The Mourinho Thread

[chelseafan26 293]

1 hour ago, pHaRaOn said:

Iheanacho joined Man City when he was 18-years-old and overall he costed around €1,000,000. A bit exaggerated to call him theirs Academy product, even if he played a few games for them. And, once again, he didn't started yesterday.

You want example of Mourinho started young academy product in important game? 18-years-old Davide Santon started for Internazionale in both games against Manchester United to mark Cristiano Ronaldo. He also started 18-y-o Balotelli in one of these two games. At Real Madrid he started Morata against Barcelona.

I'm not saying that Mourinho is example of manager who gives a lot of game time to many young players (we know it's not true), but attempts to beat him with Pellegrini/Iheanacho example is an absurd.

Iheanacho joined City in Jan 2014, as a 17 year old. For a fee of "maybe" about 250,000 pounds. Any Young player that is "bought" from the parent has to be paid a nominal fee for the care of the player. This was the nominal fee. For 2 years, he has stayed with city not on loan and now he has been given his chances by a maneger who trusts youth. We did not develop Zouma, we bought him for 12 million pounds. And if people are willing to call ryan bertrand as a chelsea academy product, then why is not Iheanacho a city academy product? They were bought for the same fee, at around the same age. And while we loaned out bertrand for aorund 5 years, City and pelegrini had the balls of trusting an 18/19 year old. 

Fair enough about santone, but thats one example in how many years. And more precisely, there are 2 Joses. The pre RM jose and the post RM jose. The jose of the 2nd tenure was an average outdated manager who has cost us some absolute gems. As for Balotelli, he was already a prominent feature in the inter squad scoring a brace in 2007 against Juve. By the way, if iheanacho is not a city academy product, I simply cant contemplate how balotelli is Inter's. 

This was mainly a reply to a particular poster who i have seen belittling pelegrini's youth policy time and again, despite us having to use multi million signings like Zouma, baba, kenedy as "youth". I mean is not leicester's total budget as much as the sum of the price of those 3 players. 

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

23 minutes ago, chelseafan26 said:

Iheanacho joined City in Jan 2014, as a 17 year old. For a fee of "maybe" about 250,000 pounds. Any Young player that is "bought" from the parent has to be paid a nominal fee for the care of the player. This was the nominal fee. For 2 years, he has stayed with city not on loan and now he has been given his chances by a maneger who trusts youth. We did not develop Zouma, we bought him for 12 million pounds. And if people are willing to call ryan bertrand as a chelsea academy product, then why is not Iheanacho a city academy product? They were bought for the same fee, at around the same age. And while we loaned out bertrand for aorund 5 years, City and pelegrini had the balls of trusting an 18/19 year old. 

Fair enough about santone, but thats one example in how many years. And more precisely, there are 2 Joses. The pre RM jose and the post RM jose. The jose of the 2nd tenure was an average outdated manager who has cost us some absolute gems. As for Balotelli, he was already a prominent feature in the inter squad scoring a brace in 2007 against Juve. By the way, if iheanacho is not a city academy product, I simply cant contemplate how balotelli is Inter's. 

This was mainly a reply to a particular poster who i have seen belittling pelegrini's youth policy time and again, despite us having to use multi million signings like Zouma, baba, kenedy as "youth". I mean is not leicester's total budget as much as the sum of the price of those 3 players. 

If he'd signed before his 18th Birthday, it would be breaching of FIFA rules, so that's impossible. He only had some sort of pre-agreement to sign when he turns 18, but he wasn't able to play any games, except some friendlies. Similar situation to Bertrand Traore. About fee, I am repelled by these figures: "£250,000 (€300,000) transfer fee has been agreed for Iheanacho, with a further £300,000 (€360,000) being paid to the Taye Academy in Owerri and £350,000 (€420,000) to the youngster’s father".

I'm tend to agree and disagree about Zouma. Yes, he made that step to first-team football at another club and we paid for him £12,000,000. But, talking about further development, Mourinho developed him pretty much, if you recall how he played at the start of his Chelsea career.

[chelseafan26 293]

50 minutes ago, pHaRaOn said:

If he'd signed before his 18th Birthday, it would be breaching of FIFA rules, so that's impossible. He only had some sort of pre-agreement to sign when he turns 18, but he wasn't able to play any games, except some friendlies. Similar situation to Bertrand Traore. About fee, I am repelled by these figures: "£250,000 (€300,000) transfer fee has been agreed for Iheanacho, with a further £300,000 (€360,000) being paid to the Taye Academy in Owerri and £350,000 (€420,000) to the youngster’s father".

