The Next Manager?

[Ossie the King 634]

14 minutes ago, The Skipper said:

Emenalo works with the manager, not the other way around. So in a sense he's there to assist the manager. He's really not that influential. 

Could Mike be a coach? Who knows? I'm not sure what that adds to the discussion though, we're not talking about Emenalo here. 

You say he's not influential but you've credited him with some of our success and the fact is the guy tendered his resignation when Jose came in so I'm asking you whether you think he'd work well with either of them. You have to bear in mind that chatting to a fan of 'Mike' is something of a novelty for me.

 

[The Skipper 20,593]

8 minutes ago, Ossie the King said:

You say he's not influential but you've credited him with some of our success and the fact is the guy tendered his resignation when Jose came in so I'm asking you whether you think he'd work well with either of them. You have to bear in mind that chatting to a fan of 'Mike' is something of a novelty for me.

 

You seem to confuse Emenalo's role greatly, CL11 cleared it up for you again (after I did before as well). You seem to think that his role is one of a director of football but he's a technical director. There's a massive difference. We're not having this discussion again, it's pointless. 

You're asking me whether he'd work well with Rodgers, which is stupid. I think he worked well with Mourinho (especially last season), so I don't see why he wouldn't with Pep or Simeone. There's no evidence suggesting he wouldn't. 

[Ossie the King 634]

15 minutes ago, The Skipper said:

You seem to confuse Emenalo's role greatly, CL11 cleared it up for you again (after I did before as well). You seem to think that his role is one of a director of football but he's a technical director. There's a massive difference. We're not having this discussion again, it's pointless. 

You're asking me whether he'd work well with Rodgers, which is stupid. I think he worked well with Mourinho (especially last season), so I don't see why he wouldn't with Pep or Simeone. There's no evidence suggesting he wouldn't. 

No need to use words like stupid now is there? 

I brought it up when perhaps I shouldn't but I have a massive issue with twats like him, Johnny Come Lately's to this club who seem to get responsibility and power handed to them when they're not qualified and whenever there's a changing of the guard and another fuck-up, they get away scot-free. It actually sickens me to see people like that associated with this club, but you have to laugh at the people that blindly defend them. 

But that's just me. I may be wrong but when Roman came along in 2003 we attracted a new breed of fan in many ways and not always for the betterment of this club.

And just to add, once again we need something between Roman and the coach. Despite what the job description might say on the Chelsea website, 'Mike' is it. He's also become Roman's spokesperson apparently now as well so he's going to attract a lot more attention. Personally I'd prefer proper Chelsea in that role or at least someone with a proven track record because what's established there at the moment isn't working and any discussion of new coach is pointless until we actually look at the whole organisation of this club.

[Pizy 18,537]

None of the fullbacks we have would suit Pep. None of the CB's we have would suit Pep. None of the central midfielders either.

This wouldn't be a situation that he could come into and turn into Barca or Bayern in 1 year. He goes to City, United, or even Arsenal and he needs only a couple of additions and he's set more or less.

[ZOS 580]

why do people say arsenal/city philosophy would fit him better than ours? it wasn't long a go that Chelsea had mata, oscar, hazard, willian and kdb in a single squad ffs 

[11Drogba 2,000]

10 minutes ago, Ossie the King said:

 whenever there's a changing of the guard and another fuck-up, they get away scot-free.

He has one of the best jobs in the world. If things are good he gets credit. Someone even praised for finding Hazard lol When things are bad they say it is stupid to blame him as he is just an assistant.

[Starman60 1,343]

Cant see Pep coming to Chelsea. Too much bad blood following his days with Barca. I'd love to see him come but I think we may have burned that bridge some years ago

[Ossie the King 634]

15 minutes ago, Pizy said:

None of the fullbacks we have would suit Pep. None of the CB's we have would suit Pep. None of the central midfielders either.

This wouldn't be a situation that he could come into and turn into Barca or Bayern in 1 year. He goes to City, United, or even Arsenal and he needs only a couple of additions and he's set more or less.

Precisely.

For some bizarre reason people think we can become Barcelona. For some even more bizarre reason, they want us to become something like Barcelona and we won't. We're torn between two identities at the moment, the Chelsea Jose built in 2005, a strong, powerful, intense, fast, resilient team and a plastic Barcelona-lite that Roman is trying to establish and apparently some fans want us to be because it's 'entertaining'. The thing is there's already a Barcelona and they didn't exist overnight. If that's too far for people to travel then there's a slightly snootier, less successful verson of them in North London.

We're the anti-Barca though. We're the team who used to bully Wenger's boys off the pitch and then when they were down we'd dance around them. We're the team that blew Barca away in 2005 and then stood toe-to-toe with them in 2012 (in the most Jose of performances) yet people now want us to become them?

