Ossie the King

Let me just stop you right there and correct you. I haven't ignored that.

He certainly is.

You say we won't piss away money, but we tried our best to sign Stones and probably will do in the future. It wasn't a choice not to sign him but complete ineptitude.

You pick the coach based on who fits the philosophy of the club don't you? Either that or you allow him to define it himself (in the way Wenger was allowed to). So here's the question - who defines this club's philosophy? You've defended Emenalo in the other thread and you've praised the purchases made (logic would dictate that the vast majority of signings would be done to service the style of football the team played wouldn't it, otherwise you're just buying appreciating assets which is scattergun and wasting a massive scouting network). Is it him?

I think we've moved beyond the reaction to Jose's sacking and looking at contributing factors including the poor performance of those in key positions throughout the squad. Yet City seem to know exactly which manager they want, exactly what football they want to play and exactly what players they need to do that. In the meantime they're backing their current manager (who will leave even if he wins the league and Champions League), they've developed a fantastic infrastructure both in terms of their facilities but also in terms of player development. Their owners came in, hired the best people to run the club and stepped back. Our last two technical directors have been Avram Grant and Michael Emenalo. If you're happy with that then I can understand your reaction, but I'm of the belief we should look for people with greater vision than that, who may even be able to contribute to the philosophy of this club.

So far I'm one of three different people who are on here and now I might be someone from another place? I'm busy! But no I'm not. Sorry.

And Jose clearly wasn't faultless in all of this. I just think we'd have been better as a club sticking with him, recommitting to his vision going forward and go again next year. Instead we're completely rudderless now and there's a total disconnect between the fans and the club. That to me is the worst part of all of this.

Yes, I believe City are well-placed to achieve success over the next decade or so. You may believe that Barca grew all of their players and they certainly have a fine pedigree in that regard, but right now they have the 3rd and 4th most expensive players of all time playing up front for them. Then you've got the Ibras, Etoos, Alves, Mascheranos, Henry's, Ronaldinhos, Songs, Fabregass, Villas etc. Again, you're welcome to disagree but I think they've perfectly married the purchasing of expensive players and nurturing of youngsters all in a cohesive footballing style.

I'd give the credit to the scouting staff and the club as a whole, but then we'd have to attribute the failures to them as well. What we've seen is a somewhat scattergun approach in that time with a focus on appreciating assets rather than identifying a specific type of player to fit a specific style. I keep going back to Barca (and Bayern, and City) because they've established the blueprint for dynastic success and a lot of people seem to want Pep because of it. As for their purchases, that's a point I'd need to see developed further and whilst you can mention people like Ibra and maybe Sanchez, there are also the Ronaldinhos and Eto'os as well. Let's just say that it's a contentious point you've raised rather than dismiss it as wrong ok? As for City's vision, I disagree. They've got everything in place not just at Man City (they know exactly who they want and have built a tremendous infrastructure) but as a whole group. Again, not saying you're wrong but I don't agree.

Hey Henrique, there's a bloke called Henrique who disagrees with you.

Personally I don't credit him for the successes nor do I admonish him for the failures. I think he's nothing more than a yes man and that's not what we need in that position when we have such a high turnover of managers. LMAO I don't know why he offered his resignation but OMG I think that it was absolutely the best thing for the club KTBFFH. Txiki, the man who helped establish a dynasty at Barcelona and gave (along with Laporta) Guardiola the job of coach. Why is Otamendi in that list by the way? And Delph? And about half a dozen league winners at a guess? I'm frustrated but I can still see that rather than give arguments about the suitability of Emenalo, you're creating strawmen arguments and weak ones at that. That's fine I suppose but it doesn't really advance the discussion about what is best for the club. You forgot to change your avatar too. He's got a vast property empire (by most standards), he's media-ready and he's got the books. He doesn't need to do it but he fits into the dream team that you've described. Also wanted Seb Coe as president or something similar but the whole World Athletics thing seems to have gotten in the way.

He could've but he was waiting for the United job to open up The most amazing thing about that is he didn't make more of it. He didn't slate the board when he might've been justified in doing so and if he was as scattergun as some have suggested it would've been the first thing wouldn't it? Maybe it was out of loyalty to Roman or simply self-preservation. I think I've said it elsewhere, I'd love Frank to become technical director. He's a Chelsea bloke, he knows the club, he's very intelligent, he knows all about the English game and what it takes to go from a young promising player to a proper pro, he knows the pressures of management not just from his time as a player but from uncle Harry and I think his style of football is something we should aspire to.

That story did the rounds but the player who did it wasn't named. If it's true, what a cunty thing to do. Th guy deserves dog's abuse.

In Brogans mate. It's a bit different than here.

We have a vast, talented scouting network and massive buying power. Might be worth giving them some credit too. The man knows his limitations hence why he tried to quit when Jose came back, yet after this summer he will once again retain his job so I ask once again, what on Earth is his track record that means he should be considered for a role at a Premier League club? What about his vision of football do you like as opposed to another director like Txiki Begerestain? That man played over 200 games for Barcelona under Johan Cruyff, the man who was so responsible for modern-day Barca. Emanalo played 50 games under Avram Grant at Maccabi Tel Aviv. Very similar upbringings. These two people barely played the same sport yet City have gone for the one who represents what they want to be whereas we've gone for the one who is everything we should avoid. He's been overpromoted because he's the boss's mate, something anyone who has been in work for long enough will recognise yet some will back him because.....he's not Jose??? Are you kidding? Ed Woodward has been criticised very heavily by both the fans and the media especially because David Gill did such a brilliant job. Their problem is the void left by Sir Alex who was the lord and ruler of that parish. He's not the 'enemy of Mourinho's fans' but he's not respected or liked by Chelsea supporters unfortunately. It's not personal, it's purely professional. Like Salah, Cuadrado, Hector, Baba Rahman (still young though so fingers crossed) or the sale of Cech to Arsenal....although people seem to argue how much responsibility he actually has. I expect when it's a Hazard, he scouted them, approached them and closed the deal.

