Peace.

Hey, do you think that the interim manager has time to work out what kind of player he is, with all the fans boing him ? Jésus.

Just a quick thought. He looks like the second coming of Jesus of Nazareth to some. Yes, he has a good work rate and all. But put things into perspective — if we had midfielders and forwards who were actually doing properly (and efficiently) their defensive duty, he wouldn't be that needed. The only place to be is right. While Ramires will be a valuable asset to have in the team in the futur (to play certain kinds of game, and to allow turn-over), he shall not be in the starting eleven, especially if we were to keep the 4-2-3-1.

Any debate with you is an endless debate lol (don't get me wrong, I am not getting a dig at you). I don't see why I would start to back him since I have never written him off in this discussion, in the first place. All I am saying is that Ba + Lukaku is not good enough to be the striking force of a club of the standard of Chelsea. We are already filled with average players all over the pitch. And in my honest opinion, if we are happy with Lukaku+Ba, then we should change our aims and be happy to be a club fighting only for a CL spot instead of being a club fighting for the title. On this matter, yes we shall agree to disagree because for me, whatever the argumentation and semantic, Ba + Lukaku will always be equal to not good enough. Just as a midfield department compound of Ramires, Mikel and Lampard is not good enough for a team claiming to be an elite club. As for Lukaku himself, I am not saying that he isn't ready. Actually, from what he currently showcases, he might be ready to play here. The problem isn't himself. The problem is that having only he and Ba is not good enough. The problem is that having him, Ba and a marquee striker will just be too much and might hinder his development. If you tell me that next year our striking force will be Cavani + Lukaku, then I am all up for it !! The bottom line is that I think it's a better solution for both parties to send him on loan one more season. This way, we get a proven striker this summer, so next season our striking force will be + Ba (please, don't quote me on Cavani, it's just for the debate sake) while that Lukaku will thrive in peace. And, next summer we sell Ba, recall Lukaku and have Cavani+Lukaku as our striking force. I believe that having Cavani+Ba then Cavani+Lukaku is a lot more exciting (and is a better option as well for our Club) than having Ba+Lukaku for two seasons. I believe that our opinions on Lukaku are actually more or less the same. Where they differ is regarding the potential Ba+Lukaku.

The double combo Luiz+Cahill and Lampard+Ramires...? We are going to be all over the place...

Having Ba + Lukaku ain't gonna work. Lukaku has yet to finish his developement. It would be a mistake to try and blood in Lukaku in the first team while only having Ba as the other striker. Ba can only play about 50% of the games. Therefore, in the 50% remaining games, the responsibility to lead our frontline will behove to Lukaku. As a matter of fact, there will have significant expectations on him, from the fans, the board and the medias. Furthermore, at the moment Ba escapes criticisms. That's kinda normal ; we started this honeymoon in January because we were so happy to finally a striker, a striker who moreover was thought as the ladyboy replacement. But soon, there will come a time when we will start to realize that Ba is so so, and that he isn't of the quality to be in the starting eleven of a top team. What will happen then ? Pretty simple to work out. All of our eyes will move away from Ba to settle on Lukaku. All the spotlights will be upon him. That's the best away to put pressure on someone. Look at Welbeck. Last year he had Rooney and Berbatov. This year he has Rooney and Van Persie. He can thrive and fuck things up in peace, because the spotlights are on the other strikers. The same applies with Jones. He has Ferdinand and Vidic around him. Varane has Pepe and Ramos. Cleverly has Giggs, Scholes and Carrick. The pressure is kept away from these young players because of the reputation of the players surrounding 'em. They can focus on their game. That won't happen at Chelsea with Lukaku. Because is role will be as important as Ba's role, if not more. And all of you guys, who think that Ba+Lukaku is good enough, are proving me right. That's a big expectation to lay upon an "only" good striker and a good young who's still developping. I'd rather have him free from pressure at West Brom, and recall him back next summer when we will have a very good striker settled into the team. To my eyes, that's how one should blood in young players on big clubs. Currently we cannot offer this to Lukaku.

