Chelsea sack DI Matteo

[Ted Hughes]

Ted, do Your really think that someone, other than RA, decides anything serious at CFC?
genuine...

Someone must advise him on players, so I presume it's this Tannenbaum character who gives him the names at present.

maybe that guus character is doing some advising?

I should think Abramovic speaks to him as it's always good to have a 2nd or 3rd opinion, but Chelsea as a club must be operating independant of whoever the manager happens to be, which is fine if A: the director of football is a genius & B: Abramovic doesn't pick players himself, both of which seem very unlikely.

[dick dastardley]

di matteo looks a smug fucker glad hes got the boot lets hope it disrupts preparation for sunday, cockney fuckers!!!

[Cocacolajojo1]

To echo Carl's (at least I think it was his) sentiment: Teams like Chelsea and Real Madrid are the ultimate proof that with a lot of cash, there's no need for stability. I mean, they've had 6 managers and it's brought them constant qualifications to the Champion's League as well as the play offs, one league win and they've been runners up twice, three FA-cups, one final in the league cup and two finals in the Champions league of which they won one. That's an amazing haul from 5 years and they've not had any stability what so ever.

I'm not saying that I don't prefer patient owners like ours because I do. I'm just saying that the stability-argument can be thrown out the window when you have a lot of dosh.

If you like picking up an occasional pot & watching Ferguson celebrate the yes, it can.

Well I would say it's more than the occassional pot though wouldn't you? 6 trophies in 6 years that is.

[Duckman]

I wonder how chelsea fans feel about this.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

We should just be thankful this Russian gangster isn't running a small Eastern-European dictatorship.

[Duckman]

I wonder how chelsea fans feel about this.

well, heres one of them reacting: WHAT THE f**kING BLOODY f**k IS THIS f**kING THING? REALLY, REALLY? WOOOW , i just woke up and i am drinking my morning caffee and it tastes like water with salt..

an another: We're a f**king joke

i think we can do em on Sunday.

[london blue 2]

Trying to get any logic on the way RA runs his own toy is just useless.

What only and always pissed me off is that all the shite thrown at City since the ADUG takeover is nothing short of the portrait of Chelsea FC, but has nothing to do with the wise, balanced way which is deemed on the running down of MCFC.

I hate the way that they compare us to chelsea as if the clubs are run in the same way simply because of the money. Can they not see the things that we have invested in OTHER than the players.

Getting rid of Hughes was the right thing to do. I cant see our sheiky sacking Bobby anytime soon.

One of my friends suggested that Chelsea sacked Di Mattress just so they could get to Pep before we sack Mancini! Ridiculous but that's the way the general public see City and Chelsea.

[Ted Hughes]

To echo Carl's (at least I think it was his) sentiment: Teams like Chelsea and Real Madrid are the ultimate proof that with a lot of cash, there's no need for stability. I mean, they've had 6 managers and it's brought them constant qualifications to the Champion's League as well as the play offs, one league win and they've been runners up twice, three FA-cups, one final in the league cup and two finals in the Champions league of which they won one. That's an amazing haul from 5 years and they've not had any stability what so ever.

I'm not saying that I don't prefer patient owners like ours because I do. I'm just saying that the stability-argument can be thrown out the window when you have a lot of dosh.

If you like picking up an occasional pot & watching Ferguson celebrate the yes, it can.

Well I would say it's more than the occassional pot though wouldn't you? 6 trophies in 6 years that is.

I recon Chelsea and Arsenal have been an absolutely dismal, pathetic failure in that regard considering the strength of their positions & squads a few years ago compared to the absolute destruction of Utd's squad. Yet Utd are still stronger than both even though half of their best players can't even run anymore.

We are making the rags panic, not those 2. If it wasn't for us, Utd could put Wigan's side out every week & still win the title.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

To echo Carl's (at least I think it was his) sentiment: Teams like Chelsea and Real Madrid are the ultimate proof that with a lot of cash, there's no need for stability. I mean, they've had 6 managers and it's brought them constant qualifications to the Champion's League as well as the play offs, one league win and they've been runners up twice, three FA-cups, one final in the league cup and two finals in the Champions league of which they won one. That's an amazing haul from 5 years and they've not had any stability what so ever.

I'm not saying that I don't prefer patient owners like ours because I do. I'm just saying that the stability-argument can be thrown out the window when you have a lot of dosh.

If you like picking up an occasional pot & watching Ferguson celebrate the yes, it can.

Have to agree, mate. If the Russian had stuck with just one of his managers he'd have won the league much more often in his tenure and possibly have a couple of Champions Leagues by now.

[Ted Hughes]

Trying to get any logic on the way RA runs his own toy is just useless.