In that case why do we need him? If he's utterly powerless or too gutless to stand up to Roman then that's further proof that he's been promoted far too high. If he's just an empty shirt, what message does that send? You're either defending him because you think he's done a good job (I don't) or you're defending him because despite being in what should be a key position in the club, he's without responsibility. Neither is a case for retaining him and both point to a real blind spot on the part of our owner which should feel you with dread, no? I just don't know how anybody can look at Emenalo or Grant a few years ago and feel happy or secure that they are part of the club.

Because in his time he we haven't seen a cohesive vision emerge, although my first thought was to ask you why he should be retained? What qualifies him to be director of football of a major European club? For instance, City installed a man who had a track record of success at Barcelona as well as a history as a player with them. Emenalo quite simply doesn't. Marina didn't just misread the John Stones situation, she turned the relationship toxic so that it stopped being a matter of money and became a matter of principle that they wouldn't sell to us. They still might not. She absolutely butchered that deal but I think the main issue I have is that she's another of Roman's people. We now have a circle at the top of the club who are entirely loyal to him and aren't football people, not to mention the shambles they made in 2011 when they essentially tried to steamroller the CPO. They seem to have learnt from that, but for the first time I really don't trust them. What I'd like is for Roman to decide that he wants the best for the club and acknowledge that for that to happen he needs to hire the right people. Otherwise I don't see any manager having a chance.

So you've defended someone despite acknowledging that they're not in charge of much? If that's the case how can you defend them if the measurables are so hard to see from the outside? And how on Earth can the technical director role of such a big club be described as not 'being in charge of much at all'? That in itself is a damning indictment of the way the club is run is it not? You seem to think he is deserving of more credit whilst absolving him of responsibility. Defend Dorris the canteen lady if you want, I can tell you what she does. You apparently defend Mike and don't know what he does beyond 'assist' Not having a go but you have to see the funny side. You stick him in your avatar to wind people up but don't know much about him, except that he likes to be called Mike apparently. Is he allowed to decide what he's called or is that further up the chain too?

He's a de facto member simply because our board are Roman's puppets and yes men. If you compare this summer with the last in the way we completed our business, you also need to look at the move from Ron Gourlay to Marina Granovskaia as Chief exec. We're a club run by Roman and his mates (with the exception of Dave Barnard) with nary an ounce of football nous about them apparently. And they're untouchable, even if they offer their resignation as Emenalo rightly tried to do when Jose arrived. It's a joke.

Do you think 'Mike' is competent enough to hold such a position of power at one of the biggest clubs in the world? Do you want him being the guy who oversees our philosophy going forward, because for a couple of days last week he was the most senior 'football man' at the club? That is ridiculous. Last summer we did good business and we did it early. Jose identified his targets and they went through smoothly (under Gourlay, not Gronvskaia it should be noted) but this summer was a failure yet this guy gets away unscathed. Instead we fiddle with the coach's position. To me it's sickening having this guy in charge of so much.

Is that last piece 'IMO' too? He's essentially an intermediary who ties together every single department and to be in that role he needs to have a vision of where the club should be heading. I'm of the opinion that he doesn't, nor does he have to tools or the experience to do so. What I'm saying is that we need someone in that role who does have both of those qualities but is also afforded the freedom and resources to go about their work without overbearing interference from the owner. He needs to trust this person to do the job he's hired them for. I also think the role of Chief Exec could be problematic considering the horrific job that was done in the summer with regards preparing for the new season.

As I said earlier, this is a better version of that but I think that's probably there's all to be said about that. It's Christmas in a few day and obtuseness isn't on my list to Santa. No, my reaction would've still been to question whether or not he actually had the tools to be a great coach or not. I honestly never thought he'd move into that area because I thought he'd go into politics or humanitarian work. He struck me more as a Beckham or Weah than a Neville or Guardiola.

I think Chelsea supporters are able to understand that, but that's not the issue. He's emblematic of a number of issues like the lack of ambition and ineptitude of some people who hold positions of responsibility at this club, most notably the chap you have in your avatar. Don't know if you've noticed but he's not the most popular guy amongst Chelsea supporters.

Any manager we hire, in fact any manager at any top club, will be paid an astronomical wage and they will also (correctly) expect millions to be spent buying players. Pep would be paid almost the same but has already said we need TEN new players. I imagine we'd buy these players. If Simeone came in, he would expect the same. What's amazing is that Mourinho DIDN'T get this in the summer yet didn't make more of it. He didn't complain, he didn't complain about Cech being sold against his wishes once the season started. He would have had every right to lambast the board for not backing him and not having more ambition but he didn't. That shows remarkable restraint in my opinion. But yes, he's a millionaire so.....stuff.

But Oscar is talented isn't he? I sort of see the distinction you're making but I think Hazard reached incredible heights last season despite these so-called shackles. Not many players in world football get away without being shackled. Look at Barca and players like Messi often lead the press high up the pitch, yet that doesn't seem to stop him from being probably the best there's ever been.