Yes, we do not have to do things the other clubs do. But we neither have to act like hipsters and believe that a squad lacking quality will do just fine. The board already did it this year and last year. Yes, we could try and apply this tactic once again. But in fact, I see many flaws in it. First of all, Lukaku is not Drogba. They are two different player. Drogba is a target man. He holds the ball perfectly. Lukaku plays different football. Even if he is tall and strong, he doesn't play like a target man. I could be wrong, if he has dramatically changed is way of playing, but I don't think it's the case (maybe someone can enlight us). Of course, he can adapt to a different role. But let's not make the same mistake we did with Mikel, i.e. change his role while developing. I'd rather let him develope further and then why not try to change his playing style. Secondly, Hazard/Mata/Oscar aren't Lampard. In my honest opinion, the Lampard back then was head and shoulders above them, when it comes to score goals. They are not as good and tend to miss golden opportunities. The best exemple is Oscar missing three golden opportunities against West Bromwich. The two others do it also. That's why I would be recalcitrant to expect them to do the same job as Lampard was doing back then. And finally, I don't like this tactic where you put the goalscoring responsability upon your midfielders' shoulders. Because they are not natural goal scorers, that's not their job, that's all. It's really a bonus to have midfielders like Mata and Oscar who are perfectly able to score a lot of goals. But that doesn't mean they should do the striker job. This ability is a bonus. You cannot expect your midfielders to be your goalscoring players, then expect your striker to step up when they cannot find the net. That's the other way around. That's how I see things, at least. To me, strikers should score goals and midfielders should do the play. People keep saying Falcao, maybe, but not me. Actually I think it will be the flop n°3 and I don't want him. However, I want Cavani. And no, please, not because it looks nice to throw in such a name or whatsoever. I want him because I like his profil, and I think that he is what we need. Voilà. And in another post of yours you told me : That baffles me. You say this and then go on about that Cavani is not proven in the Premier League and blablabla. Is Lukaku proven against big teams ? No. And you say that Chalobah is ready for coming back to Chelsea. But is he proven in the PL ? No. Is he proven against top opposition ? No. I fail to understand you there. Yeah, Cavani is not proven in the Premier League, so what ? Ah but yeah ! Lukaku looked great against Ashley Williams, the player followed by Arsenal. Is he of the caliber of Giroud, Squillacy, André Santos, Mertesacker, etc...? Don't get me wrong, I am not undermining his performance. P.S. In another post you told me that I was writting him off, not at all.... That's quite the contrary. I believe that he is ready, but I also believe that there are better solutions for both him and us, that's all.

The price has never been the problem with our two Flops. The problem is that it was two stupid transferts. For them two, it was written all over the place that it would fail. That's all. Andriy Chevtchenko was already 30 years-old when he came here. He was already on the bad side of his career peak. Furthemore, he seemed more concerned with his golf career than with football ("As the first team prepared for their final pre-season friendly against Danish side Brondby, Shevchenko declared himself unfit with a back problem. [...] but Mourinho was bemused to discover that Shevchenko's bad back had not prevented him from enjoying a round of golf at Sunningdale that day.'). And finally Mourinho didn't want him. Roman Abramovich merely brought in at his club a friend of his. Considering all these facts, even before the deal being done there was a high probability that this story would be a failure. And don't get me started with the ladyboy. Had he not been playing for Loserpool (the medias' darling) and had he not had this "kid" face, we wouldn't even have considered to buy him, in the first place. Seriously, that poor excuse of a footballer was overrated. What the hell passed through Ancelotti's mind... That dude was a two-seasons-wonder. It was well knew that he had problems with his knees and that the skinny one ran him down to the ground. He was average for the last 12 months (and poor for the last 6 months) before we bought him. He had a shoking WC. It was more a panic buy than anything else, if you ask me. This two deals were ill advised. No, I tell you my friend. Stamford Bridge isn't built on an old indian graveyard. There's no curse saying that any players bought for more than £XX will become the laughing stock of the League. Chevtchenko cost us £30m. Hazard cost us £32m. I know that with money inflation, £30m back then is more than £32m now. But still, Hazard is a big-money signing. Does he look lie a failure at this point ? Not at all. Essien was bought for £24,4m. At that time, it was our record. The ukrainian was bought one year later for "only" £6 millions more. Did Essien flopped ? He was a success. The problem is not how much money is spent. It's for what it's spent. Our two flops were two luxury and fantasy buys. They were two pieces of meat, which were past their sell-by date, on which the seller put golden tag so the moldy couldn't be seen.

