Chelsea will win the Champions League next season. They have now recovered from consecutive nightmare mid-seasons to finish strongly, winning the CL and EL respectively. Just look at it: Mourinho returning, Top Striker inbound, Torres back on form, Mazacar now with a full season's bonding under their belts. Mourinho will improve the defence hugely, and with a fully firing striker they will storm the PL too. Top 4 in Europe: Bayern, Chelsea, Barca, Real Madrid/Dortmund (who will be weaker without Lewandowski and Gotze)
Chelsea will always be fatally flawed as long as they stay under an owner who interferes and has unrealistic expectations. I expect to see David Moyes carry on where SAF left off.
Arsenal came within an away goal of putting Bayern out; had the match in Munich gone another 10 minutes, they might well have done it.
I think fatally flawed teams tend to not win anything. I personally expect Man U to go downhill very fast, if they stick with the same team I don't think they'll finish higher than fifth.
If Mourinho fails to win two out of FA Cup,League,European Cup he will be on his way out this time next year.
The Fa Cup and The Champions League cup wasn't enough to save Roberto Di Matteo job lol. Chelsea is a joke when it comes to running a football club.
I'd be embarrassed if I supported that club, thankfully I don't. I want NCFC to win things and do well, but not like that.
I would hate Ibrahimovic as an owner you'll never be skint but he seriously fails to understand that building a football legacy takes time, I don't think Chelsea will fall into that (traditional) group of European power house clubs that have been a dominating force in Europe and their domestic league at some point, the only chance of that happening is if Mourinho is given time.
You wouldn't want the best players in the World here, Champions League football every year, winning the league, FA Cups, Champions League titles, Europa Leagues. Do you think Chelsea fans are fed up with all that, they were winning nothing before he arrived. I don't see where the embarrassment comes with it, I find drunken rally calls far more embarrassing than winning trophies. And I don't mean posts from Beef.
I agree with carrabuh that Chelsea's managerial system evidently does work, although there are better ways of building a legacy. If we were firing managers but winning trophies every year I certainly wouldn't mind, not that I'm insinuating for a second that I want Hughton fired. However carrabuh, to suggest that Manchester United will finish no higher than fifth next season is ridiculous. Moyes finished sixth this year with significantly worse players; he is a master of over achievement.
Despite never winning anything. I personally think United will flop under him is because he's never really developed a decent playing style at the Everton, hard work and effort preferred to skill and finesse. Also I don't think the team he's taking over is as good as past years.
They won the Premier League by 11 points and went out of the Champions League because of an insane refereeing decision? That seems pretty decent to me. Plus, the fact they won no cups under Moyes is irrelevant, I still think they'll qualify for, and go far in, the Champions League next season. That the CL isn't straight knockout should benefit Moyes.
Aren't we in danger of being a bit insular here? Putting to one side the question of ownership and where the money comes from, many continental clubs are run in a different way to the "British" way of putting everything in the hands of one man, the manager. Building a legacy is about stability and continuity, but that can be provided in ways other than having the same manager in post for a lengthy period. That only works if you have the right man in the first place, and there aren't too many Fergies and Wengers about. At Liverpool the stability and continuity was provided by the Boot Room plus sound management of the club at board level. Swansea have built stability and continuity through a particular style of play and (again) sound management at board level, while regularly seeing their managers leave for other clubs. Many continental clubs rely for continuity and stability not on their manager but on a director of football who, in conjunction with the board builds and maintains the squad. This allows the club to change managers without destabilising everything and having to make frequent fresh starts. British managers by and large won't countenance having their wings clipped (as they see it) by a director of football exercising ultimate control of buying and selling players. No wonder we don't see many British managers managing on the continent. Chelsea are run more like a continental club IMO; the appointment of Benitez was on that basis: "OK Rafa, here's the squad, this is what we want from you before you leave in the summer."
I think the difference is that whilst Chelsea's style works for them, it only does because of the effectively limitless pot of money. The change of managers means lots of big pay-offs, I think Abramovich has spent something like £100m on paying off sacked managers. With the exception of Man City, nobody else can sustain that model. Also, I agree that Man United are weaker than usual, but everyone in the Prem seems to have been this season.