What only and always pissed me off is that all the shite thrown at City since the ADUG takeover is nothing short of the portrait of Chelsea FC, but has nothing to do with the wise, balanced way which is deemed on the running down of MCFC.

I hate the way that they compare us to chelsea as if the clubs are run in the same way simply because of the money. Can they not see the things that we have invested in OTHER than the players.

Getting rid of Hughes was the right thing to do. I cant see our sheiky sacking Bobby anytime soon.

One of my friends suggested that Chelsea sacked Di Mattress just so they could get to Pep before we sack Mancini! Ridiculous but that's the way the general public see City and Chelsea.

I think it's partly true in the way Abramovic is operating tbh.

Not that Chelsea expect us to fire Mancini, but that if there was even the slightest chance it could happen (for example if we had a disasterous run of results) Abramovic knows we would be favourites to get Pep, a manager he has been trying to sign up for several years. He is desperate to sign up Guardiola. How desperate is Guardiola to work for him though ?

[Cocacolajojo1]

To echo Carl's (at least I think it was his) sentiment: Teams like Chelsea and Real Madrid are the ultimate proof that with a lot of cash, there's no need for stability. I mean, they've had 6 managers and it's brought them constant qualifications to the Champion's League as well as the play offs, one league win and they've been runners up twice, three FA-cups, one final in the league cup and two finals in the Champions league of which they won one. That's an amazing haul from 5 years and they've not had any stability what so ever.

I'm not saying that I don't prefer patient owners like ours because I do. I'm just saying that the stability-argument can be thrown out the window when you have a lot of dosh.

If you like picking up an occasional pot & watching Ferguson celebrate the yes, it can.

Well I would say it's more than the occassional pot though wouldn't you? 6 trophies in 6 years that is.

I recon Chelsea and Arsenal have been an absolutely dismal, pathetic failure in that regard considering the strength of their positions & squads a few years ago compared to the absolute destruction of Utd's squad. Yet Utd are still stronger than both even though half of their best players can't even run anymore.

We are making the rags panic, not those 2. If it wasn't for us, Utd could put Wigan's side out every week & still win the title.

Well regarding the comparative success of Chelsea and United you are correct. My point was just that stability is not something that's necessary in order to achieve success, as long as you have the money to back up your impatience. I mean, sure, United could be brought up as an example of the positives of stability but as you say, Arsenal has gone from brilliant to swell, just swell, in a matter of five to six years, just because they've chosen to play it safe with Wenger. Bayern Munich is another example of a team that has managed to perform at a top level for several years despite having a revolving door-policy for their managers.

I mean it's easy enought to say that you need stability when you have a proven winner like Ferguson as your manager, or Mourinho or Mancini for that matter. Or when you're a QPR-fan. It's not however necessarily better than switching manager at a regular interval.

[Duckman]

"Chelsea have spent £86m since 2004 in compensation for managers...more than Everton's entire net spend since the Premier League began"
well you gotta laugh

[Ted Hughes]

Well regarding the comparative success of Chelsea and United you are correct. My point was just that stability is not something that's necessary in order to achieve success, as long as you have the money to back up your impatience. I mean, sure, United could be brought up as an example of the positives of stability but as you say, Arsenal has gone from brilliant to swell, just swell, in a matter of five to six years, just because they've chosen to play it safe with Wenger. Bayern Munich is another example of a team that has managed to perform at a top level for several years despite having a revolving door-policy for their managers.

I mean it's easy enought to say that you need stability when you have a proven winner like Ferguson as your manager, or Mourinho or Mancini for that matter. Or when you're a QPR-fan. It's not however necessarily better than switching manager at a regular interval.

I think any club with loads of money will win a number of titles & hardly any without loads of money will win any titles.

If you combine loads of money with a stable backroom staff though, you pick up the title every season when your opponents fuck it up, as you have your tried and tested formula to fall back on, which accounts for about 80% of Ferguson's success.

If Mourinho had never been sacked, Chelsea & not Utd, would be the team we would be looking to compete with & overtake. Ferguson would probably have called it a day by now.

[Cocacolajojo1]

Well regarding the comparative success of Chelsea and United you are correct. My point was just that stability is not something that's necessary in order to achieve success, as long as you have the money to back up your impatience. I mean, sure, United could be brought up as an example of the positives of stability but as you say, Arsenal has gone from brilliant to swell, just swell, in a matter of five to six years, just because they've chosen to play it safe with Wenger. Bayern Munich is another example of a team that has managed to perform at a top level for several years despite having a revolving door-policy for their managers.