You didn't understand what I was saying (or I might have badly explained it). What I was saying : Manchester United 2012-13 : Van Persie (19), Rooney (11) Manchester City 2011-12 : Aguero (23), Dzeko (14), Balotelli (13) Manchester United 2010-11 : Berbatov (21), Own Goal (I don't remember the figure), Rooney (11), Hernandez (13) Chelsea 2009-10 : Drogba (29), Anelka (11) Manchester United 2008-09 : Rooney (12), Ronaldo (18), Tevez (5) Manchester United 2007-08 : Ronaldo (31), Tevez (14), Rooney (13) ... I was not talking about Chelsea when we had Mourinho. I was just looking at the five previous seasons (plus this one) to work out what was the current tendency in football. And from the stats, and my opinion, I can say that the striking force of the club which have recently won the Premier League has taken an important role in those victories — and this both regarding the goals scored and the work done (and I stress that I don't base my judgment solely on the goal record). The same goes for the Liga. Though I don't really know for the Bundesliga and the Calcio. And that is exactly the same for the Champions League. When Milan won in 2007, Kakà (who was played as a striker/Second striker), was instrumental in their victory (especially against United). And Super Pipo scored the two goals in the final. In 2008, the striking force Ronaldo/Tevez/Rooney was instrumental. In 2009, Eto'o was instrumental (in the CL and the league as well — he scored about 1/3 of Barcelona first goals). In 2010, Milito was instrumental (scored the two goals in the final). 2011, Messi was instrumental. 2012, Drogba was instrumental. I am just saying that, to my understanding, the majority of the successful teams of the recent years had a powerful striking force. To my mind, a great striking force is required to be succesfull. That's why I believe we shouldn't understimate the importance of the striking force. That's why I believe that it's presumptuous and unwise to give the key of our attack to "only" a kid — yes, ready or not, he is still a "kid" — and a stop-gap — yes, Ba is a stop-gap, but don't jump on me, I will explain latter why in my mind he is so, please. Look, did you see what happens to Barça when Messi — for X ou Y reason — is not playing good ? The catalans struggle to score, they lack penetration, and they also have hard times to creat any goal-scoring chance. How many times this season Manchester United were saved by RvP ? How comes last year Arsenal managed to get the third spot ? The dutchman carried them there. How comes that ever sonce the summer 2010, we are in shambles ? Our striking force is average ! They aren't there to get in goals when it matters. They aren't there to cause havocs in defences, etc... My point here, is that without a very good (not good, but very good) striking force, you will find it hard to lift some important trophies at the end of the season.

Word up. We won't get anywhere with Lukaku and Ba as our striking force. That's not good enough for a team which want to compete in the Premier League and Champions League. And please, don't come and tell me that we should undergo a season of transition and lower our aims. We should put aside that fairy tail, it won't happen. Roman won't change his mind regarding that matter overnight. Ba was brought in as a stop gap. That means what it means. He is good, but not good enough to carry a team of the "top four". Furthermore it seems that he cannot play more than once per week — that means he will be available for roughly 50% of the season. Asking Lukaku to handle the 50% remaining is just too much. A great club has to have a great striking department to win. If take a look to the previous Champions League winners, all of them had a striker who was very important in their victory, and/or had a great striking force : Chelsea (Drogba) ; Barcelona (Messi) ; Inter (Milito) ; Barcelona (Eto'o) ; ManU (Rooney/Tevez/Ronaldo). That's the same with league winners : ManCity (Aguero, Tevez, Dzeko, Balotelli) ; ManU (Rooney, Own Goal (such a shame he couln't keep it up)) ; Chelsea (Drogba, Anelka) ; ManU (Ronaldo, Roney, Tevez) ; etc... Madrid (Ronaldo, Benzema, Higuain) ; Barça (Messi... Eto'o), etc, etc, etc... I am not saying that we should win the CL or PL, but I am just stressing the importance of a great striking force. That's something we have lacked since the second season with Ancelotti (at the exception of the CL, where Didier was sublime). That's why I think that we should buy a proven striker, someone of the caliber of Cavani.

