OhForAGreavsie

Well said. I've often described myself as a world class pessimist when it comes to my football team, or teams now since I'm a big fan of Chelsea Women too these days, but for humanity as a whole I'm an optimist. There are big wrong turns all over the place and so much wrong doing it can't help but make you angry, yet when you see where we are, vs where we were, there has been progress. Progress gives us hope.

The media will do what they do. Implying deep criticism of a club while being careful to use language which allows them to avoid any charge of pre judging an incident themselves. Media is not in the business of publishing news. They are in the business of getting you to pay, one way or another, for what they publish. Sensationalism sells and, as much as individual journalists may hate it, they are forced to accept that they need to sell to survive. From that point of view they must cover the story before it is judged. After the Chelsea fan is found innocent, or at least not guilty, they'd have missed their chance. For now the story works for them no matter what the eventual outcome.They don't like to miss their chance so dish it out to any target they can. Fans of all clubs believe that the media hates them and loves their rivals. This is clear from the opinions on any fan forum. We here are free to complain as we see fit but the club has to understand how the media game is played. They will sensationalise and if they have a hook like Paris to hang that sensationalism on, they will gleefully plop it there. The club must stick to its policies, establish the facts, and act accordingly. If they find wrong doing then, because of our history whether deserved or not, they must act decisively and I'm afraid harshly. If they do not find wrong doing then they need to get that out as quickly as possible.

A fantastic half I would say but the Sterling issue is far, far more important and so, quite rightly, makes news in both sports and non-sports media. There will always be racists. It's certain that more than one of them attended that game on Saturday and that they wore blue scarves of both shades. Football can't rid the world of racist thinking, and nor can it hope to control how fans see people of different ethnicities. What football can, and must, do however is make clear that letting your racism show is utterly unacceptable in and around football occasions. Find heavy book. Raise high. Throw hard.

Well at least now no one can say that De Laurentiis has never done anything for Chelsea. Grazie Aurelio. Grazie mille. Forget this bloke. Reece James is younger, and better.

Because I was such a huge KDB fan I watched as many of his performances at Bremen as I could. That amounted to no fewer than twenty games and Arnautovic played in many, if not most, of those. Was very unimpressed and have no interest in Chelsea signing him.

Have not been impressed by this bloke. We need bona fide top quality but he is not it. Now you compare him to Draxler another player I never believed in.

Or better still the interest, if there really is any, should drop. That's to say it should be dropped.

There was a thread on WAGNH a little while ago asking something along the lines of, "Can we stay in the title race?", to which I replied something along the lines of, "What title race?" City are a long way ahead of everybody else.

OH no we can't go round this argument again can we? I don't buy that version. I felt Nemanja did well in the half season after returning in January '14 and that this form continued, to an extent, into the first six weeks or so of the next season. After that I felt his form, with a few exceptions, reverted to its natural place. That's to say, pretty much the level Man U fans are now complaining about. What Nemanja was doing for us was a contentious issue while he was here, and would be again now if we let it I'm sure. I'm hoping though that we can agree that his form is not our problem anymore, and not burn the many trillions of photons it would take for the forum to dance this dance again.

Plenty of plastics everywhere. At least most reds who were raving about Nemanja when they signed him, had the excuse that they had not watched many 90 minute performances from him. Certainly not with the level of scrutiny that fans watch their own players. You'll remember, I'm sure, that those of us here who did not believe in Nemanja faced a lot of Chelsea people opposing our view. I recall being told that I had no clue about football on this very site when I criticised our ex-Serbian but I have an even better example than that. I watched video of Nemanja when he was rumoured to join us the first time around. He then lined up as a playmaker and I posted to say that he wanted far too long on the ball, that he liked the floated pass way too much, and that I didn't want him. I did not believe in Nemanja during his first spell, was not disappointed when he left and refused to believe it when he was rumoured to return but return he did. When that happened, almost everyone on several Chelsea forums was satisfied with what Nemanja was offering. There was however a poster on one of them who would not have it. He insisted that our then number 21 had the turning circle of a tanker and slowed our attacking movements horribly. Even I, who was never a Nemanja fan, criticised that forum member for being too harsh. I soon realised that he was not being harsh enough. It's no surprise that United fans have seen the truth. I'm certain they must have seen that they'd signed a dud over the same kind of timescale it took many Chelsea fans to reach the same conclusion.

Not interested in Chelsea making a permanent signing at right back. A loan perhaps, but not a multi year deal, and definitely not for big money. Why not? Reece James.

Firstly there was a typo in my last reply. I've since corrected it but you quoted me while the error was still there. As quoted, my comment says your criticisms were based on my assumptions. It should just say assumptions. Apologies for that. I've no idea if Marina is making money for Roman. I don't even know if she has been asked to. These are just examples of the kind of things she might have been asked to do, and which would make her priorities a little different to what you seem to have assumed them to be. That is not what you stated originally but your comment contains more assumptions. How do we know what, if any, decisions Marina is making? How do we know that her task is not simply to carry out the decisions others are making. For example, I'd be shocked if Marina is deciding which players to target in the transfer market. I don't know but I would be shocked. You say Roman's displeasure would only be detectable if things are not rosy come May. You may be right but I'd have thought if he was going to be unhappy, it would have been visible by now. After all, a lot of posters here think Marina should have been sacked long ago and Roman is not noticeably patient. Let's wait and see.

