TorontoChelsea

There are two big differences with City.
1- City started in much worse shape than we did. When Mansour took over the club, City were a mid-table side. Chelsea were Fourth. We were in much better shape (not to mention having a young Lampard and Terry already playing great) We all hate Ken Bates for a reason but he also started to invest in Chelsea before Roman came along. For those of us who were supporters then, Chelsea were a lot of fun to watch and they had a good club.
2-City was dealing with a much more competitive spending league. When Chelsea started spending huge, nobody else in the Premier League was. In 2033-2004, Chelsea spent 153M pounds. Arsenal, their biggest rival at the time, spent 16M pounds. Chelsea spent 290M in the first three seasons of Roman's time at Chelsea. I doubt the entire rest of the Premier League spent half of that net.. When City was starting to spend like crazy, they did so in a league where Chelsea and soon United and later Arsenal were all spending big already (or in Chelsea's case, they had spent so much earlier and were still flush with that talent). If you were a team wanting to spend big now it would also be harder to move up because you are not the only one.

One of the reasons I hate the cult of managers is that I feel that managers overall don't actually make a huge difference. They can make a small different and sometimes, that small difference is the edge you need, but the media and fans give them way too much credit/blame usually. The real job of a manager at a club like Chelsea is managing the egos and motivating the players.
Look at Mourinho's record overall at Chelsea. 8 years starter. I'd say about 4 of those years overall, Chelsea had the most expensive club in England and maybe the world and all of those years, Chelsea was one of the highest spending clubs in the world. In 8 years with an elite spending club Mourinho won the following major trophies:
3 Premier League titles, 1 FA Cup. In the five years in between where Mourinho wasn't a manager (where overall Chelsea had less talent) Chelsea won 1 Premier League title, 3 FA Cups, and one Champions League. Did Mourinho overall do any better than could have been expected? The answer to me is no. It's not a slight on Mourinho but a reality of managers. The managers that get called geniuses are also the managers who happen to manage the most talent. In the end, the teams that win are the teams that have the most talent and spend the most money. What Ranieri is doing with Leicester this season is far more impressive than what Guardiola has done with Bayern.

As others have pointed out, the transfers or lack of in the summer are not a real point. First off, we still spent more than the vast majority of clubs and bought Pedro who is a great player. Secondly and more importantly, we won the league last year. This is not a team four points out of first where a slight improvement or increased depth would have made a difference. This is a team near the relegation zone despite being filled with quality players. This is probably the worst sustained performance of a team of this quality I can remember.

How can people pretend that a dozen players weren't trying AND NOT blame the manager for that? If he can't control or motivate his team, he deserves to go anyway. I have never liked the cult of Mourinho. No player is bigger than the club and managers are worth a lot less than players. There was no scenario where Mourinho keeping his job made sense. We were awful, his antics were childish and disruptive, and Chelsea were not improving at all. This was not a rash decision in the least.

When Mourinho took over, I thought it was a mistake because we had the wrong sorts of players for him to build his team, so, we sold them and bought more fitting players. Now, however, we are a mess with no style and no sound of the club so anyone can take over and rebuild. Something I think is missing from a lot of name managers is the ability to be flexible. Mourinho, Van Gaal, etc... they have to build their teams to play a specific way. You'd think that a good manager could just get the best out of their players no matter what the system.

I don't know about wonders but he did a great job, that's true. But I think many people forget Ranieri finished 2nd behind the Invincibles and reached the semi-finals of the CL. His team was not as talented as the 04-07 one and his team was quite fresh (in terms of chemistery). You can't tell me Ranieri would never have won the league if he was allowed to stay. He most likely wouldn't have won it in such a dominant fashion, at least that's what I think.
You're probably right about Hughes but I'm sure he was gone before the real talent joined. He had that Adebayor team. But I rate Ranieri higher than Hughes.

There are two big differences with City.
1- City started in much worse shape than we did. When Mansour took over the club, City were a mid-table side. Chelsea were Fourth. We were in much better shape (not to mention having a young Lampard and Terry already playing great) We all hate Ken Bates for a reason but he also started to invest in Chelsea before Roman came along. For those of us who were supporters then, Chelsea were a lot of fun to watch and they had a good club.
2-City was dealing with a much more competitive spending league. When Chelsea started spending huge, nobody else in the Premier League was. In 2033-2004, Chelsea spent 153M pounds. Arsenal, their biggest rival at the time, spent 16M pounds. Chelsea spent 290M in the first three seasons of Roman's time at Chelsea. I doubt the entire rest of the Premier League spent half of that net.. When City was starting to spend like crazy, they did so in a league where Chelsea and soon United and later Arsenal were all spending big already (or in Chelsea's case, they had spent so much earlier and were still flush with that talent). If you were a team wanting to spend big now it would also be harder to move up because you are not the only one.