My fear is that we will be stuck with him past the summer. He is on a £180k per week wage. Right now, there is not a lot of teams capable to afford such a wage. On the one hand, there are the few power houses in Europe ; but it will never cross their minds to sign the wonder-horse. On the second hand, you have the exotic clubs from Russia, China, and arabian peninsula. They seem to be or sole help. Though I doubt it will happen. Yeah, they spend silly money on players past their prime or on some overrated dudes (Hulk). But I doubt that spending big money on flops is their style. I think that the kind of players they "like" to buy is either the ex-star who is near the retirement, or the flavor of the month. Anyway, what ever kind of footballer it is, the players bought seldom come with the label "flop" or "laughing stock" on their back, but rather with good rep. I really do fail to see why on earth they would do that. Which leaves us with Atletico. Even if we sell him on the cheap, I fail to imagine that happening. Even if he takes a 50% pay cut, his wage would still be about £90k per week (£4,3 millions per year). First off, it still is a lot for a player with such a low level of football. Especially for a team like Atletico. They are not riding on gold, they cannot afford to give a high wage to whoever. Considering that Falcao's wages is approximatively of 4 millions euro per year (that's the only figure I could find), it would be stunning to see them giving more wages to that flop than what they are giving to their player who is regarded as the best striker. And even if they sell Falcao, I cannot believe that they would give that amount of money for someone unable to be their best player. And I don't even think that the ladyboy would be willing to take this 50% pay cut and thus earning as much as he was at Loserpool ; that would be a major back step for a 29 years-old player. And the problem is that he is getting worse and worse. The more time will pass by, the more his sale will get. Since his goal against Brentford, he hasn't scored for 641 minutes (10h41). We should have sell him last summer, when somehow he managed to win that gold boot and was awarded with a CL and European Champion medals. That was the only time where is profil was looking good. But instead, that mug of Gourlay decided to make him our unquestionable and unbenchable number one striker. *Shake my head* And to buy buy out his contract ? At the end of the season, he will have roughly 30 remaining months on his contract. Which means that we will have to spend £21,6 millions. That is not feasible. We can also throw him in the reserve like Malouda, but he will still be eating away £180 per week. If we do keep him, he will be a major hindrance ! He is really a curse. He's single handedly dragging our club to the ground. And I fear he will keep doing so for at least one more season.

That's what I have also read — the skinny one is Emenalo personal choice. If truen then he has to take the responsabilities for having breaking something between the fans and the administration, for our sportive failure, for turning us into a circus. So yeah, as you said, he also should get the boot for this major fuck-up.

Thanks Alex Yeah. I gotta admit that during and after the summer, my mind wasn't really into football (kinda personal problems). And furthermore, I had to concentrate a bit more on my studies in order to have good grades in December so I could have more chance to go where I want to next year. And finally, until recently I wasn't inspired by many topics... But now that's back to normal, I have more time to comment. Though, I ain't still into football that much, but I have a lot to voice (the board, the circus, the squad, etc..) Oui oui, je comprends bien, malgré la faute Thanks, the pleasure is for me Also thanks for the other who mentioned me. And my voice goes to The only place to be.