We're Chelsea. We're built on being a tough team, always have been right back to the days of Ossie and Cooke we'd have that tough underbelly. In the 90s we maybe forgot that a bit and that's why we were a great cup team, but we still had the likes of Wisey who knew how to stick their boot in. Why can't we build on those principles rather than trying to be something we're not? 

[Fulham Broadway 16,977]

23 minutes ago, 11Drogba said:

He has one of the best jobs in the world. If things are good he gets credit. Someone even praised for finding Hazard lol When things are bad they say it is stupid to blame him as he is just an assistant.

Youre right he has it both ways. As do the board and owner. .Hes teflon, been there since Grant and has seen the comings and sackings/goings of Grant, Scolari, Hiddink, Carlo, AVB, Di Matteo, Benitez, Mourinho and Guus again. Much of the media say hes Abramovichs eyes and ears  -says more about insecurity than anything else

 

Anyway, whoever comes as manager I dont expect longevity in this climate of Short Termism. He wont be around long.

Steve Parish (Palace chairman) put it succinctly after Jose was booted out ''You are a genius when you win. An absolute genius. You can feel the love of the fans, and its amazing. But then you lose a couple of games and you are a moron. The pundits question your judgement. Its so black and white, and doesnt make sense''

Perhaps it does though -its all about instant success - and football is no longer a pastime its all the fucking time.-talksported to death. Consequently PR conscious clubs respond to a fog of media negativity with kneejerk desperation, resulting in the next disposable manager.

 

 

[11Drogba 2,000]

3 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

 Much of the media say hes Abramovichs eyes

 

Maybe that's why he acts like he has myopia.

[Pizy 18,537]

1 hour ago, Ossie the King said:

Precisely.

For some bizarre reason people think we can become Barcelona. For some even more bizarre reason, they want us to become something like Barcelona and we won't. We're torn between two identities at the moment, the Chelsea Jose built in 2005, a strong, powerful, intense, fast, resilient team and a plastic Barcelona-lite that Roman is trying to establish and apparently some fans want us to be because it's 'entertaining'. The thing is there's already a Barcelona and they didn't exist overnight. If that's too far for people to travel then there's a slightly snootier, less successful verson of them in North London.

We're the anti-Barca though. We're the team who used to bully Wenger's boys off the pitch and then when they were down we'd dance around them. We're the team that blew Barca away in 2005 and then stood toe-to-toe with them in 2012 (in the most Jose of performances) yet people now want us to become them?

We're Chelsea. We're built on being a tough team, always have been right back to the days of Ossie and Cooke we'd have that tough underbelly. In the 90s we maybe forgot that a bit and that's why we were a great cup team, but we still had the likes of Wisey who knew how to stick their boot in. Why can't we build on those principles rather than trying to be something we're not? 

Which is why we must do whatever it takes to lure Simeone. We likely won't ever play the type of "beautiful," fluid football on an every match basis like Barca, Bayern, City, or Arsenal do. But what is the exact type of football that bullies those sides? Mourinho (at his best) and Simeone football.

Physical, hardworking, highly intense play. You punch those sides in the mouth and they falter. Like we've done to Arsenal.

[The Skipper 20,593]

1 hour ago, Ossie the King said:

No need to use words like stupid now is there? 

I brought it up when perhaps I shouldn't but I have a massive issue with twats like him, Johnny Come Lately's to this club who seem to get responsibility and power handed to them when they're not qualified and whenever there's a changing of the guard and another fuck-up, they get away scot-free. It actually sickens me to see people like that associated with this club, but you have to laugh at the people that blindly defend them. 

But that's just me. I may be wrong but when Roman came along in 2003 we attracted a new breed of fan in many ways and not always for the betterment of this club.

And just to add, once again we need something between Roman and the coach. Despite what the job description might say on the Chelsea website, 'Mike' is it. He's also become Roman's spokesperson apparently now as well so he's going to attract a lot more attention. Personally I'd prefer proper Chelsea in that role or at least someone with a proven track record because what's established there at the moment isn't working and any discussion of new coach is pointless until we actually look at the whole organisation of this club.

Well, we clearly disagree on what sort of role Emenalo has at the club and it clearly seems like we can't get any sort of compromise on it so yeah, we'll leave that discussion there once again. 

But before that let me clear up exactly why I think your hatred of Emenalo is completely misdirected. He definitely isn't Roman's sole link to the coach, I don't think it's set up like that. Why exactly is he a twat? What has he done for him to be a twat?

Emenalo didn't just rock up as technical director at the club either, he's not some JCL. He's been here since 2007 - he's worked his way up in that regards. Why that's not fair for you I don't understand. He hasn't done a bad job IMO for what I think his role is either. 

