The Mourinho Thread

[The Chels 2,502]

3 hours ago, petre.ispirescu said:

If this is not another PR stunt by Jorge Mendes to speed up the negociations with Man United and he indeed ends up in Paris instead of United, then it'll be because United did not want him and not the other way around. If someone else thinks he's rejected United for Paris than he is as deluded as Mourinho.

It does sound like a PR stunt. Mourinho's getting desperate.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

The French league is even less competitive then the Scottish one. Can't see Mourinho going there but I honestly think he's a busted flush and that's why I hope he goes to Man United.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

To be fair, it's a great step for him in trying to rebuild his reputation. A league he can easily walkthrough & in a club where the league won't even be a priority. 

But I'd question how much of the reigns Nasser Al-Khelaifi would be willing to give José, he won't allow the sales of their future stars that he's invested so much into. 

[Tautvix 1,321]

 

[manpe 10,861]

1 hour ago, Tautvix said:

 

What does it have to do with JM?

[chelseafan26 293]

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.

 

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

2 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.

 

Iheanacho came as a substitute because of Silva's injury, not started. As for Mourinho, he started 19-years-old Carlos Alberto in Champions League final. Last season he started 20-years-old Zouma in League Cup Final. Oh, and Loftus-Cheek played more minutes in Champions League this season than Iheanacho.

[chelseafan26 293]

17 minutes ago, pHaRaOn said:

Iheanacho came as a substitute because of Silva's injury, not started. As for Mourinho, he started 19-years-old Carlos Alberto in Champions League final. Last season he started 20-years-old Zouma in League Cup Final. Oh, and Loftus-Cheek played more minutes in Champions League this season than Iheanacho.

Zouma is a multi-million pound buy. 12 million pounds to be EXACT. How can he even be compared to Iheanacho? City have Bony, and yet chose to play Iheanacho.

Carlos Albrerto was another Multi Million signing. How can these be compared to "YOUTH PLAYERS". the point is not 20 year old "YOUNG PLAYERS" but academy products.

RLC has more minutes in CL and in which game. Against the Maccabi TEL AVIV (with all due respect) whose level was no better than aston villa's. 

So please, lets not try to defend the un-defensible. 

 

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

59 minutes ago, chelseafan26 said:

Zouma is a multi-million pound buy. 12 million pounds to be EXACT. How can he even be compared to Iheanacho? City have Bony, and yet chose to play Iheanacho.

Carlos Albrerto was another Multi Million signing. How can these be compared to "YOUTH PLAYERS". the point is not 20 year old "YOUNG PLAYERS" but academy products.

RLC has more minutes in CL and in which game. Against the Maccabi TEL AVIV (with all due respect) whose level was no better than aston villa's. 

So please, lets not try to defend the un-defensible. 

 

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.

[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.