I think that this whole thing "keep 'em for the experience and leadership blablabla" is misleading us. It seems to be the consensus that an old player is useful in the sense that he brings experience to the side. Though, in my mind that's the same thing as saying that a great player will make a good manager. And that's just as saying that an old wine is a good wine. That's not the case. It's one thing to have cross your sword all around the continent at the highest level. But that's another thing to put this experience into application ; to share it to others. And to my belief, it's not the case for Lampard. Tonight, once again he went missing. I have already put into the lights that his "experience" was nowhere to be seen against Newcastle (3-1) and Man.City (2-0). That was also the case in the game against QPR (0-1), and tonight against that romanian team as well (1-0). These games are the more relevant in that regard — but there are others. For instance, against West Bromwich (1-0), he was fairly average — not bad, but not good. And in these five games that I have mentioned (Bucarest, West Bromwich, ManCity, Newcastle and QPR), one could question his leadership — tonight being the more convincing example (though, he wasn't the only one who didn't showcase his leadership). Indeed. He fails to bring his stamp upon the game, to influence it. For someone who's supposed to show leadership and experience, that is not normal. The game just seems to passes him by. And the fact that, the only few times he is noticable are when he shots from 40 yards or score a goal, gets a lot of meanings when it regards a central midfielder. And the example of Scholes and Giggs is irrelevant. As someone said on this forum yesterday (or so), they are not the rule, but the exception. In my mind, they bring to that Man.United team more than Lampard brings us. Even when they are average, you can feel that they influence the game of their team, that they are involved in it. I do not get the same feeling from our n°8. Last summer, we didn't hesitate to part our paths with Drogba. Even though the half French would have had a lot more to bring us than what Lampard could bring us in the future. When we let him go, he was still able to make World-Class performance (c.f. his whole CL campaign, especially against Valencia). He has also that ability to know when calm down the game and he manages perfectly to waste time — these abilities would have been handy more than once this season. Off course he has also his share of games where he cannot be bother. But all in all, I think that someone like Didier would have been a good condidate for that "experience" thing (Ashley Cole is also a good call) ; I do not think that Lampard suits that role (at the light of the the 20 last games, he has proved me right). Sometimes we need to stop to hang to our past and to make the big step, in order to go forward. The day will come when we will have to swim without our life buoy. I believe that blooding-out one Old-Guard player per year is the good rate. In my opinion, this summer is the perfect time for Chelsea and Lampard to take different paths.

I don't know whether one could say I am awfully confident that Luke Shaw will turn out to be a great talent. However, I am awfully confident that at the moment, gambling on bertrand is as much risky as gambling upon Shaw, nay more. Bertrand is already 23 years-old. Out of all his games under our shirt, he had some promising performances, some other bad, and the rest being average. Granted he didn't play that much, and was often played out of position. But still, what he has shown causes mixed feelings. He has yet to give us genuine promising indications on a constant basis ; I mean, not in the odd games. There is still a big question mark over his head. I know that some players are early-bloomer while other are late-bloomer. Even though, he is already 23 ; and at this age, there's more odds that he won't make it than odds that he will make it. And tonight he has once again failed to give us the answer. On the other hand, Luke Shaw for is first season of professional football, and this at the age of 17, has a fortiori shown real signs of a futur very good players (not many players have had 18 appearances in the Premier League, 15 of them being as titular — that certainly means something). I fashion Betrand being for Chelsea what players like Brown or O'Shea were for ManUnited, i.e. an utility player who is able to play in serveral positions, and who is pretty much capable to provide cover when a player is injured. These facts being highlighted, I'd rather us to take the gamble on Shaw than another club.

I cannot be agree with you mate, here. Sergio Busquets and Mikel aren't on the same page. The first one is World-Class while the latter is not. And I am a person who sparsely uses such a label. And acknowledging that does not take away anything from Mikel's abilities. That's true that the spanish is surrounded by better teammates, but still. Mikel has a very good accuracy in his passing game, however in my opinion Sergio's passing game is better. Into my eyes Busquets is one of the finest passer at the moment. I fail to see a lot of players better/as good as him in this department. His short passes are exceptional ; his long passes impeccable. I also believe that he has much more awarness than Mikel regarding his positioning and off-ball game — and this both from the defensive and attacking aspects (which makes him pretty good at defending). But the biggest difference, I believe, is concerning the speed of reaction and the speed of thought. Indeed. To my belief Sergio is the best one-touch passer in the game right-now. He doesn't need to take 5+ steps on the ball and 5 seconds to pass the ball. He reacts quickly and that doesn't afect the accuracy of his passes — there are nailed on. He has played a big role into Barcelona and Spain recent success. He doesn't get the recognitions he deserves. He is significantly better than Mikel. And I do not base my judgment upon one or two games, nor upon some youtube videos. I am basing my view upon 100+ games. Here's a showcase of what he can do.

