Manure running scared
- Thread starter CPofL KTBFFH
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
The problem with trying to rely on Mourinho's quotes is that he regularly contradicts himself:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...lsea-would-have-won-more-titles-with-him.html
"I knew there was no time for a long-term plan with the owner they have at Stamford Bridge. You must win the title in your first season or say bye-bye. I gave them what they needed but I always knew it wasn't a job that would last forever. Maybe they would've been better off sticking with me than changing manager when they did."
Didn't sound very mutual before the kiss and make up...
doesn't necessarily mean sacking does it? It can still be mutual. Jose also said that he wanted to win domestic trophies in other countries and admitting that at the time would've put him in bad light with Chelsea fans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/7003912.stm
the bbc article doesn't say sacked, it says leaves with mutual consent.
The BBC article says mutual consent as that was the statement made by Chelsea when they announced his departure. Mourinho was conspicuously silent, perhaps for the first time in his managerial history, which implies it was anything other than mutual.
Maybe he wasn't outright sacked, but his lack of comments and the £10 million pay off he received implies it was constructive dismissal at the very least.
1- man .. sacked or not, he left bcz tension with Abra bcz Abra was involved alot acting as a manager
which was my point !!2- every newspaper said he was sacked, The Chelsea board held an emergency meeting and decided it was time to part with their manager , that is mean he was sacked, now the "mutual agreement " it doesn't means he wasn't sacked?
it mean they reached a money agreement , i think the figure was around 10m as a pay off .. that don't mean he wasn't sacked ? !!! now to expect an arrogant person like Jose claim he was not sacked .. you must be joking guess RDM was not sacked too?
here is Chelsea statement
"Chelsea Football Club has parted company this morning with Manager Roberto Di Matteo. "
http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/2986865
even AVB
"Chelsea and AVB part company" .. guess he was not sacked too
here is Chelsea statement
"Chelsea Football Club has parted company this morning with Manager Roberto Di Matteo. "
http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/2986865
even AVB
"Chelsea and AVB part company" .. guess he was not sacked too
If those two posts are reality who would you prefer to have in charge of the team, Roman or Fergie?
Drogs you just fly in the face of logic, Jose went to the board and said sack me if you think you can do better pretty much so they sacked him. That's what happens when you go in front of the bod and give ultimatums like that. Give me what I want or sack me if you ain't happy. that's pretty much what happened. If he chose to end his contract he would not have got a very nice payday. He got millions, his contract was terminated.
I suppose Rafa was not sacked as well from Liverpool Mutual consent is a saving face term used when someone gets sacked
Mutual consent my arse. He's be sacked from 2 of his last 3 jobs
I suppose Rafa was not sacked as well from Liverpool
Mutual consent is a saving face term used when someone gets sackedMutual consent my arse. He's be sacked from 2 of his last 3 jobs
1- man .. sacked or not, he left bcz tension with Abra bcz Abra was involved alot acting as a manager
2- every newspaper said he was sacked, The Chelsea board held an emergency meeting and decided it was time to part with their manager , that is mean he was sacked, now the "mutual agreement " it doesn't means he wasn't sacked?
guess RDM was not sacked too?
here is Chelsea statement
"Chelsea Football Club has parted company this morning with Manager Roberto Di Matteo. "
http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/2986865
even AVB
"Chelsea and AVB part company" .. guess he was not sacked too
except it wasn't your point, you said Jose was sacked and that it was also a fact.
the biggest difference between those two articles is that one says Mourinho leaves Chelsea and the other says Chelsea part company with Di Matteo. Not to mention the fact Jose SAID he left with mutual company.
I don't care what the papers said, I care what the people involved say. This proves my point that the rags have a massive influence on idiotic people like yourself who believe and hang on every word they write.
Drogs you just fly in the face of logic, Jose went to the board and said sack me if you think you can do better pretty much so they sacked him. That's what happens when you go in front of the bod and give ultimatums like that. Give me what I want or sack me if you ain't happy. that's pretty much what happened. If he chose to end his contract he would not have got a very nice payday. He got millions, his contract was terminated.