I don't know of course but I'd say that this line of criticism is more logical than blaming Marina when we don't know what her operating parameters are. Can't agree with you here. I think your criticisms have indeed been based on assumptions but the points I've made are an exact description of the situation. I said we don't know what instructions Marina has been given and we don't. I said it's logical to guess that Roman is satisfied with Marina's efforts and it is. After all, not only has she not been sacked, she's actually been given increased responsibility. Why would that happen if the boss wasn't satisfied?

How many managers has Roman sacked? How many CEOs or equivalent? You're welcome to think Roman is a patient man if that's how you see it but, first, you'll have to admit that you have not a scrap of evidence to support that idea. Roman looses faith in you, you go. This is exactly where you are going wrong. You are judging Marina by your criteria but that's an error. Roman gave her the job and he knows what instructions she has been given. He, not you or me, will judge Marina's performance in accordance with how well she does what he wants her to do. For example, he may have instructed Marina to breakeven on transfer deals over a three year period. He may have instructed her not to pay anything over 90% of the original asking price. He may have banned to signing of new starters in certain positions because he wants to leave the manager little choice but to select certain young players. We could keep guessing all day, but that's just it; we'd only be guessing. I have no idea what Marina's instructions are and nor do you. Until you know those you can't know how well she's been doing her actual job, as opposed to how well you think she's doing the job you imagine she has. If I hire a decorator to paint my kitchen black, it's no good you looking at the result, thinking the colour is ridiculous, and blaming the bloke with the brush in his hand. He only did the job he was asked to do. As I say, we don't know what Marina's instructions are but is it so hard to figure out, from the fact that she has, in effect, been promoted not sacked, that her boss is, up to now, happy with what she's doing? Bloody obvious if you ask me.

Learnt what? How to become an expert transfer market operator by posting on Internet forums? What makes people think Roman has not already decided what he wants from the club? What is it about the fact that Marina continues in her post, year after year, which causes people not to accept that her boss must be happy with her work? What is it about Roman’s history which makes those who push this narrative think that he does not sack people as soon as he looses faith in them? How do people fail to join these, frankly obvious, dots and realise that Marina must be following her boss’s instructions and working within the parameters he lays down?

Watched a lot of Bundesliga games the season KDB was at Bremen. Not so much since. Thanks for the links.

I've never knowingly seen this bloke play. If he's better than Reece James then he's one hell of a footballer. P.S. Just watched an all touches video vs Dortmund. Looked OK. A few stray passes but also a good piece of attacking skill, a good piece of defending, a good pass and a good cross. On the evidence of that video I see no reason at all to bring this bloke in and put him ahead of Reece. Maybe a different video might give a different impression but, on the basis of his display vs BVB, promoting this bloke over Reece would be a silly decision.

This post comes dangerously close to judging the issue before any facts are available. Of course the officials would not intentionally break the rules because they are not going to be any worse at working out the odds than you or me. In fact since they have way better information than we do, it's inevitable that they are better at it than we fans. I know it suits egos to imagine we know stuff which shows that we are cleverer than the club but that's just fantasy. When the dust has fully settled on this, and that will not necessarily be after the initial verdict, will be plenty of time to reach an informed opinion on this matter. Meantime you're just venting based on nothing substantial.

The board have confidently denied any wrong doing. Let's see how it shakes out but just because there's an accusation and an investigation, does not mean there's guilt. I'm not getting agitated about this.

This I do agree with.

Never believed in this bloke since I watched him in Italy. Over dribbles, passes as a last resort and even then not particularly well. I expect I'll be challenged on this opinion but, until I see Sanchez produce more rounded and more consistent performances, I doubt I'll be changing my mind. He created good stats at Arsenal for sure but there was always discontent with his overall play among a section of their fans. My feeling is that his time with Arsenal will turn out to be similar to Nando's at Liverpool; the exception that proves the rule. That 'rule' being that he flatters to deceive and is in fact a bit below top class.

Marcin has shown up in that 3rd keeper slot a few times.

Greaves would not have lost his place had he not been injured but, the truth is, that by 1966 the alcoholism had already taken a toll on Greaves. There’s a great story about a Tottenham player complaining at half time about Greaves standing around on the halfway line, doing nothing as usual. The manager told the player that if he scored 40 goals a season like Greaves then he could go and stand there next to him. Its a nice story but although Jimmy’s talent ranks with the game’s all time greats, the truth is that he drank it away and ultimately wasted it. His statistics reflect his immense ability, but his overall accomplishments betray how much the booze held him back.

I haven’t seen it as you have but this must be an exaggeration. Either that or Icardi doesn’t get many chances. The truth is that not even Jimmy Greaves needed just one chance and he’s the best pure finisher who ever lived. I take your point though. Icardi would upgrade our side significantly.