Did the players decided that the Europa League was an hindrance for the chase to the CL spot ? Or did they merely decreed that they were to good to play in it ? And is there anyone at the helm ? A manager, a leader ?

I cannot tell whether he will be sold or not, but that would not surprise me in the slightest. It's pretty clear that there's a fall out between him and Ferguson. And I do not think that's just a "non-story" from medias. Do you remember two years ago the transfert saga around Rooney ? Do you remember how he held Ferguson to ransom ? If you do not, Alex Ferguson do remember it well. At that time he did have to bow and to give to Rooney what he wanted — because Rooney was the star, and it would have been a major blow to either sell him or drop him from the squad. But now that's different. There's Van Persie. And there's Welbeck who isn't the worst striker out there. In short, Rooney is not as much needed as he was before. Ferguson can afford to bench him. Plus, as far as i can recall, Ferguson always had problem with him, regarding his fitness and hygiene/health. So I don't know whether there will be sale or not, but the thing sure is that it's payback time.

Like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtwqvtllIGs

To start off, I'd like to say that this debate Kagawa Vs Hazard is pretty childish. And this from both side.I don't see any problem to compare players, but this debate seems more to be a "who has the biggest" than anything else. ManU fans are like "they overpaid for Hazard, we have the better of the two" and Chelsea fans are like "they're just jealous, we obviously have the better". I didn't see too many games of Kagawa this season. But I can tell you one thing : if you people had watched Dortmund when Shinji was playing there, you'd think twice before saying Eden is obviously better than Kagawa. For instance, I still did not have seen the belgian making an as big performance as Kagawa when the Borussia beat Munich 5-1 (and what a performance from the japanese, he ripped them a new one).

The last time was when the best, the nicest, the prettiest of all, Didier, scored against Barça to make it 1-0 at the Bridge, last year. I can be wrong since I did not check it out. It's at least what I can get out of my mind. P.S. Didier <3