I suppose Rafa was not sacked as well from Liverpool
Mutual consent my arse. He's be sacked from 2 of his last 3 jobs
Jesus wept, you of all people cannot say anything about logic. You're a conspiracist who believes anything the rags print about other teams other than his own. Can I ask for the proof of your outlandish claim? I won't get it because it's your own made up theory.mutual consent dosn't mean he was not kicked out of the club by abra !! it mean simply they had made a financial agreement to leave peacefully .. and that was for 10m
whether he was kicked out by a mutual consent or sacked? what is the difference? my point was Abra act as the manager and is causing problems and kicking out people who don't obey him ..so why you focus on the term "sacked" ?!!! look to the bigger picture PLS!! ok he was not sacked he was kicked out by a mutual consent .. happy?
bloody hell it is the same thing man !!
mutual consent dosn't mean he was not kicked out of the club by abra !! it mean simply they had made a financial agreement to leave peacefully .. and that was for 10m
whether he was kicked out by a mutual consent or sacked? what is the difference? my point was Abra act as the manager and is causing problems and kicking out people who don't obey him ..so why you focus on the term "sacked" ?!!! look to the bigger picture PLS!! ok he was not sacked he was kicked out by a mutual consent .. happy?
Shwan, I agree with you that Roman has his part to play in the departure of Mourinho and sticks his nose in when he shouldn't, however it's nothing like what you are saying as Mourinho himself has confirmed
. He left by mutual consent, end of story.
Shwan, I agree with you that Roman has his part to play in the departure of Mourinho and sticks his nose in when he shouldn't, however it's nothing like what you are saying as Mourinho himself has confirmed
Depends how you define "mutual consent". Mutual consent could have been the two men sitting down, having a chat and agreeing that it was best if Mourinho left. It could also have been Roman telling Mourinho he was leaving, and Mourinho agreeing to leave quietly as long as he was paid £10m.
Big difference between those situations, and very unlikely Mourinho is actually going to tell us the truth about what happened now he's returning to Chelsea.
Shwan, I agree with you that Roman has his part to play in the departure of Mourinho and sticks his nose in when he shouldn't, however it's nothing like what you are saying as Mourinho himself has confirmed
Tomato or Tamato? Potato or Patato? sacked or kicked out by a mutual consent?
Have you not seen his press conference? He confirms everything there. Why wouldn't he tell the truth? What is wrong with saying he was sacked?
Tomato or Tamato? Potato or Patato? sacked or kicked out by a mutual consent?
what the **** are you going on about? If you don't know the difference between sacked and leaving by mutual consent then you're a bigger moron than I thought.
Anyone who thinks 'mutual' consent is nothing more than that in this case is deluded or severely naive.
As for Ferguson, why would he need a "puppet" when he could have just stayed on himself. It's very sensible to have him stay on- in any other industry you'd want the MD to oversee the transition to a replacement.
As for Ferguson, why would he need a "puppet" when he could have just stayed on himself. It's very sensible to have him stay on- in any other industry you'd want the MD to oversee the transition to a replacement.
i care less about what Jose said ... a guy with his ego who call himself the special one will never admit he was shown the door ..
let us have the facts right, he had a contract running still till 2010, yet got 10m only instead of 15m for his remaining contract .. and coincidentally that happened just after chelsea board had a meeting to discuss his future after series of bad results.. clearly they decided to kick him out .. but should they pay 15m or try to have a mutual agreement and thus agree less fee , that was only 2 options left.. look to the bigger picture, chelsea was ready to take a hit of 10m just to see the back of him .. if it was jose decision to leave in the slightest, he would not asked for money bzc simply it was his wish, the fact he went even to 10m not 4m for remaining of his season , is a clear statement that chelsea wanted to kick him out for any price ...
Chelsea wanted him out .. and that is the point .. getting out by being sacked for not agreeing better terms to leave or out by a mutual consent .. doesn't change anything
****ing yawn. You're a broken record pal. You care more about what the papers say than the person who was actually involved. This is how much of a fool you are.