One of the reasons I hate the cult of managers is that I feel that managers overall don't actually make a huge difference. They can make a small different and sometimes, that small difference is the edge you need, but the media and fans give them way too much credit/blame usually. The real job of a manager at a club like Chelsea is managing the egos and motivating the players.
Look at Mourinho's record overall at Chelsea. 8 years starter. I'd say about 4 of those years overall, Chelsea had the most expensive club in England and maybe the world and all of those years, Chelsea was one of the highest spending clubs in the world. In 8 years with an elite spending club Mourinho won the following major trophies:
3 Premier League titles, 1 FA Cup. In the five years in between where Mourinho wasn't a manager (where overall Chelsea had less talent) Chelsea won 1 Premier League title, 3 FA Cups, and one Champions League. Did Mourinho overall do any better than could have been expected? The answer to me is no. It's not a slight on Mourinho but a reality of managers. The managers that get called geniuses are also the managers who happen to manage the most talent. In the end, the teams that win are the teams that have the most talent and spend the most money. What Ranieri is doing with Leicester this season is far more impressive than what Guardiola has done with Bayern.

How can people pretend that a dozen players weren't trying AND NOT blame the manager for that? If he can't control or motivate his team, he deserves to go anyway. I have never liked the cult of Mourinho. No player is bigger than the club and managers are worth a lot less than players. There was no scenario where Mourinho keeping his job made sense. We were awful, his antics were childish and disruptive, and Chelsea were not improving at all. This was not a rash decision in the least.

As others have pointed out, the transfers or lack of in the summer are not a real point. First off, we still spent more than the vast majority of clubs and bought Pedro who is a great player. Secondly and more importantly, we won the league last year. This is not a team four points out of first where a slight improvement or increased depth would have made a difference. This is a team near the relegation zone despite being filled with quality players. This is probably the worst sustained performance of a team of this quality I can remember.

There are two big differences with City.
1- City started in much worse shape than we did. When Mansour took over the club, City were a mid-table side. Chelsea were Fourth. We were in much better shape (not to mention having a young Lampard and Terry already playing great) We all hate Ken Bates for a reason but he also started to invest in Chelsea before Roman came along. For those of us who were supporters then, Chelsea were a lot of fun to watch and they had a good club.
2-City was dealing with a much more competitive spending league. When Chelsea started spending huge, nobody else in the Premier League was. In 2033-2004, Chelsea spent 153M pounds. Arsenal, their biggest rival at the time, spent 16M pounds. Chelsea spent 290M in the first three seasons of Roman's time at Chelsea. I doubt the entire rest of the Premier League spent half of that net.. When City was starting to spend like crazy, they did so in a league where Chelsea and soon United and later Arsenal were all spending big already (or in Chelsea's case, they had spent so much earlier and were still flush with that talent). If you were a team wanting to spend big now it would also be harder to move up because you are not the only one.

City's road to the top was longer. Chelsea finished in the top 4 when Abramovich took over. City was average. The likes of Elano, Benjani, Petrov, Geovanni etc won't win you a thing. Robinho as your star player isn't nearly enough.
Now City is really starting to gain in on Chelsea. Good thing they're pony in Europe.

One of the reasons I hate the cult of managers is that I feel that managers overall don't actually make a huge difference. They can make a small different and sometimes, that small difference is the edge you need, but the media and fans give them way too much credit/blame usually. The real job of a manager at a club like Chelsea is managing the egos and motivating the players.
Look at Mourinho's record overall at Chelsea. 8 years starter. I'd say about 4 of those years overall, Chelsea had the most expensive club in England and maybe the world and all of those years, Chelsea was one of the highest spending clubs in the world. In 8 years with an elite spending club Mourinho won the following major trophies:
3 Premier League titles, 1 FA Cup. In the five years in between where Mourinho wasn't a manager (where overall Chelsea had less talent) Chelsea won 1 Premier League title, 3 FA Cups, and one Champions League. Did Mourinho overall do any better than could have been expected? The answer to me is no. It's not a slight on Mourinho but a reality of managers. The managers that get called geniuses are also the managers who happen to manage the most talent. In the end, the teams that win are the teams that have the most talent and spend the most money. What Ranieri is doing with Leicester this season is far more impressive than what Guardiola has done with Bayern.