To me, Emenalo isn't the problem. Restructuring of the club needs to start at a higher level. So that includes the likes of Tenenbaum, Bruce Buck, Marina etc. Those are the people we need to look at. Those are the people that are the closest to Roman. They're on the board. They're the ones that run the club, not Emenalo. 

I agree that I'd like to see someone proper Chels involved but the role you're describing is not what Emenalo does. Emenalo assists the manager in finding players, essentially heads the scouting team and oversees the youth academy with the manager and the head of youth development, Neil Bath. 

It seems to me that you're directing your anger at the wrong person. 

[The Skipper 20,593]

58 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Youre right he has it both ways. As do the board and owner. .Hes teflon, been there since Grant and has seen the comings and sackings/goings of Grant, Scolari, Hiddink, Carlo, AVB, Di Matteo, Benitez, Mourinho and Guus again.

 

He's only been technical director for 5 managers, two of them were interim and arguably none of them deserved to stay on as manager. Don't see why he's Teflon for that, he's been criticised in his role from day one. I don't think you're insinuating that he's been influential in those sackings. If so, how has he?

Open question to the Emenalo detractors here: Apart from not having the relevant experiences, and not being Chels, what else has Emenalo done so badly in his role here? 

Please don't bring up this summer's transfer window either - you genuinely can't blame him for the club not being able to get in Stones and Pogba. Again, apart from the Papy signing, he (nor Mourinho for that matter) can't really be blamed for the below average summer. That responsibility falls on the board who failed to get those players. 

[Ossie the King 634]

24 minutes ago, The Skipper said:

Emenalo didn't just rock up as technical director at the club either, he's not some JCL. He's been here since 2007 - he's worked his way up in that regards.

Worked his way up? Like that time when we sacked Butch and appointed this bloke as assistant first team coach?

Oh and the guy we didn't promote into that role - Paul Clement. It's a fucking joke mate.

6 minutes ago, The Skipper said:

Open question to the Emenalo detractors here: Apart from not having the relevant experiences,

Apologies for laughing at this part. So apart from not being qualified for the role....sorry, could you name one other job you'd use that sentence in? But why should Chelsea be run in a responsible manner? It's Roman's toy after all.

 

8 minutes ago, The Skipper said:

and not being Chels,

That's not uncommon nowadays.

 

8 minutes ago, The Skipper said:

what else has Emenalo done so badly in his role here? 

Please don't bring up this summer's transfer window either - you genuinely can't blame him for the club not being able to get in Stones and Pogba. Again, apart from the Papy signing, he (nor Mourinho for that matter) can't really be blamed for the below average summer. That responsibility falls on the board who failed to get those players. 

Don't mention part of his very short work history? So his job is to identify players, yet when the club (because they're all a shitshow) fail to get a ball-playing, young centre-half the best substitute he has is an untested bloke from the French leagues who is the complete opposite? OK, let's just ignore how this summer the quality of the squad went backwards under his watch.

The expectations for this guy were low and apparently we should give him credit for 'identifying' Mata as someone put it. That's a man who played in a World Cup Final and this guy 'identified' him? He has an immense scouting knowledge but beyond that we live in a world where a 12 year old can find out a wealth of knowledge about a player on google, read his stats on Football Manager (which is a remarkably comprehensive resource in some cases) and see footage of them on Youtube. Yet some will give him all the credit for his successes and put the blame for the failures on Jose or the board.

Fulham Broadway is right - the guy's fucking Teflon even at a point when we're in a complete mess with no idea of what type of players we should buy or what type of coach we should hire. 

[Henrique 9,133]

2 hours ago, Ossie the King said:

Precisely.

For some bizarre reason people think we can become Barcelona. For some even more bizarre reason, they want us to become something like Barcelona and we won't. We're torn between two identities at the moment, the Chelsea Jose built in 2005, a strong, powerful, intense, fast, resilient team and a plastic Barcelona-lite that Roman is trying to establish and apparently some fans want us to be because it's 'entertaining'. The thing is there's already a Barcelona and they didn't exist overnight. If that's too far for people to travel then there's a slightly snootier, less successful verson of them in North London.

We're the anti-Barca though. We're the team who used to bully Wenger's boys off the pitch and then when they were down we'd dance around them. We're the team that blew Barca away in 2005 and then stood toe-to-toe with them in 2012 (in the most Jose of performances) yet people now want us to become them?

We're Chelsea. We're built on being a tough team, always have been right back to the days of Ossie and Cooke we'd have that tough underbelly. In the 90s we maybe forgot that a bit and that's why we were a great cup team, but we still had the likes of Wisey who knew how to stick their boot in. Why can't we build on those principles rather than trying to be something we're not? 

I don't think people want Chelsea to become Barcelona. Bayern didn't became Barcelona, and that won't happen, because Barcelona is Barcelona, and thats what they are, Pepe or no Pepe.