I'm tend to agree and disagree about Zouma. Yes, he made that step to first-team football at another club and we paid for him £12,000,000. But, talking about further development, Mourinho developed him pretty much, if you recall how he played at the start of his Chelsea career.

When did we start including "Father's fee" in the transfer fee for a player? Might as well include things like agent fees. Dont know how much that would make Kurt Zouma's fee. Zouma at the start of his career played like any 19 year old would coming to a big club for big money. He still has a lot of problems with his positional sense as he did then. Jose only gave Zouma a chance when our defence turned totally shit this season, before that the only chances that zouma got were playing like a headless chicken in the midfield. And if his development had anything to do with Jose, he should have become atleast a decent passer (since he played a lot of his 14/15 season games as a DM), sadly it has not.

Iheanacho joined city on 10 jan 2014, his ifficial Date of birth is is listed as 3rd October 1996. So if my math is not wrong, that would make him 17.

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

31 minutes ago, chelseafan26 said:

Jose only gave Zouma a chance when our defence turned totally shit this season, before that the only chances that zouma got were playing like a headless chicken in the midfield. And if his development had anything to do with Jose, he should have become atleast a decent passer (since he played a lot of his 14/15 season games as a DM), sadly it has not.

Iheanacho joined city on 10 jan 2014, his ifficial Date of birth is is listed as 3rd October 1996. So if my math is not wrong, that would make him 17.

Zouma has played 26 games last season and only 5 as a DM. And his first game as a DM was on 1st March. Before that he played as a CB in 16 games, including Tottenham (45 minutes), Sporting in a CL (full game), Liverpool (full game), Manchester City (full game), Everton (full game) and other weaker oppositions.

Iheanacho joined City after his 18th Birthday. Before that he was only on trial and had pre-agreement. As per FIFA Regulations:

International transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/regulations_on_the_status_and_transfer_of_players_en_33410.pdf

Same situation as Traore.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

2 hours ago, chelseafan26 said:

When did we start including "Father's fee" in the transfer fee for a player? Might as well include things like agent fees.

To be fair, isn't that the whole issue in the Neymar case?  

[chelseafan26 293]

20 minutes ago, LDN Blue said:

To be fair, isn't that the whole issue in the Neymar case?  

I always thought that was Marca propaganda.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

 

Quote

 

 Spain vs Barcelona FC re tax

• In Feb 2014 Judge Pablo Ruz charged Barca with "an infringement against the tax authority." Barca allegedly committed tax fraud claiming the transfer fee was €57.1m, later admitting this was €86.2m.
• Barca director Raul Sanllehi stated the transfer on its own had cost €57.1m including €17.1m to Santos and €40m as a "compensation fee" paid to the company owned by Neymar's parents. He also detailed other payments around the transfer such as a signing bonus of €10m and various other fees paid to the family that took the total cost to €86.2m.

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/3otpdn/a_guide_to_neymars_transfer_ensuing_legal_battles/

 

Maybe, maybe not..

[chelseafan26 293]

1 hour ago, pHaRaOn said:

Zouma has played 26 games last season and only 5 as a DM. And his first game as a DM was on 1st March. Before that he played as a CB in 16 games, including Tottenham (45 minutes), Sporting in a CL (full game), Liverpool (full game), Manchester City (full game), Everton (full game) and other weaker oppositions.

Iheanacho joined City after his 18th Birthday. Before that he was only on trial and had pre-agreement. As per FIFA Regulations:

International transfers of players are only permitted if the player is over the age of 18.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/regulations_on_the_status_and_transfer_of_players_en_33410.pdf

Same situation as Traore.

My bad about Iheanacho. Fair enough about Traore. Iheanacho and traore seem to be the same situation. Thats why I dont use Traore in the list of Zouma, Kenedy, Baba multi million buy list. Despite having nothing to play for since December, traore has 380 senior minutes while Iheanacho has about 1000 minutes. While pelegrini is using Iheanacho ahead of bony, jose had the likes of falcao and remy ahead of traore. WHy? (lets not take the argument to gus, because in all honesty, i think he has done a worse job than Jose). 

[Styles 9,790]

Watching this Atletico performance and in the 3 years of Mourinho's second spell he never ONCE had us performing this good against a top level team.

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

35 minutes ago, Styles said:

Watching this Atletico performance and in the 3 years of Mourinho's second spell he never ONCE had us performing this good against a top level team.

That might be due to the players at his disposal. Simple as. He is certainly capable of managing a team playing this good.

[Fernando 6,743]

1 minute ago, Blue_Fox_ said:

That might be due to the players at his disposal. Simple as. He is certainly capable of managing a team playing this good.