As others have pointed out, the transfers or lack of in the summer are not a real point. First off, we still spent more than the vast majority of clubs and bought Pedro who is a great player. Secondly and more importantly, we won the league last year. This is not a team four points out of first where a slight improvement or increased depth would have made a difference. This is a team near the relegation zone despite being filled with quality players. This is probably the worst sustained performance of a team of this quality I can remember.

Absolute bullshit mate every Chelsea fan should count there lucky stars the day that Roman walked into the club. I'd prefer a different billionaire ran my football club that's just fucking pathetic. Roman saved this club from the brink and I guarantee that if he hadn't we'd be in the Championship at best. Would you be a Chelsea fan? I very much doubt it. Roman has carte blanche to do what he wants it's his money and if he makes a few bad decisions that people don't agree with then tough fucking titty.

How can people pretend that a dozen players weren't trying AND NOT blame the manager for that? If he can't control or motivate his team, he deserves to go anyway. I have never liked the cult of Mourinho. No player is bigger than the club and managers are worth a lot less than players. There was no scenario where Mourinho keeping his job made sense. We were awful, his antics were childish and disruptive, and Chelsea were not improving at all. This was not a rash decision in the least.

As others have pointed out, the transfers or lack of in the summer are not a real point. First off, we still spent more than the vast majority of clubs and bought Pedro who is a great player. Secondly and more importantly, we won the league last year. This is not a team four points out of first where a slight improvement or increased depth would have made a difference. This is a team near the relegation zone despite being filled with quality players. This is probably the worst sustained performance of a team of this quality I can remember.

As others have pointed out, the transfers or lack of in the summer are not a real point. First off, we still spent more than the vast majority of clubs and bought Pedro who is a great player. Secondly and more importantly, we won the league last year. This is not a team four points out of first where a slight improvement or increased depth would have made a difference. This is a team near the relegation zone despite being filled with quality players. This is probably the worst sustained performance of a team of this quality I can remember.

As others have pointed out, the transfers or lack of in the summer are not a real point. First off, we still spent more than the vast majority of clubs and bought Pedro who is a great player. Secondly and more importantly, we won the league last year. This is not a team four points out of first where a slight improvement or increased depth would have made a difference. This is a team near the relegation zone despite being filled with quality players. This is probably the worst sustained performance of a team of this quality I can remember.

How can people pretend that a dozen players weren't trying AND NOT blame the manager for that? If he can't control or motivate his team, he deserves to go anyway. I have never liked the cult of Mourinho. No player is bigger than the club and managers are worth a lot less than players. There was no scenario where Mourinho keeping his job made sense. We were awful, his antics were childish and disruptive, and Chelsea were not improving at all. This was not a rash decision in the least.

As others have pointed out, the transfers or lack of in the summer are not a real point. First off, we still spent more than the vast majority of clubs and bought Pedro who is a great player. Secondly and more importantly, we won the league last year. This is not a team four points out of first where a slight improvement or increased depth would have made a difference. This is a team near the relegation zone despite being filled with quality players. This is probably the worst sustained performance of a team of this quality I can remember.

How can people pretend that a dozen players weren't trying AND NOT blame the manager for that? If he can't control or motivate his team, he deserves to go anyway. I have never liked the cult of Mourinho. No player is bigger than the club and managers are worth a lot less than players. There was no scenario where Mourinho keeping his job made sense. We were awful, his antics were childish and disruptive, and Chelsea were not improving at all. This was not a rash decision in the least.

As others have pointed out, the transfers or lack of in the summer are not a real point. First off, we still spent more than the vast majority of clubs and bought Pedro who is a great player. Secondly and more importantly, we won the league last year. This is not a team four points out of first where a slight improvement or increased depth would have made a difference. This is a team near the relegation zone despite being filled with quality players. This is probably the worst sustained performance of a team of this quality I can remember.

I loved the old Mourinho. 2004-2007 version is the one I hold dear and think of.
The broken, volatile and cynical version that came in 2013 wasn't an embodiment of Chelsea for me.
I supported the club long before Mourinho and will continue to do so. The connection and admiration I have for guys like Zola, Di Matteo, Drogba, Cech etc is a 9198465920x more powerful than anything I ever felt for Mourinho.

Tomo, I respect the hell out of you. We've had plenty of disagreements in the past and they are always civil. You're one of the few members I genuinely nejoy having debates with.
The emotional connection to Jose was way OTT. And he played on that. That dynamic between club and manager was unhealthy and it's a massive reason why we are one point above relegation in December.
You backed him as much as you could but then changed your mind because you love the club more than the manager. I will always criticise the so-called Chelsea fans who put the fired one before the club.
My comments aren't direct at you, mate. :tophat: