have possibly never really listened to what the man has said, though that is only my opinion and as such I cannot confirm or deny.

He is of course the only manager ever to blame a referee for a defeat.

I think you will find that the word "class" has long been used as a definition of classification of people pre-dating even the 19th century. That is why I prefer the word decent because you can have flaws but still be overall a decent person. Life is rarely black and white.

Pretend outrage still alive and kicking then good to see really.

grumpymunster

extra gravy wrote: »

You described him as "decent" in a previous post...how can that be quantified in terms of a football manager but class can't? You're just picking and choosing whatever attributes you like to suit your own definitions but when it's pointed out that his behaviour often lacks certain attributes, this conveniently can't be defined. You're just coming across as ridiculous at this stage.

Absolutely I am picking and choosing attributes I have said that many a time - it means nothing as does the pretend out rage over Jose. It is as you say ridiculous.

I think luckyLloyd has hit the nail on the head though.