Yeah but Chelsea has more money then Atletico. You can't tell me that Chelsea cannot buy players that Atletico has been buying as of late?

[chelseafan26 293]

55 minutes ago, Styles said:

Watching this Atletico performance and in the 3 years of Mourinho's second spell he never ONCE had us performing this good against a top level team.

Honestly, whenever I watch Atletico play, I feel "this is what we should have become". 

[Styles 9,790]

1 minute ago, chelseafan26 said:

Honestly, whenever I watch Atletico play, I feel "this is what we should have become". 

I feel "this is what Mourinho wants but is incapable of coaching a team to do"

[chelseafan26 293]

32 minutes ago, Styles said:

I feel "this is what Mourinho wants but is incapable of coaching a team to do"

At this moment, Yes. The jose of old could and would have. Dont know what happened at RM, but something seemed broken in him since then. 

If he joins PSG or Inter, I would love for the man to get his mojo back and become that "JOSE" of 2004. 

[Tautvix 1,321]

Simeone for me is like Mourinho 2004/2007. It is fair to say that this Mourinho was never the same since he cameback for the 2nd time. Would have loved Simeone instead of Conte but fair play to the guy. Atletico looks like his real home.

[Essien19 1,415]

Watching this Atletico performance and in the 3 years of Mourinho's second spell he never ONCE had us performing this good against a top level team.

City away, 1:0, imo.

But how high up the pitch Atleti pressed in the first half, Mourinho sets up differently.

His second game against Atleti, got the goal, hit the post, damn it.

Their combinations are unbelievably good, quite sad.

[Tomo 21,754]

18 hours ago, chelseafan26 said:

Pelegrini just started iheanacho in a semi-final of CL against one of the 3 best teams in the world.

I can bet everything I own that in a case where we had matic, cesc, mikel injured, Jose would have started with Azpilicueta-zouma as a midfield pairing or even Oscar as a DM than give a shot to RLC.

That would have been the ultimate Jose thing to do.

 

Ok I'll bite. As alreeady said Iheanacho came on and didn't start, and furthermore Hiddink started Kenedy and brought on Traore (ahead of the experienced Remy) vs PSG and you're constantly slating his youth selection.

But why I initially brought up Greenie and Ihea s that he hasn't given him that many more mins if more atall than Kenedy especially has got this season.

And re Jose, along with the previous examples already given by @pHaRaOn didn't he bring on Scott Sinclair in the CL semi at Anfield? I might be getting that mixed up with title decider vs Arsenal days later bit either way, both were extremely high pressured games for a 17 year old to make his debut.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

3 hours ago, Tautvix said:

Simeone for me is like Mourinho 2004/2007. It is fair to say that this Mourinho was never the same since he cameback for the 2nd time. Would have loved Simeone instead of Conte but fair play to the guy. Atletico looks like his real home.

His time in Spain was really a turning point I think. His internal battles with the Real board and players as well as external spats with Barcelona really drove him mad. At Real his Barcelona obsession was damaging, in Italy and England pre-2006 was inspiring. 

In hindsight it was always an implosion waiting to happen. No fans can be blame for getting caught up in the excitement but the writing was on the wall.. Early into the Cech saga I told @Kieran. that this issue was the first crack in the wall and cracks only get wider. It was a crack in Mourinho. 

Now he's hungry, he'll probably go great things at his next club but who knows if he's ready to change the way he will. Can't imagine him lasting too long at United if he picks a battle with Charlton and co. 

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

5 hours ago, chelseafan26 said:

At this moment, Yes. The jose of old could and would have. Dont know what happened at RM, but something seemed broken in him since then. 

If he joins PSG or Inter, I would love for the man to get his mojo back and become that "JOSE" of 2004. 

I think he became obsessed with beating Pep and Barca and the Barca way.  He became even more defensive and pragmatic.

https://www.theblizzard.co.uk/articles/the-devils-party/

[Kieran. 6,317]

1 hour ago, LDN Blue said:

His time in Spain was really a turning point I think. His internal battles with the Real board and players as well as external spats with Barcelona really drove him mad. At Real his Barcelona obsession was damaging, in Italy and England pre-2006 was inspiring. 

In hindsight it was always an implosion waiting to happen. No fans can be blame for getting caught up in the excitement but the writing was on the wall.. Early into the Cech saga I told @Kieran. that this issue was the first crack in the wall and cracks only get wider. It was a crack in Mourinho. 

Now he's hungry, he'll probably go great things at his next club but who knows if he's ready to change the way he will. Can't imagine him lasting too long at United if he picks a battle with Charlton and co. 

Oh man how right you were......