I mean it's easy enought to say that you need stability when you have a proven winner like Ferguson as your manager, or Mourinho or Mancini for that matter. Or when you're a QPR-fan. It's not however necessarily better than switching manager at a regular interval.

I think any club with loads of money will win a number of titles & hardly any without loads of money will win any titles.

If you combine loads of money with a stable backroom staff though, you pick up the title every season when your opponents fuck it up, as you have your tried and tested formula to fall back on, which accounts for about 80% of Ferguson's success.

If Mourinho had never been sacked, Chelsea & not Utd, would be the team we would be looking to compete with & overtake. Ferguson would probably have called it a day by now.

I agree with you to a certain extent but it's always easy to say that it was right to remain stable with hinsight. Let's say we had been coached by Tony Pulis on the day the sheik bought City. Would it really have been wise to keep him for 3-4 years, although there would have been zero probability of him being able to deliver at this level?

Barcelona is another example. They fired Rijkaard, made a gutsy decision regarding Guardiola and it played out perfect for them. Allegedly Cruijff gave Guardiola his seal of approval and all that, but it was still a risky decision to fire a proven league winner and champions league winner and opt for an unproven manager. Safe to say it was a good change though.

With the case of Guardiola and Barcelona, one could argue that it is a case of another type of stability, that of a the club philosophy. I think that argument holds some merit but the cases of Arsenal and Lyons say otherwise. Despite them having a rigid philosophy of how a football club is supposed to be run, they've ceased to win anything over the last few yers.

[Hazy2]

This is football, But not as we like it, Big investment from Roman and he has all the trophies. Mnagers get paid big dough win or lose.

[Ted Hughes]

Well regarding the comparative success of Chelsea and United you are correct. My point was just that stability is not something that's necessary in order to achieve success, as long as you have the money to back up your impatience. I mean, sure, United could be brought up as an example of the positives of stability but as you say, Arsenal has gone from brilliant to swell, just swell, in a matter of five to six years, just because they've chosen to play it safe with Wenger. Bayern Munich is another example of a team that has managed to perform at a top level for several years despite having a revolving door-policy for their managers.

I mean it's easy enought to say that you need stability when you have a proven winner like Ferguson as your manager, or Mourinho or Mancini for that matter. Or when you're a QPR-fan. It's not however necessarily better than switching manager at a regular interval.

I think any club with loads of money will win a number of titles & hardly any without loads of money will win any titles.

If you combine loads of money with a stable backroom staff though, you pick up the title every season when your opponents fuck it up, as you have your tried and tested formula to fall back on, which accounts for about 80% of Ferguson's success.

If Mourinho had never been sacked, Chelsea & not Utd, would be the team we would be looking to compete with & overtake. Ferguson would probably have called it a day by now.

I agree with you to a certain extent but it's always easy to say that it was right to remain stable with hinsight. Let's say we had been coached by Tony Pulis on the day the sheik bought City. Would it really have been wise to keep him for 3-4 years, although there would have been zero probability of him being able to deliver at this level?

Barcelona is another example. They fired Rijkaard, made a gutsy decision regarding Guardiola and it played out perfect for them. Allegedly Cruijff gave Guardiola his seal of approval and all that, but it was still a risky decision to fire a proven league winner and champions league winner and opt for an unproven manager. Safe to say it was a good change though.

With the case of Guardiola and Barcelona, one could argue that it is a case of another type of stability, that of a the club philosophy. I think that argument holds some merit but the cases of Arsenal and Lyons say otherwise. Despite them having a rigid philosophy of how a football club is supposed to be run, they've ceased to win anything over the last few yers.

Well the Barca philosophy is another kind of stability & part of what I'm talkig about re Abramovic when I say I don't have a big problem with him doing that IF the director is a genius & IF Abramovic isn't picking out players. I don't believe either of those situations is true. What they have is a bloke who will sack Pep Guardiola on a whim if it suits him. Meanwhile, if we are smart, we will still have the same manager & be cruising to another title when he does it.

[Tony P]

Hughes couldn't even win the sack race!! Ha ha ha.

[HeyMark]

This was inevitable.

The length of time taken by Roman to appoint him suggested that he didn't really want him in the first place.

He was waiting for the first blip in form so he could axe him. And their run over the last 6 or so games has given him that ammo.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Apparently Benitez is in the frame to take over. LOL....

[Goaters 103]

Rather ironic that Twitter is full of "experts" in the media and football condemning Abramovic for appointing his 9th manager in his 9 years of ownership.

In those 9 years of "turmoil" Chelsea have won 3 Prem Lge titles, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and a Champions Lge.

If there's no Roman, there isnt all that success either, and the previous incumbent was Ken Bates - in the cold light of day which of the two do you think Chelsea fans will look back on in history more fondly?