Yes, I know that I am giving a one-sided view of Ron Gourlay's job. Why ? Because to me, he could save puppies from the fire each and every day, that does not compensate the bad things he did for us. I'll past and copy what I reproached him a few pages back : He made us believe that we didn't need to buy anyone in the 2011 summer because we had Kakuta, McEachran, Bruma and Van Aaholt. He got Ray Wilkins sacked during a Chelsea youth game. He got Ancelotti sacked in a corridor about a few minutes after the end of our last game. He was one of the man who — at 4 in the morning — told Roberto that he was sacked. He has told the fans that the club needed a change of direction and that Skinny Boy was the right man. The way he treats people is intolerable. Sacking a club legend during the half-time of one of our youth games that he was attending to, seriously ? Couldn't have he chosen a better time to do so ? Or even better, couldn't have he man-up and tell him in front of him, face to face, that he was dismissed, instead of giving him a call in this context ? Wilkins wasn't even told why he was sacked. That lacks class. Wilkins wasn't even sacked because he was not good enough in his job ! Carlo Ancelotti didn't have a saying in this decision. Wilkins was sacked because he allegedly had a bust-up with Gourlay (which seems to have followed an argument between Roman and Ray in the summer). While I am agree that if there were tensions between Wilkins and the hierarchy, parting their paths might have been a sensible decision — but, Wilkins' contract was ending in a few months (before the end of the season)... Would it not have been also a sensible decision to wait until the end of his contract ? I know that hindsight is a bitch, but especially when you know that after his dismissal we entered the "Bad Moment" (© Ancelotti). I don't think that our Bad Moment © has been caused by Wilkins departure, but in my opinion it has taken a part in it. The same goes for the way he sacked Ancelotti. Unbelievable. Back then, Carlo has offered us the best season (trophy-wise) we ever had. Ron the dinosaur could have show more class and respect. I know that everybody saw it coming — and to be honest, I wanted us to axe Carlo Ancelotti. But seriously, couldn't have he at least wait to arrive in London to tell Carlo that he was sacked ? For me, the way he treated Roberto di Matteo was the straw which broke the camel's back. Seriously, 4 in the morning ? Even if Roberto sacking was in the air, wait another moment for Jésus sake. And after that, he had the cheek to come out and say that the skinny one is the right man — the man hated by the majority of us, the man we didn't want — for that change of direction. I am agree to say that he is good with the business side. But he should have stuck to that side and not get his nose in the football matters. Especially when he disrupts these football matters because of personal affairs. From Chelsea official web-site : That's the third time in a row that our season falls into shambles. The three times, he has been the CEO. And, this year is the cherry upon the cake. We have turned into a laughting stock, into a big circus. Someone has to pay for that. Indeed, once, okay that can happen. Twice, well... It starts to be a lot. But three times, that is not acceptable, especially when the third time is that bad. And I'd like to point out another thing. You are saying that what is happening today is not entirely Gourlay's fault because the problems have started before he was appointed CEO. Here's what can be also be found on Chelsea web-site : He is at the club since 2004. He is there for nine years. That's not really as if he was a newbie, isn't it ? He has been COO during five years before becoming CEO. I don't really know what's a COO, but there's one thing that I am sure about : he wasn't the gardener, nor he was parking the players' cars. To my understanding, COO is one of the highest job within the board. So yes, he is also partly at fault for the problems which have started before he has been hired as CEO, since he was a member of the board !! That's why I want him to be sacked. Yes, he isn't the only one at fault. But life's unfair ! A high job means big responsibilities. The CEO is for the administration what the coach is for the players (in some ways). So, as managers get sacked because their players don't perform, CEO should get sacked if their subordinates don't work well. And I'll end my comment by stating this fact. Ever since he was appointed as our CEO, each passing season we have become poorer and poorer : 2009-10 : 1st in the Premier League and we won the FA Cup.2010-11 : 2nd in the Premier League and we ended trophy-less.2011-12 : 6th in the Premier League, and we won the CL and FA Cup, but it was a special context.2012-13 : As of today, we have been engaged into 8 competitions ; we can win only two of them right now. And we don't know if you'll even make it into the top four.Whatever the whys and hows, that's a fact. Each passing season is less good than the previous one. In that respect, we are entitled to challenge our board's capacity. The bottom line : "However, the owner and the Board felt that a change was necessary to keep the club moving in the right direction ahead of a vitally important part of the season" Gourlay. "However, Me, Myself and I feel that a change is necessary to keep the club moving in the right direction ahead of a vitally important part of the club transition". Me. P.S. Sorry for the long post.

Shut up. We won thanks to the fan, not thanks to the skinny one.

For the game today, mixed feeling regarding the fans. When I saw the line-up, I wasn't too sure about what they were doing. They chose to start with the combo Luiz/Ivanovic and Ramires/Lampard, it wasn't too reasuring. But finaly, these combos weren't at fault. During the first half, the fans were good, nay very good. We could see that they made our players playing a good football. However, our players' finishing was off. To my mind, the fans should sing louder when players practice their finishing at Cobham. However, during the second half, our fans were so so. Indeed, as the game went by, our display was slowly deteriorating. Though, they waited the 80th minute to make a change, I believe that it was too late. If the fans make the team play as good for our next games, maybe they're worth a shot next year as our manager ?