Chelsea "Jose built" was also a Roman's team, so its not like he is trying to destroy the team's identity.  Its clear you see Chelsea as a team that plays Mourinhoesque football. That identity is long gone, since Mourinho left the team played a different kind of football. Don't get me wrong, but the team played that way back in 2012 not because that was the team's identity, but because that team was pretty limited, and that was the only way to beat Barcelona. Thats it. The team was limited, that wasn't related at all with some kind of identity. There is a big difference between that performance and 2005 semi-finals. In 2005 that team was strong, and sitting back and waiting for a counter-attack was that team most lethal weapon. 15 minutes in the 2nd leg, it was 3-0. In the first leg Drogba wasted a chance in front of Valdes that could put the team 2-0 in front. In 2012 that team was weaker, and barely created chances in the counter attack. That wasn't a Mourinho's performance. Specially in the 2nd leg in 2012 there were only 10 men trying to survive as long as possible. 

Think about Carlo Ancelotti years, that team had nothing to do with Jose Mourinho style of football. That team ended the league with more than 100 goals, and Ancelotti was using a mid of Lampard/Ballack/Malouda, with 3 strikers in the front Kalou, Anelka and Drogba. That team was 100% anti-Mourinho. That team was a team that was scoring for fun, and scoring 8 goals per match.

Even Mourinho's Chelsea mkII was a different animal. Not strong, powerful and intense. No doubt it was a solid team for most part of 14/15 season, but powerful and strong are not the right words to describe a team that looked powerless against a 10 men PSG at SB.

Most people just want Guardiola because he just happens to be the best manager in the world.

[The Skipper 20,593]

18 minutes ago, Ossie the King said:

That's not uncommon nowadays.

I genuinely can't be bothered debating with you because it seems that if I disagree with you about something that I'm not Chels. 

 

Sounds familiar. 

[Fulham Broadway 16,977]

38 minutes ago, The Skipper said:

He's only been technical director for 5 managers, two of them were interim and arguably none of them deserved to stay on as manager. Don't see why he's Teflon for that, he's been criticised in his role from day one. I don't think you're insinuating that he's been influential in those sackings. If so, how has he?

Open question to the Emenalo detractors here: Apart from not having the relevant experiences, and not being Chels, what else has Emenalo done so badly in his role here? 

Please don't bring up this summer's transfer window either - you genuinely can't blame him for the club not being able to get in Stones and Pogba. Again, apart from the Papy signing, he (nor Mourinho for that matter) can't really be blamed for the below average summer. That responsibility falls on the board who failed to get those players. 

Whos been criticising since day 1 ? and  hate to sound like Chels or something ;D  but he is a standing joke at the ground with fans.

Its not what has he done so badly,  more to the point what has he done ? No one knows. All we know is that a totally unqualified person 'bibs and cones' Grant,  recommended him to Abramovich and hes been here ever since, which according to most media is just to report back to the owner, ipso facto he could be implicated in telling tales.  Now whether thats true or not, someone like Arnesen is much better qualifiedto fill such an important role, so its strange one of the richest clubs in the world chooses a Technical Director  like Emanalo to have hanging around. Perhaps hes brilliant -but lets see the evidence.

Again I dont think anyone is blaming him for lack of transfers, but the flip side we cant credit him with any transfers either. The detractors are as bad/good as the Emanalo fans, but to my mind a Technical director vacancy at one of the elite clubs should be filled by someone of exceptional calibre, rather than the mate of a mate

[The Skipper 20,593]

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Whos been criticising since day 1 ? and  hate to sound like Chels or something ;D  but he is a standing joke at the ground with fans.

Its not what has he done so badly,  more to the point what has he done ? No one knows. All we know is that a totally unqualified person 'bibs and cones' Grant,  recommended him to Abramovich and hes been here ever since, which according to most media is just to report back to the owner, ipso facto he could be implicated in telling tales.  Now whether thats true or not, someone like Arnesen is much better qualifiedto fill such an important role, so its strange one of the richest clubs in the world chooses a Technical Director  like Emanalo to have hanging around. Perhaps hes brilliant -but lets see the evidence.

Again I dont think anyone is blaming him for lack of transfers, but the flip side we cant credit him with any transfers either. The detractors are as bad/good as the Emanalo fans, but to my mind a Technical director vacancy at one of the elite clubs should be filled by someone of exceptional calibre, rather than the mate of a mate

That's a fair argument which I completely understand. I also know that he's vilified all the time at the ground, from the discussions I've had myself at the Bridge with fellow fans.

I'm not an Emenalo fan per se, I just think that the criticism he gets is misplaced anger, fans are looking for someone to blame and it falls on him. Not saying he isn't blameless, but some will have you think that we're in the predicament we are now because of Emenalo. 

Blame Roman for not hiring someone with more prestige.