Tssss, everybody should keep in stock some "likes" for me. That behaviour is intolerable ! Joking, thanks

@The only place to be (and @LDN Blue). Ima try and explain you what Emenalo did wrong, into my eyes. -------------- First off all, for what thing(s) can we give him credit ? Well, I don't follow at all our loaned players, so I cannot say whether they have been success or failure. I trust you on here, hence I'll give you that : Emenalo has done a good job.
 I also give you that our transfert philosphy has changed. I do not know whether it's thank to him, but since he is the director of sportif, the credit goes to him.

 And finally, I'll also give you that he wasn't helped by the short-term mentality that his predecessors had. 

So all in all, we have improved under him : we seem to care a lot more about our youths, we seem to no longer target 30 years-old finished products, and instead, to target young players with potential (and who cost less). As he is credited for the bad things, we also gotta give credits for the good things. Credit where it's due. -------------- Now, what did he get wrong, to my mind ? The fault I umpute to him are : A failure in our Mercato (in regard of the short-term) for which our current problems are partly due.To not have strengthened the striking force. Or rather, to not have purchased a striking force, since we didn't have any strikers. Indeed, at the start of the season, we had two strikers. The first one has been dog shit ever since he joined the club (so for the 18 months before the summer — even 24 months because he was also shit at Loserpool) — even though, the board (thus Emenalo) decieded to give him the key of our attack. The second one was not a lonely striker (so no suited to our formation) and it seems that he was out of favors anyway. Major error.To not have brought in players actually suited to play into the midfield-two. It's arguably the more important area of the formation, at least into my eyes. Even though, we started the season neither with players suited to play there, nor good enough to play there — or both. Throughout the season we could have notice that the double-pivot had let us down. Major error.To not have brought in enough players to improve our squad depth. At the start of the season, we had 21 players and we were engaged in 7 competitions. Obviously, we were aiming to try and win each of them. Although, not the squad depth nor its quality were good enough to achieve that. We didn't have the tool to fulfill our aims, but we have overlook that fact and tried to win everywhere. We tried to bit more than we could chew. The board didn't give us the weapons to accomplish what they were asking us to. Another error.To have let Essien and Meireles leave without buying any replacement for them — remember the concerns over the squad depth.You might tell me that the problem of the squad depth, is rooting deeper than this summer. Of course, it's started long before this summer. But with the decisions he took this summer (or which he didn't take), he did nothing to improve that ! We can even say that, in some ways, he has ultimately weakened the squad. 


There's another thing that I'd like to point out. You are telling that Emenalo is to be given credit for our successful loans. I cannot deny that. Although, as I've aforementioned, we have a big problem as for the quantity of players : our squad has not enough depth. And now I read somewhere that we have 23 players who are loaned out. Yes, you read it right, 23 players. Do I have to remind you that we have 21 players in our squad ? We have more players out on loan than players in the squad. And funnily enough our struggles are in part due to our lack of depth. Isn't there something wrong ? 

I am not suggesting that they would have made us a lot better as a team ; most of them were/are not good enough. And I am not into a position to work out whether those loaned players could have made us better or not, had they stayed here. 

I just think that it's a good question to ask ourselves. Is it normal to have more players out on loan than players in the squad while we are lacking depth ? Food for thoughts.

 Just a quick reminder of what he also did last season. We were desperatly crying for a central midfielder. All summer long we were chasing Modric. Even it was more likely that Levy wouldn't sell than would sell, we put all our eggs in that basket. And we eventually ended up with Meireles as a "panick buy". ------------------- So yeah, he has done good things. But he has also done a lot of bad things. Basically, he has made good thing for the long-term ; but has made bad things for the short term. And unfortunatly, without the short-term there's no long-term. It seems that the board has realized that their short-term thinking doesn't work and thus has decided to shift to a long-term thinking. But it seems they are always in the extremes : it's either 100% short-term, or 100% long-term. And, in this transition from short-term thinking to long-term thinking, they did forget to take a middle step, they did want to go too much quickly. We're lost in translation lol. Although I do not think Emenalo is the only one culprit for this. I am not saying that he should be fired or not because of that. I am just trying to expose what are his faults into my mind — since you were wondering what people were reproaching him. I hope my sayings have been relevant